Upcoming Season '15-16

[Jim Hyla]

Look who'll be skating for Harvard this season.

Ryan Donato | Forward | 6-1 | 181 | Boston, Mass. | Dexter School | Omaha Lancers (USHL)/South Shore Kings (USPHL)
2014 second round draft pick (56 overall) of the Boston Bruins

Graduated from Dexter School ... Played at Dexter School, serving as the captain his senior season ... Tallied 53 points on 18 goals and 35 assists in 2014-15, leading the team in both categories ... Also skated with the Omaha Lancers (USHL) and the South Shore Kings (USPHL Premier) in 2014-15, posting 10 points with each squad ... Played with the U.S. National U18 team (USDP) for four games each of the last two seasons ... Skated with the Cape Cod Whalers' U16 and U18 teams from 2011-14 ... Father, Ted Donato '91, was a part of the Crimson's 1989 NCAA Championship and is entering his 12th season as the head coach of Harvard.

Good cheers anyone?

[RichH]

I always threw out a "Nep-o-ti-sm" at Gaudet's kid.

[scoop85]

I always threw out a "Nep-o-ti-sm" at Gaudet's kid.

Given that Donato is a top-shelf player, I think the Faithful should come up with something else

[Beeeej]

I always threw out a "Nep-o-ti-sm" at Gaudet's kid.

Given that Donato is a top-shelf player, I think the Faithful should come up with something else

Yeah, slightly harder to make the nepotism case with a second-round pick.

How's his hairline?

[RichH]

I always threw out a "Nep-o-ti-sm" at Gaudet's kid.

Given that Donato is a top-shelf player, I think the Faithful should come up with something else

Right. Because "Safety School" is always used with literal gravitas. Comedy is supposed to be fun.

He may be good enough, but that doesn't mean he's smart enough.

I also submit, going on Beeeej's thought, "Baby Rogaine."

[scoop85]

I always threw out a "Nep-o-ti-sm" at Gaudet's kid.

Given that Donato is a top-shelf player, I think the Faithful should come up with something else

Right. Because "Safety School" is always used with literal gravitas. Comedy is supposed to be fun.

He may be good enough, but that doesn't mean he's smart enough.

I also submit, going on Beeeej's thought, "Baby Rogaine."

Yeah, that's more like it

[marty]

I always threw out a "Nep-o-ti-sm" at Gaudet's kid.

Given that Donato is a top-shelf player, I think the Faithful should come up with something else

Right. Because "Safety School" is always used with literal gravitas. Comedy is supposed to be fun.

He may be good enough, but that doesn't mean he's smart enough.

I also submit, going on Beeeej's thought, "Baby Rogaine."

Yeah, that's more like it

I resemble that remark.

[LynahFaithful]

Look who'll be skating for Harvard this season.

How do these guys compare to our recruiting class?  http://www.cornellbigred.com/news/2015/6/18/MICE_0618155339.aspx

On a side note, our recruiting class has many 7 forwards that are considerably smaller (height and weight wise) than what I think is typically recruited by Cornell.  Will the emphasis this season be more on puck possession and skating into the offensive zone than Schafer's signature dump and chase?

[RichH]

Look who'll be skating for Harvard this season.

How do these guys compare to our recruiting class?  http://www.cornellbigred.com/news/2015/6/18/MICE_0618155339.aspx

On a side note, our recruiting class has many 7 forwards that are considerably smaller (height and weight wise) than what I think is typically recruited by Cornell.  Will the emphasis this season be more on puck possession and skating into the offensive zone than Schafer's signature dump and chase?

Ha, "many forwards." It's pretty hard to generalize a group of 5. We have as just as many incoming forwards who are 6'5" as we do under 6'. Schafer has a history of successful "big men," yes, but also has a history of smaller players: Topher, Vesce, Gallagher, Romano, Jillson, Roeszler, etc. And I never pay much attention to the incoming weight stats as it's fairly common for Cornell players to bulk up as soon as they hit the program. (See Bergin, Tony)

Also, "signature dump and chase?" The CU offense changes its style of puck penetration depending on the puckhandling skills on hand, and the relative defensive skill of opponents. To say otherwise is a bit disingenuous. If anything is "signature," it's a defense built from the net outward, and an offense focused on puck-possession.

[LynahFaithful]

Schafer has a history of successful "big men," yes, but also has a history of smaller players: Topher, Vesce, Gallagher, Romano, Jillson, Roeszler, etc. And I never pay much attention to the incoming weight stats as it's fairly common for Cornell players to bulk up as soon as they hit the program. (See Bergin, Tony)

Very true.  However, but from observing the last few years, it's evident that Cornell players have been bigger compared to most, if not all, of their opponents. In fact, it was known that last year's roster was the biggest (tallest) by height and 2nd biggest (heaviest) by weight in all of NCAA Hockey.  For 3 of the 7 (2 forwards) to be coming in at 180 lbs or less seems a little out of the ordinary to me but as you mentioned, "it's likely they'll bulk up".  

Also, "signature dump and chase?" The CU offense changes its style of puck penetration depending on the puckhandling skills on hand, and the relative defensive skill of opponents. To say otherwise is a bit disingenuous. If anything is "signature," it's a defense built from the net outward, and an offense focused on puck-possession.

What I said above is a good transition into replying to this, but first I must ask: Are we talking about the same hockey team?

Correct me if I am wrong, but from everything I know, Schafer since being head coach has always promoted a physical, defense-first, and conservative style of play which might not be pure "Dump and Chase" hockey but is a close descendant (Cornell under Schafer has consistently low-scoring games).  I agree that defense has historically been built from the net outward, but I certainly would not say "offense is focused on puck-possession".  In fact, Cornell hockey alum, Ken Dryden, even criticizes the "Dump and Chase" style of hockey in his book The Game refuting many aspects of Schafer-run Cornell teams who have employed such aspects.  From talking to current Cornell players, they note the conservative style of hockey they play here compared to their previous junior level teams and most other NCAA teams who revolve MUCH MORE around puck possession/handling.  Referencing what I said above, having bigger players (makes Dump and Chase easier to run and) enables an easier time winning the physical battles, hoping to thrash the defense around in order to create scoring chances rather than intricate passing, skating, and puck handling.  This is exactly why, as you noted, "Schafer has a history of successful 'big men'" (especially forwards) to enable a physical play-style.  

I am not saying that Cornell hockey plays pure Dump and Chase 100% of the time and doesn't change their puck penetration method based on the opponent, but when it comes to Dump and Chase in college hockey, I would say Cornell certainly employs it more than most.  Critics of Cornell hockey (and people advocating for a new hockey coach) criticize Cornell's play-style and it's lack of adaptation in today's world of college hockey because of everything I described above.

[Trotsky]

My impression is we fall into "dump and chase" only when we are out of sync.  The Plan is to keep possession, carry the puck into the zone, and then charge the net, drop pass, or set up on the periphery based on the defensive reaction.

I'll grant we've been out of sync a lot more than usual lately.

I don't think anyone would argue that Schafer's strategy is defense-first and allows for offensive creativity only once the team has the blue line sown up.  This used to work great.  Now, not so much.  The officiating and the quality of the ECAC recruits has changed.  I still believe that Mike is Gorbachev, not Yanayev, and the changes we've been seeing the past few years are Glasnost, not the Prague Spring.

[LynahFaithful]

My impression is we fall into "dump and chase" only when we are out of sync.  The Plan is to keep possession, carry the puck into the zone, and then charge the net, drop pass, or set up on the periphery based on the defensive reaction.

I'll grant we've been out of sync a lot more than usual lately.

I'll agree partially.  I think that's part of the play-style - it does not require much thought ahead of time and can be easily played, especially with the big guys Cornell recruits.  When things get out of sync, it's easy to be physical and play Dump and Chase aiming to get back into sync (as long as penalties and sloppiness don't ensue).  From talking with players and reviewing past games it appears, to me at least, that the dump and chase is the default offensive method and depending on the scenario/personnel/instance, certain players can carry it into the offensive zone if they see that as better for scoring.

[RichH]

What I said above is a good transition into replying to this, but first I must ask: Are we talking about the same hockey team?

Correct me if I am wrong, but from everything I know, Schafer since being head coach has always promoted a physical, defense-first, and conservative style of play which might not be pure "Dump and Chase" hockey but is a close descendant (Cornell under Schafer has consistently low-scoring games).  I agree that defense has historically been built from the net outward, but I certainly would not say "offense is focused on puck-possession".  In fact, Cornell hockey alum, Ken Dryden, even criticizes the "Dump and Chase" style of hockey in his book The Game refuting many aspects of Schafer-run Cornell teams who have employed such aspects.  From talking to current Cornell players, they note the conservative style of hockey they play here compared to their previous junior level teams and most other NCAA teams who revolve MUCH MORE around puck possession/handling.  Referencing what I said above, having bigger players (makes Dump and Chase easier to run and) enables an easier time winning the physical battles, hoping to thrash the defense around in order to create scoring chances rather than intricate passing, skating, and puck handling.  This is exactly why, as you noted, "Schafer has a history of successful 'big men'" (especially forwards) to enable a physical play-style.  

I am not saying that Cornell hockey plays pure Dump and Chase 100% of the time and doesn't change their puck penetration method based on the opponent, but when it comes to Dump and Chase in college hockey, I would say Cornell certainly employs it more than most.  Critics of Cornell hockey (and people advocating for a new hockey coach) criticize Cornell's play-style and it's lack of adaptation in today's world of college hockey because of everything I described above.

First, I'll reiterate my point: to say a dump-and-chase is the "signature" strategy of Schafer-run teams is disingenuous. Cornell, for the better part of 15 years, has focused on puck possession as the means to run offenses. I would argue the "signature" strategy of his offense is based on setting up a sustained cycle low in the corners. How that end is achieved varies with the skills of the players on hand. Two seasons ago, the most employed strategy to do this was to "let Brian Ferlin carry it in alone (tm)" because he was simply good at using his body positioning (and size) to protect and move the puck.  The most successful and talented lines have had no problem running a skate-and-pass effort. As you correctly mentioned, many forwards at Cornell have employed their superior size and physicality to muscle the puck deep into the offensive corners. But there's simply a number of Cornell players who have lacked the puckhandling skills needed, so they employ the dump and chase to achieve the goal.

Now you mentioned Dryden. I've read The Game, and I assure you that Mike Schafer isn't mentioned. When Dryden discusses teams that dump-and-chase, it was to point out that they simply weren't anywhere close to the skill of his Canadien teams. You dump-and-chase because you can't match up to the skills of the opposing defense. As Cornell's profile and reputation has risen over the years (as well as the caliber of ECAC teams, much to the chagrin of some vocal posters on this forum), they simply have seen a higher quality of opponent. We're playing teams like BU, Denver, and North Dakota more often as opposed to Sacred Hearts and Canisiuses of the OOC landscape. We have been seeing a lot more skillful defenses than in the past. When Cornell is outmatched by other teams, they dump-and-chase more. When they are outmatching opponents, they don't.

I'm willing to entertain criticisms in a couple aspects: 1) Recruiting. Why aren't a higher percentage of excellent puckhandlers finding their way here? 2) Is the Sustained Low Cycle strategy right for this team in this era? It worked great for the 2002-2006 squads, but can we mold a methodology to significantly and sustainably increase scoring in a different way given the players we currently have?

I don't know the answer to either.

[LynahFaithful]

What I said above is a good transition into replying to this, but first I must ask: Are we talking about the same hockey team?

Correct me if I am wrong, but from everything I know, Schafer since being head coach has always promoted a physical, defense-first, and conservative style of play which might not be pure "Dump and Chase" hockey but is a close descendant (Cornell under Schafer has consistently low-scoring games).  I agree that defense has historically been built from the net outward, but I certainly would not say "offense is focused on puck-possession".  In fact, Cornell hockey alum, Ken Dryden, even criticizes the "Dump and Chase" style of hockey in his book The Game refuting many aspects of Schafer-run Cornell teams who have employed such aspects.  From talking to current Cornell players, they note the conservative style of hockey they play here compared to their previous junior level teams and most other NCAA teams who revolve MUCH MORE around puck possession/handling.  Referencing what I said above, having bigger players (makes Dump and Chase easier to run and) enables an easier time winning the physical battles, hoping to thrash the defense around in order to create scoring chances rather than intricate passing, skating, and puck handling.  This is exactly why, as you noted, "Schafer has a history of successful 'big men'" (especially forwards) to enable a physical play-style.  

I am not saying that Cornell hockey plays pure Dump and Chase 100% of the time and doesn't change their puck penetration method based on the opponent, but when it comes to Dump and Chase in college hockey, I would say Cornell certainly employs it more than most.  Critics of Cornell hockey (and people advocating for a new hockey coach) criticize Cornell's play-style and it's lack of adaptation in today's world of college hockey because of everything I described above.

First, I'll reiterate my point: to say a dump-and-chase is the "signature" strategy of Schafer-run teams is disingenuous. Cornell, for the better part of 15 years, has focused on puck possession as the means to run offenses. I would argue the "signature" strategy of his offense is based on setting up a sustained cycle low in the corners. How that end is achieved varies with the skills of the players on hand. Two seasons ago, the most employed strategy to do this was to "let Brian Ferlin carry it in alone (tm)" because he was simply good at using his body positioning (and size) to protect and move the puck.  The most successful and talented lines have had no problem running a skate-and-pass effort. As you correctly mentioned, many forwards at Cornell have employed their superior size and physicality to muscle the puck deep into the offensive corners. But there's simply a number of Cornell players who have lacked the puckhandling skills needed, so they employ the dump and chase to achieve the goal.

Now you mentioned Dryden. I've read The Game, and I assure you that Mike Schafer isn't mentioned. When Dryden discusses teams that dump-and-chase, it was to point out that they simply weren't anywhere close to the skill of his Canadien teams. You dump-and-chase because you can't match up to the skills of the opposing defense. As Cornell's profile and reputation has risen over the years (as well as the caliber of ECAC teams, much to the chagrin of some vocal posters on this forum), they simply have seen a higher quality of opponent. We're playing teams like BU, Denver, and North Dakota more often as opposed to Sacred Hearts and Canisiuses of the OOC landscape. We have been seeing a lot more skillful defenses than in the past. When Cornell is outmatched by other teams, they dump-and-chase more. When they are outmatching opponents, they don't.

I'm willing to entertain criticisms in a couple aspects: 1) Recruiting. Why aren't a higher percentage of excellent puckhandlers finding their way here? 2) Is the Sustained Low Cycle strategy right for this team in this era? It worked great for the 2002-2006 squads, but can we mold a methodology to significantly and sustainably increase scoring in a different way given the players we currently have?

I don't know the answer to either.

Very good points.  You made a good point regarding getting the puck into the corners and a couple years ago, this was made possible through Brian Ferlin carrying it in.  Analogously last season, Bardreau did a good portion of that.  Distinctly, I remember this when Cornell scored the third goal against Harvard last year after Bardreau carried it in.  

You concluded with some good questions there that I don't necessarily have answers to either.  I would like to point out though that if he has any new methodology in store for this season, the first four games are relatively low on our priority list and they would not be bad for experimenting with.  If the experimentation goes wrong, he can go back to what he knows works for the remainder of the season.

[RichH]

The first four games are pretty low priority which is nice compared to other recent seasons, I agree. I can see playing around with setting the lines for those games, too. Hopefully those solidify early so the lines aren't still being juggled around in February.  So often, the early games take on a higher importance with our limited OOC in respect to having hope for At-Large bid chances. Last season, we had to go on the road for a tough series vs. UNO right out of the gate, who had been playing for nearly a month. Now a home-and-home with Niagara followed immediately by a string of league games may be a good thing.

Good discussion. It helped get my head really thinking about the upcoming season. Ned knows, I have had tons of patience with this team, but I really need to start seeing more scoring...please.