When we last left Starr Rink, the Raiders were coming off of a hard-fought 1-1 overtime with fifth-nationally ranked Merrimack. Colgate completed the first half of the regular season with an overall record of 11-4-2 and a league record of 6-2-0. The final national polls prior to the holidays listed the Hamiltonians in the top 15 nationally, 12th according to USCHO.com and 11th in the USA Today/USA Hockey Coaches poll. (Editors’ Note: Colgate was ranked 10th after tying with Merrimack but dropped down one slot after Merrimack lost at home to Union on Dec. 17).
Over the next several weeks, the Raiders will complete their non-conference schedule and move back into ECAC Hockey play. Up first for Colgate will be the 2011 calendar year home finale against Canisius (Dec. 30) and then comes a crucial two-game road trip to Ferris State. But, we’ll have more on the Canisius and the Ferris State series later. And we’ll talk about all of the first-half accomplishments in our mid-season report card which will be running later in the week. Right now, we look back to five burning questions that we asked prior to the start of the season on Oct. 7 against Robert Morris.
1 – Will the real Raiders please stand up?
What we wrote…
So, who were the Colgate Raiders of 2010-2011? The team that at one point in the regular season had a record of 3-22-2 (0-13-2) and was among the worst in the nation statistically speaking or the team that knocked off RPI and Union in the ECAC playoffs and advanced on to Atlantic City? The answer to that question should come this year with 21 players back and just three seniors lost – Brian Day, Francois Brisebois and Wade Poplawski. While the Raider leadership group will be missed, the core of the squad from last year is back and now comprises 17 juniors and seniors.
Was the team as bad as its’ record indicated last year? Yes and no. There was certainly bad hockey being played at times but even in the worst stretches there would be flashes of better play. The problem was just consistency and really, the team was most consistent at being inconsistent. That has to improve this season or we’ll know the answer to this question sooner rather than later.
We’ll be honest; we definitely did not see this coming. That is, we thought that maybe a winning mark in the first half of the season and a respectable record were possible, perhaps, but nowhere did we anticipate anything along the lines of 11-4-2 and a consistent national ranking bordering on the top 10. Given that this year’s outfit includes 21 players back from last season, one could say that the Maroon and White were simply the “Not Ready for Prime Time” players in 2010-2011; that is, the talent was there but it took a while for every piece of the puzzle to fall into the right place. Since the switch was flipped against Clarkson on Feb. 5, the Raiders have gone 19-10-2.
Also responsible for the turnaround is the improved play of certain individuals that underachieved last season; some of which did not play to their full potential until the stretch run. Why that happened? Who really knows? It seems now that the team is on the right track that the problems can be traced to a perfect storm of players underachieving, mistakes ending up in the back of the net, overall inconsistency and at times a lack of cohesion on the ice. When those problems were ironed out, the team finally realized its potential and made its run in February and March.
And that run set the stage for this season with those 21 returning players. We will say that an August excursion to Europe (Italy, Switzerland) and all of the extra practice time that the trip afforded have also been a big help. Another big asset for the Raiders has been consistency – in that the team is constantly winning battles, making smart plays, getting the puck on goal, not turning the puck over in the defensive zone etc. And when mistakes have happened or the team has gotten behind, it hasn’t worried or started to slide down the slippery slope which was a plague last season That comes with both experience and maturity of 17 juniors and seniors that have gone from 19 overtime games in a season to a fourth place finish in 2009-2010 to the darkest point of a 3-22-2 record in 2010-11.
2 – Who will be in goal?
What we wrote…
The easy answer is fairly simple, whoever can stop the puck. Sophomore Eric Mihalik enters into the season as the probable number one backstop after buoying the Raiders to ECAC playoff upsets over RPI and Union just seven months ago. Mihalik’s final numbers weren’t outstanding (8-15-2, 2.92 GAA, .903 SV %) however he finished the season 8-6-1 over his final 15 games. No other Raider even played in goal after Colgate’s appearance on ESPNU against Princeton on Jan. 9; Mihalik started the home game against Union on Jan. 14 and never looked back.
The Raiders certainly have a capable back-up in Alex Evin. The senior shined two years ago as a sophomore when he won the starting job from Charles Long and went on to backstop the Raiders to a fourth-place finish in ECAC Hockey. Last season Evin struggled though he has shown that he can be a number one goaltender. If one looks at Alex’s numbers from his junior hockey days in the British Columbia Hockey League, they improve each year. And his best numbers come from his final BCHL campaign with Penticton when he won the BCHL Top Goaltender Award and the Vees grabbed the league championship (team also included Austin Smith). In that case, Evin saved his best for last. Will that be the case this year?
Both of those things said, the last two goaltenders AD (After Dekanich) haven’t managed to make it through a full season as the full-time starter, whether it Charles Long or Alex Evin. Eric Mihalik played well down the stretch last year but he’ll have to be careful to combat complacency and a sophomore slump.
The combination of a senior surge from fourth-year backstop Alex Evin and the lack of a sophomore slump from Eric Mihalik have the Raiders sitting among the top defensive teams in the nation. Mihalik has been the de facto “number one goaltender” throughout the season and he leads the team in victories and playing time though Evin has an edge in the overall numbers department but with five fewer games played. The decision for head coach Don Vaughan of who to play in goal is a much easier one now than it was at the start of the season because both goaltenders have been outstanding. It’s a good problem to have and we can almost liken to the platoon-style system used by Enrico Blasi at Miami (Ohio) with Cody Reichard and Connor Knapp.
Despite Evin’s edge in the numbers department and the fact that he is the national Division I leader in goals against average and save percentage, there is no goaltending controversy here. Mihalik has been the man between the pipes for the majority (almost 2/3) of Colgate’s games and that includes major non-league victories over Nebraska-Omaha, Miami (Ohio) and a tie with Merrimack. Now, if Alex Evin’s tremendous effort in goal continues, he’ll certainly make a statement for more playing time. But, as we said, with two goaltenders playing well, it’s not a bad problem to have.
3 – Can the team by physical?
What we wrote…
One of the biggest problems for the Raiders last year was physicality and tenacity. The team didn’t seem to want to play bang and crash hockey and at times it lacked the real grit and sandpaper attitude that was so prevalent in the Class of 2010 (McIntyre, Cox, Williams, Corrin, etc). Physical teams like Yale drew out the Raiders checking game but it wasn’t something that Colgate constantly relied on – banging and crashing. Some of the players seemed more content to try and play a flashy and high-flying style that doesn’t necessarily work well against physical teams.
And this isn’t just about checking either, it’s about winning board battles, going into the corners and just playing a physical game – one in which you won’t be out-muscled for the puck. When Colgate was struggling last year, the team simply wasn’t being physical enough (not in all cases but it was something that stuck out). Now, when the Raiders turned their season around, some players who weren’t being physical started winning more battles and the intensity and checking picked up.
To win, the Raiders are going to need to have players go into the corners, win puck battles and be physical. Nick Prockow is a prime example of someone who stepped up his game in the final month of the season and really came into his own in the playoffs – not because he scored a lot but because he started asserting himself more and becoming the power forward we imagine the coaches thought he could be when they recruited him.
The biggest thing to realize here is that this is not a Colgate team from the last decade, a squad that would play bang-and-crash hockey and at one time had 93 hits in a game against Yale. But like we said, being physical isn’t all about hitting anything that moves (that’s Mark Nasca’s job) but about winning puck battles along the boards, going into the corners and coming out with the biscuit, maintaining puck possession, being able to establish a down-low cycle and throwing the body when need be. Now, if being physical was simply body checking and not anything else, then the answer to this question would be not really. Now the Raiders do have a body checking game and hard hits have been delivered (see Wagner, Chris; Wilson, Joe and Nasca, Mark) but it’s been more about picking the right spot to deliver a big hit.
In the grit and sandpaper department, which was really lacking at times last year, along with the other areas mentioned above, the Raiders have certainly done their job. The line of Nick Prockow, Austin Mayer and Matt Firman has consistently gotten the puck deep into the offensive zone, cycled, maintained possession and generated offensive chances. The same can be said for the Austin Smith, Chris Wagner and Joe Wilson line. And while the Raiders may have been out-hit in some games, that hasn’t stopped them from having a presence along the wall, winning puck battles and getting the puck down low.
4 – Will the special teams be special?
What we wrote…
The biggest bugaboo for the Raiders over the last several years has been special teams, whether it be the power play or the penalty kill. Colgate ended last season with the second-worst combined special teams in the country, 57 out of 58 Division I hockey-playing schools. The discrepancy between the number of Colgate’s power play goals and opponent power play goals was -15, a number that most certainly has to improve.
For the penalty kill, keep in mind that Colgate lost three of four regular penalty killers from 2009-2010 when David McIntyre, Ethan Cox and Jason Williams graduated so you had last year three brand-new penalty killers along with Brian Day at the short-handed forward position. And there were some growing pains with that group. Also, players that ended up in that group were also forwards on the power play and in even strength so they were playing a decent amount of heavy minutes; Cox and Williams weren’t necessarily power play guys. The penalty kill has to be better and it had a good chance to work out some kinks in the exhibition with Carelton – the Ravens were held to a 1-for-12 mark. Going along with this, if the PK doesn’t improve, then the team has to learn to stay out of the penalty box.
The power play is the power play. When this unit has been good, so have the Raiders. Look at 2009-2010; Colgate’s power play wasn’t great but good enough at 18.7% with 34 power play goals. And that was a unit that started out 7-for-60 through its’ first 11 games. The same struggle began last year 5-for-47 (10.6%) through eight games and the unit ended up with a 13.7% conversion rate – not awful but not good either. We think the power play should be much improved this season both because of the increased maturity of the players on it (forwards that are now juniors/seniors) and because of the new additions (Wilson, Lidgett, Goulakos).
Well, the answer to this question is easy – YES. And we do mean to put that in all capital letters. One of the biggest turnarounds has been in the special teams department where Colgate is scoring power play goals (four in one game) on a consistent basis and not allowing the opposition to score in those same situations. Through 17 games, CU is averaging one power play goal per game and the Raiders are on pace to surpass their 34 power play scores of 2009-10. Eight different skaters have scored power play goals led by Austin Mayer’s four. The Russian style of two separate five-man units (as opposed being interchangeable with forwards/def. pairings) has really worked out well with each group contributing which makes it tougher for opposing penalty killers because they can’t load up against just one group.
Colgate’s 19.1% on the power play is tied with Michigan State for 26th nationally. The Raiders are also one of seven teams that have not allowed a short-handed goal.
The penalty kill has been the biggest surprise. A more hyperactive and aggressive penalty kill system was installed over the summer (in Europe) and it has paid dividends right away in the form of six short-handed goals and an 83.1% penalty kill conversion rate. Austin Smith has five of those six short-handers and his PK line mate, Chris Wagner, has the other. That said, it’s not all about Smith and Wagner. Many different players have shuttled through on the penalty kill though Smith and Wagner have had their part in a regular shift. And that has really been the key, getting fresh legs and different faces out on the ice killing penalties as opposed to the usual suspects like in years past when some players would be pushed to the limit with heavy minutes between even strength, power play and penalty kill. Nearly every forward has had at least a few looks short-handed. That will help keep legs fresh as a game goes along and most importantly as the season progresses.
5 – Who’s going to score goals?
What we wrote…
While officially the team loses just three players from last year, those three accounted for over 26% of Colgate’s goals. Keep in mind Brian Day, while just a 10-goal scorer last year had 21 as a junior. So the onus will fall on everyone, specifically Colgate’s top-tier scorers (Smith, Bourdon, Bartliff, Wagner) depending on what kind of contributions come from secondary scoring (defense, third/fourth line). Austin Smith recorded only 10 goals last season after combining to post 33 in his first two collegiate campaigns. Robbie Bourdon is the top returning goal scorer; Bourdon notched 13 a season ago though went through a mid-season lull after a hot start. He also scored the second-biggest goal of the season with his series-winning tally at RPI in double overtime of Game 3. Kurtis Bartliff had a breakout year after a tough freshman season. Bartliff only lit the lamp seven times last year – twice in a home win over Clarkson – though he doled out 21 assists which tied Austin Smith for first on the team. Chris Wagner had a tremendous finish to the season and picked up six playoff points – doing most of his damage in the Union series on a line with Robbie Bourdon and Austin Mayer. Wagner should be able to transition strongly into his sophomore season though he’ll need to be most consistent; like other high scorers before him, he went through a lengthly lull goal-scoring wise as a rookie.
Outside of the top four, Colgate has to get production from secondary sources – guys like Nick Prockow, Matt Firman, Austin Mayer, Joe Wilson, John Lidgett, etc. That will take the pressure off the top four forwards to score goals on a regular basis. The team will certainly need a few go-to scorers though the more spread out the scoring is, the better.
Austin Smith has had a dynamic senior season and his 18 goals are already a career high. And while Smith has been a key cog in the Raiders success, he’s not the sole contributor. In terms of front-line scoring, Colgate has four skaters with at least six goals – Smith, Chris Wagner, Austin Mayer and Robbie Bourdon. Outside of those four, 10 other players have potted at least one goal. And the top four scorers encompass three lines though three of the four are on the same power play unit.
Keep in mind as well that different players have stepped up on different nights – for example, while Joe Wilson and Matt Firman each have three goals, both have made major contributions. Wilson has two game-winners while Firman helped CU pull away from Vermont with two goals against the Cats on Nov. 25. Kurtis Bartliff has scored just two goals but that said, he played in only four games and missed most of the first half of the season. We anticipate a strong second half from the Robbie Bourdon, John Lidgett and Kurtis Bartliff line. The trio was electric in Omaha yet did not play together after the first game against Miami (Ohio).
0 comments:
Post a Comment