Cornell-Ferris State In Progress

[snert1288]

I agree that a player in front of the net to clean up the "garbage" was missing this year.  Just need to look at Devin last year or Greening 2 years ago to see how many opportunities this presents for us.  I felt like those guys were always knocking in rebounds and it shows in their stats.

[Todd R]

During the intermission in the ND-MN game, they showed highlights of our game.  I guess I missed it the first time, but on the first goal that Ferris State scored (on the PP in opening seconds of the third period), our center broke his stick on the faceoff.  He skated to the bench to grab another one, making it a five on three for just long enough to matter.  Talk about bad luck...

[Johnny 5]

During the intermission in the ND-MN game, they showed highlights of our game.  I guess I missed it the first time, but on the first goal that Ferris State scored (on the PP in opening seconds of the third period), our center broke his stick on the faceoff.  He skated to the bench to grab another one, making it a five on three for just long enough to matter.  Talk about bad luck...

Not to mention that even Helen Keller could see in the video review that Isle's left leg whipped out when he was interfered with on the second FS goal!

::stupid::

[ugarte]

During the intermission in the ND-MN game, they showed highlights of our game.  I guess I missed it the first time, but on the first goal that Ferris State scored (on the PP in opening seconds of the third period), our center broke his stick on the faceoff.  He skated to the bench to grab another one, making it a five on three for just long enough to matter.  Talk about bad luck...

Not to mention that even Helen Keller could see in the video review that Isle's left leg whipped out when he was interfered with on the second FS goal!

::stupid::

Meh. I thought the call on the second goal was right. The guy barely touched Iles, if he touched him at all.

[jtn27]

Even though Cornell lost, I think the season ended on a relatively positive note. The team won a great game against Michigan, one of the best I've ever seen. The Ferris State game was a pretty good game too. Cornell didn't get embarrassed like against Harvard or give up a 3rd period lead like in numerous other games this season. It was a hard fought game between two very good teams, and unfortunately Cornell lost. Nothing to be ashamed of.

[css228]

Even though Cornell lost, I think the season ended on a relatively positive note. The team won a great game against Michigan, one of the best I've ever seen. The Ferris State game was a pretty good game too. Cornell didn't get embarrassed like against Harvard or give up a 3rd period lead like in numerous other games this season. It was a hard fought game between two very good teams, and unfortunately Cornell lost. Nothing to be ashamed of.

At the same time we're 1-6 in regional finals in the Schafer era. Eventually some of the bounces have to start going our way right? I'd feel better about this if Union weren't in the Frozen Four

[Tom Lento]

I certainly agree with the optimism for next year, and the feeling that we got a lot more this year Than we had a right to expect.

That said, after 46 years of living and dying with Cornell Hockey, there are two major chronic problems that frustrate me no end.

First is the power play.  I'd have to yield to Trotsky or Beeeej or any others that have actual facts to refer to, but have we had any kind of power play success in the last 10-15 years?  Especially with the recent rules changes for major penalties for contact to the head or boarding from behind, there are going to be more and more opportunities and we really must become a threat.  The puck doesn't move fast enough, and our players are for the most part too static to cause a problem for teams that just want to pack it in.  Can we get some imagination to perhaps overload to one side to open up a backdoor play?  God knows we have enough film on it from Harvard and Union games.

The second problem is our shooting.  A large part of our shot differential problems is inaccuracy- we don't put the puck on net, even when we do shoot from in close.  Part of the problem is we often don't have anybody in front of the net.  When we do, he's too close to the net so the rebounds either get by too quickly or are out of reach.  I'd really like to see a slot player a little above the hashes who can move down closer to the crease if he needs to, but is still in a better position to get a rebound up over a sprawling goaltender.  Shooting accuracy while skating could be improved too.  Maybe using the skating treadmill with a goal set up at different angles or on a turntable?

None of these adjustments would sacrifice our tough defensive style, but it would sure help in those games where we get behind if we could be more of a scoring threat.

10-15 years includes seasons like those ending in 2002, 2003, and 2005, when Cornell's power play was among the best in the country (and I think the runaway #1 in 2002 - they were something ridiculous like 28% that year). 2008 and 2010 were decent, too - over 20%, which would be top 20 this year.

Over the years I've come to the conclusion that Cornell's real problem on the PP is that it's the same setup regardless of personnel - run the umbrella, move the puck low, cycle, either cross to the weak side or move up high and rotate around the perimeter. The back post plays from down low have been rare - apart from the 2003 team Cornell really hasn't had a combination capable of executing those passes on a regular basis, although I have high hopes for the next season or two. Their main model for scoring has been off the drive from the point - if there's a big shot opportunity from the top, they take it, otherwise they keep the puck moving and do the same thing on the other wing until they either get a golden opportunity or free up the shot from the top. This can be an effective power play strategy, but if you aren't making those cross-ice passes from down low you need the right guy at the top of the umbrella. The 2002 and 2003 teams were particularly dangerous because they had both.

For this year, I saw both NCAA games, and nothing else all season. From those two games it looked like Cornell's biggest problems were lack of traffic in front of the net and some stagnation at the top of the umbrella. It didn't seem to matter which unit was out there, the player at the top of the umbrella would frequently hold the puck instead of moving it. That little stall at the top just killed them - small windows of opportunity would close and then they'd have to spend some time moving the puck around at the blue line, which would either kick off another cycle down low or result in a clear for the PK. Either way, it would cost time and generate no real chances. I never really felt like the player at the top should have shot the puck in those situations, but crisp puck movement was critical and they weren't getting it. When they kept the puck moving and rotated it down low they got some chances - not always a shot on goal, but legitimate scoring opportunities where the box was collapsing in front and Cornell was able to swarm around the net. You have to give some credit to the opposition - Ferris St. in particular - for closing off a lot of options and keeping those windows of opportunity small. Cornell really didn't have any margin for error out there, so a tiny bobble or a brief hold to see if a shooting lane might open would cost a lot of time. The real kicker is you can't just blindly pass the puck around the perimeter, and I think where Cornell failed was in finding the right balance up high.

This is the kind of thing that's really easy to talk about from the comfort of one's own home, but it's damn hard to do, and if you don't have at least one guy who can do it consistently the umbrella might not be the right choice for that team. From a coaching perspective I don't know what the best option would be - there's a rather high cost to changing the setup because everyone has to learn it from scratch, including the coaches, and that takes time away from other areas for development.

Overall, I think the model has worked pretty well - the team has generally had strong PP performance in the "right" years. That's partly because having a strong PP improves your odds of winning, but I think it's also because the team is typically going through rebuilding cycles and a lot of these elements seem to come together at the same time. The other thing that you see is timing - the 2002 and 2003 teams were excellent because the top PP worked as a unit for, essentially, 3 straight years. In this year's NCAA games some of Cornell's best puck movement resulted in a routine save because the slot was empty and the goaltender had a clear view of the puck. That's a PP unit a little bit out of sync, and I'd expect that to improve over the course of another season.

[snert1288]

I don't agree.  I am very happy for Union.  They looked really good in both of their games and outplayed their opponents.  They deserved to make the FF.  I have met some of the terrible Union fans and had things thrown at me when walking by their student section, but overall, I think Union doing well benefits the ECAC greatly.  They were regular and tournament champs from the ECAC and succeeding in the NCAAs lends our conference credibility.

[css228]

I don't agree.  I am very happy for Union.  They looked really good in both of their games and outplayed their opponents.  They deserved to make the FF.  I have met some of the terrible Union fans and had things thrown at me when walking by their student section, but overall, I think Union doing well benefits the ECAC greatly.  They were regular and tournament champs from the ECAC and succeeding in the NCAAs lends our conference credibility.

But I don't want them there without us. I know its selfish, but I wanted us to be the team to break the drought. I personally liked the whole above the rest status we had. I'm gonna miss it somewhat. Of course, the best way to do that is to win a title. All in all, unless its a rival, I usually root for the team that knocked me out. I like to lose only to the best.

[David Harding]

I certainly agree with the optimism for next year, and the feeling that we got a lot more this year Than we had a right to expect.

That said, after 46 years of living and dying with Cornell Hockey, there are two major chronic problems that frustrate me no end.

First is the power play.  I'd have to yield to Trotsky or Beeeej or any others that have actual facts to refer to, but have we had any kind of power play success in the last 10-15 years?  Especially with the recent rules changes for major penalties for contact to the head or boarding from behind, there are going to be more and more opportunities and we really must become a threat.  The puck doesn't move fast enough, and our players are for the most part too static to cause a problem for teams that just want to pack it in.  Can we get some imagination to perhaps overload to one side to open up a backdoor play?  God knows we have enough film on it from Harvard and Union games.
...

10-15 years includes seasons like those ending in 2002, 2003, and 2005, when Cornell's power play was among the best in the country (and I think the runaway #1 in 2002 - they were something ridiculous like 28% that year). 2008 and 2010 were decent, too - over 20%, which would be top 20 this year. ...

In those years the theme of the discussion here was often that Cornell relied too much on its power play, not generating enough scoring chances even strength, but it's been up and down.  

http://www.cornellbigred.com/sports/2007/8/1/mih_archived_statistics.aspx?path=mhockey

Code Select Expand


'03-'04 28/174 0.161
'04-'05 43/176 0.244
'05-'06 35/221 0.158
'06-'07 33/238 0.139
'07-'08 39/181 0.215
'08-'09 27/188 0.144
'09-'10 32/152 0.211
'10-'11 22/135 0.163


Statistical fluctuations, anyone?

[Ben]

I don't agree.  I am very happy for Union.  They looked really good in both of their games and outplayed their opponents.  They deserved to make the FF.  I have met some of the terrible Union fans and had things thrown at me when walking by their student section, but overall, I think Union doing well benefits the ECAC greatly.  They were regular and tournament champs from the ECAC and succeeding in the NCAAs lends our conference credibility.

But I don't want them there without us. I know its selfish, but I wanted us to be the team to break the drought. I personally liked the whole above the rest status we had. I'm gonna miss it somewhat. Of course, the best way to do that is to win a title. All in all, unless its a rival, I usually root for the team that knocked me out. I like to lose only to the best.

I'll take this a step further: I was rooting against Union on Friday, Saturday, and I'll be rooting against them in two weeks. Plagues on all the houses but Lynah.

[Trotsky]

I am hopeful that any ECAC team's success in the tourney demystifies it for the rest.

[jtn27]

I don't mind Union making the Frozen Four (although I would obviously prefer it be us) but I don't want them to become the first ECAC team to make the final since 1991 (correction coming in 3... 2...). I'm pulling for Ferris State. They earned my respect on Saturday. I still think we're a better team than Union, and would have beat them if we made it to the Frozen Four. We went 1-0-1 against them this year and would have gone 2-0-0 if we could have held onto a 3rd period lead. I think Union lucked out by drawing 2 weak regional match-ups. I know this comes off as bitter, but that's not really my intention.

[jtwcornell91]

I think Union lucked out by drawing 2 weak regional match-ups.

It wasn't really luck.  They were a 1 seed and we were a 4 seed.  Their first-round matchup was supposed to be easier.

[Jim Hyla]

Interesting quote from INCH's article on the regional.

Cornell is a young team that is built for future NCAA Tournament runs. Disappointment will linger from the loss, but the experience gained may prove very valuable over the next two seasons.