Big Red 4-Onion 4

[Beeeej]

Ok, 10 freshmen this year makes it a non-rebuiding year ?  Missing the point, Schafer is not applying prudence.  Even if Iles was destined to be the #1 guy, wouldnt a coach want a good capable #2 developing at what 70 - 30%, 80- 20%, 90 - 10% split?  If something goes wrong with you #1 guy, you would have some insurance in place... or is  this just too much of common sense?

In which games would you have played Marozzi instead of Iles, and why?

[Ben]

Ok, 10 freshmen this year makes it a non-rebuiding year ?  Missing the point, Schafer is not applying prudence.  Even if Iles was destined to be the #1 guy, wouldnt a coach want a good capable #2 developing at what 70 - 30%, 80- 20%, 90 - 10% split?  If something goes wrong with you #1 guy, you would have some insurance in place... or is  this just too much of common sense?

In which games would you have played Marozzi instead of Iles, and why?

And more importantly, what would you have said to the people here if Marozzi had shipped five goals on fifteen shots in one of those games? This place would be full of garment-wrending and teeth-gnashing.

[ugarte]

Ok, 10 freshmen this year makes it a non-rebuiding year ?  Missing the point, Schafer is not applying prudence.  Even if Iles was destined to be the #1 guy, wouldnt a coach want a good capable #2 developing at what 70 - 30%, 80- 20%, 90 - 10% split?  If something goes wrong with you #1 guy, you would have some insurance in place... or is  this just too much of common sense?

In which games would you have played Marozzi instead of Iles, and why?

And to what end? Is there a theory that Iles is the guy fading in the third period? Because it seems clear that the ice is tilted at him in the third and he's having to backstop everyone else's fatigue.

[Tom Lento]

Cornell is going all-or-nothing with Iles.

Yep, that's apparent.  The gap in ability is big enough that the coaching staff doesn't really have a choice but to ride Iles.  We've been in this position before.  I'm sure they are beavering away looking for prospects, and they do have an emergency back-up.

It would appear there is more to this than an apparent 'gap'.  You do not evaluate a goalie by not playing them at all - it is common understanding that practice is one thing, game action is another important dimension in an evaluaton and development process.  Garmin did not even get a minute in exhibition games with Scrivens, Marozzi played a whole 3rd period in the second exhibition game of which he showed decent skills in movement and puck handling, and Omar for the first time saw 8mins of an exhibition but didnt see a shot.  
At the beginning of the season, Schafer stated he wasnt ready to pronounce Iles as the starter so he took a long a hard look at the other two..really...Iles was average if not below the first few games, until he got some confidence and with lots of help from Mayotte.
I believe there is more to why Garmin left early, now you bring in a blue chip mature goalie with significant experience, and key accomplishments to only waste away that asset?  Beavering away for prospects? A good goalie prospect will not want to come to Cornell until Iles leaves because only after Iles has many below average games will the other guy get a shot..seeing how Schafer has a history of riding one guy, it would have appeared he broke that temporarily last year when Iles arrived. This year Iles needed all the exposure to make the National team and get drafted in his last year of eligiblity.  Most Coaches thrive to have a great tandem duo back there. Schafer has been lucky so far riding one guy, giving him all the confidence and opportunity to develop, hope nothing happens to Iles in an urgent situation like playoffs and this questionable style of coaching doesnt come back to bite us.

At the beginning of his tenure, Schafer used a two-goalie rotation (until the playoffs) most of the time: Skazyk/Elliott, Elliott/Pelletier, Burt/Underhill, and even Underhill/LeNeveu.  In fact, that was seen as one of the reasons Pelletier left early, because he was only going to get to play half the time until Elliott graduated.  The only exception was after Pelletier's exit, when Elliott played every game until he got hurt and Burt got pressed into service.  So either Schafer's style has changed with time, or he chooses the strategy best suited to the players at his disposal.

He uses his goalies as best suited. Think about what we are implying in our wish that Iles isn't the loan goalie this year.  That Schafer could have recruited another goalie of Andy's ability when the early exit of Garman was unanticipated? (As an aside, did no one know he would/could graduate in three years?  When my three buddies did the three year undergrad routine, leaving in '73 rather than '74,it took an inordinate amount of effort to get the OK from Day Hall.  How did Garman do this undercover?)  If it was that easy to recruit, then wouldn't all the division one teams in the top 20 have two great goalies on the roster with one incoming every other year or so?

I'm as nervous about Iles making it through the season as anyone, but that's our hand.

(As another aside, Seth Appert pulled Merriam as RPI was getting bombed in the game on Saturday. But after Diebold let in three, he threw Merriam back on the ice to finish the game.  And this from a former goalie (Appert). So was Appert trying to save Merriam's psyche and then trying to save Diebold at Merriam's expense?? Moves like this are typical of why many of us don't hold Appert in high esteem.)

Anyone who thinks it's easy to be in Schafer's spot is just nuts.::nut::

I think you are missing the point, Garmin sat for two whole years, not one minute of play...third year rolls around and he needs to split 50/50 with a freshman right off the bat?  He was the hot during playoffs and Schafer still continued with Iles.  It would have been in Garmin's interest with Pro to stay on another year for development and playing time - I think he saw the writing on the wall.  In terms of our hand is only limited to having Iles -  well every good goalie wants to play, I hardly think Marozzi who played significantly back in Spruce Grove,  had impressive success and from what I read a strong competitor was recruited on the basis of a pure #2, with no opportunity for any minute of playing time.  No competition in that position is not healthy for the goalies themselves but more importantly, for the team, and future recruitment as well.  Schafer is gambling -  taking unnecessary risks.

I thought the point was Schafer has a history of riding one guy, so he'll never be able to get a prospect, and he's taking huge risks with the team by not playing the backups. Now you're saying he's a schmuck for platooning the goalies last year because that caused Garmin to leave. Protip - when making arguments, try not to adopt mutually exclusive positions in the space of two statements. If your point is that Schafer should play his backups more often than never, fine, say it. It's a valid criticism.

Let's get one thing straight about the Garmin situation - it was not in his interest to stay in college for one more year of development unless he was going to play pretty much every minute of every game, and even then it's questionable. The writing was on the wall - Garmin was going to platoon, at best, and everyone knew it because it was obviously the best move for the future of the program.

[Al DeFlorio]

Ok, 10 freshmen this year makes it a non-rebuiding year ?  Missing the point, Schafer is not applying prudence.  Even if Iles was destined to be the #1 guy, wouldnt a coach want a good capable #2 developing at what 70 - 30%, 80- 20%, 90 - 10% split?  If something goes wrong with you #1 guy, you would have some insurance in place... or is  this just too much of common sense?

In which games would you have played Marozzi instead of Iles, and why?

And to what end? Is there a theory that Iles is the guy fading in the third period? Because it seems clear that the ice is tilted at him in the third and he's having to backstop everyone else's fatigue.

Third period shots on goal last eight games:  Cornell 32; opponents 71.  That's four per game for Cornell.  Maybe redbear_71 wants Iles to shoot more.

[ursusminor]

Cornell is going all-or-nothing with Iles.

Yep, that's apparent.  The gap in ability is big enough that the coaching staff doesn't really have a choice but to ride Iles.  We've been in this position before.  I'm sure they are beavering away looking for prospects, and they do have an emergency back-up.

It would appear there is more to this than an apparent 'gap'.  You do not evaluate a goalie by not playing them at all - it is common understanding that practice is one thing, game action is another important dimension in an evaluaton and development process.  Garmin did not even get a minute in exhibition games with Scrivens, Marozzi played a whole 3rd period in the second exhibition game of which he showed decent skills in movement and puck handling, and Omar for the first time saw 8mins of an exhibition but didnt see a shot.  
At the beginning of the season, Schafer stated he wasnt ready to pronounce Iles as the starter so he took a long a hard look at the other two..really...Iles was average if not below the first few games, until he got some confidence and with lots of help from Mayotte.
I believe there is more to why Garmin left early, now you bring in a blue chip mature goalie with significant experience, and key accomplishments to only waste away that asset?  Beavering away for prospects? A good goalie prospect will not want to come to Cornell until Iles leaves because only after Iles has many below average games will the other guy get a shot..seeing how Schafer has a history of riding one guy, it would have appeared he broke that temporarily last year when Iles arrived. This year Iles needed all the exposure to make the National team and get drafted in his last year of eligiblity.  Most Coaches thrive to have a great tandem duo back there. Schafer has been lucky so far riding one guy, giving him all the confidence and opportunity to develop, hope nothing happens to Iles in an urgent situation like playoffs and this questionable style of coaching doesnt come back to bite us.

At the beginning of his tenure, Schafer used a two-goalie rotation (until the playoffs) most of the time: Skazyk/Elliott, Elliott/Pelletier, Burt/Underhill, and even Underhill/LeNeveu.  In fact, that was seen as one of the reasons Pelletier left early, because he was only going to get to play half the time until Elliott graduated.  The only exception was after Pelletier's exit, when Elliott played every game until he got hurt and Burt got pressed into service.  So either Schafer's style has changed with time, or he chooses the strategy best suited to the players at his disposal.

He uses his goalies as best suited. Think about what we are implying in our wish that Iles isn't the loan goalie this year.  That Schafer could have recruited another goalie of Andy's ability when the early exit of Garman was unanticipated? (As an aside, did no one know he would/could graduate in three years?  When my three buddies did the three year undergrad routine, leaving in '73 rather than '74,it took an inordinate amount of effort to get the OK from Day Hall.  How did Garman do this undercover?)  If it was that easy to recruit, then wouldn't all the division one teams in the top 20 have two great goalies on the roster with one incoming every other year or so?

I'm as nervous about Iles making it through the season as anyone, but that's our hand.

(As another aside, Seth Appert pulled Merriam as RPI was getting bombed in the game on Saturday. But after Diebold let in three, he threw Merriam back on the ice to finish the game.  And this from a former goalie (Appert). So was Appert trying to save Merriam's psyche and then trying to save Diebold at Merriam's expense?? Moves like this are typical of why many of us don't hold Appert in high esteem.)

Anyone who thinks it's easy to be in Schafer's spot is just nuts.::nut::

I couldn't fault Appert for his goalie moves on Saturday. Other things, yes. Merriam did give up some easy goals, and then Diebold wasn't the answer. ;-)

BTW, is a "loan goalie" one from whom you can borrow money? :-D

[Swampy]

Ok, 10 freshmen this year makes it a non-rebuiding year ?  Missing the point, Schafer is not applying prudence.  Even if Iles was destined to be the #1 guy, wouldnt a coach want a good capable #2 developing at what 70 - 30%, 80- 20%, 90 - 10% split?  If something goes wrong with you #1 guy, you would have some insurance in place... or is  this just too much of common sense?

In which games would you have played Marozzi instead of Iles, and why?

Beeeej nailed it. This is the rebuilding year, yet the team is highly ranked and challenging for first place in the league. Schafer might be more willing to experiment in games if we were totally out of the money or had a 5-game cushion over Onion. Instead and although it's unlikely we'll win a NC this year (but you never know!), being successful in the playoffs and playing a game or two in the NC$$'s will help the young players develop. So it could be a rational, calculated decision to ride a proven commodity even though it keeps Marozzi off the ice.

While it's true that one needs real game experience to develop completely, don't underestimate the value of practice. I'm sure Marozzi, and to a lesser degree Kanji, gets substantial playing time during practice. In a full-rink scrimmage, they're practicing against the #13 team in the country, one that took the current #1 to overtime and played pretty even with it, even dominating, much of the game.

Besides, some pretty good players have sat on the bench until an injury brought them into a game and they turned their butterflies into a stellar opportunity. In football, one future Hall-of-Famer did exactly that but still lost the Super Bowl last night.

[Aaron M. Griffin]

Perhaps ominously in light of this goalie rotation conversation, Iles just tweeted:

Sitting in the doctors office surrounded by people wearing face masks. Not loving it, get me out of here. #8squirtsofpurell

[marty]

TV Coverage