On Sun, 17 Dec 1995, Mike Machnik wrote:
 
> I don't know about that - Legault, Cornforth, and Danny Gravelle are just
> three players who have played since 1988 and who were at least as good as
> those three.
 
Cornforth- maybe. He may yet turn out to be the best player MC has ever
had. But that judgment will come based on his play after graduating.
Hrivnak still takes honors as the best at his position to ever play
college hockey for MC.
 
Legault isn't close. Especially not with the season he's having this
year. He hasn't played badly, per se, but he hasn't been impressive, either.
 
Danny? Great passer and took faceoffs like candy from babies, but Pion
could do that *and* score. (Pion could pass, that is, not take faceoffs--
he was a winger).
 
> >Parker, on the other hand, takes players like the utterly run-of-the mill
> >Doug Friedman and turns them into worldbeaters. Those kids would do
> >ANYTHING for Parker. That's what he creates in his locker room and in his
> >practices.
>
> Again, as I am sure BU followers will agree, that atmosphere has only
> existed since BU became truly dominant over the last five years.  Friedman
> also doesn't quite qualify as a worldbeater.  And with Blaise recruiting,
> it has been possible to bring into the fold players who fit in well with
> the stars and were happy playing their role.  A lot is possible when you're
> winning.  Parker took some criticism in the 1986-89 time frame when BU was
> perceived to be underachieving.
 
Underachieving to BU means "not in the NCAAs".
 
> >The players do *NOT* feel that way about Anderson. They respect his
> >integrity. That's about it.
>
> I haven't heard enough to make me believe this is true.  I have heard of
> unhappy players, but these were often players who were not getting the job
> done.  It didn't seem any different to me from when I was at RPI and
> Northeastern...it's not atypical for players who are not playing well to
> blame the coach.
 
Let's just say I'll have to ask you to trust me that the players to which
I am referring to fall into neither category.
 
The first three years in the league, yes, that was true-- when Danny
Gravelle and Aggie Casale were playing, the only complaints were from the
benchwarmers. All I can say is that that is *not* the case now. I have no
desire to put anyone player or players into an indelicate situation by
identifying them. But I'm not talking about third and fourth liners here.
 
> I still find it interesting that despite this lack of respect the players
> are supposed to have, Merrimack still has a record of 8-1-13 in their last
> 22 overtime games - only one loss.  Not many other teams can claim a record
> even close to that.  They just don't lose when OT comes around.  I don't
> think that happens without the staff deserving some credit.
 
I don't know. I don't see any necessary connections between OT
wins/losses as opposed to other wins or losses) and the coaching. If
anything, I'd say that regulation w/l records have more to do with
coaching, planning, and discipline. OT games are won on passion and
adrenaline.
 
> I'll just note that this is a disagreement we have that can only be settled
> in one way: if Anderson is given the new facility and the right commitment
> from the school.  Until or unless that happens, you and I will have to
> continue to disagree, which is okay.  I'm just saying this to point out
> that if it wasn't already clear to other people :-), we aren't going to
> resolve this here and now.
 
True. It may never be resolved. Anderson has been at MC for a number of
years; who knows, he may retire before MC gets a rink built.
 
> >But I can think of one that has not been saved by a new rink-- one that
> >also has institutional resources far beyond MC's. Look at Boston College.
> >They've been uncompetetive (relatively speaking) for nearly three
> >seasons. All since Ceglarski left.
>
> Yes, that's a good point: minus the rink and commitment, Anderson's teams
> have still fared better than BC over the last few years.  Imagine how much
> better they'd have done given what BC has had.
 
Well, whatever else I may say about Anderson, he *can* count to 18.
Unlike Cedorchuk. That's a major factor in BC's current situation-- as
well as their disgusting showing in the HEA and NCAA playoffs a few years
back.
 
> >> Volpe is also only one piece of the puzzle as you know.  Merrimack has
> >> trouble attracting even regular students because of the lack of other
> >> on-campus facilities.  The campus is dead on the weekends because the kids
> >> leave - there's nothing to do.  Potential recruits look at this and then
> >> they see what UNH has, or the Boston schools, or any of the ECAC schools.
> >
> >Now that excuse I don't buy.
>
> I brought this up not to talk about the lack of student interest but to
> point out the difference in on-campus facilities as compared to other
> schools.  If Merrimack loses regular students in part because of the lack
> of facilities, it stands to reason that they lose student-athletes for some
> of the same reasons.  I believe the lack of student interest has a little
> to do with the team not winning and a little to do with the school not
> marketing the team to its own students.
 
My point is I don't believe the people who say MC loses students due to
lack of on-campus "facilities" (whatever those are).
 
>
> >The kids leave because MC draws still primarily from New England. Kids
> >who can go home on the weekends do. (Especially when the school is not in
> >an urban environment like Boston or in an area where there aren't a wide
> >enough selection of bars that don't card minors.
>
> The makeup of the students has changed in recent years.  In the mid-80s,
> when student attendance at MC games soared (and they were winning),
> students were also staying on campus on weekends.  This is a whole
> different topic that we could write volumes on, but suffice it to say that
> things are different now and more students leave on the weekends now than
> before.  That is the challenge, to keep the students there and involved in
> the school on weekends.
 
Actually, what might be more important is the shift towards residents vs.
commuters. Commuters lived close enough to stay around school later, or
come back in the evenings and on weekends. With more resident students
from farther flung areas (by that I mean, say , Connecticut) there are
perhaps a greater *number* of students off-campus on weekends while the
relative *percentage* of kids who go home is probably pretty constant.
 
> >The student center is a sound financial decision-- unlike the science
> >building. It's an expenditure that serves the greatest portion of MC's
> >community, rather than catering to a special interest-- science majors--
> >that are largely nonexistent at MC anyway. However, the rink is seen by
> >many current students and alumni as catering to another special
> >interest-- the hockey team and its fans.
>
> That's true.  But it's also why it is important that the rink is only one
> component of the student center, quite an ambitious project in scope and
> cost.  It's reasonable to assume that it will be possible to bring back the
> students who attended games 8 years ago if they are given other reasons to
> stay on campus.  And, if the team is winning and marketed well.
 
Those two are key.
 
> >However, unless Prez. Santagati is planning on serving free beer to
> >minors, a new center isn't going to stop the pathetic complaining about
> >there being nothing to do.
>
> I guess you're more cynical than I am. :-)
 
I just know too many students at MC- past and present- as well as other
schools- to think differently. There is a large group of students who
attend college for the wrong reasons. An entirely different discussion,
true-- one I'll move off hockey-l immediately following this post.
 
>
> [my question about highly touted players who didn't live up to the billing]
> >Highly touted by the media guide.
>
> When has the media guide ever not said such things about the players?  I
> can go through dozens of other teams' media guides from the last few years
> and pick out scores of players who had much said about them as freshmen and
> didn't live up to it.
>
Those other schools still have some players who DO. MC fans are still
waiting.
 
 
> >Cooper Naylor, "projected as a scorer
> >who will develop skills well." Became a defensive specialist a la Brendan
> >Locke and now, Chris Davis.
>
> Naylor was a perfect example of a player who took several years to develop
> his offensive talents.  Unfortunately, until recent years, that has been
> the only type of player Anderson has been able to get - project players.
>
> The real question is, what players has Merrimack had a real chance at and
> ignored, who then went on to star for other teams?  I don't know of any.
> That would be the best evidence that his recruiting has been subpar.
>
 
And those stories are also hard to verify. For instance, Albie
O'Connell's father was in Volpe during Hockey Night in Boston talking
about the possibility of Albie going there. Now he's at BU. It's not in a
parent's best interest to go around saying he's kid's too good to go to
school X. That doesn't mean MC had a legitimate shot at him.
 
Garth Snow comes to mind, but then, everybody missed out on him. However,
he was practically in our back yard.
 
> >Kris Porter, this year, was highly touted by the coaching staff in
> >conversations with alumni.
>
> It's still too early to rate Porter.  Despite his early rough start, you
> have to agree that the last 2 or 3 weeks, he has developed into a player
> closer to what people expected he'd be.  I was amazed that after 5 or 6
> games, people were writing this kid off for good.  But with Kesselring
> hurt, Porter earned his way into a spot on the top line, which didn't miss
> a beat with Porter in Kesselring's spot.  Let's talk again at the end of
> the season and see if Porter is still not getting closer to what you
> thought he would be.
 
Writing him off early is probably just a result of fans being
frustrated-- as was said before, many thought this would be "the year"
and those hopes were pinned firmly on getting a real sniper-- the first
since Casale left. The teams Casale was on couldn't afford a player as
one-dimensional as he was. Perhaps they could now.
 
> >Anderson must think enough of Rob Beck that he made him a captain (
> >because MC, unlike schools like BU, do not have teammates elect captains)
> >and as yet he's been a disappointment, to say the least.
>
> BTW, this is not unusual, coaches picking captains.  I seem to recall at
> least one school where the players were allowed to vote for captains but
> the coach quietly made the final call.  Besides, I haven't seen any players
> passed over for captain who deserved it more.
 
Jakopin. Costa.
 
>
> >With the
> >exception of Mark Cornforth, none of Anderson's captains since 1988 have
> >emerged as leaders. In fact, the closest thing today's team has to a
> >mature leader is a player who "wasn't good enough to play" two years ago
> >and was benched in a game at UNH after scoring a goal.
>
> I'm not sure who you mean here though I have an idea, but what about
> McKenna?  Still, I agree that one thing they do need is more leadership
> from upperclassmen.  Beck sometimes shows it, but I believe he can do
> better.  Yet, no one else has stood up to fill that role either.  You don't
> have to be a captain to be a leader.
>
I have no objection to McKenna-- quite the reverse. And the player I
meant is Chris Davis-- who I believe has effectively taken over the role
as team leader.
 
> I'll definitely agree with this.  The inconsistency in effort has been more
> pronounced this season - when I said that there were not many times I was
> disappointed in their effort over the last 7 years, I meant to add that
> most of those times have come this year thus far.  I suspect the team
> itself is not satisfied with the overall effort it has given this season.
> So, their challenge is to change that after Christmas.
>
> [Cornforth]
> >He had to be out there because there was nobody behind him.
>
> Agreed!  And because he had to play, it helped him get better defensively.
> That's exactly what I said happened - you said he didn't improve while at
> Merrimack.
 
I still don't think his play improved much while at Merrimack. His frosh
season was still his best in my memory-- while the stats might not bear
that out due to his injury in the Maine game. He's improved quite a bit
since then. He worked hard in the off-season and he took Bruins camp very
seriously. BTW< there was a really nice piece on him in today's Herald.
 
Although Kevin Paul "the Dupe" apparently doesn't think much of him,
referring to him recently as one of the "kinder, gentler Bruins" -- geez,
Kevin, what game were you watching? :)
 
> >that by your own admission "couldn't put the puck in the ocean,"
> >Cornforth's offensive skills were consistently stunted and discouraged by
> >Anderson--
>
> If so, then he nonetheless displayed those skills many, many times contrary
> to what he was being told.  And if he was discouraged from playing that
> way, why was he always the one put out there in the final minutes to lead
> the rush and carry the puck deep into the zone to try to create scoring
> chances?  Unless Anderson changed his style late in the game when they were
> behind in a close game or in overtime...which is still the mark of a coach
> who knows his players' abilities and how to use them in the right
> situations.
 
Contrary to what he was told... yes. And again, Anderson is not a coach
with enough bench depth to enforce his style of play by benching his
defensemen.
 
>
> >...a coach who despite his vocal support of solid defense, still
> >can't teach a retreating defenseman to take his man at the blueline
> >instead of fifteen feet into his own zone.
>
> Then they learned this on their own?  Because when they do play well,
> invariably they are stepping up at the line - and more often than not, they
> are doing this.  See the two UNH games and the BU games for proof.  The
> question is, what does it take for them to do this all the time?  Is it
> really the coach's fault, or are the players just not good enough or
> consistent enough to always play this way - and are they sometimes unable
> to do this because the opponent is just too good at finding a way around
> that (see two Maine games this year)?
>
> [more on
 
Umm.. I dunno. I saw the BU games. What I saw was a BU team making
uncharacteristically bad passes in neutral ice, and staying on the
perimeters too often. I made remarks during the game at VOlpe to the
effect that the defense were still not guarding the blueline-- but that
BY was refusing to take it from them.
 
Cornforth with Bruins as opposed to MC]
> >There's no
> >pressure on him. He doesn't have to worry about making mistakes or being
> >the goat-- like he did at Merrimack, where his bench coaches were
> >constantly reminding the team of what NOT to do-- without ever telling
> >what *to* do to win.
 
 
 
> I'll strongly disagree with this - that things are different now than when
> he was at MC.  Two days ago, I was at the Bruins-Florida game at the
> FleetCenter.  Cornforth played *one* shift all game.  In the first period,
> he backed off an opponent who scored - the goal was partly his fault and
> partly Lacher's - and Cornforth never played the rest of the game, even
> when his team was up 5-1 in the third.
 
Now, wait a sec... I saw that goal. Cornforth was ready to join an
offensive rush when the right winger threw a blind pass up the middle
that was intercepted. Corny had to come off the weak side and made an
excellent lateral move to cut off the forward from cutting across the
crease. It was a major accomplishment that the forward didn't turn him--
McLaren would have fallen on his butt because he can't skate half as well
as Cornforth. The forward took a weak backhand shot at a tough angle and
Let'em in Lacher did the rest. How much is Cornforth's fault I really
can't see. All I can say is that playing time or no playing time, with no
PP time at all and little PK work, Corny is still the top Bruin in the
+/- category. He's not playing because the Bruins have a bigger
investment in McLaren and they have to see if he can play. IMNSHO, he's
too slow and too  stupid. He's out there in a pro unifrom because of his
size, but he's making decisions that would make a college coach send a
player back to JV for.
 
> Players who do the job play...that's how it is on almost any team at any
> level.  If at MC they are worried about making mistakes and getting
> benched, it is because Anderson knows enough to play the players who are
> getting the job done.  I can tell from game to game almost every player who
> will be benched in the third period, if there are any, based on how the
> game is going.
>
> I also don't agree with the idea that he constantly tells his players what
> not to do - the idea of negative coaching.  I thought of this last year
> during the BU quarterfinal when one forward didn't pick up his man which
> resulted in a good scoring chance, and as he skated to the bench, Anderson
> went over, said a few words to him, then clapped him on the back and sent
> him right out on his next shift.  Maybe he said, "You're a stiff! Don't do
> that again!" and then clapped him on the back, but somehow I don't believe
> it. :-)
 
No, of course not. But it's easy to encourage players for doing the right
thing. What do you do to players making mistakes? It's those kind of
psychologocial games that Anderson must assume he doesn't have to play
because he assumes his players are motivated and disciplined from the
start.
 
> Neither did he teach McKenna to hit the way he does.  But where was Bobby
> Jay while NU was building an 8-3 lead in the series?
 
Mike, that was ONE game. Which is my whole point. I'm saying in response
to the earlier comment by someone else that Anderson must be a great
coach because of that game. That's just untrue. But neither am I basing
my statements about the talent of that squad on that one game. I don't
have to. Their talents speak for themselves.
 
> >What I guess I'm trying to do is very difficult-- separate out how much
> >credit and blame are due the players and the coaches for a team's success
> >(or lack thereof). Some patterns that his teams repeat that seem to be
> >ill-advised continue today. His defensemen back away and play the puck.
> >His forwards try to dominate play on the boards, leaving noone in front.
>
> I think you're taking the times that they have played this way and giving
> the impression that this is standard.  We have to sit and watch a game
> together sometime so you can point out when this happens, and I can point
> out when they do the opposite. :-)
>
> >His teams sit on slim leads with a 1-2-2- forecheck and his forwards
> >wonder what the heck he's doing.
>
> What is the alternative when the 1-2-2 combined with patiently waiting for
> your chances got you the lead in the first place and your team is not going
> to blow out the opponent anyway?
 
The alternative is the 2-1-2 that got the lead, because MC's forwards
can't generate any shots on a one-man forecheck. Maybe that explains this
year's dearth. The first win against BU at Volpe was the game I was
referring to, and I have to admit I didn't notice the change in forecheck
per se until a player in that game pointed it out to me.
 
> >> >Great coaching is what Parker's teams do. They win regularly,
> >> >methodically, mechanically. They don't let teams back into games, They
> >> >don't let up. (Recent games vs. MC notwithstanding).
> >>
> >> Interesting point.  BU doesn't let teams into the game or back into the
> >> game...except for Merrimack.  January 13, 1995; February 24-25, 1995; March
> >> 12, 1995; December 8-9, 1995.  All close games, one MC win, two others in
> >> which BU seemed to have it in hand and MC fought back.
> >>
> >Given MC's performance in DivI, perhaps they don't take MC seriously...
> >like NU did. Again, not exactly a credit to Anderson... what's he doing,
> >lulling the opposition into a false sense of security?
>
> Six straight times?  I could see BU not taking MC seriously in the first of
> those six.  Not in the next five after they had been beaten at home.  If BU
> is coached as well as you say they are (and I agree that they are), why
> would they not take MC seriously for six straight games in less than a
> year's time?
 
I think it may be hard for Parker to really take us seriously. The praise
other coaches have give Anderson has always seemed more like posturing
than sincerity. And any way you slice it, I think's it's hard to get up
to play a cellar-dweller-- even one that's come close to burning you
before. I think there are still players on this BU team-- seniors-- who
remember destroying MC by 7 or 8 goals. I do.
 
> Merrimack is also the only team this year that has fought back from a
> blowout situation against BU to make the game close and threaten a tie.  I
> think it is a real stretch to suggest that BU took all of those other
> opponents seriously enough to maintain the large lead, but not MC.
>
> >Well, there's another thing. BU can keep talented assistant coaches. We
> >can't. We needed Scotty McPherson.
>
> Not Anderson's fault...it was the school that couldn't match UMass's offer,
> not Anderson.
 
True. By 'we' I meant the whole school. If I had meant to blame Anderson
specifically for that, I would have. :)
 
> I'll still say, talk to me at the end of this season or during next season.
> The current team has all of the characteristics of a team that is close to
> turning its record around and making some waves.  They may not be a HE or
> NCAA contender next year, but I consider them to have a great chance at
> having a very good season compared to the last 6-7 years.  Of course, I
> know I am more optimistic than some people. :-)  But I have also seen a lot
> of improvement over the years.  A perfect example is that MC-BU games are
> no longer a foregone conclusion.
 
No, but apparently MC-Maine games are. Anyway, Mike, you know I'd like
nothing better than to see MC turn it around. I just think if they do
it'll be because the players take responsibility for it on themselves.
 
> >I guess I'm taking an average of all his teams to judge him. If he was so
> >good he could put together that team with the same rink, why not now?
>
> Because the climate was different then with the smaller number of DivI
> programs and the larger number of scholarships MC had to give.  I do
> believe he has had to learn how to recruit differently in a way that he did
> not have to do before, a way that is necessary to be competitive in HE.
> The last few years have shown that he has learned in that players who have
> come in have usually been able to make an impact as freshmen.  The freshmen
> of the last few years didn't have to play because there were enough other
> players who could have played, but those freshmen were good enough to step
> in immediately.  And that included players who were courted by other DivI
> teams too.  The team is unquestionably better than it was in the first few
> years of HE.  I might be inclined to agree with you if this was not the
> case.
 
I'd also agree on a basic skills level, they are better. That shows that
he has adjusted his recruiting. Win/loss is a *team* dynamic. That's
coaching. I see better players. I don't see a better *team*.
 
> Given the current situation, a coaching change would make little difference
> not only because the status quo would still be maintained, but also because
> the chance of luring the type of coach you seem to want would be very
> small.  You mention Parker a lot, but a Parker would never come to work
> here under the same conditions Anderson has had to deal with.
 
Which only goes to show that they are *not* in the same league (pardon
the pun) despite all the comparisons and alumni awards. But who knows who
or where the next Jack Parker is? All I know is he's not Ron Anderson.
Normally I'd be against change for change'
s sake. I guess things have just gone a little too far for me to take
that conservative an attitude.
 
-Dave Josselyn
 
PS See ya at the Union game! :)
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.