1st Half

[KeithK]

Ken, I obviously disagree with your conclusion, but you're right that the sniping was uncalled for.  Don't take it too seriously though - you just suggested that diehard Big Red fans should give up on their team in December.  Over reaction is not unexpected.

[q]he offense lacks creativity and the defense is average.[/q]I agree that the defense has been average.  From my vantage point this seems to be more a question of energy and work ethic than problems with the on-ice talent or system.  These problems can and hopefully will be addressed.

Offense is a problem that is harder to deal with, as anyone who's followed Cornell hockey for more than a couple years knows all too well.  Schafer is shuffling lines trying to find combinations that will work well, but so far hasn't found the right combination - or at least none of the combinations has really stood out yet.  We don't seem to be playing the cycling style well as in recent years.  We've been struggling to get the puck into the zone and when you're not coming up with the puck in the corners consistently dumping the puck in isn't very effective.  I don't think the scoring problem has to be solved with creativity necessarily.

The powerplay is struggling.  The problem (to me) is the tendency to rely on a single play - the shot from the point.  I don't even think you need to much creativity here.  But I think you do need another option probably in closer that will open up the options better.

Like I said on a previous post - things are not all rosy.  But while you conclude that we should look to next year I conclude that can still have a very successful season.  I'm sure you'd be happy to be proved wrong.

[Steve M]

I think it's too early to give up on the season, but not too early to be worried that this team will not come close to living up to its expectations.  It's clear that the team that I saw eke out a win over Quinnipiac on Saturday would be very fortunate to make the NCAA tournament with that level of play.  It remains to be seen whether or not they can turn it around in the 2nd half, as they do have the talent on paper.

Checking the ECAC standings in winning % order, it's interesting to note that we have played every team below us (we are tied for 3rd), but none of the top 3 teams.  After getting a #2 seed and having to play a road game in spite of such an amazing run down the stretch last year, I have wondered whether motivation has been an issue especially playing so many weak teams early in the season.  I'm hoping our level of play will rise as the stakes do with the Everblades tourney, which will have a big impact on the final PWR standings, and the huge games against Colgate and the North Country teams.

[Drew]

[Q]KeithK Wrote:

 The same thought had occurred to me and I've discussed it privately with other folks on this board.  This might be impacting our current performance.  But we still have plenty of size on the current roster.  If those guys aren't hitting and grinding in the corners it's not just because they're smaller.[/q]

Interesting, I was thinking Clarkson Hockey had changed as well.  Morris' teams of past, physically wore down the opposition, grind it out, force the others into mistakes, capitalize on mistakes.  I have watched Clarkson once this year vs. yale, Roll's team seemed substantially smaller, but faster and much more skilled....I wonder if this is a trend to follow. IMO

[Trotsky]

Call me crazy, (pause), but I liked what I saw this past weekend.  Yeah, it's tempting to harp on not blowing out two "weak" teams, but (1) neither did Colgate, and (2) although Princeton was indeed horrible, QU is IMHO a good squad with a lot of heart -- possibly a .500 team when all is said and done.

Look over the results from last season: 1-goal wins against such powerhouses as Union, Vermont, and St. Lawrence (twice!).  The all-everything 2003 squad managed to eek out 1-goal wins against both North Country teams, RPI (twice), Princeton, and that renowned Western Michigan that barely missed the national championship on its way to 21 losses.

A win's a win.  By all means, bitch after a 1-point home weekend against the Cap District, but after a 4-game winning streak, there's just not a lot to complain about.

[MB]

I too liked what I saw this weekend, especially our game against Q.  Those guys were amazingly fast, and all over the ice, yet somehow we were able to keep them at bay.

We weren't always "bad" this season-- our games against Mich State were some of the best hockey I've seen.  The team and the talent are there, and I think they're coming back, ever so slowly.  (Why they left, I don't know...)

[Scersk '97]

[Q]Ken '70 Wrote:
You respond in your first sentence, before any facts are brought to bear, with a personal attack.  You don't like my conclusions and instead of countering them with data or logic, you start calling names.
[/q]
Though I'm risking getting a graphic from Hayes, I'm your huckleberry.

Though I didn't cite and footnote, I did bring facts to bear:  your previous postings on this forum.  Your postings in the Union game thread were a bunch of whines about how something needed to be done about who was playing in the game.  We only lost 2-1; it wasn't Dartmouth the week before.  It seemed, well, like the ravings of someone who might "come off as [being] kind of a crank."  Notice, I said "kind of."  Are you a crank?  No.  Are you cranky?  Perhaps.  (Really, can we all stop calling for O'Byrne's head on this forum?  The guy's a good player, one of the best on the team so far this year.  What games are you watching?)  Was it a snipe?  Yes.  Was it unwarranted?  I don't think so.

Now you made me look back more closely at your posts prior to that, and, though I don't find your posts especially cranky except with regards to political topics, I now know what cheeses me off about your calls to "analysis," and this is it:
[Q]
Grow up, stop being lazy, don't rely on name calling, and learn to support your positions based on facts (or be open minded enough to change a position if the facts can't be mustered).  It'll be a tough go for you, but if you ever get there it will be worth it.
[/q]
Your "facts" are the incredibly in-depth analysis that pits our win/loss record against our opponents win/loss records.  I mean, talk about lazy.  Anyone who ever reads my posts on this forum knows that I usually back up my most casual statements with more effort than you've put out.  But, then again, you probably haven't agreed with my previous analyses since you've shown that you mistrust some very well-established tools for analysis.

We were all involved in a lengthy discussion about KRACH vs. PWR last year, and it turns out you're one of those people that prefers PWR to KRACH.  You've said that you like how PWR reflects "reality" and that KRACH shows "unrealities," or whatever.  (There was a moment of high comedy when you were "schooling" Whelan...  right.)  So, if I felt like putting in the work, I could go back and show you where my "feelings" about this year's team are coming from, since I'm essentially going back and looking at old KRACHs and records and making my own judgment calls.  Typing all that process out would be time consuming, so I made the analogies and left it there.

Which brings me to my point:  Why should I have to back up everything that I say with absolute pedantry when 1)  I have a reputation for good analysis, 2)  you wouldn't believe my analysis when presented, and 3) you haven't done any legwork yourself beyond taking a look at the RPI and picking out the relevant numbers?

Don't call me lazy without putting in some work yourself.

[Lauren '06]

[Q]ben03 Wrote:

 has it occurred to anyone else that we might be seeing a shift in Coach's style of play/player size? i know it’s been mentioned here before but it seems that more and more teams in the league have started to play "big" and recruit to match our size. does anyone buy the "getting smaller and faster pitch?"[/q]
I think this is the feeling I've been having the past few weeks.  This Cornell team seems to be trying to make the transition from Cornell-style outwork, outdefend hockey to WCHA-style (and new NHL style) outscore hockey, but is experiencing dreadful growing pains in the process.  I don't know whether this is by design or just how the trend looks, but I feel this is evidenced by our many come from behind/come from ties wins.

I'm not quite sure how McKee and his play fits into this theory, except that perhaps they expected him to be more stellar than he is right now.

[RichH]

[Q]Drew Wrote:

Interesting, I was thinking Clarkson Hockey had changed as well.  Morris' teams of past, physically wore down the opposition, grind it out, force the others into mistakes, capitalize on mistakes.  I have watched Clarkson once this year vs. yale, Roll's team seemed substantially smaller, but faster and much more skilled....I wonder if this is a trend to follow. IMO[/q]

Hmm.  Interesting perspective, Drew.  You obviously have a much more intense following of Clarkson than most of us here, so I'll defer to your judgement, but I remember having discussions with CCT fans 10 years ago over on the old Golden Knight Roundtable.  The popular saying whenever Cornell and Clarkson got together was "flash and dash will beat crash and bash!"  The successful Clarkson teams of the early-to-mid-90s certainly had a LOT of speedy guys.  That Marko Tuomainen - Patrice Robitaille combination gave me fits.  The prototypical Morris guys (in my mind, anyway) were Todd Marchant, Todd White, and Eric Cole...fast, darty players with sick puck-handling skills.

Marchant: 5' 10" 175
White: 5' 10" 181
Cole: 6' 1" 185

Even the great grinder, JF Houle was 5' 9" (and played much bigger).  The first really BIG Clarkson player I remember was Willie Mitchell (6' 3" 205)...I'm sure there were other big guys (Bartell), but in terms of impact in this opposing fans mind...Mitchell was huge.

When Coach Schafer set up his recruiting system, it took a few years, but all of a sudden, you started seeing players that were *substantially* bigger than the competition.  Sacchetti, Baby, Murray.  When we went to Kalamazoo in '02-'03, we talked to some WMU fans who asked us if we brought our football team.  Given the success of those teams leading up to the 2003 season, I think that the "recruit trees" strategy effected the way the ECAC as a whole went about recruiting, and the type of players that have been brought into the league.  

That said, nobody towered over opponents like Joel Prpic did for SLU.

[ben03]

so after taking a look at the size of the league teams for this season, i thought it might be interesting to see what (if any) actual trend has been happening
since the 1999-2000 season (oldest archived data). has the league gotten bigger and bigger? yes. does bigger win titles? you decide.

Year       Team             Height  Weight   Record   Winning %
2004-05  Cornell(RS)       6’1.3”   195     27-5-3    .814%
2004-05  Cornell(TC)        6’1.3”   195     27-5-3    .814%
2003-04  Colgate(RS)       5’11.9”   198    22-12-5    .662%
2003-04  Harvard(TC)        6’1.0”   197    18-15-3    .542%
2002-03  Cornell(RS)        6’0.6”   194     30-5-1    .847%
2002-03  Cornell(TC)       6’0.6”   194     30-5-1    .847%
2001-02  Cornell(RS)        6’0.7”   193    25-8-2    .743%
2001-02  Harvard(TC)        6’0.5”   194    15-15-4    .500%
2000-01  Clarkson(RS)       6’0.4”   187    21-11-3    .662%
2000-01  St. Lawrence(TC)   6’0.3”   193    20-13-4    .595%
1999-00  St. Lawrence(RS)   6’0.0”   187     27-8-2    .757%
1999-00  St. Lawrence(TC)   6’0.0”   187     27-8-2    .757%

RS â€" Reg. Season Champion
TC â€" Tournament Champion

... and can stop talking about due diligence now??? ::nut::

[redhair34]

[Q]Scersk '97 Wrote:

 Anyone who ever reads my posts on this forum knows that I usually back up my most casual statements with more effort than you've put out. [/q]


Yes you do...
http://elf.elynah.com/read.php?1,63529,63770#msg-63770

[schoaff]

[Q]KeithK Wrote:

The powerplay is struggling.  The problem (to me) is the tendency to rely on a single play - the shot from the point.  I don't even think you need to much creativity here.  But I think you do need another option probably in closer that will open up the options better.
[/q]

It seemed to me that Q in particular was giving us the shot from the point and wasn't particularly worried about it. Whenever Moulson got the puck at the top of the circle he was trying to move in before taking the shot giving Q time to set up for it. I wonder if the player they miss the most from last year is Charlie Cook?

As for reasons for optimism this season, I've only seen 20 seasons of College hockey now which is far fewer than Ken's name would indicate, but it's been the norm and not the exception for Cornell to really step up their play after the break. I assume it's just a matter of having time to catch up to the non-Ivy schools practice wise.

[Josh '99]

[Q]schoaff Wrote:
As for reasons for optimism this season, I've only seen 20 seasons of College hockey now which is far fewer than Ken's name would indicate, but it's been the norm and not the exception for Cornell to really step up their play after the break. I assume it's just a matter of having time to catch up to the non-Ivy schools practice wise.[/q]I'm inclined to say (although I don't have time to do the kind of research Scersk does to back up his statements) that this is especially a hallmark of the Schafer years (which coincide precisely with my time watching college hockey).  To me, improving as the year goes on suggests that a coach is making good adjustments (line combinations, who plays in what game situations, and the like), and so I think Schafer has demonstrated in the past that he knows the right buttons to push.  As has been pointed out already, last year's team had some rough early stretches, and was 8-3-2 after the Florida trip and 5-2-1 after 8 conference games.  This year's team is 8-3-1 before the Florida trip and 5-2-1 after 8 conference games.  So I guess the point I'm moving towards in a roundabout way is, while there may be areas that could stand to be improved (and if we recognize this, you can be SURE that Schafer does too), there isn't cause to be overly concerned.  Last year's team turned out fine after some rough spots early, and I think this year's team will too.

[Robb]

There are a couple of differences that lead to the perception that this year's team is markedly "worse" than last year's team despite similar W-L records at this point.  (note: I'm not saying that we're NOT worse - time will tell - but there certainly is a perception that we are worse).  

Last year, we were 0-1-1 after the opening weekend and things generally got better from there.  This year, we started out 1-1 against a team projected to be in the top 10 (remember those days?), so expectations were higher.  Last year, we didn't get blown out 6-1 in any of our 3 early losses.  Last year, we didn't blow 2 goal leads on consecutive nights to the same non-conference team.  Last year, we didn't need late goals to beat Harvard or an ECAC team that was picked at the bottom of the league.  Last year, our GF-GA was significantly better at this point in the season, and Dave's GAA and Sv Pct were already ridiculous.  Yes, we do have the same record; we've earned that record, but we have definitely been scraping by by a lot closer margins this year.

[CowbellGuy]

Don't forget that might just reflect height/weight inflation more than actual size. Hell, Vesce's numbers alone probably skew the whole thing significantly

[ben03]

okay late one and i'll quit, i promise.

Year        Height   Weight     Record   Winning %
2006-07     6’0.4”    188         TBD       --
2005-06     6'0.6"    192         TBD       --
2004-05     6’1.3”    195       27-5-3    .814%
2003-04     6’1.0’    194      16-10-6    .594%
2002-03     6’0.6”    194       30-5-1    .847%
2001-02     6’0.7”    193       25-8-2    .743%
2000-01     6’0.3”    193      16-12-5    .561%
1999-00     6’0.8”    193      16-14-2    .531%

my guess is the adjustments we’re seeing (aka the minor downward trend) are in part due to our recent success and subsequent ability to get more of the smaller, faster and more skilled recruits. i don’t think we’ll see the abolishment of “the big man” on a CU roster while Schafer is the coach. rather i’ll bet some tweaking is in the works to better compete nationally. i think when all’s said and done, we’ll end up looking like something between Denver (6’0.8”/ 189) and NoDak (5’11.9”/ 186) in both size and style. something tells me i think we  can all live with that:-D