Yale 4 Cornell 2

Yale is a FAST team. A fast team that's actually pretty good at checking.

To be honest, I don't really understand their strategy. They were using a 1-2-2 trap through their offensive zone and the neutral zone. But a high-speed, uptempo trap. And in the defensive zone, they forechecked very aggressively. At one point on the penalty kill, all 4 guys went to the puck. Its definitely a unique strategy, and apparently it works against us.

There were a LOT of penalties, especially in the 2nd. It made generating any flow difficult. However, we did respond well. After about 15 minutes, our team adjusted to Yale's speed and style, but then the 2nd period had so many penalties that not much got going. Give credit to our guys for stepping up their game in the 3rd and making a contest out of it.

Our team played hard. Yale played better. Its no fluke that they will end the regular season 1st in the ECAC.

Thank You Seniors

Four Point Weekend, continued Line Shakeup success, and Dan DiLeo

**Edit: I started writing this Tuesday. This week got really hectic. The game commentaries at the bottom are a bit shortened. Sorry about that, I'll do better next week**

It was a great weekend to celebrate the 8 guys in my graduating year. They've accomplished a lot in their four years. It was really classy of Schafer to start 5 seniors, and it made everyone happy to see Dan DiLeo get into the game, and even make a quality save. Schafer always says he thinks the world of Dan's work ethic, and it must be tough to be a member of the team for four years, putting in all the time, and then to see only 5 minutes of game time over the whole four years. It was great to see Lynah give him a roar and a standing ovation, and a lot of fun to see him make a quaity save.

Some random thoughts first and then, since I did not get a chance over the weekend, some comments on each game

In 4 games prior to the line shakeup, our offense was getting average 1 goal per game (2, 1, 1, 0). In 4 games since, we've averaged 3.75 goals per game (4,2,4,5). It clearly has not been long enough to draw conclusions, but those numbers appear astounding. My favorite part about it is the distribution of scoring. Opponents now need to cover 3 quality scoring lines, and it shows. In Harvard and Dartmouth, the Greening was on fire. This weekend the Greening line couldn't get going as well, but that's fine, because one night the Michael Kennedy line picks up the slack, another night the Nash line does. Its easier to get out of a scoring slump when you are not relying on one line to generate all of the offense.

One of the biggest teamwide improvements over past years is (in my opinion) the start of games. Scoring a quick goal really changes the tone of the game. Everyone remembers the big games last season where we would let up 3 in the first 10 minutes, and spend the next 50 trying to claw our way back up. Its much better this way.

FRIDAY, RPI
See what happens when you give Tyler Mugford some time and space to shoot? I really like this line. and I don't think its a coincidence that the first game that Mugford has more ice time, he pots 2.
Overall, we played a great 1st period. I thought we sat back a little bit after that, but hey, when you have a 3-0 lead vs RPI, i guess you can afford to do that

SATURDAY, UNION
Just think if Riley decided to score every night.
A 6 point weekend for Riley Nash, who finally decided to show some of the potential that we've all heard about. Overall, the team played a much more complete game, in my mind. They put a good game together for the seniors.

[Sorry again for the brevity. Back in full force next week]

I forgot something

One thing I forgot to mention.

Cornell's players are afflicted by a particular bad habit, one that makes me scream in anger and frustration every time I see it.

LAZY LINE CHANGES

Especially on the powerplay. The first powerplay unit could have a pretty solid shift, controlling the puck for a minute and getting 2 or 3 shots. But when the other team finally clears it down the ice...NOBODY skates to the bench, everybody glides. The cost: 5-10 seconds of powerplay time, loss of opportunity to take advantage of an off-balance, changing defense, increased difficulty in breaking out of their own zone [seriously. the other team has one less guy, it should not be so difficult to get the puck into the offensive zone].

Its the same theory as playing till the buzzer. While a player is on the ice, he should be giving 100%. Even if that is towards getting off the ice.

3 game losing streak

Because I am superstitious, I will now avoid writing anything about standings, RPI, or any upcoming games. I will avoid even thinking about any of those things. Instead, I'm going to write about the team, and where things stand now.

Lets start with the negatives

• Penalty Kill: The penalty kill let up 5 goals over this weekend [including the empty netter]. That is devastating for a low-scoring team. Hard to say about the wacky game in Dartmouth, but no doubt about it, if our penalty kill is tighter, we win that game. Fixing the penalty kill is all about simplifying it. Harvard's 3rd goal, Mugford had the puck on his stick. Instead of trying to get the puck deep, he tried to softly play the puck around Harvard's pointman. True, if successful, he's on a breakaway. But instead, Harvard puts the puck back behind the net, and then passes it into the slot. One-timer goal that Scrivens had no chance at. Simplify the penalty kill. Get that puck out of the zone, worry about scoring 5-on-5.
• Speed: We have a slow team. To be fair, it didn't actually hurt us much this weekend. A slow team compensates with positioning and hockey sense. The players just need to be aware when they are playing a faster team.
• Our bottom two lines: They kill all of our momentum. It was most evident when both Kennedy brothers and Scali were out, but even in Harvard with 2 of those players back, it was still noticeable. When games get tight in the 3rd period (look both games this weekend, both games last weekend), we would consistently have two shifts where we controlled the puck in the offensive zone, generated chances, and kept the opponents on their heels. Unfailingly, these two shifts were followed by two shifts where we were pinned in our own zone, and the opposition was generating all the chances. It was not coincidence. The 7-12 forwards either need to step up their play, or warm the bench when the games get tight. The second option is not so great, it will wear out the top players, but its better than giving up the momentum.
• Goaltending: Scrivens has fallen from his perch atop the universe, which he held for the first few months of the season. I don't know if he just needs to refocus himself, or if he needs a rest, or what. That own-goal...he tries that play every single game. Maybe it was bound to happen eventually, maybe he just got lazy, i don't know. That was not the only time that he missed one that he would have had in late november.

So yes, there is a lot wrong with this team, as evidenced by their record for the past 3 weekends. But strangely, they've been playing (in my opinion) some of their best bits of hockey lately. Not for full 60 minutes (see above comment about the 4th line), but they've shown flashes of brilliance. Here are some of the positives.

• Colin Greening: Every time he steps on the ice, Greening shows everybody why he is the captain of this team. His line scored 4 of the team's 6 goals this weekend. He personally put in 3, and assisted on the other. He plays at 100% intensity, no matter what the scoreboard says, no matter what the game clock says. His play is consistently the best on the team. His late-game penalty at Harvard is the first and only negative thing to say about him in the past few weeks.
• Defense: The team's play is beginning to tighten up in the defensive zone. Its not perfect yet, its not 60 minutes yet. Hell, its probably not even 20 minutes yet. But its getting there. Early in the season, there were a bunch of games where they forced Scrivens to make upwards of 40 saves a night. 26 saves in Hanover, 20 in Boston. This is a good sign. Kreuger is incredibly strong on the puck, M Devin is making incredible progress, B Nash is incredible when he doesn't have the puck or need to skate too fast...its a good start.
  

• New Lines: For the first time in over 2 years, Greening and Nash were split up. The results have been astounding. After scoring 4 goals in 4 games over the course of SLU through Princeton, The team put in 6 over the past 2. The best part about it is the distributed threat. In the past, although the M Kennedy line was always capable of scoring, it generally was not as much of a game-changer as the Nash-Greening line. Now, either Nash or Greening can dominate the play, and the opponents need to find a way to cover both lines. Once Michael Kennedy comes back, I hope he gets put on the "third" line. Opponents will be forced to triple-shift their top defensemen, or else expose their goalie to one of three dangerous lines. and that is really powerful. The "top" line of Nash and Barlow is still trying to find the correct winger to fill in, but still has Barlow's tenacity and Nash's skill (although rarely his effort). Jillson did not impress me much in that spot, but Collins impressed me even less. The"second" line of Gallagher Greening Devin is incredible. Putting 27 and 15 together instantly makes it the fastest line on the team. Devin is not afraid to get himself in front of the net, Greening does everything, and Gallagher is a speed demon (and a faceoff wizard). The third line of P Kennedy, Punches, Mugford...well, it will be dangerous once M Kennedy is back to replace either his brother or Punches. It gives Mugford more ice time though, and I'm all for that. Last line of Scali, Kary, Nicholls...Nicholls has been impressing me recently by trying harder to play hockey instead of just checking. Kary needs to step up his game. Or else put P Kennedy in instead once M is back.
• Control of Play: 42 saves by Harvard Sieve Caroll, while a little generous on the part of the Harvard Stats guy, is still very telling. Go back to the Princeton game, where we outshot them 15-6 in the first. Again, this ties into the first-two-lines thing, but our team is getting better at moving the puck around in the offensive zone and generating chances.

There is a lot wrong with this team right now, but also a lot right. I will stand by my position that the team has played its best hockey of the season the past two weekends. Why the best hockey of the season results in a 1-3-o record, I cannot say. Some better bounces gives us the win in Dartmouth, better penalty killing gives us the win in Harvard, 30 more seconds of effort give us the win vs Princeton. Two of those things are pretty straightforward to work on and to fix. We can only wait and see how the team responds this weekend against the Albany teams.

So excited to see [Mugford, Nicholls, Greening, etc] vs the RPI goon who injured Davenport this year and Scali last year. So long as none of our players get suspended, miss the following weekend. That would be bad.

Green 5, Red 4 in OT

Some bad bounces and some bad luck cost us this game, but sometimes you got to make your own luck.

New lines again tonight. Probably caused by the injuries to Michael Kennedy and Joe Scali, and the need to distribute scoring more effectively.

Barlow-Nash-Jillson
Greening-Gallagher-Devin
P Kennedy - Mugford -Collins
Kary-Punches-Nicholls

On the bright side, it generated scoring. On the down side, our defense suffered. The lines themselves, nothing particularly exciting. Except for greening+gallagher. so much speed!

Just a strange game. There were times when we were flying. There were times when our offense was clicking, when our defense was tight, when our passes were crisp. There were also times when we were flat.

We could have had more goals. R Nash had two separate 1-on-0 chances, just him vs O'Neill, and he did not get a good shot on either chance. We had a few odd-man-rushes that did not even generate a scoring chance.

Yale, Princeton both won, moving us into 3rd. 1 point behind princeton, 1 ahead of dartmouth. St Lawrence won. They have 17 points in 5th place, we have 23 in 3rd. With 5 games left in the season, their maximum point total is 27. If we get 4 more points, or if they fail to get 4 points (or any combination of the two), 5th place is unable to pass us, and we clinch a first-round bye. Knock on Wood. Oddly, 9th place Clarkson is only 2 points behind 5th SLU(t). Their max is 25...they could still pass us. Odd how we are potentially 1 night away from clinching a first round bye [knock on wood], but we could still mathematically end outside of the top-8 and not have a home playoff round at all [I think...i'm too tired to figure out if teams 5-8 play each other during this time. If so...we are ok].

2 teams with 15. 2 with 16. 1 with 17. A win tomorrow in Lynah East clinches 6th or better. Combined with Clarkson and Yale wins, clinches 4th or better.

KNOCK ON WOOD.

LGR

Its Identity Time

This is the most crucial time of the season for Cornell Hockey.

There are 4 weekends of regular season play left. We are in the home stretch. This weekend will define the season. Are we a team that had gotten lucky for a few months, but now the luck has run out? Or are we a strong team that has run into adversity, but has the character and determination to overcome it? This weekend, the team will make a statement. One way or another, by the end of Saturday's game, we will know what kind of team we are.

In Clarkson, Scrivens responded. He came back from one of his worst games and had one of his best. The rest of the team needs to respond to the worst two consecutive weekends of the season. They need to play with skill, with intensity, with desperation. And they need to do it as a team. Scrivens could have a good game, so what, Clarkson proved that means nothing. Greening can have a good game, so what. The team needs to have a stellar weekend, as a team.

This is not about standings, this is not about rankings. This is about character. Teams with character win championships. Teams without it cannot, no matter how talented they are on paper.