2004 All Over Again?

[Trotsky]

GF-GA, ECAC RS:

2002: 74-34 +40
2003: 89-29 +60
2004: 53-32 +21
2005: 70-26 +44
2006: 59-45 +14

Record, Games 11-22, ECAC RS

2002: 9-1-1
2003: 9-1-1
2004: 7-4-0
2005: 10-0-1
2006: 5-2-2

And of course, 2004 was the only other season Cornell won the Everblades...

OTOH, 2004 was not a terrible season by any means -- it's shadowed by the Clarkson QF elimination, but prior to that it was comparing with the '96 and '97 title seasons.

[calgARI '07]

I see the similarities statistically and even in results, but the two teams are not very similar at all.

[Trotsky]

I dunno.  Moulson was the only one who could score that year, too.  ::help::

[DeltaOne81]

The ECAC is also distinctly better this year than in 2004. In 2004 the only ECAC NCAA representation was the tournament champion Crimson who then proceeded to crash horribly against Maine.

So while our ECAC numbers may seem more like 2004, its not an even playing field.

[calgARI '07]

[quote Trotsky]I dunno.  Moulson was the only one who could score that year, too.  ::help::[/quote]

I wasn't aware Moulson could score this year.

[Trotsky]

Man, you've got it out for Moulson the way I had it out for Gary Cullen.  Yeah, I know, he's only got 2 or 3 even strength goals, but ferchrissakes, he IS leading the team, in both goals and points, by a ton.

[calgARI '07]

[quote Trotsky]Man, you've got it out for Moulson the way I had it out for Gary Cullen.  Yeah, I know, he's only got 2 or 3 even strength goals, but ferchrissakes, he IS leading the team, in both goals and points, by a ton.[/quote]

Loved Moulson last year but he has been brutal this season, particularly in 2006.  I wouldn't even put in Cornell's top five offensive players over the last month.  I want him so badly to break out because I think it could be the difference between a deep run into the NCAA's and an early exit.  But he is not coming close to getting it done the last several games.  It isn't as if he's getting chances, he's just been totally invisible and a non-factor.

[Trotsky]

Since conference resumed after the break

1/13 1-1-2 (3 Cornell goals)
1/14 0-0-0 (0)
1/20 0-1-1 (5)
1/21 1-1-2 (4)
1/27 1-0-0 (4)
1/28 0-0-0 (2)
2/03 0-1-1 (4)
2/04 0-0-0 (3)
2/10 0-1-1 (1)
2/11 0-1-1 (4)
2/17 1-1-2 (3)
2/18 0-0-0 (3)

Total 4-7-11 (36 goals in 12 games, 3.00 average)

It's still a point per game, and figuring in on nearly 1/3 of all team scoring.  It's not Joe Nieuwendyk, but it's not Christian Felli either.

[calgARI '07]

[quote Trotsky]Since conference resumed after the break

1/13 1-1-2 (3 Cornell goals)
1/14 0-0-0 (0)
1/20 0-1-1 (5)
1/21 1-1-2 (4)
1/27 1-0-0 (4)
1/28 0-0-0 (2)
2/03 0-1-1 (4)
2/04 0-0-0 (3)
2/10 0-1-1 (1)
2/11 0-1-1 (4)
2/17 1-1-2 (3)
2/18 0-0-0 (3)

Total 4-7-11 (36 goals in 12 games, 3.00 average)

It's still a point per game, and figuring in on nearly 1/3 of all team scoring.  It's not Joe Nieuwendyk, but it's not Christian Felli either.[/quote]

I'm not talking about numbers.  I'm talking about performance.

[Beeeej]

As far as that ephemeral, non-quantifiable thing called "leadership" goes, I'm in Ari's camp on this one.  I think the only exception has been his willingness actually to take shots at the goal on the PP, which has been one of Cornell's weaknesses this century.

Beeeej

[Trotsky]

[Q]I wasn't aware Moulson could score this year.[/Q]

Your statement was about scoring, not performance.

Anyway, the point is that we were all very worried that scoring wasn't well-spread in '04.  And when the hammer came down against Clarkson, despite being the team leader in scoring, Moulson was indeed bottled up:

Game 1: 0-0-0 (5 goals)
Game 2: 0-1-1 (4)
Game 3: 0-0-0 (1)

But Mike Knoepfli had a hat trick the first night and he and Carefoot (as a frosh) scored 6 goals in the first two games, picking the team up.  The problem was goals *against* in that series.  After giving up fewer than 3 goals in 15 of the prior 16 games, McKee surrendered 9 goals on 50 shots (plus 1 eng) in the final two games, and IIRC the game descriptions afterwards depicted the red D as wretched.

[Rosey]

[quote Beeeej]As far as that ephemeral, non-quantifiable thing called "leadership" goes, I'm in Ari's camp on this one.  I think the only exception has been his willingness actually to take shots at the goal on the PP, which has been one of Cornell's weaknesses this century.[/quote]
Not a criticism of Moulson per se, but it would be much more helpful---and even he would be more successful---if others would also take SOG's on the power play.  Just venting, I guess...

Kyle

[calgARI '07]

[quote krose][quote Beeeej]As far as that ephemeral, non-quantifiable thing called "leadership" goes, I'm in Ari's camp on this one.  I think the only exception has been his willingness actually to take shots at the goal on the PP, which has been one of Cornell's weaknesses this century.[/quote]
Not a criticism of Moulson per se, but it would be much more helpful---and even he would be more successful---if others would also take SOG's on the power play.  Just venting, I guess...

Kyle[/quote]

One of the problems is that the powerplay is that it is so predictable.  It isn't a secret that Moulson can rip it from the high slot and that the one-timer to O'Byrne is the secondary option.  Now, it's the one-timer to Bitz.  They do not ever try to work the down-low play.  Sawada should have a bigger role than to just provide a screen.  At the very least, if they try to penetrate the slot a little more on the powerplay, the PK box will close up and Moulson, O'Byrne (when he comes back), and Bitz will have more space to operate with.

[Rosey]

One of the problems is that the powerplay is that it is so predictable.  It isn't a secret that Moulson can rip it from the high slot and that the one-timer to O'Byrne is the secondary option.  Now, it's the one-timer to Bitz.  They do not ever try to work the down-low play.  Sawada should have a bigger role than to just provide a screen.  At the very least, if they try to penetrate the slot a little more on the powerplay, the PK box will close up and Moulson, O'Byrne (when he comes back), and Bitz will have more space to operate with.

I agree with you completely... but every time I make an observation like you have, I think, "Doesn't Schafer know this?  Or is there something he knows that we don't?"

I have to admit, I find some of his tactics a little strange (e.g. too much dump and chase for a team that is getting lighter and faster; too many times there's no one on the far post ready to take centering passes) but this is the only one I can think of that truly confounds me because I can't see where I'm wrong.

Additionally, it surprises me because in general he does so many things so well: positioning on D is generally flawless, providing the opposition almost zero chance for 1-0 outside of the occasional Krantz-falls-down or O'Byrne-fat-fingers-a-pass problem, neither of which really have much to do with the system.

cheers,
Kyle

[KeithK]

[q]I agree with you completely... but every time I make an observation like you have, I think, "Doesn't Schafer know this? Or is there something he knows that we don't?"[/q]I'm not sure predictability on the power play is purely a problem of coaching (assuming it's a problem).  Players fall into patterns sometimes, going with things that they are comfortable with.  The coach can try to get them to break out of it through drills, etc. but it's up to the players to execute.