Whos hot and whos not...

[billhoward]

So is Cornell perhaps lacking the offensive megastar -- say had Chris Higgins matriculated here not Yale (Cornell was said to be the other school in the running) -- who you can turn to? Who is the last Cornell offensive player who was in the running for the Hobey Baker award?

Not that you can't win with great defense and decent offense (2002-2003) but if you are down a goal in the last four minutes, who's the rifleman you want out there for three of the last five shifts? They haven't all been skating for North Dakota, have they?

Maybe that would have been a healthy Ryan Vesce. Was his 7 points in the 7-0 November 2003 win at Princeton a fluke, or a sample of what he could do when he was at full strength?

[CowbellGuy]

I think Ryan's 7 point game was due to the lunar eclipse. Yeah, the eclipse.

Cornell really hasn't had a go-to sniper in a long time, but how would one even fit into Schafer's system? Those types of players don't tend to have wet dreams about cycling and board work, to say nothing of defensive responsibility. Spreading the offense over a few big guys who play the system but have soft hands and decent skills (like a Knoepfli) is probably better in the long run than putting all your eggs in one basket. And when there is a single clear sniper on a team, there is often a tendency for other players to sit back and rely on him for all the offense (unless you're the Rangers where you have a bunch of them and they're all sitting back waiting for someone else to score).

Big guys who can play a system, defense, and have great scoring skills, like a Higgins, are pretty hard to come by in college and like we saw with him, tend to leave early. It would sure be nice to have one to try though =]

[CUlater 89]

I agree with Cowbell Guy, plus clearly Schafer had success without a true sniper in 2002-2003 and 2001-2002, so I expect he wants to continue that approach (ideally, a four-line team).

On the other hand, if you can play tic-tac-toe with the puck and keep it away from the other team, that tends to work rather well (see, e.g. the Soviet/Unified Olympic hockey teams and Harvard in the '80s).  I suspect that Harvard's focus in the coming years will be to return to that type of game, which could provide an interesting contrast to Schafer's style of play.

[Greg Berge]

If Harvard under Donato goes back the Bill Cleary hockey, we are in for some classic power vs. finesse hockey.

Moulson and Hynes both look like they could be explosive scorers in a more offensive system.  It could be we actually do have snipers, but that's what a sniper looks like playing Schafer (.638 conference, .623 overall) hockey.

[billhoward]

No complaints about Schafer's system and his winning percentage. It almost got Cornell to the finals two years ago. But when you're down by one goal in the closing three minutes, you're still only allowed 5+1 guys on the ice, and having 10 really talented teamworkers isn't going to cut it, except you can run three waves of equally talented people and hope one line gets lucky.

Having one mega-talent out there tends to panic the other team. They collapse two guys on him and somebody else comes open. Which gives the announcer chance to say, "What can you say - he really creates scoring opportunities and he just showed why here tonight, big time." And that's what sports is all about - hard work down on the field, and cliches up in the radio booth.

This is a long way back and a different sport, but wasn't Cornell's most explosive lacrosse years, McEneneany, French, and Levine, also the time when Cornell shut out the other side in an NCAA playoff game? Like 14-0 against George Washignton circa 1976.

[Al DeFlorio]

[Q]billhoward Wrote:
This is a long way back and a different sport, but wasn't Cornell's most explosive lacrosse years, McEneneany, French, and Levine, also the time when Cornell shut out the other side in an NCAA playoff game? Like 14-0 against George Washignton circa 1976. [/q]
Yep.  Washington & Lee.

[DC83]

ALSO, IT WASN'T JUST ANY GAME IT WAS THE 1ST ROUND OF NCAA.

[billhoward]

Exactly so: This Cornell team had an awesome defense and awesome offense when it counted most, in the playoffs. Some of the discussion of the Schafer era -- and I have no complaints about the winning record; I just wish more of the wins came in March and April -- is that his regime teaches defense and team play and that allegedly makes it hard to attract great offensive players.

So for at least one season in one sport in Cornell's star-crossed athletic constellation, the offense (lacrosse, 1976) was perhaps the best the world had ever seen to that point and yet it wasn't to the detriment of the having a tremendous defense. In the first two games of the NCAA tournament, it give up 0 goals and then 5 goals (to Hopkins) before the 16-13 overtime shootout against a Maryland team that put up 22 goals in the semifinals. The Cornell offense was nicely consistent -- 14 goals, 13 goals, 16 goals.

And to further relate to my concern that Cornell didn't have the go-to guy in the final 5 minutes when we went down a goal to UNH (back to hockey here), when Cornell (1976 lacrosse) got into a situation where the defense did give up points, there was an offense that could step in. And then they came back and did it again the next year.

BH

Apropos of nothing else - it's still amazing to see Richie Moran out and rooting for Cornell even after he stepped aside or was asked to step aside in the previous decade. He was probably the sport's greatest coach in the 1970s and came close to winning it all in the late 1980s, twice, before fates turned from Cornell to Princeton and Syracuse. A lot of other guys would be bitter.

[Al DeFlorio]

Thoughtful post, Bill.  Thanks.  Couple of comments.  

Lacrosse works a bit differently than hockey.  While the attack contributes to team defense by "riding" while the other team tries to "clear," they don't play in the defensive half of the field.  Likewise, the defense, other than taking the ball down the field very occasionally on a clear, don't really participate in the offensive end.  In hockey, forwards can play an important role in the defensive end, too, and are a vital part of Mike's "system."  I suspect Eamon would have been a demon at any position on the field, but the degree of defensive skill in your lacrosse "forwards" is much less significant to the outcome than in hockey.

That 1976 Cornell team had a second team and an honorable mention All-America defenseman, by the way, along with a first team and three honorable mention midfielders--who do play a key role in the defensive end.

[CowbellGuy]

[Q]DC83 Wrote:

 ALSO, IT WASN'T JUST ANY GAME IT WAS THE 1ST ROUND OF NCAA.[/q]

[billhoward]

I assumed the poor guy was still paying off student loans and was stuck with a broken keyboard with caps lock on.

[billhoward]

[Q]Al DeFlorio Wrote:  Lacrosse works a bit differently than hockey.  While the attack contributes to team defense by "riding" while the other team tries to "clear," they don't play in the defensive half of the field.  Likewise, the defense, other than taking the ball down the field very occasionally on a clear, don't really participate in the offensive end.  In hockey, forwards can play an important role in the defensive end, too, and are a vital part of Mike's "system."  I suspect Eamon would have been a demon at any position on the field, but the degree of defensive skill in your lacrosse "forwards" is much less significant to the outcome than in hockey. That 1976 Cornell team had a second team and an honorable mention All-America defenseman, by the way, along with a first team and three honorable mention midfielders--who do play a key role in the defensive end.
Edited 1 times. Last edit at 08/20/04 04:16PM by Al DeFlorio.[/q]

On one of Richie Moran's regrets, if I can recall back thirty years -- gad, is it that long? I guess it is -- is that he wanted to move Jim Trenz, the incredible transfer from Penn State, from forward to middie so he could go both ways (back when that term had just one meaning). But alas in 1974 Eamon ('77 and RIP WTC '01) was a freshman and freshmen were not varsity-eligible.

And I believe Moran felt French ('76) was a natural midfielder even if he was the most dominant scorer in the history of college lacrosse. (Recall that Mike's 295 or so points came over three years, while all the Syracuse studs had their 300-plus point careers in four years).

That said, if you control the ball in the offensive zone 70 percent of the time, that's an effective defense, too. As is a gorilla on faceoffs (remember Maryland's Frank Urso?).

Speaking of defense, maybe we need to limit the long stick rule to the three true defenders on the field. Unless the NCAA allows you to put a bunch of sticks back near the goal and players pick up what they need as they run by.

[jtwcornell91]

[Q]billhoward Wrote:

 No complaints about Schafer's system and his winning percentage. It almost got Cornell to the finals two years ago. But when you're down by one goal in the closing three minutes, you're still only allowed 5+1 guys on the ice, and having 10 really talented teamworkers isn't going to cut it, except you can run three waves of equally talented people and hope one line gets lucky.[/q]

The fact that NCAA games are televised and therefore contain a bunch of free timeouts to rest the superstars also hurts teams whose strength is the depth to roll lines.  OTOH, when a team like that gets into an overtime game like Cornell vs BC, that strength can wear the opponent down.

[billhoward]

[Q]jtwcornell91 Wrote:

 [Q2]billhoward Wrote:  No complaints about Schafer's system and his winning percentage. It almost got Cornell to the finals two years ago. But when you're down by one goal in the closing three minutes, you're still only allowed 5+1 guys on the ice, and having 10 really talented teamworkers isn't going to cut it, except you can run three waves of equally talented people and hope one line gets lucky.[/Q]
The fact that NCAA games are televised and therefore contain a bunch of free timeouts to rest the superstars also hurts teams whose strength is the depth to roll lines.  OTOH, when a team like that gets into an overtime game like Cornell vs BC, that strength can wear the opponent down.[/q]
There's only so many ways you can fine tune your team. UNH, or is it Maine, that plays in an Olympic-layout rink can tailor itself to a finess game at home but then it's hosed on the road, unless they're playing in Lake Placid. At some point, the theoretical advantage is likely overcome by the reality of the lucks of the draw. The tripping call the ref missed, or the shot that bounced up and over the crossbar not down and in, that's what makes Denver not North Dakota the national champion. If you're a two-serious-lines-only hockey team, then TV time-outs at the end are another of slight theoretical advantages if you're coming from behind, a big advantage if it you're ahead and it gives your best forechecking line a breather.  

I'd still like to see one Hobey Baker finalist playing (for Cornell) in Lynah Rink over the next decade who's on offense.

There was a USCHO poll over the winter that asked, what would you rather have, an NCAA title one year and nothing, no final four, maybe no NCAA appearance the next couple years ... or a plodding NCAA entrant every year but no Frozen Four appearance? The majority of fans wanted the shooting star of fortune, that one season in the limelight.

Maybe the plodding defense is the tortoise that wins the race eventually? And that eventually for Cornell was 2002-03? And the luck of the draw was the high sticking call at game's end? Or LeNeveau playing a merely average game?

[Greg Berge]

"Offense sells tickets; defense win championships."

That probably isn't as true in hockey as in football, but there's something to it.  Lake Superior State had a team that was criticized as plodding that won three national titles in seven years, during the period in which Schafer was a rival CCHA coach.  It is certainly posible to win by building out from net, and I think it's the more likely path for an Ivy, given the constraints on admitting the very few blue chip offensive players who go the college route.