Cornell-BC post mortem

[billhoward]

After losing 3-2 (plus ENG making it 4-2) to BC in the Everblades now Florida College Classic, it seems there's a pony in there somewhere:

- Cornell survived a crummy first period and held the upper edge in periods 2 and 3 including periods of domination. We didn't give up.

- in the third period Cornell didn't pass-pass-pass-oops-(pass outside the zone) waiting for the perfect shot that never seemed to come in 2002 and 2003. The defenseman took shots and net and the forwards crashed the goalie box. You couldn't reply this game again and not have 1 or 2 of those Cornell shots not go in.

- it wasn't Cornell that did somethiing stupid like draw a too-many-men penalty, or get the five minute major for boarding plus a game misconduct.

- We got a shorthand goal.

- We did pretty darn well except on penlty kill (excepting of course we're one one of the top PK teams).

- Cornell won a lot of key late game faceoffs.

- We have a chance to mess up Jimmy Howard's GAA average Wednesday.

While we went in looking for two quality wins, at least we have a quality loss under our belts after day one.

[Mike Hedrick 01]

As I said in the game thread, one positive here is that we play Maine rather than SCSU tomorrow, which should work better for us in the PWR later on, at least if we win.

[KeithK]

I think this game shows that the team is just a little behind behind top teams but can play with 'em.  They'll need to raise their level of play a notch in order to win games in March (and either a title in Albany or some luck to get to the tourney).  Not a bad performance, but not quite good enough against an excellent team.

That said, three power play goals is a lot to give up for a team that prides itself on defense.  Even if two were 5 on 3.  And McKee should've had that last one.

[atb9]

I definitely agree that McKee should have had that last one and one other beat him short side after glancing his shoulder.

We're going to be fine but an at large bid is pretty much out of the picture, right?

Our young players looked fantastic.  Sasha was consistent and attacked.  Sawada wasn't spectacular but crashed the net hard.  Topher was flying around the ice as usual.  Cam Abbott and Carefoot were extremely disruptive to BC's flow.  McKee made a number of quality saves (especially the two left kick saves in a row at the beginning of the game) and didn't give up an even strength goal.  Where were the older guys?  We're going to continue to improve and as long as we can stay healthy, I think we'll be extremely competitive, and the favorite, come ECAC playoff time (I know, really going out on a limb there :-P ).

[Greg Berge]

It is a little early to write off the chance for an at-large bid, although if they lose to Maine tomorrow then we're probably talking long odds.

[billhoward]

[Q]atb9 Wrote:
...   Where were the older guys?  ... [/q]

[Somewhat OT] Many of the Cornell scoring records -- period, game, season, goals, assists, hat tricks -- are by juniors, some sophomores. It may be the seniors provide the intangibles. Not to say that you couldn't wish for more from the seniors on a given night.

Examples:
Goals in a game: 6 by 2 juniors, 4 by freshmen, sophomores, seniors
Goals in a season: 37 by a junior; 29, 32, 39 by other classes
Assists in a game: 6 by 2 juniors and 1 senior
Assists in a season: 60 by a junior, 30, 46, 52 other years
Points in a game: 8 by 3 juniors, 1 senior, 1 sophomore
Points in a season: 83 by a junior, 59, 78, 74 other years

[calgARI '07]

- Cornell is still very much in contention for an at-large bid.  
- McKee should have had the last goal.  Goalies seem to be more prone to give up bad goals on 5-on-3's because they are thinking so much more than usual.
- Can't stand the music that is played during EVERY stoppage.  Miserable.
- Cornell is a better team than Maine and should beat them tomorrow.
- Cornell can play with the likes of Boston College any day of the week.
- Certain key players were not noticable tonight.
- This game was a good experience for Cornell and I have a strong feeling that they are gonna play BC in the NCAA's and beat them a la Miami-Ohio in 1997 (after losing a close one to them earlier in the season).
- The three teams I hate most in college hockey are Minnesota, Boston College, and Maine.  Would LOVE to beat up on a very overrated Maine team tomorrow.
- Sawada and Krantz both played their best games of the season.
- Pokuluk and Cook both struggled, particularly on the powerplay.
- Officiating was ridiculous.  Most calls were legit, but the timing of many of them was brutal and uncalled for.
- BC plays a defensive style unlike that of any ECACHL team in that they don't clog up the middle at all.  Their defensive zone strategy is actually clutching and grabbing on the boards.  It took Cornell a period or so to adjust to that style, and once they did, the consistently carried the play.
- I wrote a game reflection that should be up Wednesday some time.

[CUlater 89]

Ari is right on about Pokuluk (despite what Adam Brown said) and Cook.  I also agree about McKee on the last goal (and so did the announcers on CSTV).  I didn't notice Sawada much until the third period, leading me to think he didn't do much (in fact, that whole line seemed MIA).

This was a hard game to judge us (or BC) by -- the number of penalties, and 5-on-3's, really prevented any sort of flow from developing.  

I didn't feel like we had a significant number of quality chances, plays where fans say "ooh" after we missed an opportunity.  Kaltianen wasn't so spectacular, but BC's defensive effort was impressive.

All in all, it was a winnable game, if we had done a bit better on the PP (especially during the major, when I thought we were more passive than we should have been).

At least we get a shot at Maine.

[billhoward]

You saw the game in person or on TV? On TV, there seemed to be about 10 highlights-caliber plays of Topher Scott (and others) swarming the net, deking, and scoring, or batting home rebounds. Well, actually everything but the scoring part. There were a half-dozen plays where we could have scored. Good chances in close near the net. Every game has some; it looked as if Cornell had more than that.

You're absolutely right that the penalties disrupted play. As for the game-turner (the five minute major on top of the existing BC penalty that gave Cornell a 5x3 on which we scored but nothing more): But once you're heading toward the midpoint of the season, you have to know you push a guy into the boards, you're gone for five minutes plus the game misconduct. That was a dumb play by BC, notwithstanding the announcers' claim that Cornell was sort of turning away as the hit occurred.

It almost seemed as if Cornell got called for too many midway through the third and the refs kind of evened it up by calling too many on BC late in the game.

[calgARI '07]

[Q]billhoward Wrote:

 You saw the game in person or on TV? On TV, there seemed to be about 10 highlights-caliber plays of Topher Scott (and others) swarming the net, deking, and scoring, or batting home rebounds. Well, actually everything but the scoring part. There were a half-dozen plays where we could have scored. Good chances in close near the net. Every game has some; it looked as if Cornell had more than that.

You're absolutely right that the penalties disrupted play. As for the game-turner (the five minute major on top of the existing BC penalty that gave Cornell a 5x3 on which we scored but nothing more): But once you're heading toward the midpoint of the season, you have to know you push a guy into the boards, you're gone for five minutes plus the game misconduct. That was a dumb play by BC, notwithstanding the announcers' claim that Cornell was sort of turning away as the hit occurred.

It almost seemed as if Cornell got called for too many midway through the third and the refs kind of evened it up by calling too many on BC late in the game. [/q]

Not sure who you're asking, but I was at the game.  I gave Topher Scott first star for Cornell.  Cornell did not have a ton of good chances, but clearly dictated the play in the second and third periods.

[Harrier]

If Topher could shoot a puck he would be Dangerous.  Until that happens he is strictly a set up man.  He simply cannot rip one past any DI goalie that I have seen and any non rebounds that he has put on net are low angle butterfleis.  It is a problem because he does create a lot of opportunities for himself that are uncapitalized upon!

[billhoward]

Re the allegation that Topher Scott comes up short in the shooting accuracy department: From three feet away, I think it's as much luck as skill in putting the puck in. Reality is, on those could-woulda-shoulda situations in front of the net, you score on, what, one in five, one in ten? Otherwise all hockey games with be 8-6 not 4-2.

[atb9]

Ouch, that hurts.  You want to give some examples?  Or is it just contradict and agree?  Man, I always feel on the defensive with you guys...

There is one play specifically that I can remember of Sasha slashing through the crease, taking two men with him, opening up the weak side for a wide open shot by another Cornell player.  Should have been a goal and could have been a game winner.  That was a freshman defenseman showing determination and aggressiveness.

All of our players sucked on the power play.  BC was pressing us like we haven't been pressed before.  To say a freshman was crappy on the power play the first time he was pressed hard so therefore he had an overall crappy game seems naive.  It's like saying O'Byrne played great game just because he intercepted that one pass and scored the two on one.  The only special teams players that really stood out were Cam and Carefoot and that was on the kill.  And to compare Cook and Sasha?  Cook is a much more established player but he looked lost yesterday the entire game.  He's one of those older guys that disappeared.

You must not have seen Sawada hitting or crashing the net.  He's not Topher.  He's not going to carry the puck into the zone.  As a freshman, his role is to create space, be physical, and attack the net.  I thought he did all three.  He only stood out in the third period?  Well, we started to control play in the second and really dominated in the third so that would make sense.

I thought Kaltianen was really good, especially during the five on three in the third, but you're also right that BC's defense was spectacular.  I thought their players would pass out by the third period...they tired significantly (haunched over, begging for subs) but maintained their intensity even after losing Alberts.

[atb9]

also, besides Moulson, who is our only sharpshooter, we play for the rebounds and deflections.

[atb9]

looks like USCHO agrees about Kaltiainen

http://www.uscho.com/recaps/20042005/m/12/28/bc-cor.php

Too bad they didn't fly Avash down because that recap was pretty poor.