Cu - 0 Yale - 6 final

[JDeafv]

Having attended last night's debacle, we can talk about systems, style of play, whatever.  Fact is Yale right now has far more talented players than we do.

This is completely beside the point. Even if it is true (which is not at all clear), the difference in talent is a small part of the problem. Harvard brings in scads of blue chippahs every year, and they still suck hairy donkey scrotum. The difference here is coaching and system: some of it you can forgive for Cornell being so young this year, but the things I pointed out earlier (which someone, I think Rancor, correctly phrased as a lack of tape-to-tape passing and too much hesitation) are a result of a failure in coaching, not a lack of talent. A good transition game is a learned skill, not an instinct.

Unlike Facetimer, I'm not calling for Coach Schafer's head, but I would like to know what he's planning to do about something even he recognizes as a problem given his comments about Yale's superior transition game.

The systems put in place by the coaches and the player talent is intricately linked and the Cornell/Yale coaching staffs put in place systems that suit their teams.

Cornell does not play a tape-to-tape transition game through the neutral zone.  Cornell uses tips and quick dump-ins through the neutral zone to get the puck deep below the goal line, executes puck retrieval (aka forechecking) and attempts to generate offense from the offensive zone cycle.  

Yale plays a 2 out of the zone break-out transition game through the neutral zone that relies on the defense making tape-to-tape passes to the stretch forwards or the third forward through the neutral zone.  This is the primary reason Yale "looks so fast."  Their forwards essentially start first - transitioning to offense earlier.  Yale generates offense from quick zone-entry shots.  Also, Dartmouth's top line plays this system.

Cornell could not play Yale's system and Yale could not play Cornell's system.  Yale is successful this year, because they have enough skill to execute the stretch plays (especially the third forward who is usually out-numbered 2-to-1 in the neutral zone) without leaving themselves susceptible to the counter-attack (see 9-7 loss to BC in NCAA quarterfinals last year).  

Yale's system of play requires a much higher level of puck control and smart decision making on the part of the players.  Cornell's system removes the decision making from the players and requires a physical presence to generate offense from the corners.  

Schafer attempted to counter the stretch system in two ways.  First, a Cornell forward should be on one of the stretch forwards creating a 1-on-2 overload with the Cornell defender and forward against one of the stretch forwards.  Second, a Cornell forward should be high-side on the third forward.  This is designed to slow the transition through the neutral zone and force turnovers or force the stretch offense team to dump and chase.  It worked against Dartmouth, it didn't against Yale.  Why?  Yale is more talented and could execute.  This Yale team is the culmination of events starting with Keith Allain's hire in 2006 and his ability to recruit players that fit this stretch system.

[css228]

Having attended last night's debacle, we can talk about systems, style of play, whatever.  Fact is Yale right now has far more talented players than we do.

This is completely beside the point. Even if it is true (which is not at all clear), the difference in talent is a small part of the problem. Harvard brings in scads of blue chippahs every year, and they still suck hairy donkey scrotum. The difference here is coaching and system: some of it you can forgive for Cornell being so young this year, but the things I pointed out earlier (which someone, I think Rancor, correctly phrased as a lack of tape-to-tape passing and too much hesitation) are a result of a failure in coaching, not a lack of talent. A good transition game is a learned skill, not an instinct.

Unlike Facetimer, I'm not calling for Coach Schafer's head, but I would like to know what he's planning to do about something even he recognizes as a problem given his comments about Yale's superior transition game.

The systems put in place by the coaches and the player talent is intricately linked and the Cornell/Yale coaching staffs put in place systems that suit their teams.

Cornell does not play a tape-to-tape transition game through the neutral zone.  Cornell uses tips and quick dump-ins through the neutral zone to get the puck deep below the goal line, executes puck retrieval (aka forechecking) and attempts to generate offense from the offensive zone cycle.  

Yale plays a 2 out of the zone break-out transition game through the neutral zone that relies on the defense making tape-to-tape passes to the stretch forwards or the third forward through the neutral zone.  This is the primary reason Yale "looks so fast."  Their forwards essentially start first - transitioning to offense earlier.  Yale generates offense from quick zone-entry shots.  Also, Dartmouth's top line plays this system.

Cornell could not play Yale's system and Yale could not play Cornell's system.  Yale is successful this year, because they have enough skill to execute the stretch plays (especially the third forward who is usually out-numbered 2-to-1 in the neutral zone) without leaving themselves susceptible to the counter-attack (see 9-7 loss to BC in NCAA quarterfinals last year).  

Yale's system of play requires a much higher level of puck control and smart decision making on the part of the players.  Cornell's system removes the decision making from the players and requires a physical presence to generate offense from the corners.  

Schafer attempted to counter the stretch system in two ways.  First, a Cornell forward should be on one of the stretch forwards creating a 1-on-2 overload with the Cornell defender and forward against one of the stretch forwards.  Second, a Cornell forward should be high-side on the third forward.  This is designed to slow the transition through the neutral zone and force turnovers or force the stretch offense team to dump and chase.  It worked against Dartmouth, it didn't against Yale.  Why?  Yale is more talented and could execute.  This Yale team is the culmination of events starting with Keith Allain's hire in 2006 and his ability to recruit players that fit this stretch system.

Agreed, there is nothing wrong with the system that we played last night and it isn't inherent in the system that we can't be incredibly successful. What makes or breaks a system is the players you put in the system. A player like Hudon should come in and make the system far more effective, Furthermore, as players like D'Agostino and Gotovets reach their senior year we should see a lot from their classes. As I read recently we didnt get a lot of the players we wanted in this class. I'm from Philly so I'm used to watching a big strong team with talented (but big) players play a system similar to Schafer's. It worked great until the rules changed, and even then we didn't completely abandon the system, we just adapted our roster to the new rules. Now we kinda play a hybrid. Point is there is nothing wrong with a puck possession system. And if you need more convincing watch this. The Shift. It is proof that our system can be dominant with the right talent.

[Towerroad]

Having attended last night's debacle, we can talk about systems, style of play, whatever.  Fact is Yale right now has far more talented players than we do.

This is completely beside the point. Even if it is true (which is not at all clear), the difference in talent is a small part of the problem. Harvard brings in scads of blue chippahs every year, and they still suck hairy donkey scrotum. The difference here is coaching and system: some of it you can forgive for Cornell being so young this year, but the things I pointed out earlier (which someone, I think Rancor, correctly phrased as a lack of tape-to-tape passing and too much hesitation) are a result of a failure in coaching, not a lack of talent. A good transition game is a learned skill, not an instinct.

Unlike Facetimer, I'm not calling for Coach Schafer's head, but I would like to know what he's planning to do about something even he recognizes as a problem given his comments about Yale's superior transition game.

The systems put in place by the coaches and the player talent is intricately linked and the Cornell/Yale coaching staffs put in place systems that suit their teams.

Cornell does not play a tape-to-tape transition game through the neutral zone.  Cornell uses tips and quick dump-ins through the neutral zone to get the puck deep below the goal line, executes puck retrieval (aka forechecking) and attempts to generate offense from the offensive zone cycle.  

Yale plays a 2 out of the zone break-out transition game through the neutral zone that relies on the defense making tape-to-tape passes to the stretch forwards or the third forward through the neutral zone.  This is the primary reason Yale "looks so fast."  Their forwards essentially start first - transitioning to offense earlier.  Yale generates offense from quick zone-entry shots.  Also, Dartmouth's top line plays this system.

Cornell could not play Yale's system and Yale could not play Cornell's system.  Yale is successful this year, because they have enough skill to execute the stretch plays (especially the third forward who is usually out-numbered 2-to-1 in the neutral zone) without leaving themselves susceptible to the counter-attack (see 9-7 loss to BC in NCAA quarterfinals last year).  

Yale's system of play requires a much higher level of puck control and smart decision making on the part of the players.  Cornell's system removes the decision making from the players and requires a physical presence to generate offense from the corners.  

Schafer attempted to counter the stretch system in two ways.  First, a Cornell forward should be on one of the stretch forwards creating a 1-on-2 overload with the Cornell defender and forward against one of the stretch forwards.  Second, a Cornell forward should be high-side on the third forward.  This is designed to slow the transition through the neutral zone and force turnovers or force the stretch offense team to dump and chase.  It worked against Dartmouth, it didn't against Yale.  Why?  Yale is more talented and could execute.  This Yale team is the culmination of events starting with Keith Allain's hire in 2006 and his ability to recruit players that fit this stretch system.

Agreed, there is nothing wrong with the system that we played last night and it isn't inherent in the system that we can't be incredibly successful. What makes or breaks a system is the players you put in the system. A player like Hudon should come in and make the system far more effective, Furthermore, as players like D'Agostino and Gotovets reach their senior year we should see a lot from their classes. As I read recently we didnt get a lot of the players we wanted in this class. I'm from Philly so I'm used to watching a big strong team with talented (but big) players play a system similar to Schafer's. It worked great until the rules changed, and even then we didn't completely abandon the system, we just adapted our roster to the new rules. Now we kinda play a hybrid. Point is there is nothing wrong with a puck possession system. And if you need more convincing watch this. The Shift. It is proof that our system can be dominant with the right talent.

Three minutes of great hockey does not a system make. No, Cornell could not play Yale's system and Yale would not want to play Cornell's system after all they have beaten the snot out of us for the last 4 years. If your contention is that we have not recruited the right players who's responsibility is that? It is certainly not the responsibility of the players.

[Al DeFlorio]

It's easy for people to get complacent after they've been doing the same job for a long time.  Reminding oneself periodically about history and tradition is never a bad thing.  And making that suggestion is hardly whining.

If you think Mike Schafer needs to "remind [him]self periodically about [Cornell hockey's] history and tradition" you are, quite simply, clueless.

[ajh258]

Well, can we recruit the players we need? From what I understand, the big talented players that fits our system are mostly going out west to schools like UND, and we cannot compete on that level due to a lot of factors that have already been discussed multiple times on eLynah.

Keith Allain's recruiting and execution strategy definitely fits well for the Ivies because most of their players are not the huge pre-NHL draft picks that other top schools recruit, and they still dance circles around them. The Yale fans I talked to said most of their players do not plan to play hockey professionally after school (some will perhaps play AHL), and their profile fits perfectly into the student-athlete model that the Ivy League tries to endorse.

So maybe the solution isn't fighting the market forces and trying to recruit the right players for our system. Maybe, the solution is changing the system into something that will fit the players we can recruit. I'm not calling for Schafer's resignations right now, but if he cannot make some fundamental changes in the upcoming months/year, we'll probably watch the same style of hockey for the next decade or so. There might be another amazing 2003 season down the road, but those will be very few and between. For the dedication and resources we have as a fan base and school, we should produce better results than what we have right now.

[css228]

Having attended last night's debacle, we can talk about systems, style of play, whatever.  Fact is Yale right now has far more talented players than we do.

This is completely beside the point. Even if it is true (which is not at all clear), the difference in talent is a small part of the problem. Harvard brings in scads of blue chippahs every year, and they still suck hairy donkey scrotum. The difference here is coaching and system: some of it you can forgive for Cornell being so young this year, but the things I pointed out earlier (which someone, I think Rancor, correctly phrased as a lack of tape-to-tape passing and too much hesitation) are a result of a failure in coaching, not a lack of talent. A good transition game is a learned skill, not an instinct.

Unlike Facetimer, I'm not calling for Coach Schafer's head, but I would like to know what he's planning to do about something even he recognizes as a problem given his comments about Yale's superior transition game.

The systems put in place by the coaches and the player talent is intricately linked and the Cornell/Yale coaching staffs put in place systems that suit their teams.

Cornell does not play a tape-to-tape transition game through the neutral zone.  Cornell uses tips and quick dump-ins through the neutral zone to get the puck deep below the goal line, executes puck retrieval (aka forechecking) and attempts to generate offense from the offensive zone cycle.  

Yale plays a 2 out of the zone break-out transition game through the neutral zone that relies on the defense making tape-to-tape passes to the stretch forwards or the third forward through the neutral zone.  This is the primary reason Yale "looks so fast."  Their forwards essentially start first - transitioning to offense earlier.  Yale generates offense from quick zone-entry shots.  Also, Dartmouth's top line plays this system.

Cornell could not play Yale's system and Yale could not play Cornell's system.  Yale is successful this year, because they have enough skill to execute the stretch plays (especially the third forward who is usually out-numbered 2-to-1 in the neutral zone) without leaving themselves susceptible to the counter-attack (see 9-7 loss to BC in NCAA quarterfinals last year).  

Yale's system of play requires a much higher level of puck control and smart decision making on the part of the players.  Cornell's system removes the decision making from the players and requires a physical presence to generate offense from the corners.  

Schafer attempted to counter the stretch system in two ways.  First, a Cornell forward should be on one of the stretch forwards creating a 1-on-2 overload with the Cornell defender and forward against one of the stretch forwards.  Second, a Cornell forward should be high-side on the third forward.  This is designed to slow the transition through the neutral zone and force turnovers or force the stretch offense team to dump and chase.  It worked against Dartmouth, it didn't against Yale.  Why?  Yale is more talented and could execute.  This Yale team is the culmination of events starting with Keith Allain's hire in 2006 and his ability to recruit players that fit this stretch system.

Agreed, there is nothing wrong with the system that we played last night and it isn't inherent in the system that we can't be incredibly successful. What makes or breaks a system is the players you put in the system. A player like Hudon should come in and make the system far more effective, Furthermore, as players like D'Agostino and Gotovets reach their senior year we should see a lot from their classes. As I read recently we didnt get a lot of the players we wanted in this class. I'm from Philly so I'm used to watching a big strong team with talented (but big) players play a system similar to Schafer's. It worked great until the rules changed, and even then we didn't completely abandon the system, we just adapted our roster to the new rules. Now we kinda play a hybrid. Point is there is nothing wrong with a puck possession system. And if you need more convincing watch this. The Shift. It is proof that our system can be dominant with the right talent.

Three minutes of great hockey does not a system make. No, Cornell could not play Yale's system and Yale would not want to play Cornell's system after all they have beaten the snot out of us for the last 4 years. If your contention is that we have not recruited the right players who's responsibility is that? It is certainly not the responsibility of the players.

Every once in a while you're going to have down years. North Carolina didn't even make the NCAA tournament last year, but does that mean their secondary break doesn't work. Puck possession and offensive zone cycling is a tried and proven system. It definitely works. That's an example of how successful the system can be when properly executed. On Saturday, we did not execute. I don't think anyone can deny that we haven't always gotten the players we've wanted recently (a lot decommitted if I remember, which means you can't entirely blame the coach for not having replacements of the same quality). However, with guys like Brisson, Iles, D'Agostino, Gotovets and others coming in in recent years, and guys like Hudon, Ryan, Miller, Dias, Bardaeu, MacDonald, and eventually Sade, should only help to allow us to continue to grow and get closer to where we have been. Look I'm glad no one's content with a year like this. But in my opinion, I think we're moving forward and seem to be laying the foundations for long term success with our recent recruiting, and hopefully a Frozen Four or a title is around the bend.

[css228]

Well, can we recruit the players we need? From what I understand, the big talented players that fits our system are mostly going out west to schools like UND, and we cannot compete on that level due to a lot of factors that have already been discussed multiple times on eLynah.

Keith Allain's recruiting and execution strategy definitely fits well for the Ivies because most of their players are not the huge pre-NHL draft picks that other top schools recruit, and they still dance circles around them. The Yale fans I talked to said most of their players do not plan to play hockey professionally after school (some will perhaps play AHL), and their profile fits perfectly into the student-athlete model that the Ivy League tries to endorse.

So maybe the solution isn't fighting the market forces and trying to recruit the right players for our system. Maybe, the solution is changing the system into something that will fit the players we can recruit. I'm not calling for Schafer's resignations right now, but if he cannot make some fundamental changes in the upcoming months/year, we'll probably watch the same style of hockey for the next decade or so. There might be another amazing 2003 season down the road, but those will be very few and between. For the dedication and resources we have as a fan base and school, we should produce better results than what we have right now.

If this isn't the right system then I'm not sure Schafer is the right coach. I'd rather take a shot at trying to get more guys like Hudon's and Moulson's and Murray's at the moment then trying to switch our coach. Schafer is a great coach, potentially the best we've had since Harkness. But is he a transition hockey coach? I'm not sure.

[Rosey]

It's easy for people to get complacent after they've been doing the same job for a long time.  Reminding oneself periodically about history and tradition is never a bad thing.  And making that suggestion is hardly whining.

If you think Mike Schafer needs to "remind [him]self periodically about [Cornell hockey's] history and tradition" you are, quite simply, clueless.

Pointless, snippy reply.

Really Al, you need to come up with something more than ad hominem one-liners. Spend the time to post something insightful or don't bother posting at all. (Edit: What I mean is I've been reading your posts for a decade and know you can do better than this.)

[ajh258]

Well, can we recruit the players we need? From what I understand, the big talented players that fits our system are mostly going out west to schools like UND, and we cannot compete on that level due to a lot of factors that have already been discussed multiple times on eLynah.

Keith Allain's recruiting and execution strategy definitely fits well for the Ivies because most of their players are not the huge pre-NHL draft picks that other top schools recruit, and they still dance circles around them. The Yale fans I talked to said most of their players do not plan to play hockey professionally after school (some will perhaps play AHL), and their profile fits perfectly into the student-athlete model that the Ivy League tries to endorse.

So maybe the solution isn't fighting the market forces and trying to recruit the right players for our system. Maybe, the solution is changing the system into something that will fit the players we can recruit. I'm not calling for Schafer's resignations right now, but if he cannot make some fundamental changes in the upcoming months/year, we'll probably watch the same style of hockey for the next decade or so. There might be another amazing 2003 season down the road, but those will be very few and between. For the dedication and resources we have as a fan base and school, we should produce better results than what we have right now.

If this isn't the right system then I'm not sure Schafer is the right coach. I'd rather take a shot at trying to get more guys like Hudon's and Moulson's and Murray's at the moment then trying to switch our coach. Schafer is a great coach, potentially the best we've had since Harkness. But is he a transition hockey coach? I'm not sure.

In my opinion, he is the best coach we've had since Harkness, but that might be because we haven't had great coaches since then. The word "great" is somewhat subjective and I don't want to go into a conversation comparing different coaches because that's not the main point.

The fact is, Schafer has been here since the summer of 1995 and his track record has been good, but not great. Take out the 96-97 seasons, which he couldn't have recruited most of the players for, and let's look at the results for the past 14 years:

3 ECAC championships
6 NCAA appearances
1 Frozen Four appearances


Now let's look at Allain for the past 6 (and these are achieved with his original recruitment class, who have been graduating in the past 3 years):
2 ECAC championships
3 NCAA appearances
very-likely 1st Frozen Four coming up

We'll see how well Allain can match up in the next few years, but it looks like he's found a system that works and will be sticking to it in the near future. And oh ya, we haven't beaten them in the past three seasons either.

[CAS]

It's good that we all have such high expectations for the program.  2009-10 was generally a good year.  We finished 2nd in the ECAC regular season, 1 point behind Yale.  We won the ECAC tourney and were a 2 seed in the NCAAs.  After losing an outstanding senior class and Riley Nash to the pros after his junior year, we tied for 4th in the conference and lost in the ECAC finals.  We have what I've heard described as the best class in Schafer's tenure coming in.  Help is on the way.  No one wants to win more than Schafer, and I am confident in his leadership.

[CAS]

Not sure why anyone would not credit Schafer with the 1996 and 1997 ECAC championships.  Yes he didn't recruit those players.  However, the prior coach suffered thru 3 consecutive losing seasons with these very players.

[ajh258]

Not sure why anyone would not credit Schafer with the 1996 and 1997 ECAC championships.  Yes he didn't recruit those players.  However, the prior coach suffered thru 3 consecutive losing seasons with these very players.

Then let's compare the last 6 years. It looks worse.

[Chris '03]

Not sure why anyone would not credit Schafer with the 1996 and 1997 ECAC championships.  Yes he didn't recruit those players.  However, the prior coach suffered thru 3 consecutive losing seasons with these very players.

Agree 100%. If anything it's a testament to Schafer that he pulled championships out of a hat his first two years. It's not like he inherited a team that was wiping the floor with the competition and fell into two championships.

[Wastherein70]

It's easy for people to get complacent after they've been doing the same job for a long time.  Reminding oneself periodically about history and tradition is never a bad thing.  And making that suggestion is hardly whining.

If you think Mike Schafer needs to "remind [him]self periodically about [Cornell hockey's] history and tradition" you are, quite simply, clueless.

We don't know each other, Al, so I can't really begin to tell you how little your opinion of my opinions means to me.  I'm a Cornell grad who has been a season ticket holder for Schafer's entire tenure, attending something like 250 games. Just because I haven't chosen to contribute to this forum previously doesn't make me clueless any more than your continuous postings make you a sage. Name calling just makes you another internet tough guy, not a hockey guru.

[CAS]

I do think in recent years Cornell has lost some recruits to other Ivies which have had more generous financial aid policies.  However, and most importantly, this has now changed.  We are currently matching the financial aid awards of other Ivies.   Again, we have some outstanding players coming who I can't wait to see at Lynah.