RPI 1 @ Cornell 1 11/19 Postgame

[redhair34]

[Q]calgARI '07 Wrote:

 very similar game to last night.  not remotely entertaining. fans sucked again but tough to blame them when there is nothing to cheer for.  cornell's offense is terrible.  they aren't a big team anymore and can't physically dominate in the corners like they once did.  they need to stop dumping and chasing and carry the puck a little more.  Three straight games without an even strength goal.  embarrassing.[/q]

I thought the fans on my side of the rink were great.  Sections E,F,G (didn't pay much attention to D) got a lot of great cheers going and sustained a lot of enthusiasim and noise for the entire game.

[billhoward]

Good points from the weekend:

Cornell defense has solidified. A 1.5 GAA should carry us the rest of the season since how hard can it be for Cornell to get 2, 3 goals a game?

Cornell dominating play and shots. Maybe we did run into back-to-back goaltenders having career nights.

Very nice puck control on power play although completing the PP (like say putting puck in net more often) needs work.


Longer term thoughts:

Cornell's offense may be shifting from physical control in the corners to precision and if so that's going to take a while to gel. Which is a polite way of saying, "Sheesh, just two goals against Union and RPI?"

Maybe it's the freshmen adjusting to college not junior play and needing to learn restraint in taking penalities, and maybe Cornell's style of play just takes longer to come together than some other teams.


Short term thought: Sheesh.

[ben03]

[Q]billhoward Wrote:

 Good points from the weekend:

Cornell defense has solidified. A 1.5 GAA should carry us the rest of the season since how hard can it be for Cornell to get 2, 3 goals a game? [/q]
yeah this is great ... 1.5 GAA. the only problem is we LOST and TIED. who's  up for a sub-2 GAA and a 4-14-14 record??? anyone, anyone, going once, going twice ...

good let's start winning and throw the whole "lowest GAA in the country" out the window. it ain't gonna happen this year.

[DeltaOne81]

[Q]ben03 Wrote:

 [Q2]billhoward Wrote:

 Good points from the weekend:

Cornell defense has solidified. A 1.5 GAA should carry us the rest of the season since how hard can it be for Cornell to get 2, 3 goals a game? [/Q]
yeah this is great ... 1.5 GAA. the only problem is we LOST and TIED. who's  up for a sub-2 GAA and a 4-14-14 record??? anyone, anyone, going once, going twice ...

good let's start winning and throw the whole "lowest GAA in the country" out the window. it ain't gonna happen this year.[/q]

And let's not forget that this was against RPI and Union. They dominated the play like they should have against these teams, and still couldn't score more than one per night. Play a good, or, heaven forbid, very good team, where we split time, and the games could be 3-1, 4-1 against (assuming we get a 5x3 :-P )

The D was better, but I'm not willing to extrapolate this performance this weekend to Colgate, Dartmouth, Harvard, the NC pair, and Maine/Minn-Duluth.

In Schafer we trust, and more time playing together and letting them gel more can't hurt, things very well may be just fine, but that's not to say they are now. And you can't extract a 1.5 GAA against RPI and Union to... anything.

[redhair34]

[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:

 [Q2]ben03 Wrote:

 [Q2]billhoward Wrote:

 Good points from the weekend:

Cornell defense has solidified. A 1.5 GAA should carry us the rest of the season since how hard can it be for Cornell to get 2, 3 goals a game? [/Q]
yeah this is great ... 1.5 GAA. the only problem is we LOST and TIED. who's  up for a sub-2 GAA and a 4-14-14 record??? anyone, anyone, going once, going twice ...

good let's start winning and throw the whole "lowest GAA in the country" out the window. it ain't gonna happen this year.[/Q]
And let's not forget that this was against RPI and Union. They dominated the play like they should have against these teams, and still couldn't score more than one per night. Play a good, or, heaven forbid, very good team, where we split time, and the games could be 3-1, 4-1 against (assuming we get a 5x3  )

The D was better, but I'm not willing to extrapolate this performance this weekend to Colgate, Dartmouth, Harvard, the NC pair, and Maine/Minn-Duluth.

In Schafer we trust, and more time playing together and letting them gel more can't hurt, things very well may be just fine, but that's not to say they are now. And you can't extract a 1.5 GAA against RPI and Union to... anything.[/q]


In fairness to the team, RPI and Union combined had about 5 scoring opportunities all weekend.  I don't think its fair to expect better than that from our defense (save the Davenport blunder in the Union game)--even if they are RPI and Union.  But, I do think it's fair to expect more goals from our team, especially against our foes from the Capital District.  Yes, Mayotte stood on his head and some say Lange did as well (personally I wasn't that impressed with him but what do I know); still you've got to get at least a couple of goals.  The team is down on its luck and didn't get the bounces this weekend.  But, I'd rather save the good bounces for the end of the season.  I am much more encouraged by this one point weekend than the two road points I witnessed at Lynah East and Thompson (shiver).

[TCHL8842]

Another horrible game by McKee, only goal scored by RPI should never have happened.  Pokuluk should get equal blame for the goal for losing the puck deep in our zone.  Once I saw that I literally thought here comes a goal and it happened.  Our team main problem is that we do not have any goal scorers by Moulson on this team.  If someone does not step up and become a scorer this will be a very very long season.  O'Byrne had a nice shot on the PP and hit the post.  It seems to me that no one knows how to lift the puck up on a rebound, all the shots are just trying to shove it under the goalies pads.  It was very evident that we do not have any leadership on this team, after RPI scored we were not skating for a good 5+ mins afterwords and if RPI took advantage of it, we could of lost the game.

[Harrier]

On the goal, yes it was coughed up down low...but the cardinal rule for the G is to cover the near post..didn't happen and goal scored.  From that angle that goal can't go in.  Other than that Mckee looked good.  Seminoff was probably the best D on the ice except the elbow to the head.  The boarding call was a wuss call.

This team looks like it is expecting things to happen for them on the ice instead of absolutely making them happen.  I saw Moulson look to the rafters and slouch after he missed what he thought was a sure PP goal.  That is something I have never seen him do when the puck was in play.  As a C you drive to the net as soon as you relase the shot and keep set the work ethic for the whole team.  Problem seems to be there is nobody like Baby who could take the team to task on the effort from within and make everyone push harder.  Mccutcheon, Carefoot brought the type of eneergy t6he rest of the team needs every shift.

[dbilmes]

[Q]cmoberg Wrote:

 I cut my teeth on Cornell hockey in the mid 70s. What a time that was.  Strong goaltending and prolific scorers.  Never was there are worry when the opposing team took an early lead.  Treadway, Nethery, and Kerling to the rescue.  Some big D men too, like Peter Shier (what a shot from the point).   So I too think it is time to pump up the offensive recruiting.  When your defense is in top form we can win with little offense, but anything short of that puts us behind the eight ball.

Chris[/q]


I, too, cut my teeth on Cornell hockey in the mid 70s. But I'm not so sure that's the way we want to go. Sure, we could score like crazy, but we also gave up goals like crazy, highlighted by our 9-8 (or was it 10-9) overtime loss to UNH in the ECAC semifinals in 1977. We never made it past the ECAC semis that year, and rarely beat top-notch teams of the era like BU and Harvard. Scoring a lot of goals isn't a big plus if you can't keep the other team from scoring a lot of goals as well, although losing 9-8 is definitely more entertaining than losing 1-0 I remember one game my freshman year where we blew a two-goal lead to Brown in the final minute and lost in overtime. Afterwards, I saw our goalie drinking beer out of his shoe in the Chapter House!

Thinking back to those years, though, I can't help but remember one year where Brown was a heavy preseason favorite to win the ECACs, based upon their play the previous season and the strong senior class they had returning. As it turned out Brown struggled all season and never lived up to expectations. I hope we're not heading down the same path.

[ben03]

[Q]redhair34 Wrote:
In fairness to the team, RPI and Union combined had about 5 scoring opportunities all weekend.  I don't think its fair to expect better than that from our defense (save the Davenport blunder in the Union game)--even if they are RPI and Union.  But, I do think it's fair to expect more goals from our team, especially against our foes from the Capital District.  Yes, Mayotte stood on his head and some say Lange did as well (personally I wasn't that impressed with him but what do I know); still you've got to get at least a couple of goals.  The team is down on its luck and didn't get the bounces this weekend.  But, I'd rather save the good bounces for the end of the season.  I am much more encouraged by this one point weekend than the two road points I witnessed at Lynah East and Thompson (shiver). [/q]
this has zero to do with luck. 187:31 without an even strength goal speaks largely to our own deficient offense. the "we ran into a hot goalie" line only holds so much water. and that's not much. it's like i said a few days ago, this team, this program is not here for moral victories. if they are a top team (which i think they still are) they will say screw the excuses and FIND ways to win games.

hope coach and the boys are able to shake whatever's going on.

[Doug \'08]

I thought the fans in D/E/F were terrible last night- not following the game and were clearly more interested in what is going AFTER the game.  At least there is intensity in A/B.

[billhoward]

The line about "great that we had a 1.5 GAA for the weekend" was half tongue in cheek, since you need an integer greater than 1.5 for the good guys to win. And as others have noted, this harks back to earlier in the decade, where you had a sinking feeling if you were down by a goal because while we could invariably protect a one-goal lead, and a two-goal lead was just about a guaranteed tickmark in the W column (then), coming from one goal down was something that wasn't confidence inspiring.

Like say in the 2003 NCAA semifinal game being down by a goal in the third. You hoped against hope that Cornell could put one in to tie it up, but you knew come-from-behind was not Cornell's strongpoint then. Or now. Although we did it against Harvard at Harvard this year.

I'm surprised no one yet has tried to make the David McKee / Al Montoya comparison, where Montoya seemed to get less respect later in his college career at Michigan. Not clear that Montoya was worse, or if the D in front of him wasn't as solid, or if expectations were that he'd improve each season and playing at the same level seemed like falliing backwards.

Maybe Cornell plays better when it's the underdog going into the NCAA tournament.

The season is yet young.

[DeltaOne81]

I don't think anyone's saying that the D and/or McKee were perfect... sure, McKee should have covered the post, sure the D gave it up, but you can't expect them to be perfect. You can't require a shutout every game to win. Mistakes are GOING to happen, the key is to minimize them and to take advantage of your chances on the other end.

Just because McKee and the D weren't perfect, doesn't mean you can blame them for not being so - they're human, they're college kids, and they're going to make mistakes. Last year this would have been another steller performance in a 5-1 win. What's the difference? Hint: not McKee.

[redhair34]

[Q]ben03 Wrote:

 [Q2]redhair34 Wrote:
In fairness to the team, RPI and Union combined had about 5 scoring opportunities all weekend.  I don't think its fair to expect better than that from our defense (save the Davenport blunder in the Union game)--even if they are RPI and Union.  But, I do think it's fair to expect more goals from our team, especially against our foes from the Capital District.  Yes, Mayotte stood on his head and some say Lange did as well (personally I wasn't that impressed with him but what do I know); still you've got to get at least a couple of goals.  The team is down on its luck and didn't get the bounces this weekend.  But, I'd rather save the good bounces for the end of the season.  I am much more encouraged by this one point weekend than the two road points I witnessed at Lynah East and Thompson (shiver). [/Q]
this has zero to do with luck. 187:31 without an even strength goal speaks largely to our own deficient offense. the "we ran into a hot goalie" line only holds so much water. and that's not much. it's like i said a few days ago, this team, this program is not here for moral victories. if they are a top team (which i think they still are) they will say screw the excuses and FIND ways to win games.

hope coach and the boys are able to shake whatever's going on.[/q]

O'Byrne's shot from the point last night went through the crease to the far post (it literally cut diagonally through the crease) and some how popped out.  That sequence on the PP we had about 5 near goals--Lange must have sold his soul to the Devil to prevent us from scoring.  Granted that was on the PP, but still we had some chances 5x5 both games.  I agree with whover said it (maybe Ari?) but we need to carry the puck into the zone more instead of just dumping it.  Us not scoring an even strength goal in the Dartmouth game had nothing to do with a deficient offense.  It had everything to do with us playing absoultely horrible in every aspect of the game.  That game was a disgrace.   So yeah, in my mind we've gone two straight games w/out scoring an even strength goal.  This has something to do with luck.  If you read my post clearly I said, "still you've got to get at least a couple of goals."  

[RichH]

[Q]Al DeFlorio Wrote:

 Despite all the shots, I don't think Cornell had that many quality chances either night.  We're good at digging the puck out of the corners but there never seems to be anyone open in the slot or top of a circle to pass it to.  I almost can't remember an odd-man rush tonight, yet there were many at Harvard.  It's all very strange to me. [/q]

[Q]Trotsky Wrote:
They did everything right all weekend, completely dominating both opponents, except they couldn't finish. The bus is fine, it just needs more gas.[/q]

These are the two people on this forum I most agree with here in this situation.  

Thinking about what I saw on the video feed (save for the half hour when the CSTV satellite went  around to the dark side of the moon and we lost transmission), Cornell didn't have very many grade-A scoring chances.  Mayotte and Lange both were very solid in net; they played well, but I don't remember them diving all over the place, throwing the legs up in the air at the last second, diving across the crease to bat the puck out of midair, somehow getting their facemask in front of a Baby shot labelled for the top corner...ahem.  :-( They were solid, but at no point were they spectacular...no way would I say either of them "stood on their head."  Probably the only spectacular stop that I've seen this year was Daigneau's save on Pegs' shorthanded try at Harvard.  We generated chances this weekend, but not many great chances.  I refer to Al's statement above for the rest of my thoughts.

How do they fix it?  That's up to them.  I'm not an expert on hockey strategery, so I'll leave it up to the guys on the ice and in the coaches jackets.  More creativity?  Better transition game?  Smarter passing?  Hell if I know.

That said, Cornell certainly controlled play all weekend.  It was a day-night difference than whatever team got off the bus in Hanover.   Schafer was quoted in the RPI game write-up: "You play that way all year long, you’re going to have success."  And this spins into the various posts of Trotsky both here and on USCHO.  This team has talent, and there's a heck of a lot of time in this season to make hay.  Most teams in history go through funks of one sort or another.  Every team this year has had a bad loss.  Just this weekend, MSU lost to WMU.  UHN dropped one to UML.  It happens.  You can play "the sky is falling" all you want, but I'm betting that this team will have more than a few more wins in them before everything's done.

High expectations are a bitch sometimes.  At least the team is figuring out that opponents aren't going to roll over for them this year.  Success takes work, and I see it as a lucky thing that we still have a lot of work to take care of.

[redhair34]

[Q]Doug '08 Wrote:

 I thought the fans in D/E/F were terrible last night- not following the game and were clearly more interested in what is going AFTER the game.  At least there is intensity in A/B.[/q]

You must have been around different fans than me.  Everyone around me was paying attention to the game.  We lead a ton of LGR cheers, a couple of "you're not a sieve" cheers and we sustained a high volume level for most of the game.  I could barely hear A and B for most of the game.