CU vs Dartmouth 01/22/16

[ugarte]

First Dartmouth goal, Gillam makes the save right into a Cornellian skate and in. Second Dartmouth goal, Hilbrich slides to block the puck pops in the air and then you'll have to read the Warren Commission report to figure out how it got in the net but Gillam didn't have a chance. This team is very good defensively.

But they really do look lost on offense a lot of the time despite often looking individually like players that would do well if there were some kind of offensive system in place. HMMMMMM is what I'm saying. HMMMMMMM

[redice]

I felt the team looked tired against Dartmouth; all game long!!  

I wondered if Mike had been practicing them too hard.   Whatever the case, they better find a way to become rejuvenated tonight against Hahvahd.

[Johnny 5]

Maybe this is the team we were told to expect back in October??
But, on a positive note, we did make USCHO!!
Now, I need to decide if I want to make the very long drive in from B-F, Egypt to watch them get battered again?!

::help::

[upprdeck]

i dont think 4 shots is really close to the activity really generated in the 3rd.. it was much more like 10 and we probably took close to 30 shots.

[Scersk '97]

Schafer, from the USCHO recap:

"We refuse to stay in front of the net, we refuse to shoot pucks, [and] now we want to make one extra pass as opposed to putting it on net."

Maybe I do know something about hockey, because I've been frustrated with the same things. Maybe after this weekend we can go back to playing dirty goal, pressure-oriented hockey.

[ugarte]

Schafer, from the USCHO recap:

"We refuse to stay in front of the net, we refuse to shoot pucks, [and] now we want to make one extra pass as opposed to putting it on net."

Maybe I do know something about hockey, because I've been frustrated with the same things. Maybe after this weekend we can go back to playing dirty goal, pressure-oriented hockey.

Right? I'm glad he noticed and said something and maybe will do something because I was fully prepared to blame this on the guy in the suit.

[css228]

Schafer, from the USCHO recap:

"We refuse to stay in front of the net, we refuse to shoot pucks, [and] now we want to make one extra pass as opposed to putting it on net."

Maybe I do know something about hockey, because I've been frustrated with the same things. Maybe after this weekend we can go back to playing dirty goal, pressure-oriented hockey.

Right? I'm glad he noticed and said something and maybe will do something because I was fully prepared to blame this on the guy in the suit.

As long as Schafer refuses to realize that the vast majority of this is on his conservative neutral zone style which all but concedes both blue lines, its still on the man in the suit.

[Jim Hyla]

Schafer, from the USCHO recap:

"We refuse to stay in front of the net, we refuse to shoot pucks, [and] now we want to make one extra pass as opposed to putting it on net."

Maybe I do know something about hockey, because I've been frustrated with the same things. Maybe after this weekend we can go back to playing dirty goal, pressure-oriented hockey.

Right? I'm glad he noticed and said something and maybe will do something because I was fully prepared to blame this on the guy in the suit.

As long as Schafer refuses to realize that the vast majority of this is on his conservative neutral zone style which all but concedes both blue lines, its still on the man in the suit.

Did you see the RPI game?

[Swampy]

Schafer, from the USCHO recap:

"We refuse to stay in front of the net, we refuse to shoot pucks, [and] now we want to make one extra pass as opposed to putting it on net."

Maybe I do know something about hockey, because I've been frustrated with the same things. Maybe after this weekend we can go back to playing dirty goal, pressure-oriented hockey.

Right? I'm glad he noticed and said something and maybe will do something because I was fully prepared to blame this on the guy in the suit.

As long as Schafer refuses to realize that the vast majority of this is on his conservative neutral zone style which all but concedes both blue lines, its still on the man in the suit.

Did you see the RPI game?

I haven't seen any games this season, except highlights. But from what I've read, the RPI game was unusual. Why, I'm not sure. RPI has done better than Dartmouth & Union, yet we dominated RPI.

My one thought on this is that by the time we played tOSU opposing coaches began to see how to exploit our shortcomings.

Any thoughts on this from those of you who've seen us play throughout this season?

[css228]

Schafer, from the USCHO recap:

"We refuse to stay in front of the net, we refuse to shoot pucks, [and] now we want to make one extra pass as opposed to putting it on net."

Maybe I do know something about hockey, because I've been frustrated with the same things. Maybe after this weekend we can go back to playing dirty goal, pressure-oriented hockey.

Right? I'm glad he noticed and said something and maybe will do something because I was fully prepared to blame this on the guy in the suit.

As long as Schafer refuses to realize that the vast majority of this is on his conservative neutral zone style which all but concedes both blue lines, its still on the man in the suit.

Did you see the RPI game?

I haven't seen any games this season, except highlights. But from what I've read, the RPI game was unusual. Why, I'm not sure. RPI has done better than Dartmouth & Union, yet we dominated RPI.

My one thought on this is that by the time we played tOSU opposing coaches began to see how to exploit our shortcomings.

Any thoughts on this from those of you who've seen us play throughout this season?

Well RPI's PDO is 103 and their possession statistics suck. So maybe they're just not as good as everyone thinks.

[marty]

Schafer, from the USCHO recap:

"We refuse to stay in front of the net, we refuse to shoot pucks, [and] now we want to make one extra pass as opposed to putting it on net."

Maybe I do know something about hockey, because I've been frustrated with the same things. Maybe after this weekend we can go back to playing dirty goal, pressure-oriented hockey.

Right? I'm glad he noticed and said something and maybe will do something because I was fully prepared to blame this on the guy in the suit.

As long as Schafer refuses to realize that the vast majority of this is on his conservative neutral zone style which all but concedes both blue lines, its still on the man in the suit.

Did you see the RPI game?

I haven't seen any games this season, except highlights.

Any thoughts on this from those of you who've seen us play throughout this season?

See for yourself.  Many said Kasdorf stole this game but I think RPI's defense was half the story.

http://rpitv.org/productions/1030-mens-hockey-vs-cornell

[Scersk '97]

Schafer, from the USCHO recap:

"We refuse to stay in front of the net, we refuse to shoot pucks, [and] now we want to make one extra pass as opposed to putting it on net."

Maybe I do know something about hockey, because I've been frustrated with the same things. Maybe after this weekend we can go back to playing dirty goal, pressure-oriented hockey.

Right? I'm glad he noticed and said something and maybe will do something because I was fully prepared to blame this on the guy in the suit.

As long as Schafer refuses to realize that the vast majority of this is on his conservative neutral zone style which all but concedes both blue lines, its still on the man in the suit.

If you're going to bitch, at least address the Dartmouth game in the Dartmouth thread. Otherwise, start a new thread——"Fire Schafer," I suggest.

We didn't lose the Dartmouth game because of our neutral-zone play, we lost it because of the things Schafer addressed in his quote, i.e., the things that lead to putting the puck in the net when things aren't bouncing your way. As far as I could see, he was spot on. (Which is probably why we saw Anderson back against Harvard, since we know he's willing to get pounded in front of the net.)

For my money, the only thing I care about, honestly, is pucks on net——not wide, not blocked, but on the damn net. Buckles sat vs. Harvard because, more than any other player on the team, he shoots wide or gets blocked. (Willcox is the other offender.) These tendencies were on display vs. Dartmouth.

To my mind, the difference between this team ending up having a mediocre or reasonably good season can be covered by addressing what Schafer mentioned above. This would require, of course, certain players truly buying into their roles not only on the defensive end of the ice but on the offensive end as well. That is, all players not named Vanderlaan, Kubiak, and Angello or who are not having a good night need to understand that their chief function is to deliver the puck to the opposing goalie and crash the net in such a way as to force a face off. Any goals scored by them are simply bonuses.

[Jim Hyla]

Schafer, from the USCHO recap:

"We refuse to stay in front of the net, we refuse to shoot pucks, [and] now we want to make one extra pass as opposed to putting it on net."

Maybe I do know something about hockey, because I've been frustrated with the same things. Maybe after this weekend we can go back to playing dirty goal, pressure-oriented hockey.

Right? I'm glad he noticed and said something and maybe will do something because I was fully prepared to blame this on the guy in the suit.

As long as Schafer refuses to realize that the vast majority of this is on his conservative neutral zone style which all but concedes both blue lines, its still on the man in the suit.

If you're going to bitch, at least address the Dartmouth game in the Dartmouth thread. Otherwise, start a new thread——"Fire Schafer," I suggest.

We didn't lose the Dartmouth game because of our neutral-zone play, we lost it because of the things Schafer addressed in his quote, i.e., the things that lead to putting the puck in the net when things aren't bouncing your way. As far as I could see, he was spot on. (Which is probably why we saw Anderson back against Harvard, since we know he's willing to get pounded in front of the net.)

For my money, the only thing I care about, honestly, is pucks on net——not wide, not blocked, but on the damn net. Buckles sat vs. Harvard because, more than any other player on the team, he shoots wide or gets blocked. (Willcox is the other offender.) These tendencies were on display vs. Dartmouth.

To my mind, the difference between this team ending up having a mediocre or reasonably good season can be covered by addressing what Schafer mentioned above. This would require, of course, certain players truly buying into their roles not only on the defensive end of the ice but on the offensive end as well. That is, all players not named Vanderlaan, Kubiak, and Angello or who are not having a good night need to understand that their chief function is to deliver the puck to the opposing goalie and crash the net in such a way as to force a face off. Any goals scored by them are simply bonuses.

Here, here, couldn't agree more. (More than what, I don't know. I always wondered about that expression.) When he announces that he wants the players to shoot more, it's hard to blame the coach, unless there are some, unknown to us, behind the scenes issues. Now if it keeps happening, then you need to look "behind the scenes".

[css228]

Schafer, from the USCHO recap:

"We refuse to stay in front of the net, we refuse to shoot pucks, [and] now we want to make one extra pass as opposed to putting it on net."

Maybe I do know something about hockey, because I've been frustrated with the same things. Maybe after this weekend we can go back to playing dirty goal, pressure-oriented hockey.

Right? I'm glad he noticed and said something and maybe will do something because I was fully prepared to blame this on the guy in the suit.

As long as Schafer refuses to realize that the vast majority of this is on his conservative neutral zone style which all but concedes both blue lines, its still on the man in the suit.

If you're going to bitch, at least address the Dartmouth game in the Dartmouth thread. Otherwise, start a new thread——"Fire Schafer," I suggest.

We didn't lose the Dartmouth game because of our neutral-zone play, we lost it because of the things Schafer addressed in his quote, i.e., the things that lead to putting the puck in the net when things aren't bouncing your way. As far as I could see, he was spot on. (Which is probably why we saw Anderson back against Harvard, since we know he's willing to get pounded in front of the net.)

For my money, the only thing I care about, honestly, is pucks on net——not wide, not blocked, but on the damn net. Buckles sat vs. Harvard because, more than any other player on the team, he shoots wide or gets blocked. (Willcox is the other offender.) These tendencies were on display vs. Dartmouth.

To my mind, the difference between this team ending up having a mediocre or reasonably good season can be covered by addressing what Schafer mentioned above. This would require, of course, certain players truly buying into their roles not only on the defensive end of the ice but on the offensive end as well. That is, all players not named Vanderlaan, Kubiak, and Angello or who are not having a good night need to understand that their chief function is to deliver the puck to the opposing goalie and crash the net in such a way as to force a face off. Any goals scored by them are simply bonuses.

Here, here, couldn't agree more. (More than what, I don't know. I always wondered about that expression.) When he announces that he wants the players to shoot more, it's hard to blame the coach, unless there are some, unknown to us, behind the scenes issues. Now if it keeps happening, then you need to look "behind the scenes".

I've beat this drum more than enough times. Puck possession is how you get more shots at a sustainable rate. This means good controlled zone entries, stemming from good breakouts, and preventing the opponent from having the same. A.K.A. dominating the neutral zone. While it may not be the reason for being outshot in any one particular game, when being outshot is a CONSISTENT issue you can be pretty damn sure that your team does't have enough of the puck. Over time, offensive zone or defensive zone performance is not markedly different between talented and untalented players. The difference as you can see from the attached article is that the best players are consistently better in the neutral zone. So yes, the reason this team is mediocre is because we're mediocre in the neutral zone. And yes its up to Schafer to do something about it.

[Trotsky]

Are advanced hockey analytics something that can be reconstructed for past seasons by looking at game tapes?  That would be an interesting project.