Princeton

[Rosey]

Now, I don't think anybody here is going to argue against us recruiting much better players (except Ralph ), but I do not think the big issue against Yale was strategic failure.  It was dealing with a ridiculously over-skilled opponent.

I'm just not buying this. I think the issue is more that The System either wasn't or couldn't be adjusted to counter the game Yale plays.

IIRC, the whole point of Cornell's game is to nullify blue chip offenses by keeping them away from the front of the net. That wasn't happening with consistency even against much lesser teams than Yale, which suggests to me that other teams have figured out how to counter The System and have incorporated that into their own systems. Relatedly, I also dispute your assertion that Cornell's early-00's teams were fundamentally more talented than more recent squads; on the contrary, it seems clear to me that there is more talent up-and-down the lineup. I think the early-00 squads were simply playing against older-style offenses not coached to specifically counter The System. I suspect the success of The System was a window that has closed, at least temporarily, as a result of changes to other systems.

[redice]

Now, I don't think anybody here is going to argue against us recruiting much better players (except Ralph ), but I do not think the big issue against Yale was strategic failure.  It was dealing with a ridiculously over-skilled opponent.

I'm just not buying this. I think the issue is more that The System either wasn't or couldn't be adjusted to counter the game Yale plays.

IIRC, the whole point of Cornell's game is to nullify blue chip offenses by keeping them away from the front of the net. That wasn't happening with consistency even against much lesser teams than Yale, which suggests to me that other teams have figured out how to counter The System and have incorporated that into their own systems. Relatedly, I also dispute your assertion that Cornell's early-00's teams were fundamentally more talented than more recent squads; on the contrary, it seems clear to me that there is more talent up-and-down the lineup. I think the early-00 squads were simply playing against older-style offenses not coached to specifically counter The System. I suspect the success of The System was a window that has closed, at least temporarily, as a result of changes to other systems.

The early-00's teams were far, far more disciplined than recent squads.   They played The System to a "T".    The more recent squads, while much more talented, are less willing to play that disciplined style that made The System work so well.    That lack of discipline leads to the obvious breakdown of The System and the far-too-frequent trips to the penalty box.   Both a symptom of the same problem; both lead to losses....

[Trotsky]

The early-00's teams were far, far more disciplined than recent squads.   They played The System to a "T".    The more recent squads, while much more talented, are less willing to play that disciplined style that made The System work so well.    That lack of discipline leads to the obvious breakdown of The System and the far-too-frequent trips to the penalty box.   Both a symptom of the same problem; both lead to losses....

It's possible the increase in penalties is due to the game being called more tightly -- that if the 2003 squad were playing with today's rules and interpretations, they'd be going to the box more too.  But that would not explain the rash of what appear to be emotional, pointless offenses after the play that have resulted in GMs and DQs.  Hopefully that has been corrected since "it was worse than a crime; it was a mistake."

[Trotsky]

To return to the subject, here are the CU pregame notes.

[Roy 82]

Now, I don't think anybody here is going to argue against us recruiting much better players (except Ralph ), but I do not think the big issue against Yale was strategic failure.  It was dealing with a ridiculously over-skilled opponent.

I'm just not buying this. I think the issue is more that The System either wasn't or couldn't be adjusted to counter the game Yale plays.

IIRC, the whole point of Cornell's game is to nullify blue chip offenses by keeping them away from the front of the net. That wasn't happening with consistency even against much lesser teams than Yale, which suggests to me that other teams have figured out how to counter The System and have incorporated that into their own systems. Relatedly, I also dispute your assertion that Cornell's early-00's teams were fundamentally more talented than more recent squads; on the contrary, it seems clear to me that there is more talent up-and-down the lineup. I think the early-00 squads were simply playing against older-style offenses not coached to specifically counter The System. I suspect the success of The System was a window that has closed, at least temporarily, as a result of changes to other systems.

The early-00's teams were far, far more disciplined than recent squads.   They played The System to a "T".    The more recent squads, while much more talented, are less willing to play that disciplined style that made The System work so well.    That lack of discipline leads to the obvious breakdown of The System and the far-too-frequent trips to the penalty box.   Both a symptom of the same problem; both lead to losses....

I don't buy it. If the coach cannot make the players adapt to his system then he is not an effective coach. Isn't is more likely that the coach is trying to adapt his sytem to the opposition and skill set of his players?

[redice]

The early-00's teams were far, far more disciplined than recent squads.   They played The System to a "T".    The more recent squads, while much more talented, are less willing to play that disciplined style that made The System work so well.    That lack of discipline leads to the obvious breakdown of The System and the far-too-frequent trips to the penalty box.   Both a symptom of the same problem; both lead to losses....

It's possible the increase in penalties is due to the game being called more tightly -- that if the 2003 squad were playing with today's rules and interpretations, they'd be going to the box more too.  But that would not explain the rash of what appear to be emotional, pointless offenses after the play that have resulted in GMs and DQs.  Hopefully that has been corrected since "it was worse than a crime; it was a mistake."

You're not wrong.   But, this team still takes a lot more lack-of-discipline penalties than the early 00's teams.

I've commented before about the earlier Schafer players dropping their arms down by their sides & skating away from the scrums.  Not these guys.   They've gotta get right in there, push & shove, and mouth off.   I'm very confident in saying that there is a lot more of that garbage by the CU team today than there was 10-15 years ago.   That stuff leads to penalties.    These players need to learn to shut up & skate away.

[jek86]

I haven't seen Bardreau on the ice.  Apparently he did tweek something at the end of the game last week.

[Dafatone]

The early-00's teams were far, far more disciplined than recent squads.   They played The System to a "T".    The more recent squads, while much more talented, are less willing to play that disciplined style that made The System work so well.    That lack of discipline leads to the obvious breakdown of The System and the far-too-frequent trips to the penalty box.   Both a symptom of the same problem; both lead to losses....

It's possible the increase in penalties is due to the game being called more tightly -- that if the 2003 squad were playing with today's rules and interpretations, they'd be going to the box more too.  But that would not explain the rash of what appear to be emotional, pointless offenses after the play that have resulted in GMs and DQs.  Hopefully that has been corrected since "it was worse than a crime; it was a mistake."

You're not wrong.   But, this team still takes a lot more lack-of-discipline penalties than the early 00's teams.

I've commented before about the earlier Schafer players dropping their arms down by their sides & skating away from the scrums.  Not these guys.   They've gotta get right in there, push & shove, and mouth off.   I'm very confident in saying that there is a lot more of that garbage by the CU team today than there was 10-15 years ago.   That stuff leads to penalties.    These players need to learn to shut up & skate away.

In theory, there's a good middle ground where you draw the other team into committing dumb penalties.  In theory.

[releck97]

I haven't seen Bardreau on the ice.  Apparently he did tweek something at the end of the game last week.

Knee...I heard him say that he'll be back soon.  We can only hope.

[Tom Lento]

I think the early-00 squads were simply playing against older-style offenses not coached to specifically counter The System. I suspect the success of The System was a window that has closed, at least temporarily, as a result of changes to other systems.

I don't know, this makes The System sound like it deserves the capital letters. Cornell plays pretty basic defensive hockey. It's a modified left wing lock and a puck possession cycle in the offensive zone, with (for reasons that I have not understood since Doug Murray graduated) an umbrella power play. In the defensive zone the team is also playing pretty basic hockey - they're really not doing anything fancy at all beyond elevating shot blocking to an art form. All of these patterns have been around for a long time, and if executed correctly by a team with sufficient talent they can be very effective even against top notch freewheeling offenses that feature a few better, faster players. Cornell's problem has been a mixture of poor execution and talent disparity (those Yale teams were more talented, top to bottom, than the comparable Cornell teams - the team with Nash/Nash/Greening all leaving and ending up in the pros was probably the closest to the top Yale team of that recruiting cycle, but Cornell's second line was totally outclassed).

In terms of the talent problem, I think it's affecting Cornell in a way that's a little bit different from the way we usually talk about it. Cornell can no longer field a very efficient team of decent players and dominate the ECAC, because the rest of the league is just better than it used to be. From what little I've been able to see in recent years Cornell has gotten better talent over time, but the improvement has not been as fast as what we've seen with the other ECAC contenders (who seem to be light years ahead of the 2002-2006 span when Cornell was at its peak). Yes, some of Cornell's recent teams have under-performed (particularly last season) but probably not by as much as people seem to think, because the pre-season fan assessment of Cornell's talent level always seems to me to be much greater than the actual performance players exhibit on the ice. The fans inevitably blame the coaches, and they could be right, but given the quality of the coaches and the program's results over this span I'm a lot more comfortable betting that the fans are the ones who got it wrong.

The second problem is either execution or margin for error, depending on how you look at things. A defensive style of play with its entire offense predicated on puck possession coming out of the corners simply can't afford to make any mistakes that lead to cheap goals for faster opponents, or even the kind of mistakes that lead to moderate increases in puck possession for the other side (to say nothing of the monster puck possession swings every one of Cornell's breakout attempts seemed to give to Yale). Back in 2008, when everyone was calling for Schafer's head and it was the end of the world as we know it, Cornell's primary problem was positioning - they'd take a bad line and get beaten to the puck or take dumb penalties or just have too many guys behind the net. In more recent years the primary problem seems to be passing - it's awful, at least when compared to the best teams in the league (Yale). That's why the breakout suffers, and that's why Cornell keeps giving the puck back to those teams. Cornell has been playing with fire with its passing since, basically, 2006. I think the Big Red got away with it against all but the best (again, Yale) because they had periods of strong special teams (at least on the kill, but even one or two seasons on the PP as well) and pretty consistent positional execution, but eventually the wheels came off the bus. Consider last year a perfect storm of badness for Cornell - poor passing led to loss of possession, stupid penalties gave opponents even more opportunities, and awful special teams ensured that opponents took full advantage while Cornell just couldn't generate any easy goals.

To the extent that it's impossible to improve the team's passing and special teams play within the context of the system Cornell has today I guess I agree that the system is the problem, but I just don't see how those things (with the possible exception of the umbrella) are inextricably related, at least not in terms of on-ice execution.

In news that appears to be irrelevant to this thread, I guess Cornell beat Princeton.

[redice]

The early-00's teams were far, far more disciplined than recent squads.   They played The System to a "T".    The more recent squads, while much more talented, are less willing to play that disciplined style that made The System work so well.    That lack of discipline leads to the obvious breakdown of The System and the far-too-frequent trips to the penalty box.   Both a symptom of the same problem; both lead to losses....

It's possible the increase in penalties is due to the game being called more tightly -- that if the 2003 squad were playing with today's rules and interpretations, they'd be going to the box more too.  But that would not explain the rash of what appear to be emotional, pointless offenses after the play that have resulted in GMs and DQs.  Hopefully that has been corrected since "it was worse than a crime; it was a mistake."

You're not wrong.   But, this team still takes a lot more lack-of-discipline penalties than the early 00's teams.

I've commented before about the earlier Schafer players dropping their arms down by their sides & skating away from the scrums.  Not these guys.   They've gotta get right in there, push & shove, and mouth off.   I'm very confident in saying that there is a lot more of that garbage by the CU team today than there was 10-15 years ago.   That stuff leads to penalties.    These players need to learn to shut up & skate away.

In theory, there's a good middle ground where you draw the other team into committing dumb penalties.  In theory.

Reality:  Weren't we the most penalized team in the country last year.

I guess the theory didn't work out so well....:-)

[MattS]

Changing subject to actually talk about the game....

I thought the first and second periods looked good. There was good forechecking and basically taking it to Princeton. And shockingly the PP looked decent too.

The third period looked kind of bad. Not just because Princeton scored, but because once again they switched to a completely defensive mode and they also looked tired to me. That was not encouraging.

McCarron's goal was from my angle pretty nifty looking. I would have loved to see a replay of it.

I have never seen so many flukey goals let in by a goalie and not be pulled. It makes me wonder how bad Priceton's backup is.

Came someone tell me honestly was de Swardt brings to the ice? He has always looked slow to me. There is no offense to speak of and I an suspicious of his defensive abilities. He looked bad last night.

And someone really needs to tell Hilbrich to use his freak'in size. That third period semi-breakaway he had where he tried to outmaneuver the d-man was not good. He should just use his size to his advantage and move people where he needs to.

[andyw2100]

McCarron's goal was from my angle pretty nifty looking. I would have loved to see a replay of it.

That goal was really set up by some great play and then an excellent pass by Ferlin. I'm almost certain the way the goal was announced Ferlin was not credited with the second assist, but checking the box score today I see that he now has been. In my mind he's at least as responsible for that goal as McCarron is.

On another note, no one has commented on the really gruesome cut Freschi had after the pileup that led to the penalty shot. He seemed to not realize how badly he was cut until his teammates told him about it. He must have taken a skate blade to the neck, as he had what looked like a very clean, very sharp cut that must have been at least six to eight inches long on his neck. It was ugly. We were really pleased to see him return with a large bandage covering the wound. Hoping he'll heal quickly, and that it looked a lot worse than it was, because it looked terrible.

[jek86]

I haven't seen Bardreau on the ice.  Apparently he did tweek something at the end of the game last week.

Knee...I heard him say that he'll be back soon.  We can only hope.

per schafer post game interview "hopefully out only 2-3 weeks"

[css228]

I think the early-00 squads were simply playing against older-style offenses not coached to specifically counter The System. I suspect the success of The System was a window that has closed, at least temporarily, as a result of changes to other systems.

I don't know, this makes The System sound like it deserves the capital letters. Cornell plays pretty basic defensive hockey. It's a modified left wing lock and a puck possession cycle in the offensive zone, with (for reasons that I have not understood since Doug Murray graduated) an umbrella power play. In the defensive zone the team is also playing pretty basic hockey - they're really not doing anything fancy at all beyond elevating shot blocking to an art form. All of these patterns have been around for a long time, and if executed correctly by a team with sufficient talent they can be very effective even against top notch freewheeling offenses that feature a few better, faster players. Cornell's problem has been a mixture of poor execution and talent disparity (those Yale teams were more talented, top to bottom, than the comparable Cornell teams - the team with Nash/Nash/Greening all leaving and ending up in the pros was probably the closest to the top Yale team of that recruiting cycle, but Cornell's second line was totally outclassed).

In terms of the talent problem, I think it's affecting Cornell in a way that's a little bit different from the way we usually talk about it. Cornell can no longer field a very efficient team of decent players and dominate the ECAC, because the rest of the league is just better than it used to be. From what little I've been able to see in recent years Cornell has gotten better talent over time, but the improvement has not been as fast as what we've seen with the other ECAC contenders (who seem to be light years ahead of the 2002-2006 span when Cornell was at its peak). Yes, some of Cornell's recent teams have under-performed (particularly last season) but probably not by as much as people seem to think, because the pre-season fan assessment of Cornell's talent level always seems to me to be much greater than the actual performance players exhibit on the ice. The fans inevitably blame the coaches, and they could be right, but given the quality of the coaches and the program's results over this span I'm a lot more comfortable betting that the fans are the ones who got it wrong.

The second problem is either execution or margin for error, depending on how you look at things. A defensive style of play with its entire offense predicated on puck possession coming out of the corners simply can't afford to make any mistakes that lead to cheap goals for faster opponents, or even the kind of mistakes that lead to moderate increases in puck possession for the other side (to say nothing of the monster puck possession swings every one of Cornell's breakout attempts seemed to give to Yale). Back in 2008, when everyone was calling for Schafer's head and it was the end of the world as we know it, Cornell's primary problem was positioning - they'd take a bad line and get beaten to the puck or take dumb penalties or just have too many guys behind the net. In more recent years the primary problem seems to be passing - it's awful, at least when compared to the best teams in the league (Yale). That's why the breakout suffers, and that's why Cornell keeps giving the puck back to those teams. Cornell has been playing with fire with its passing since, basically, 2006. I think the Big Red got away with it against all but the best (again, Yale) because they had periods of strong special teams (at least on the kill, but even one or two seasons on the PP as well) and pretty consistent positional execution, but eventually the wheels came off the bus. Consider last year a perfect storm of badness for Cornell - poor passing led to loss of possession, stupid penalties gave opponents even more opportunities, and awful special teams ensured that opponents took full advantage while Cornell just couldn't generate any easy goals.

To the extent that it's impossible to improve the team's passing and special teams play within the context of the system Cornell has today I guess I agree that the system is the problem, but I just don't see how those things (with the possible exception of the umbrella) are inextricably related, at least not in terms of on-ice execution.

In news that appears to be irrelevant to this thread, I guess Cornell beat Princeton.

What would you propose other than the umbrella on the power play? Overload? 1-3-1? Do we really have the skills and hands to play a 1-3-1 or an overload? I don't think so. Truth is our guys are just less talented than some of our opponents. Dominating puck possession IS about being more skilled. Look at the teams the dominate Corsi and Fenwick. They're the teams that are running out Toews and Kane, or Richards, Kopitar, and Doughty. Teams with Datsyuk, Franzen, and Zetterberg. We don't have the college equivalent of that talent. Not even close. We're more the college equivalent of a Nashville. Solid defense, but nothing up front that's ever going to make you jealous.