CHN: Cornell Battling Expectations After Inconsistent First Half

[adamw]

Obviously, you wouldn't ask Schafer: "Does CJ have any clue how to coach the PK? The numbers were much better under Syer!" You would ask, "When you look at the special teams' struggles this year, are you able to identify specific causes? Are you running the same schemes as last season or were changes implemented? In your view, is the team starting to turn the corner on special teams?" You could also ask: "How has it been working with Casey and Corey? Was there an adjustment period or was the coaching staff able to hit the ground running?"

Here's the thing - none of those questions would get you any further meaningful insights. I already know the answers to those questions, and they're not interesting. There's not nearly as much there as you think there is. Nothing at all in fact. You can choose to believe that or not. We already know where you stand.

You know the dynamic between and among players and coaches? You know the division of labor within the coaching staff? You know the schemes and systems Cornell is running this year, and how they compare to last year's? Come on, man. That's the whole point of asking the questions.

yes

[BearLover]

Obviously, you wouldn't ask Schafer: "Does CJ have any clue how to coach the PK? The numbers were much better under Syer!" You would ask, "When you look at the special teams' struggles this year, are you able to identify specific causes? Are you running the same schemes as last season or were changes implemented? In your view, is the team starting to turn the corner on special teams?" You could also ask: "How has it been working with Casey and Corey? Was there an adjustment period or was the coaching staff able to hit the ground running?"

Here's the thing - none of those questions would get you any further meaningful insights. I already know the answers to those questions, and they're not interesting. There's not nearly as much there as you think there is. Nothing at all in fact. You can choose to believe that or not. We already know where you stand.

You know the dynamic between and among players and coaches? You know the division of labor within the coaching staff? You know the schemes and systems Cornell is running this year, and how they compare to last year's? Come on, man. That's the whole point of asking the questions.

yes

Okay, what are the schemes Cornell is running this year?

[Beeeej]

Obviously, you wouldn't ask Schafer: "Does CJ have any clue how to coach the PK? The numbers were much better under Syer!" You would ask, "When you look at the special teams' struggles this year, are you able to identify specific causes? Are you running the same schemes as last season or were changes implemented? In your view, is the team starting to turn the corner on special teams?" You could also ask: "How has it been working with Casey and Corey? Was there an adjustment period or was the coaching staff able to hit the ground running?"

Here's the thing - none of those questions would get you any further meaningful insights. I already know the answers to those questions, and they're not interesting. There's not nearly as much there as you think there is. Nothing at all in fact. You can choose to believe that or not. We already know where you stand.

You know the dynamic between and among players and coaches? You know the division of labor within the coaching staff? You know the schemes and systems Cornell is running this year, and how they compare to last year's? Come on, man. That's the whole point of asking the questions.

yes

Okay, what are the schemes Cornell is running this year?

I've not weighed in on all this previously, but man, I have to say, you have seriously become one of the most tiresome and incessantly antagonistic people I've ever encountered, online or off. I can't tell whether you're imitating a sealion or a toddler. But this has pretty much ceased to be at all interesting or useful.

[BearLover]

Obviously, you wouldn't ask Schafer: "Does CJ have any clue how to coach the PK? The numbers were much better under Syer!" You would ask, "When you look at the special teams' struggles this year, are you able to identify specific causes? Are you running the same schemes as last season or were changes implemented? In your view, is the team starting to turn the corner on special teams?" You could also ask: "How has it been working with Casey and Corey? Was there an adjustment period or was the coaching staff able to hit the ground running?"

Here's the thing - none of those questions would get you any further meaningful insights. I already know the answers to those questions, and they're not interesting. There's not nearly as much there as you think there is. Nothing at all in fact. You can choose to believe that or not. We already know where you stand.

You know the dynamic between and among players and coaches? You know the division of labor within the coaching staff? You know the schemes and systems Cornell is running this year, and how they compare to last year's? Come on, man. That's the whole point of asking the questions.

yes

Okay, what are the schemes Cornell is running this year?

I've not weighed in on all this previously, but man, I have to say, you have seriously become one of the most tiresome and incessantly antagonistic people I've ever encountered, online or off. I can't tell whether you're imitating a sealion or a toddler. But this has pretty much ceased to be at all interesting or useful.

Sealion

[BearLover]

The above point was that I'm honestly really skeptical that there's a Cornell Hockey insider feeding adamw information about the inner workings of the hockey team. I get he's editor of CHN, but it still doesn't make sense to me why there would be someone on the insider disclosing information to him about Cornell's schemes. It's further annoying that he keeps talking up all the intel he apparently knows, but he won't actually...disclose any of it? Whether on here, on social media, or in his articles.

For what it's worth, it's hard to not be antagonistic when half the forum is constantly calling me an imbecile or literally inventing pejorative terms for me ("clownlover" lol). I'll take a break from this forum.

 I apologize for being antagonistic. See everyone later!

[upprdeck]

I would think there are many who know more they talk about, it just depends on how they know the information.

You might pass on something you heard in CTB but maybe not something you knew from someone in athletics or players or staff.

Like you might say "look out for some injury news" but not say "so n so has a bad ankle"

[arugula]

I would think there are many who know more they talk about, it just depends on how they know the information.

You might pass on something you heard in CTB but maybe not something you knew from someone in athletics or players or staff.

Like you might say "look out for some injury news" but not say "so n so has a bad ankle"

My obsession with Shane's height began in CTB, funny you should mention it, when I saw this wee fellow on line ahead of me and realized that it was Ian

[adamw]

The above point was that I'm honestly really skeptical that there's a Cornell Hockey insider feeding adamw information about the inner workings of the hockey team. I get he's editor of CHN, but it still doesn't make sense to me why there would be someone on the insider disclosing information to him about Cornell's schemes. It's further annoying that he keeps talking up all the intel he apparently knows, but he won't actually...disclose any of it? Whether on here, on social media, or in his articles.

For what it's worth, it's hard to not be antagonistic when half the forum is constantly calling me an imbecile or literally inventing pejorative terms for me ("clownlover" lol). I'll take a break from this forum.

 I apologize for being antagonistic. See everyone later!

you have some seriously warped perspectives on how the world works. whether I do or do not have "intel," and who I do or don't talk to, is immaterial. you're making this sound like rocket science or deep state.  The point of this repetitive nonsensical verbal exercise is that, if there was anything worth "reporting," I would.  I know enough to know that 90% of what you complain about -- like most fans on Internet message boards -- has zero substance.  you can infer whatever you want out of me saying this.

[George64]

My obsession with Shane's height began in CTB, funny you should mention it, when I saw this wee fellow on line ahead of me and realized that it was Ian

Brian Cropper, 5'6", backstopped Cornell's 30-0, NCAA Championship season in 1970.  Of course, everyone was smaller in those days.  And, in pre-vegan days, goalie pads were made of leather and smaller, but heavier.

[marty]

My obsession with Shane's height began in CTB, funny you should mention it, when I saw this wee fellow on line ahead of me and realized that it was Ian

Brian Cropper, 5'6", backstopped Cornell's 30-0, NCAA Championship season in 1970.  Of course, everyone was smaller in those days.  And, in pre-vegan days, goalie pads were made of leather and smaller, but heavier.

Even more so because EVERYONE KNOWS Ken Dryden was in goal that year.   I even thought Ned Harkness, bless his soul,  made the mistake when he was interviewed in his advancing years.

[arugula]

Different times, different game.  No more 5'6" goalies.

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

My obsession with Shane's height began in CTB, funny you should mention it, when I saw this wee fellow on line ahead of me and realized that it was Ian

Brian Cropper, 5'6", backstopped Cornell's 30-0, NCAA Championship season in 1970.  Of course, everyone was smaller in those days.  And, in pre-vegan days, goalie pads were made of leather and smaller, but heavier.

It was the system.

[BearLover]

I would think there are many who know more they talk about, it just depends on how they know the information.

You might pass on something you heard in CTB but maybe not something you knew from someone in athletics or players or staff.

Like you might say "look out for some injury news" but not say "so n so has a bad ankle"

It's one thing to see [player redacted] at CTB in a walking boot and another to have insight into the inner workings of the coaching staff or the Xs and Os. I've grown annoyed with things being stated matter-of-factly ("coaching is not a problem and you're an imbecile if you think it is") with no justification whatsoever. There are things we can see with our own eyes at CTB, and things that Schafer discloses at a coach's club meeting, and then there are other things that nobody knows unless they're inside the locker room or Schafer's office. The same was true in discussions of who would or wouldn't be the next head coach. Things were said, some of it was right, some of it was wrong. But all of it was stated unequivocally without explanation.

[Dafatone]

I would think there are many who know more they talk about, it just depends on how they know the information.

You might pass on something you heard in CTB but maybe not something you knew from someone in athletics or players or staff.

Like you might say "look out for some injury news" but not say "so n so has a bad ankle"

It's one thing to see [player redacted] at CTB in a walking boot and another to have insight into the inner workings of the coaching staff or the Xs and Os. I've grown annoyed with things being stated matter-of-factly ("coaching is not a problem and you're an imbecile if you think it is") with no justification whatsoever. There are things we can see with our own eyes at CTB, and things that Schafer discloses at a coach's club meeting, and then there are other things that nobody knows unless they're inside the locker room or Schafer's office. The same was true in discussions of who would or wouldn't be the next head coach. Things were said, some of it was right, some of it was wrong. But all of it was stated unequivocally without explanation.

A lot of the Xs and Os aren't that complicated if you're a hockey professional. It's like football or basketball, where you can watch a game and say "that's a cover 2 defense" or "that's a 3-2 zone."

I can't do this for the most part because I'm not that sort of hockey knower. But it's not like our schemes are a secret.

[BearLover]

I'm still very curious why this team is so bad