On Wed, 19 Feb 1997, Andrew J. Weise wrote:
 
> My vote goes to RPI's Dan Fridgen. As much as I'd want to give it
> to Stan Moore, Fridgen has done a lot more with a team that has no
> seniors than Moore has done with a Union program that struggled for the
> past two years and was going downhill.
 
This is a tough one.  I always have a problem deciding what Coach of the
Year is supposed to represent.  Is it an award for the individual who gets
his team to play above their potential?  Or is it an award for a coach who
turns around a program via recruiting prowess.  In the case of Dan
Fridgen, I think his success this year can be traced to some saavy
recruiting.  Fridgen inculcated a playing style into the Engineer program,
in his case a more defensive-oriented style than his predecessor, Buddy
Powers, and one which features bigger more physical players.  And when
Fridge finally had the opportunity scholarship-wise to go out and land his
kind of players, he did just that.  One only looks at someone like a Pete
Gardiner to see the Dan Fridgen kind of player-- big, actually very big,
with fluid skating and soft hands.  Fridge's recruiting prowess is also
evidenced by his insight into landing two older and skilled goaltenders to
anchor a team that was going to be very young and in need of leadership.
 
Fridge has done a good job in getting the current Engineers together, and
embuing confidence that they can win as long as they stay within his
system.  But they are all his players, his recruits.  In terms of game
strategy, particularly areas like matching lines and the like, I wouldn't
rate Fridgen high, especially against some of the veteran coaches like
Mark Murphy and Jack Parker.
 
Stan Moore on the other hand is the opposite.  His strengths are in
working with the hand he was dealt.  Working under the constraints that
the Union administration places on recruiting Moore didn't have the luxury
of bringing in a blue chipper, or even a skilled puckhandler.  His
one star, Trevor Koenig, I believe was recruited by his predecessor, Bruce
Deventhal.  What Moore has done is to get the maximum production out of a
less skilled group of individuals, getting these young men to play a
conservative defensive style, and winning with it.  As any fan knows,
watching a Union contest can be a painfully boring experience.  Even more
so when your team ends up on the short-side of the score.
 
Moore will probably suffer in the voting because of the style he has
selected for his team, a style which was really the only viable choice in
melding the strengths of his players.  If Union were to somehow finish
fifth, I would think Moore though should get the accolade.
 
Fridgen and the other strong candidate, MIke Shafer, will also probably
win or lose depending on their team's finish.  And probably Saturday
night's contest will determine their placing.  If Cornell beats RPI and
Clarkson next weekend, Shafer is probably a shoo-in.  An auto bid to the
NC$$'s will do wonders for a COTY award.  Similarly if RPI wins Saturday
night, and defeats Princeton on the road next weekend, Fridge probably
garners the award.
 
But I would be interested in just what everyone thinks the COTY award is
all about.
******************************************************************************
Brian Morris                       RPI Engineers--Big and Nasty
[log in to unmask]
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.