Frozen Four

[Jim Hyla]

Sure, sure— +/- is meaningless. But Gostisbehere was +7 in this game.

I haven't seen a guy dominate a game like that since Kariya or Nieuwy.  I haven't seen a defenseman dominate a game like that, ever.

Fuckin' A.  The best part is the Flyers have to write him a blank check.  Oddly, we contained him in a way Minny couldn't.

That Union team was much, much better than Yale 2011 or ever Cornell 2003.  I think we have to go back to the Harvard teams of the late 80's to get an ECAC team that was so perfectly balanced.

Now I hope the fuckers completely implode and never compete again.

I have. :-}

[Scersk '97]

I think we have to go back to the Harvard teams of the late 80's to get an ECAC team that was so perfectly balanced.

Union certainly reminded me of those Harvard teams. ('97, but season tickets since 1987–88.) Every pass had purpose and velocity. There was a trailer, sometimes two, after every shot to scoop up rebounds. When necessary, they scored dirty goals.

I'm sure our team was watching; I hope they take those particular lessons to heart.

I'm sure all the associated naysayers on here will scoff, and perhaps it's just my Carnelian-tinted specs, but I don't see an overwhelming talent differential between us and Union. I've seen Ryan do a lot of things that Gostisbehere does; Bardreau can do the things Ciampini does. I think Hilbrich is poised for an enormous breakout year, and, paired with proper linemates, may start to dominate games offensively in ways that we haven't seen in a while and in a way that Union doesn't. MacDonald = Bodie... you can go on.

What Union had was what makes every moving part mesh and drive toward one common goal. It's what was missing from the 2013 Cornell team; it's what the 2014 team started to relearn. It's what drives guys to take one strong stride to make sure there's a trailer on every chance, to block every shot possible, to keep mental focus, to sacrifice the body in order to sweep up the garbage in front of the net. Put simply: teamwork.

If one of our crop of goalies turns out, I expect, even without Ferlin, it's going to be a pretty great ride next year.

[Towerroad]

I think we have to go back to the Harvard teams of the late 80's to get an ECAC team that was so perfectly balanced.

Union certainly reminded me of those Harvard teams. ('97, but season tickets since 1987–88.) Every pass had purpose and velocity. There was a trailer, sometimes two, after every shot to scoop up rebounds. When necessary, they scored dirty goals.

I'm sure our team was watching; I hope they take those particular lessons to heart.

I'm sure all the associated naysayers on here will scoff, and perhaps it's just my Carnelian-tinted specs, but I don't see an overwhelming talent differential between us and Union. I've seen Ryan do a lot of things that Gostisbehere does; Bardreau can do the things Ciampini does. I think Hilbrich is poised for an enormous breakout year, and, paired with proper linemates, may start to dominate games offensively in ways that we haven't seen in a while and in a way that Union doesn't. MacDonald = Bodie... you can go on.

What Union had was what makes every moving part mesh and drive toward one common goal. It's what was missing from the 2013 Cornell team; it's what the 2014 team started to relearn. It's what drives guys to take one strong stride to make sure there's a trailer on every chance, to block every shot possible, to keep mental focus, to sacrifice the body in order to sweep up the garbage in front of the net. Put simply: teamwork.

If one of our crop of goalies turns out, I expect, even without Ferlin, it's going to be a pretty great ride next year.

That is some set of glasses. This year we played Union 3 times and the beat us 3 times 3-0, 4-1 and 5-2. All told the collective score was 12-3. If our talent was rougly equivalent, the why were we so soundly thrashed. If Cornell was not playing as a team what specific steps should be taken to change this?

[Al DeFlorio]

Sure, sure— +/- is meaningless. But Gostisbehere was +7 in this game.

I haven't seen a guy dominate a game like that since Kariya or Nieuwy.  I haven't seen a defenseman dominate a game like that, ever.

Fuckin' A.  The best part is the Flyers have to write him a blank check.  Oddly, we contained him in a way Minny couldn't.

That Union team was much, much better than Yale 2011 or ever Cornell 2003.  I think we have to go back to the Harvard teams of the late 80's to get an ECAC team that was so perfectly balanced.

Now I hope the fuckers completely implode and never compete again.

I have. :-}

I was thinking the same thing when Melrose made a similar comment after last night's game.

[Scersk '97]

That is some set of glasses. This year we played Union 3 times and the beat us 3 times 3-0, 4-1 and 5-2. All told the collective score was 12-3. If our talent was rougly equivalent, the why were we so soundly thrashed. If Cornell was not playing as a team what specific steps should be taken to change this?

First off, we lost three games, nothing more; we were hardly "soundly thrashed" in all three—only game one, but largely due to circumstances covered below. Both games two and three, which we were definitely "in" (as much as Minnesota ever was after they lost the lead), were two-goal losses with empty netters tacked on. So, get your facts straight. And collective scores only matter in two-game total goals series, which no one does anymore because of the obvious stupidity, so citing them is meaningless.

One flippant answer is that we ought to remain healthy: we were missing Bardreau for game one, and Mowrey for games two and three. (Imagine Union without Vecchione or Novak.) Another flippant answer is that we ought to work on finding consistent goaltending: Iles let in a woefully easy one in the first at Lake Placid. Yes, easy to blame the goalie, but the shot was super soft. We never had a lead in any of those games, but we were playing like we might find one at Placid until that softy went in.

Going deeper, I think one of the glaring holes in our game right now is at the dot, save for Bardreau. Kubiak, Knisley, and Freschi have to step it up next year, starting in the weight room this summer. (Maybe Joe can be induced to come and work a small clinic with them.) Union was a great puck possession team, and that weakness up the middle is what led to the lopsided shot totals in the first game. Win faceoffs; win control. We can harp on the offense all we want, but I think team defense is still an issue. In both games one and three, Union had 31 shots. For a few years now, the opposing shots per game has been creeping up. I'd like to see it back down under 25. Puck possession has a lot to do with that as well, since the other team can't be shooting when you're cycling in their end. And, as afraid as I am to say it because I don't want this to turn into a Schafer bashing thread, the players need to take control of the power play. We were 0 for 6 across those three games, with stretches of 5 on 3 in games two and three. Whatever the coaches want them to do isn't working all the time, if at all, so they need to inject some creativity. (It's the facet of our play that depends the most on player creativity. Always has.) I remember the 2003 team's first unit doing things mid-game that could not have been coached, since they were doing it in the middle of a given power play. So, I guess Knisley needs to find his inner Vesce, and Kubiak needs to get better at sweeping up the garbage. (I see him as basically Paolini with more speed and yet to mature skills.) With Ferlin gone, neither power play is likely to remain the same, so maybe a shake-up will be to their benefit.

So, that's my start: (1) develop the young centers and work on faceoffs in general, so that we might improve at the dot; (2) focus on lowering shots against; and (3) inject some creativity into the power play.

[Towerroad]

That is some set of glasses. This year we played Union 3 times and the beat us 3 times 3-0, 4-1 and 5-2. All told the collective score was 12-3. If our talent was rougly equivalent, the why were we so soundly thrashed. If Cornell was not playing as a team what specific steps should be taken to change this?

First off, we lost three games, nothing more; we were hardly "soundly thrashed" in all three—only game one, but largely due to circumstances covered below. Both games two and three, which we were definitely "in" (as much as Minnesota ever was after they lost the lead), were two-goal losses with empty netters tacked on. So, get your facts straight. And collective scores only matter in two-game total goals series, which no one does anymore because of the obvious stupidity, so citing them is meaningless.

One flippant answer is that we ought to remain healthy: we were missing Bardreau for game one, and Mowrey for games two and three. (Imagine Union without Vecchione or Novak.) Another flippant answer is that we ought to work on finding consistent goaltending: Iles let in a woefully easy one in the first at Lake Placid. Yes, easy to blame the goalie, but the shot was super soft. We never had a lead in any of those games, but we were playing like we might find one at Placid until that softy went in.

Going deeper, I think one of the glaring holes in our game right now is at the dot, save for Bardreau. Kubiak, Knisley, and Freschi have to step it up next year, starting in the weight room this summer. (Maybe Joe can be induced to come and work a small clinic with them.) Union was a great puck possession team, and that weakness up the middle is what led to the lopsided shot totals in the first game. Win faceoffs; win control. We can harp on the offense all we want, but I think team defense is still an issue. In both games one and three, Union had 31 shots. For a few years now, the opposing shots per game has been creeping up. I'd like to see it back down under 25. Puck possession has a lot to do with that as well, since the other team can't be shooting when you're cycling in their end. And, as afraid as I am to say it because I don't want this to turn into a Schafer bashing thread, the players need to take control of the power play. We were 0 for 6 across those three games, with stretches of 5 on 3 in games two and three. Whatever the coaches want them to do isn't working all the time, if at all, so they need to inject some creativity. (It's the facet of our play that depends the most on player creativity. Always has.) I remember the 2003 team's first unit doing things mid-game that could not have been coached, since they were doing it in the middle of a given power play. So, I guess Knisley needs to find his inner Vesce, and Kubiak needs to get better at sweeping up the garbage. (I see him as basically Paolini with more speed and yet to mature skills.) With Ferlin gone, neither power play is likely to remain the same, so maybe a shake-up will be to their benefit.

So, that's my start: (1) develop the young centers and work on faceoffs in general, so that we might improve at the dot; (2) focus on lowering shots against; and (3) inject some creativity into the power play.

Sorry, Denial is more than a river in Egypt. 12-3 after 180 min of hockey or even 10-3 if you substract the ENG's is my definition of a whipping.

[Trotsky]

They whipped us, but I don't think that rebuts the statement that the huge difference wasn't talent but teamwork.

The other big difference is maturity: those guys are about 45.

[jkahn]

Sure, sure— +/- is meaningless. But Gostisbehere was +7 in this game.

I haven't seen a guy dominate a game like that since Kariya or Nieuwy.  I haven't seen a defenseman dominate a game like that, ever.

Fuckin' A.  The best part is the Flyers have to write him a blank check.  Oddly, we contained him in a way Minny couldn't.

That Union team was much, much better than Yale 2011 or ever Cornell 2003.  I think we have to go back to the Harvard teams of the late 80's to get an ECAC team that was so perfectly balanced.

Now I hope the fuckers completely implode and never compete again.

I have. :-}

I was thinking the same thing when Melrose made a similar comment after last night's game.

I thought about that same comparison (Dan Lodboa) during Thursday's game.  Saturday night the only valid comparison was Bobby Orr.

[Scersk '97]

Sorry, Denial is more than a river in Egypt. 12-3 after 180 min of hockey or even 10-3 if you substract the ENG's is my definition of a whipping.

Yep, Union really crushed the total goals series this year. Oh, wait, that's right: it still doesn't matter.

Sure, if all three games were "crushings" (i.e., losses in which we lost by a number of goals, were outshot by a wide margin, and were generally dominated) like the first, I'd be worried. But games two and three were hardly "crushings" or "whippings" or whatever you want to call them. I was there in Lake Placid—we weren't being "dominated." Take a look at the box scores if you doubt me. In no way did Union "own" us this year the way Yale did in 2011, and Union this year went on to win the national championship handily. Yeah, losing to the top team sucks, but it's expected. And even though we lost, I came out of that game in Placid pretty bullish on the team. They fought, they worked, and they also showed some talent. Sue me for my optimism, but I see progression from a team that sucked in 2013 to a team that was a contender in 2014. I think that progression will continue, regardless of Ferlin's whereabouts.

So, you can either look at those three losses as "crushings," or as being "handled" by a dominant, eventual national champion. I say potato, you say po-tah-to. I call it optimism tempered with a rational look at the facts; you call it denial, for whatever reason you can concoct.

So, let's both put up or shut up:

Do you think we'll make Placid next year? I'm almost certain that we will.
Do you think we'll make the NCAAs next year? I'm almost certain that we will.

What about you?

We can then revisit this post next year and point fingers. If I'm wrong, you can have the joy of being right about something that sucks. Good for you! You win the Schadenfreudolympiade! But if I'm right?... Ooooh! Won't that be fun? Perhaps you'll confront all kinds of existential questions: "Is fun possible? WHO AM I!!!"

[Scersk '97]

The other big difference is maturity: those guys are about 45.

What did Jack Parker say in 2003?  Something about men and boys?

That being said, Trotz—and I don't know why I have to keep repeating this—they did not "whip" us in games two and three. The game in Placid didn't feel like the championship game against Yale (a 6–0 whipping) in 2011; rather, it felt like Clarkson (a super dominant team with Todd White) at Lynah in 1997. Against Union this year and against Clarkson then, we were in the game but always a step or so behind. Not a huge step, but enough.

[Towerroad]

Sorry, Denial is more than a river in Egypt. 12-3 after 180 min of hockey or even 10-3 if you substract the ENG's is my definition of a whipping.

Yep, Union really crushed the total goals series this year. Oh, wait, that's right: it still doesn't matter.

Sure, if all three games were "crushings" (i.e., losses in which we lost by a number of goals, were outshot by a wide margin, and were generally dominated) like the first, I'd be worried. But games two and three were hardly "crushings" or "whippings" or whatever you want to call them. I was there in Lake Placid—we weren't being "dominated." Take a look at the box scores if you doubt me. In no way did Union "own" us this year the way Yale did in 2011, and Union this year went on to win the national championship handily. Yeah, losing to the top team sucks, but it's expected. And even though we lost, I came out of that game in Placid pretty bullish on the team. They fought, they worked, and they also showed some talent. Sue me for my optimism, but I see progression from a team that sucked in 2013 to a team that was a contender in 2014. I think that progression will continue, regardless of Ferlin's whereabouts.

So, you can either look at those three losses as "crushings," or as being "handled" by a dominant, eventual national champion. I say potato, you say po-tah-to. I call it optimism tempered with a rational look at the facts; you call it denial, for whatever reason you can concoct.

So, let's both put up or shut up:

Do you think we'll make Placid next year? I'm almost certain that we will.
Do you think we'll make the NCAAs next year? I'm almost certain that we will.

What about you?

We can then revisit this post next year and point fingers. If I'm wrong, you can have the joy of being right about something that sucks. Good for you! You win the Schadenfreudolympiade! But if I'm right?... Ooooh! Won't that be fun? Perhaps you'll confront all kinds of existential questions: "Is fun possible? WHO AM I!!!"

In the fall I will post the "What is your definition of a successful season" topic. Right now sitting in my pool of ignorance I would say that I expect a successful season would be a first round bye in the ECAC's. Lets agree to wait until the fall to put a real stake in the ground.

[Jim Hyla]

Sure, sure— +/- is meaningless. But Gostisbehere was +7 in this game.

I haven't seen a guy dominate a game like that since Kariya or Nieuwy.  I haven't seen a defenseman dominate a game like that, ever.

Fuckin' A.  The best part is the Flyers have to write him a blank check.  Oddly, we contained him in a way Minny couldn't.

That Union team was much, much better than Yale 2011 or ever Cornell 2003.  I think we have to go back to the Harvard teams of the late 80's to get an ECAC team that was so perfectly balanced.

Now I hope the fuckers completely implode and never compete again.

I have. :-}

I was thinking the same thing when Melrose made a similar comment after last night's game.

I thought about that same comparison (Dan Lodboa) during Thursday's game.  Saturday night the only valid comparison was Bobby Orr.

I don't know, a natural hat trick in the third period of the championship game, including a 2 men down shortie, is pretty impressive, especially for a defenseman.

[billhoward]

The other big difference is maturity: those guys are about 45.

What did Jack Parker say in 2003?  Something about men and boys?

That being said, Trotz—and I don't know why I have to keep repeating this—they did not "whip" us in games two and three. The game in Placid didn't feel like the championship game against Yale (a 6–0 whipping) in 2011; rather, it felt like Clarkson (a super dominant team with Todd White) at Lynah in 1997. Against Union this year and against Clarkson then, we were in the game but always a step or so behind. Not a huge step, but enough.

I stopped writing my post when I saw this. We can explain away losing to Union by a couple and in a 5-2 game a lot of people guess there's an ENG. We cut the margin to 3-2 in the second and that margin held for, ah, 18 seconds. There is no way you can explain away a 6-0 butt kicking. Yale-Cornell was Little Big Horn all over again.

[Larry72]

Dan Lodboa came to mind while I was watching last night.  That was the last time I recall a defenseman taking control of an NCAA championship game.  Cornell was NOT going to lose that night in 1970 against Clarkson.  A lot like Union wasn't going to lose against Minnesota last night.  Both games were total team efforts, but both featured a defenseman who was playing on a different planet.  I may have mixed feelings, but Shane Gostisbehere was awesome Saturday night. As was Dan Lodboa in 1970.

[billhoward]

In the fall I will post the "What is your definition of a successful season" topic. Right now sitting in my pool of ignorance I would say that I expect a successful season would be a first round bye in the ECAC's. Lets agree to wait until the fall to put a real stake in the ground.

Last fall we were Charlie Brown lowballing our chances, fearful that if we hoped for too much, Lucy would pull the football away again. What's wrong with hoping for a 2-3 finish and avoiding Union until Saturday night in Lake Placid?

It hurts a lot more to be North Dakota. If ever the Fighting ... what, North Dakotans ... come back to Ithaca, print up a bath of 0.6 shirts. That was a choke for the ages. If it wasn't a choke, fans think it was. Correction, know it was. You don't allow SHGs.