Cornell-Bemidji NCAA regionals postgame

[DisplacedCornellian]

[quote Josh '99]
We really are spoiled in terms of what we expect from Cornell goalies, aren't we?[/quote]

Is it too much to expect an All American every year?  I don't think so.  ::crazy::  Scrivens is decidedly average.  Not up to the recent standard of Cornell goalies, but not terrible either.  His inconsistency drives me crazy, though.  

I, too, think Schafer needs to stick/return to his style of big, punishing teams.  Cornell is never going to be able to recruit enough quick, skilled players to play a run-and-gun style.  With our reputation as a defense first team, the majority look elsewhere, and only a few fall in our lap.  That reputation is not going to change in the near future.

I think Schafer tried to recruit more speedy skill guys in recent years, and it didn't work out.  I think that for this team, moreso than other teams, Herb Brooks' "I'm not looking for the best players, I'm looking for the right ones" rings true.  We need character guys who are going to buy into the system and work hard.  If we can get one or two of those who have a finishing touch, well, that'd be most helpful.  Just getting guys with offensive talent isn't going to help if they don't buy into the system (e.g. Tony Romano).

[HockeyMan]

[quote DisplacedCornellian]

I, too, think Schafer needs to stick/return to his style of big, punishing teams.  Cornell is never going to be able to recruit enough quick, skilled players to play a run-and-gun style.  With our reputation as a defense first team, the majority look elsewhere, and only a few fall in our lap.  That reputation is not going to change in the near future.

I think Schafer tried to recruit more speedy skill guys in recent years, and it didn't work out.  I think that for this team, moreso than other teams, Herb Brooks' "I'm not looking for the best players, I'm looking for the right ones" rings true.  We need character guys who are going to buy into the system and work hard.  If we can get one or two of those who have a finishing touch, well, that'd be most helpful.  Just getting guys with offensive talent isn't going to help if they don't buy into the system (e.g. Tony Romano).[/quote]

No one is saying you need a run-and-gun style, but you do need some offensive flair.  The game has changed, and you can no longer win merely by recruiting tree trunks and grinders.  If Yale can build a team with considerable speed and skill, surely we can too.  All season long, the lack of finishing was painful to observe. (I remember walking out of Lynah after the second Niagara game thinking we had just won two games we could easily have lost, in part because too many Red shooters couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.)

Yes, Brooks's comment rings true, but it also rings banal.

[cmoberg]

Our hallmark is defense, but that has not hampered our recruiting in past eras.  My introduction to Cornell Hockey was in the mid 70s.  This was a period of high scoring and good goal tending.

[redice]

Perhaps Mike needs to consult with someone who can improve the PP.   The mantra of the 02-03 team, when playing good teams, was to play them even 5-5 & PK, and beat them with the PP.

Our power play is just plain poor and needs to improve.

As for the pain of losing, I think it was the fact that, at the 2nd intermission, I was starting to get the feeling that CU really was going to join me in WashDC.   Watching the dream slip away, to a team that we could have beaten, hurt deeply......   More so than the losses to the Goofers & Wisconsin.   This one is getting close to the pain of losing to UHN in Buffalo.

[CUontheslopes]

I have to agree. Scrivens just has not been good in big games. In fact, he hasn't been serviceable on many occasions. This season alone we had a number of big big games and he really let us down in many of them. Of course, he had some good games, but all of them seemed to come against lesser opponents. For example:

BU@MSG - terrible
North Dakota - absolutely awful
Yale ECAC Finals - abysmal

Say what you'd like, but he allowed more than his Goal Against Average in pretty much every big game. Now, of course some of that is attributable to playing better opponents in "big"  games, but that's still not something Mckee ever did. The reason we loved McKee so much was he shined on the big stage - letting in 2 goals in his 9 periods or so of QF action.  Scrivens just isn't that good under pressure unfortunately. He's not bad, but he's not going to win us games the way McKee tried to.

Last night's 2nd goal was on a great shot, but Scrivens didn't cut down the angle at all. The third goal went right under his goalstick...and that was a backbreaking mistake. Hey, you play with the team you've got, but Scrivens for Hobey? I'd rather see a recruit step in and challenge him for his starting job.

[billhoward]

[quote cmoberg]Our hallmark is defense, but that has not hampered our recruiting in past eras.  My introduction to Cornell Hockey was in the mid 70s.  This was a period of high scoring and good goal tending.[/quote]
And no national championships. Sigh.

It is amazing to see the leading scorers then had 50 and sometimes 75 points a season. Although that was the much a result of a bunch of 12-3 and 7-1 games against a Princeton, Yale, or Brown. The playing field is more level now, so to speak.

Is it ever possible to recruit high scorers to a team that wants to focus on disciplined defense?

Thinking of the Scrivens-as-miserable-sieve comments earlier in this thread, my recall is that he's done a pretty good stopping breakaways. Most not all. And he didn't wander as far from the net as he did in the previous season with one or two noticeable exceptions.

[HockeyMan]

[quote CUontheslopes]I have to agree. Scrivens just has not been good in big games. In fact, he hasn't been serviceable on many occasions. This season alone we had a number of big big games and he really let us down in many of them. Of course, he had some good games, but all of them seemed to come against lesser opponents. For example:

BU@MSG - terrible
North Dakota - absolutely awful
Yale ECAC Finals - abysmal

Say what you'd like, but he allowed more than his Goal Against Average in pretty much every big game. Now, of course some of that is attributable to playing better opponents in "big"  games, but that's still not something Mckee ever did. The reason we loved McKee so much was he shined on the big stage - letting in 2 goals in his 9 periods or so of QF action.  Scrivens just isn't that good under pressure unfortunately. He's not bad, but he's not going to win us games the way McKee tried to.

Last night's 2nd goal was on a great shot, but Scrivens didn't cut down the angle at all. The third goal went right under his goalstick...and that was a backbreaking mistake. Hey, you play with the team you've got, but Scrivens for Hobey? I'd rather see a recruit step in and challenge him for his starting job.[/quote]

I think this is unfair to Scrivens, who is as good as most goalies in Div 1, and who has often been lauded on this list.  His rebound control can be iffy, and we all know what can happen when ventures out of the crease, but he's big and agile and has quick reflexes, and he's much more sound technically than McKee was.  I don't know that I'd trade him for any of the four goalies that are in the FF.

Moreover, the focus on Scrivens in a way underscores the point many of us are making: that the present system depends too much on superb goaltending in the big games.

[CUontheslopes]

Having watched almost every game this season, I can tell you Scrivens is certainls <50% on breakaways. He gets beat a lot. Northeastern game was a classic example.

[CUontheslopes]

I'm not saying he's bad, merely that he's not clutch. However, there's a difference between being good and being clutch. Give me the guy who wants to be at the plate with 2 outs in the bottom of the ninth, the guy who wants the ball in his hand with 3 seconds on the clock. It's an intangible thing and unfortunately I don't think Scrivens (as of yet) has it. He started off the year so promisingly and was clutch (See princeton win #1), but somewhere along the line it just never clicked.

I agree - we  can't win consistently if we need a spectacular stand on your head performance from our goalie. That said, facts are facts. He's had a few big game meltdowns (UND, BU, Yale) and not had one great game. I'd love to compute his GAG for the playoffs and compare it to the regular season or his GAG against teams with winning records/PWR top 25. I guarantee you it's not pretty.

Honestly, I don't think I'd trade Scrivens for any of the FF goalies either and the loss is certainly not his fault when you score only 1 goal, but on the bright side, if he could learn to be more clutch in his sr year...look out - we could be really really back in a big way.

[cmoberg]

[quote billhoward]

And no national championships. Sigh.

It is amazing to see the leading scorers then had 50 and sometimes 75 points a season. Although that was the much a result of a bunch of 12-3 and 7-1 games against a Princeton, Yale, or Brown. The playing field is more level now, so to speak.[/quote]

It is a shame we did not not go far during that time. We matched up well with everyone.

Think what we could do now with the likes of Peter Shier, Roy Kerling, Lance Nethery, and Brock Tredway. No opposing team lead was ever safe from the fire power of those young men. Each of those forwards new how to finish!  And Peter Shier had a slap shot from the point that was every bit as potent (maybe moreso) than Douglas Murray's.

But if memory serves, we were a bruising defensive team along with the potent offense.

[CowbellGuy]

[quote scoop85]Looking ahead, I think Jillson should be expected to significantly boost his production...[/quote]

Well, two goals next year would double his production from this year. He certainly has the speed and the skills, but he hasn't shown the grit to play with the big boys that guys like Barlow and Gallagher have shown. From what I've seen thus far, I'm not expecting a breakout year from him any time soon. I thought Collins looked good early in the season, then kind of disappeared. He simply needs to use his size better. I know the Manitoba JHL isn't the NHL, but he can't be satisfied going from 51 goals, 64 assists last year to 3 and 3. I definitely expect more from him next year. I've been pleasantly surprised at the offensive spark Whit has shown in his limited playing time. He and a healthy Mike Devin should provide more offensive creativity from the blue line than we've seen in a while.

I am a bit concerned about the forward production though, even if Greening and Nash stay. I don't think any of the incoming forwards are going to set the ice on fire. They seem to be playmakers more than finishers. And Cornell is definitely in need of the latter.

I'll reiterate my complaint about the lack of goalie coaching. I think someone like Ben would have benefitted hugely from it. As it is, he certainly has improved, despite the thrown-in-the-deep-end-now-swim style of tutelage. You think Alec Richards benefitted from having Mike Richter around for a couple years? I don't expect to see anyone but Scrivens in net next year, but we can also look forward to Iles coming in for 2010-11.

Considering the boys were pretty much held together with spit and twine down the stretch this year, I'm happy with their effort and how far they managed to get. Once again (except for that 3rd-rate engineering school anomaly last year), Cornell has to salvage the reputation of the ECAC in the NCAAs. The Red are a different team with both Devins in the lineup and likely could have taken Yale or Be-a-midget State if healthy. As it was, we had all better be damn proud of what they did accomplish. Thanks, Red.

[canuck89]

Whether or not we would "trade Scrivens" or simply acknowledge mediocre play, he certainly should have stopped goals 2 & 3 last night.  They were not difficult shots, with the second occurring at an angle outside of the circle and the third slipped under his stick when he was caught cheating to move right.  Though both goals aren't exactly his fault, they could be stopped by several D1 goalies and certainly he should have stopped those two goals.  Again, I am not placing blame for the loss on him (we certainly played a very questionable 3rd period), but he could have performed better to give the team an improved chance.

[BCrespi]

[quote HockeyMan]

No one is saying you need a run-and-gun style, but you do need some offensive flair.  The game has changed, and you can no longer win merely by recruiting tree trunks and grinders.  If Yale can build a team with considerable speed and skill, surely we can too.  All season long, the lack of finishing was painful to observe. (I remember walking out of Lynah after the second Niagara game thinking we had just won two games we could easily have lost, in part because too many Red shooters couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.)

Yes, Brooks's comment rings true, but it also rings banal.[/quote]

I was waiting for this argument (and I'm not trying to pick on you).  Can we wait a couple years to see what this Yale team will be?  We've been a relatively dominant force in the conference for the better part of a decade.  Meanwhile, the rest of our conference, with varying styles of play, has done exactly diddley-squat at the national level.  Before we praise Yale as The Light for how they played this season, let's let them sustain that success.  I would also argue that their success was predicated more on phenomenal work ethic, hustle, forechecking and great goaltending over having a cadre of snipers at their disposal.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be any tweaks in the way we play or the way we recruit.  However, I am saying that we are not in the position of Michigan and Minnesota for recruiting and, saying that, we have done a pretty great job when you step back and look at what this program has accomplished.  I don't want to seem like I don't care about NCAA championships.  I certainly do, and last night's game was incredibly painful in that regard.  However, there is more to our college hockey season than the NCAAs.  

That all being said, I don't see how you can argue there is a better program out there, with similar resources, at getting a shot at the big prize year after year.

[Jacob '06]

Tanya and I made it back safely for those in Grand Rapids who wanted an update. The drive back actually went by pretty quickly and not too many issues with sleeping since we got to alternate.

[HockeyMan]

[quote BCrespi][quote HockeyMan]

No one is saying you need a run-and-gun style, but you do need some offensive flair.  The game has changed, and you can no longer win merely by recruiting tree trunks and grinders.  If Yale can build a team with considerable speed and skill, surely we can too.  All season long, the lack of finishing was painful to observe. (I remember walking out of Lynah after the second Niagara game thinking we had just won two games we could easily have lost, in part because too many Red shooters couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.)

Yes, Brooks's comment rings true, but it also rings banal.[/quote]

I was waiting for this argument (and I'm not trying to pick on you).  Can we wait a couple years to see what this Yale team will be?  We've been a relatively dominant force in the conference for the better part of a decade.  Meanwhile, the rest of our conference, with varying styles of play, has done exactly diddley-squat at the national level.  Before we praise Yale as The Light for how they played this season, let's let them sustain that success.  I would also argue that their success was predicated more on phenomenal work ethic, hustle, forechecking and great goaltending over having a cadre of snipers at their disposal.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be any tweaks in the way we play or the way we recruit.  However, I am saying that we are not in the position of Michigan and Minnesota for recruiting and, saying that, we have done a pretty great job when you step back and look at what this program has accomplished.  I don't want to seem like I don't care about NCAA championships.  I certainly do, and last night's game was incredibly painful in that regard.  However, there is more to our college hockey season than the NCAAs.  

That all being said, I don't see how you can argue there is a better program out there, with similar resources, at getting a shot at the big prize year after year.[/quote]

Fair enough, though you're making too much of my Yale example.  Having seen Yale play 5-6 times this year I feel confident in saying they're faster and more skilled in the offensive zone than the Red.  No question.  But I agree with you that their success in the ECAC had more to do with hustle, forechecking, etc.  I was merely responding to the claim that we can't recruit finishers and so shouldn't even try.

Can we compete with the Michigans and Minnesotas for the Jack Johnsons of the world?  Obviously not.  But who is saying we can?  I wouldn't disagree with you that we've done a "pretty good job" with the resources at hand.  But it's also true that the Schafer system is focused on one end of the ice at the expense of the other, and that this was glaringly obvious this season.  In each of the last four games, the Red could muster no more than one goal through the first 56 minutes of play.  Not good enough.