Cornell vs. Minnesota post game thread

[Steve M]

I saw the same game you did, except that I thought Minny did have several Grade A chances (maybe not as many as against Maine), but they were denied by McKee.

[Dpperk29]

6 months, 23 days until the Ehibition game

[KenP]

Luck was on Cornell's side for much of the first period.  Minnesota's power-play slap shot that rang off the post was an absolute laser.   :-O  And don't forget about their play setting up the back door shot when the Goofer's stick broke.  ::rolleyes:: Their passing was a thing of beauty.  EASILY could have been 2-0 or worse after the first period.

Mitch Carefoot, thank you!  ::woot:: My wife chewed my ass off for almost waking the kids (I was watching the game on tape-delay), but that SHG was like a ray of sunshine on a stormy day. :-D :-D :-D

David v Goliath, USA v USSR, whatever the metaphor.  It was an excellent game, and midway through the 3rd I started believing we actually could pull off the incredible upset.  Wasn't meant to be.  We join the ranks of 15 other NCAA Tournament teams who end their season with a disappionting loss.

Thank you Coach, thank you Captains, thank you players!  This was a fun year to be a Big Red fan, and before I look forward to next year, I'm going to relax, close my eyes, and enjoy the accomplishments from this season.  ::rock:: ::rock::

[jaybert]

I watched the stick breaking shot a few times...Mckee had it covered, the puck wasnt going in if the shot was kept low but if the guy could of gotten under it and lifted it, then yes, it would of probably been 2-0.

[abmarks]

[Q]Jason L Wrote:

 I watched the stick breaking shot a few times...Mckee had it covered, the puck wasnt going in if the shot was kept low but if the guy could of gotten under it and lifted it, then yes, it would of probably been 2-0.[/q]

The stick broke when it hit the post - puck couldn't have been lifted....



And for everyone who says mckees stick wasnt on the ice, it was.  the puck didnt go under the stick.  Look closely at the replay.  It went to the left (on the TV angle) of the flat portion of the blade, underneath the upward portion (sort of underneath the 45 degree angled area of the paddle).  

[jaybert]

I know..I'm saying even if the stick didnt break, I doubt it would of been a goal. the puck was close to mckee's pads that it would of been difficult for the shooter to lift the puck off the ice.  if had just shot it, mckee's pad would of prevented the goal.

[KeithK]

Anyone who thinks O'Byrne shouldn't be out there playing isn't paying attention.  Yes, he is rough around the edges and has made some mistakes.  But he logs a lot of minutes and has played a lot of good defense for Cornell.  No reason to think he won't continue to improve either.

The way I see it Cornell played the style they had to this weekend.  Both games unfolded the same wayL outshot and outskated early with the Red eventually wearing the opponent down and gaining territorial advantage late.  The Cornell defense bent but didn't break, holding off long enough to give the team a chance to win.  If we played Minnesota ten times on their ice I think we'd win 3 or 4 of them.

The big ice clearly had an effect on the game.  If the contest had been played on NA ice it plays out very differently.  I'm not saying that we would definitely have won (Minnesota is a very good team with excellent puck handling skills), but the territorial advantage the Gophers enjoyed wouldn't have been thee, IMO.

[Scersk '97]

[Q]billhoward Wrote:

 Is anyone else thinking: We saw O'Byrne make some mistakes this year that led to some goals ...

... we saw him in the corner from where the puck popped out in the final five seconds of Cornell's season ...

... but maybe Mike Schafer is a better judge of hockey talent than we are and Schafer sees something in O'Byrne that makes O'Byrne a starter? [/q]

Cf.  Cornell vs. Clarkson, 03/15/97, Jason Dailey:

http://www.tbrw.info/boxScores/box19970315.html

[cbuckser]

In my opinion, Ryan O'Byrne will be one of the top defensemen in the ECAC next season and one of the best ni the country by his senior year.   Like power forwards,  big, physical defensemen tend to take a relatively long time to develop.

I think a lot of the criticism O'Byrne has taken on this forum this season has been unfair.  Though he has been prone to making some mistakes, he has the time and the capacity to improve his play.

The fact that O'Byrne gets a ton of ice time and is given the green light to carry the puck out of the zone speaks volumes about him and his abilities.

[Facetimer]

[Q]cbuckser Wrote:

The fact that O'Byrne gets a ton of ice time and is given the green light to carry the puck out of the zone speaks volumes about him and his abilities.[/q]

Then maybe O'Byrne isn't the problem.  Maybe the blame should lie on Coach's shoulders for trying to get too much out of him.  Just because a guy gets a lot of ice time doesn't make him a good player.

Either way, both goals were caused by O'Byrne.  Shape up or ship out!

To all those that defend him, please enlighten me: give me an example of O'Byrne not sucking.

[Will]

I said it before, and I'll say it again.  O'Byrne isn't a total sack of suckitude on the ice--far from it.  He's just inconsistent.  He's an effective defenseman when he's on his game, but almost half the time, he commits some seriously stupid errors, upon which we all end up dwelling.  I sincerely hope he does improve to commit far less mistakes next year.

[atb9]

[Q]Facetimer Wrote:

To all those that defend him, please enlighten me: give me an example of O'Byrne not sucking.[/q]

Go watch a Cornell practice; his wrister is nasty.  Or heck, remember some of the games we played this season!  The powerplay goal against Harvard in November was sick!  How about that wrister 16 seconds in against St. Lawrence a few weeks ago?  And the two on one shorty against BC?  A sizzler!  His scoring took a significant leap this year; from 2 points in his freshman campaign (and no goals!), to 10 points this season.  He will continue to improve.

Lay off of the kid and rely on more than just short term memory; you're better than that!  :-P

[ugarte]

[Q]atb9 Wrote:

 [Q2]Facetimer Wrote:

To all those that defend him, please enlighten me: give me an example of O'Byrne not sucking.[/Q]
Go watch a Cornell practice; his wrister is nasty.  Or heck, remember some of the games we played this season!  The powerplay goal against Harvard in November was sick!  How about that wrister 16 seconds in against St. Lawrence a few weeks ago?  And the two on one shorty against BC?  A sizzler!  His scoring took a significant leap this year; from 2 points in his freshman campaign (and no goals!), to 10 points this season.  He will continue to improve.

Lay off of the kid and rely on more than just short term memory; you're better than that![/q]Also, he hits the crap out of people and grinds them against the boards.

[MattShaf]

Unfortunately for Cornell, O'Byrne and the rest of us the puck got STUCK under O'Byrne's skate!! (' ::twitch:: ')
This is an extremely difficult position from which to do anything with the puck (but fall on it). The puck is visible (so the ref doesn't consider it frozen), the defensive player has a difficult time playing the puck with his stick and if he lifts his foot up.....well, we all know what an offensive player right next to him will do with the puck from there!

Overall, we played a great second half of a game. We were in it at the end and had two great chances in OT to win and our offense didn't convert. The power play looked very uncomfortable and the even-strength chances we few. Our defense kept a faster team in check for most of the game, shut down the opponents power play and scored the only goal for us in the game.

We can rag on O'Byrne all off-season but truthfully very few of us would be complaining if the offense could of generated a single goal!

[Jordan 04]

[Q]MattShaf Wrote:
if he lifts his foot up.....well, we all know what an offensive player right next to him will do with the puck from there!
[/q]

The issue here, however, is that there wasn't an offensive player anywhere near him for a good 4-5 seconds (and boy did it seem a hell of a lot longer!) as he strangely attempted to draw a whistle on a freeze-up when it was just him with the puck.

I don't think either extreme on this thread is fair.  You can't pin an entire game on one player's shoulders.  Obviously there were other chances, other players who could have stepped up, and other areas to point to.  How about the fact that we seemingly couldn't connect on a neutral zone cross ice pass for the first 30 minutes of the game?

But it's equally unfair to deny O'Byrne's invovlement in allowing both Minnesota goals.  "He's out there busting his ass and I'm sure Schafer sees something in him" is a piss-poor argument in trying to defend him for this one game.  Nobody is doubting the effort that he (or anybody wearing the Cornell jersey) gives or the talent that lies somewhere within (and does show itself at times during the year).  But players make mistakes in games, and sometimes those mistakes are costly, sometimes they are not.  Very unfortunately, O'Byrne's mistakes last night were extremely costly.  Simply put, when bad things happen after your mistakes, the deluge of criticism will follow.

We obviously need a solid Ryan O'Byrne next year to get to, and beyond, this year's finish.  He ain't going anywhere, nor should he.  I echo the statements of a previous poster (I am too lazy to look it up): who thought very much of Knoepfli and Iggulden 2 years ago, or even a year ago?  Now they seem indispensible, as leaders and as players.  Here's hoping we're speaking in the same tems of O'Byrne 2 years from today!