Cornell-Ferris State In Progress

[scoop85]

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.

It just seemed to me that this year we just didn't move the puck quickly enough on the PP, therefore rarely getting an unimpeded look at the net.  Watch the BC and Minnesota PP to see the difference. I think it's just that simple

[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::

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

OK. you got me. Just sour grapes.
Time for me to move on.

::deadhorse::

[jtn27]

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.

I expected them to beat Michigan State, but they got lucky that UMass-Lowell beat Miami. I don't think they could have beat Miami. I'm also unsure they could have advanced to the Frozen Four if they were in the place of one of the other 1 seeds. Could they have beaten Air Force and Minnesota-Duluth like BC did? Air Force yes, UMD, I don't think so. And North Dakota and Michigan, both teams that I think are better than Union, couldn't get out of their regions. I think Union would have lost to Minnesota and they weren't able to beat us this year. BU, Maine, and Ferris State might be better than Union too. So I do think they got lucky by drawing a weak region.

[Rosey]

It just seemed to me that this year we just didn't move the puck quickly enough on the PP, therefore rarely getting an unimpeded look at the net.  Watch the BC and Minnesota PP to see the difference. I think it's just that simple

I agree. One of the things that I notice about better teams' power plays is that players never sit there with the puck: it's passed or shot *immediately* when a player receives a pass, giving the defense much less time to adjust.

[Lowell '99]

I can't agree with the statement that we were as good as (or better than) Union this year.  While our head-to-head record is good, their GF-GA (both in conference and out of conference) blows ours out of the water.  I saw both Union games in person this year, and I think they just oozed talent.  Fast, agile skaters, good defense - they deserve their success.  Sure, I would've happily taken a matchup (and a win!) against them on April 5th, but I'm happy to root for them now.  

Still, I know the bitterman feeling.  I still find it hard to root for Harvard or Clarkson under any circumstances, and I'm sure recent graduates feel the same way about Yale given our recent record against them (this year excepted).

[Scersk '97]

Regarding Union:  completely agree.  They also oozed team unity.  I'll root for them in the semis, even though I think Ferris will beat them.  Don't know that I can support them winning a championship, however, because I'm not sure they've "paid their dues."

But Lowell, why not root for Clarkson?  Small school, mostly engineers, passionate fans, good band, somewhat snakebit in the national tournament.  (Some of that due to us.)

All we did while I was in school was frustrate their championship ambitions.  They should hate us.  If you want to hate someone, hate Princeton (always easy) and hate the league for having that stupid play-in game in the first place.

Oh, and hate Harvard.  Always hate Harvard.

[Rosey]

Don't know that I can support them winning a championship, however, because I'm not sure they've "paid their dues."

I don't get this. Every year the slate is wiped clean: there's a reason the PWR doesn't incorporate historical data, for instance. If Union wins the national championship, I will congratulate them and ask why that wasn't Cornell instead.

[css228]

I can't agree with the statement that we were as good as (or better than) Union this year.  While our head-to-head record is good, their GF-GA (both in conference and out of conference) blows ours out of the water.  I saw both Union games in person this year, and I think they just oozed talent.  Fast, agile skaters, good defense - they deserve their success.  Sure, I would've happily taken a matchup (and a win!) against them on April 5th, but I'm happy to root for them now.  

Still, I know the bitterman feeling.  I still find it hard to root for Harvard or Clarkson under any circumstances, and I'm sure recent graduates feel the same way about Yale given our recent record against them (this year excepted).

I think that we just matched up well with Union, not that we were better. Both games I  saw against them, I thought we imposed our game and tempo on Union and dominated the run of play against them both times. Quite frankly I think they were lucky they weren't swept. But overall they were more consistent, didn't blow leads. They were probably a better team that just didn't match up well against us.

[ugarte]

Don't know that I can support them winning a championship, however, because I'm not sure they've "paid their dues."

I don't get this. Every year the slate is wiped clean: there's a reason the PWR doesn't incorporate historical data, for instance. If Union wins the national championship, I will congratulate them and ask why that wasn't Cornell instead.

Same. On the other hand, the brackets feel insanely misweighted. If Union wins it will be a STUNNING upset, even though they are a 1 seed.

The QF on the other side of the bracket appears to be far, far better than the East/Midwest. Some of that is due to upsets but most is that Union was the weakest 1 seed and Ferris looked like a pretty weak 2. I expect the Minnesota - BC winner to run over whoever wins the Union - Ferris game and I'd have thought the same if we had been in Ferris's place.

[nshapiro]

The main reason I root for 10 ECAC teams (once we are eliminated) in the tourney is that we need a new answer to the question: Which was the last ECAC team to win the NCAAs.

Oh...Hahvahd sucks.

[Dafatone]

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.

It just seemed to me that this year we just didn't move the puck quickly enough on the PP, therefore rarely getting an unimpeded look at the net.  Watch the BC and Minnesota PP to see the difference. I think it's just that simple

To be fair, Ferris State's PK is really, really good.  I think they were something like 5th in the country.

[Trotsky]

Regarding Union:  completely agree.  They also oozed team unity.  I'll root for them in the semis, even though I think Ferris will beat them.  Don't know that I can support them winning a championship, however, because I'm not sure they've "paid their dues."

We won it all on our first trip in '67. Dues are overrated.

From what I saw last weekend Union should be a clear favorite against Ferris State -- I think we outplayed Ferris and I think over the course of the season Union outplayed us.  If it weren't for the recent history of the conference, which appears to mean absolutely nothing to them (good), I would say I'd be shocked if Ferris beats them.

OTOH, if they get to the final I think they will need a combination of their best game of the year, a lot of puck luck, and a couple miracles to get by BC.  If Minny happens to have all that stuff happen to them in their semi, then I think it's a crap shoot.

[Jim Hyla]

Regarding Union:  completely agree.  They also oozed team unity.  I'll root for them in the semis, even though I think Ferris will beat them.  Don't know that I can support them winning a championship, however, because I'm not sure they've "paid their dues."

We won it all on our first trip in '67. Dues are overrated.

From what I saw last weekend Union should be a clear favorite against Ferris State -- I think we outplayed Ferris and I think over the course of the season Union outplayed us.  If it weren't for the recent history of the conference, which appears to mean absolutely nothing to them (good), I would say I'd be shocked if Ferris beats them.

OTOH, if they get to the final I think they will need a combination of their best game of the year, a lot of puck luck, and a couple miracles to get by BC.  If Minny happens to have all that stuff happen to them in their semi, then I think it's a crap shoot.

Not I. Ferris is a good, solid defensive team, much like we used to be. If Union can get 3 or more goals, I don't expect Ferris to catch up. But Ferris winning 2-1, 3-2, I could easily see that.

[Josh '99]

But Lowell, why not root for Clarkson?  Small school, mostly engineers, passionate fans, good band, somewhat snakebit in the national tournament.  (Some of that due to us.)

I can't speak for Lowell, but personally I think it's too funny that they've never won the tournament to want that fact to change.

[Tom Lento]

It just seemed to me that this year we just didn't move the puck quickly enough on the PP, therefore rarely getting an unimpeded look at the net.  Watch the BC and Minnesota PP to see the difference. I think it's just that simple

I agree. One of the things that I notice about better teams' power plays is that players never sit there with the puck: it's passed or shot *immediately* when a player receives a pass, giving the defense much less time to adjust.

I think I spent like 4 paragraphs saying basically the same thing. In the two games I saw most of the delays seemed to happen at the top of the umbrella, rather than coming up or across from the wing, but maybe that wasn't the case over the course of the season. That might not be the fault of the guy at the top, but that's where it was happening.

This is a simple problem, but it's actually really hard to get that kind of nuance down without becoming robotic. It also cascades - the whole unit falls out of sync when the puck movement becomes erratic. What you want is puck movement that's predictable for the offense, so guys can be in the right place, but quick enough that the defense doesn't have time to catch up. Cornell didn't have that balance last weekend.

If you want a real contrast, jump from the Cornell/Ferris St. to a halfway decent NHL power play. The puck never sits. Even if the player doesn't shoot or pass immediately he moves with the puck and constantly changes the angle of attack.