Big win tonight after blowing a 2-0 lead. Lucas St. Louis saves the day for the Crimson and we get a much-needed three points. The disturbing trend of coughing up leads continued tonight when it looked like the game was in hand. I thought Gilroy was brought in to work with the D. Something's missing here. We're not well-coached and keep making bad plays that wind up behind our goalies. Not sure Harvard should be favored next weekend in either game.
USCHO Fan Forum
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Harvard Crimson 2024-2025 - Will our Youth be Served?
- Thread starter Skate79
- Start date
With all the other retirements in the league is next year Teddy's last? He certainly has earned the right to stay as long as he wants to. He has 20 years of being quite a good recruiter and an average talent developer. Whether it is him or the current assistants, I agree with the comments that talent development has lagged with the current upper classmen.
Things will only get harder going forward in relying on recruiting as a the main driver of success with smaller rosters and all of the other changes like the portal and the potential to bring in folks from the Major Juniors. To succeed (at D1 as opposed to D2 or D3), Harvard will need the next coach to excel at both recruiting and development.
If Teddy stays, perhaps he should change up the staff a little so he can have better luck developing talent like some of the other ECAC schools. Alternatively, maybe he can have some influence to convince the ECAC and the Ivy League to get with the program enough to stay viable at D1. They don't have to go as far in hockey as in basketball to remain competitive but simply pretending it is 1989 in 2025 won't cut it.
Things will only get harder going forward in relying on recruiting as a the main driver of success with smaller rosters and all of the other changes like the portal and the potential to bring in folks from the Major Juniors. To succeed (at D1 as opposed to D2 or D3), Harvard will need the next coach to excel at both recruiting and development.
If Teddy stays, perhaps he should change up the staff a little so he can have better luck developing talent like some of the other ECAC schools. Alternatively, maybe he can have some influence to convince the ECAC and the Ivy League to get with the program enough to stay viable at D1. They don't have to go as far in hockey as in basketball to remain competitive but simply pretending it is 1989 in 2025 won't cut it.
Last edited:
All good points. Teddy has tied Bill Cleary, his former coach, as the longest-tenured coach in Harvard history. So it's reasonable to ask if perhaps he might want to move on. His kids are out of school so as long as his wife doesn't mind moving, they might consider their next chapter. Hard to say.With all the other retirements in the league is next year Teddy's last? He certainly has earned the right to stay as long as wants to. He has 20 years of being quite a good recruiter and an average talent developer. Whether it is he or the current assistants, I agree with the comments that talent development has lagged with the current upperclassmen.
Things will only get harder going forward in relying on recruiting as a the main driver of success with smaller rosters and all of the other changes like the portal and the potential to bring in folks from the Major Juniors. To succeed (at D1 as opposed to D2 or D3), Harvard will need the next coach to excel at both recruiting and development.
If Teddy stays, perhaps he should change up the staff a little so he can have better luck developing talent like some of the other ECAC schools. Alternatively, maybe he can have some influence to convince the ECAC and the Ivy League to get with the program enough to stay viable at D1. They don't have to go as far in hockey as in basketball to remain competitive but simply pretending it is 1989 in 2025 won't cut it.
No question that the ECAC is moving into uncharted waters with the transfer portal, NIL, and the Major Juniors coming on as avenues to build programs. Harvard seems stuck in the past where hockey is concerned and that might prompt Teddy to look elsewhere. Recruiting is harder than ever and the lure of an Ivy education doesn't mean as much anymore.
PullTheGoalie
Active member
But if Harvard doesn't opt in, they could exceed 26, correct?
If 22-year-olds are allowed to play four full years, Harvard should opt out of the ECAC. The administration will not support this type of setup. I can't see Union, RPI, or SLU going along with it either. Cornell, that's another story.Does anyone know anything about eligibility with kids coming from the CHL/OHL/WHL? Meaning, if a kid is 22yrs old and a MJ player, if he goes to Quinny, does he still have 4 years of college eligibility? Will we have 26-27 year olds playing college hockey?
Another slog against the Eli last night. Fortunately, we came out on top thanks to Yale taking that stupid boarding penalty giving us a 5 minute PP that carried over. Credit to Casey Severo for battling in front of Stark to get position and knock home the winner. Mick Thompson just keeps getting better and better. The kid is a winner and I see good things in his future.
I'm not sure about this but if Cornell were to lose in regulation to RPI tonight and the Crimson beat Brown in regulation, would Harvard finish sixth? Cornell has beaten us twice this year but we would have more overall conference wins even though both teams would finish at .500.
I'm not sure about this but if Cornell were to lose in regulation to RPI tonight and the Crimson beat Brown in regulation, would Harvard finish sixth? Cornell has beaten us twice this year but we would have more overall conference wins even though both teams would finish at .500.
YesBut if Harvard doesn't opt in, they could exceed 26, correct?
It's not the way I wanted to see the regular season end. Blowing a 3-0 lead and losing in a shootout is a bad way to enter the playoffs. Harvard acted like they had no interest in this game given the fact they were locked into the #7 seed. I just don't understand how you can be that complacent especially when Brown had nothing to play for as well. Not a good look for the team.
If I were to give out end-of-regular-season grades, they would go something like this:
Forwards: D
Defense: D-
Goaltending: B+ (mostly because of Charrette)
Coaching: C
MVP: Tie between Casey Severo and Ben Charrette
Rookie of the Year: Mick Thompson
Biggest Disappointment: Tie between Zachary Karpa and Ian Moore
We get RPI next Friday. Although we should win, given this team's erratic play I'm less than optimistic.
If I were to give out end-of-regular-season grades, they would go something like this:
Forwards: D
Defense: D-
Goaltending: B+ (mostly because of Charrette)
Coaching: C
MVP: Tie between Casey Severo and Ben Charrette
Rookie of the Year: Mick Thompson
Biggest Disappointment: Tie between Zachary Karpa and Ian Moore
We get RPI next Friday. Although we should win, given this team's erratic play I'm less than optimistic.
After a sluggish first period for both teams, Harvard got their act together in the second and started moving their feet. The result was an avalanche of odd-man rushes and four goals, two of which were beautiful setup plays. RPI kept sagging on D and the Crimson took advantage winning board battles and keeping the pressure on for most of the second. Mick Thompson was a buzzsaw all night creating havoc in the O zone and sniping two nice goals, one on the power play.
Ignore the shots on goal totals. They are extremely deceiving as Harvard had better chances and more of them than RPI. Way more. This was not a close game after 5 minutes of the second period as RPI doesn't have the skill or structure to compete with anyone.
Unless something goes radically wrong tomorrow, it looks like we are headed to Potsdam.
Ignore the shots on goal totals. They are extremely deceiving as Harvard had better chances and more of them than RPI. Way more. This was not a close game after 5 minutes of the second period as RPI doesn't have the skill or structure to compete with anyone.
Unless something goes radically wrong tomorrow, it looks like we are headed to Potsdam.
As has been the case all season, Harvard's third-period woes reappeared last night. The Crimson can't seem to close the door on a win and have a bad habit of losing games late. It was a soul crusher to give up the winning goal with 25 seconds left, but we've read this script before. Strangely, we were very successful in winning faceoffs. That should have led to more chances for offensive zone time but it didn't materialize. It will be almost impossible to beat Clarkson two straight. I think the series ends this afternoon. Hopefully, the Crimson can put up a good fight and not let the ending of last night's game affect their play.
Today's comeback and OT win was an unexpected nice surprise after yesterday. The forwards showed some flashes of high end skill and the goalie made some nice saves. The called back goal in regulation sure looked offside to me too but it was nonetheless a slick play. The D looked the way it always seems to look this year and that means tomorrow could be anywhere from close like the two games this weekend to a blowout like the 6-0 regular season away game last month in Potsdam.
Count me as surprised they were able to come back from a 2-0 deficit in Potsdam to win in OT. The PP goal was huge given that the refs seemed to put their whistles in their pockets and let the teams play it out. Sometimes it's not the number of shots on goal but the quality of the shots. As you say, tomorrow could be another close one or Clarkson could blow us out. Hard to tell as both teams seem to be looking for that formula to gain an edge.Today's comeback and OT win was an unexpected nice surprise after yesterday. The forwards showed some flashes of high end skill and the goalie made some nice saves. The called back goal in regulation sure looked offside to me too but it was nonetheless a slick play. The D looked the way it always seems to look this year and that means tomorrow could be anywhere from close like the two games this weekend to a blowout like the 6-0 regular season away game last month in Potsdam.
Time to close the book on the season. The series was a lot closer than I expected and while it was great that we took them to OT, you could see that Clarkson was the better team and it was only a matter of time. Tough way to end the season but at least there was some improvement.
My wish list for next season:
1. The coaching staff finds a way to coach up their players and stop coaching not to lose. That seldom works and it cost us in this series.
2. That several of the incoming recruits are highly skilled 200-foot players who can find the back of the net.
3. That someone takes over the power play and PK and improves both units. Special teams can often be the difference between winning and losing
4. Improve the D structure to limit the number of high-danger chances.
Other than that, good luck to the seniors going forward. Thanks for your contributions to the program.
My wish list for next season:
1. The coaching staff finds a way to coach up their players and stop coaching not to lose. That seldom works and it cost us in this series.
2. That several of the incoming recruits are highly skilled 200-foot players who can find the back of the net.
3. That someone takes over the power play and PK and improves both units. Special teams can often be the difference between winning and losing
4. Improve the D structure to limit the number of high-danger chances.
Other than that, good luck to the seniors going forward. Thanks for your contributions to the program.
Well....time to reflect on the season. While Harvard put up a good and better than expected fight in Potsdam, there were far too many indifferent performances that were plagued by poor decision making and situational hockey. Yes - there were injuries....that clearly forced people into playing who were outmatched and not ready.
Of the seniors who played meaningful minutes, Harvard graduates:
Forwards: Alex Gaffney (hurt all season unfortunately), Tommy Lyons, Zak Karpa
Defense: Jack Bar, Kyle Aucoin, Ian Moore, Christian Jimenez
The Good:
Goaltending - Charette was fantastic all season long....and while I thought Aku struggled for a good portion of the season (angles, depth in the crease), he was fantastic against Clarkson. There should be healthy competition in net next season which is a good thing.
Forwards - Harvard returns a core group of forwards that are solid. Mick Thomson was great. I like Solovey as a guy who can play in front of the net and go into the corners. Casey Severo really stepped up this year. We are still waiting on Tresca to deliver at this level. I look at guys like Fine, Guzzo, and Hejduk as 4th line depth guys. Will McDonough was one of the more hearlded incoming recruits but assume he was injured since he never really played this year.
Recruits - It is never clear who Harvard will bring in and who will be asked to play another year of juniors. But on the forward side, Harvard looks to bring in a few impact players in Chase Stefanek, Heikki Ruohonen, Aidan Lane, and Richard Gallant. The other forward recruits, given their numbers, I would expect to provide depth. On the defensive side, Donato Bracco, James Mackey, and Drake Murray should compete for starting spots.
Questions:
I thought Ben MacDonald, Joe Miller, Mike Callow, and Cam Johnson (was strong early) were just too inconsistent from game to game. Too passive, commitment to defense was not always there. There is talent here, but without a higher work rate, compete level, and decision making, I'm not sure that these players can be counted on in big moments and to put teams away that Harvard should put away
Challenging:
Defense - The defense was a head scratcher all year, especially since it was supposed to be a team strength and you had strong senior leadership. An inability to possess the puck out of the zone (see Clarkson series), way too many turnovers and poor decision making, and just a lack of identity. The defense let forwards enter the zone unimpeded, did not play physical enough, etc. The defense was not skilled enough to be a finesse team, but also not physical enough to play a heavy game. They were not committed to taking the body (see Clarkson GWG in game 1 of their playoff series). What does this unit want to be next season? How are they going to play?
Faceoffs - Harvard continues (2 years and counting) to lose possession of the puck after re-starts. This has to be addressed in the offseason.
I think Harvard should be a little bit better next year (forward group should be better, goaltending should be better.....defense should be worse on paper, but because the defense played so poorly this year, I wonder if next year this should be neutral to even a little better). Need to look at other schools to see what they lose and what they bring in.
Of the seniors who played meaningful minutes, Harvard graduates:
Forwards: Alex Gaffney (hurt all season unfortunately), Tommy Lyons, Zak Karpa
Defense: Jack Bar, Kyle Aucoin, Ian Moore, Christian Jimenez
The Good:
Goaltending - Charette was fantastic all season long....and while I thought Aku struggled for a good portion of the season (angles, depth in the crease), he was fantastic against Clarkson. There should be healthy competition in net next season which is a good thing.
Forwards - Harvard returns a core group of forwards that are solid. Mick Thomson was great. I like Solovey as a guy who can play in front of the net and go into the corners. Casey Severo really stepped up this year. We are still waiting on Tresca to deliver at this level. I look at guys like Fine, Guzzo, and Hejduk as 4th line depth guys. Will McDonough was one of the more hearlded incoming recruits but assume he was injured since he never really played this year.
Recruits - It is never clear who Harvard will bring in and who will be asked to play another year of juniors. But on the forward side, Harvard looks to bring in a few impact players in Chase Stefanek, Heikki Ruohonen, Aidan Lane, and Richard Gallant. The other forward recruits, given their numbers, I would expect to provide depth. On the defensive side, Donato Bracco, James Mackey, and Drake Murray should compete for starting spots.
Questions:
I thought Ben MacDonald, Joe Miller, Mike Callow, and Cam Johnson (was strong early) were just too inconsistent from game to game. Too passive, commitment to defense was not always there. There is talent here, but without a higher work rate, compete level, and decision making, I'm not sure that these players can be counted on in big moments and to put teams away that Harvard should put away
Challenging:
Defense - The defense was a head scratcher all year, especially since it was supposed to be a team strength and you had strong senior leadership. An inability to possess the puck out of the zone (see Clarkson series), way too many turnovers and poor decision making, and just a lack of identity. The defense let forwards enter the zone unimpeded, did not play physical enough, etc. The defense was not skilled enough to be a finesse team, but also not physical enough to play a heavy game. They were not committed to taking the body (see Clarkson GWG in game 1 of their playoff series). What does this unit want to be next season? How are they going to play?
Faceoffs - Harvard continues (2 years and counting) to lose possession of the puck after re-starts. This has to be addressed in the offseason.
I think Harvard should be a little bit better next year (forward group should be better, goaltending should be better.....defense should be worse on paper, but because the defense played so poorly this year, I wonder if next year this should be neutral to even a little better). Need to look at other schools to see what they lose and what they bring in.
Callow in particular is perplexing. How a kid with his size and shot doesn't produce more is beyond me. If I were on the coaching staff, I would make sure that he bulks up this summer, works on his skating and when he returns to Cambridge, teach him to go to the dirty areas to create scoring opportunities. He spends way too much time above the circles.Well....time to reflect on the season. While Harvard put up a good and better than expected fight in Potsdam, there were far too many indifferent performances that were plagued by poor decision making and situational hockey. Yes - there were injuries....that clearly forced people into playing who were outmatched and not ready.
Of the seniors who played meaningful minutes, Harvard graduates:
Forwards: Alex Gaffney (hurt all season unfortunately), Tommy Lyons, Zak Karpa
Defense: Jack Bar, Kyle Aucoin, Ian Moore, Christian Jimenez
The Good:
Goaltending - Charette was fantastic all season long....and while I thought Aku struggled for a good portion of the season (angles, depth in the crease), he was fantastic against Clarkson. There should be healthy competition in net next season which is a good thing.
Forwards - Harvard returns a core group of forwards that are solid. Mick Thomson was great. I like Solovey as a guy who can play in front of the net and go into the corners. Casey Severo really stepped up this year. We are still waiting on Tresca to deliver at this level. I look at guys like Fine, Guzzo, and Hejduk as 4th line depth guys. Will McDonough was one of the more hearlded incoming recruits but assume he was injured since he never really played this year.
Recruits - It is never clear who Harvard will bring in and who will be asked to play another year of juniors. But on the forward side, Harvard looks to bring in a few impact players in Chase Stefanek, Heikki Ruohonen, Aidan Lane, and Richard Gallant. The other forward recruits, given their numbers, I would expect to provide depth. On the defensive side, Donato Bracco, James Mackey, and Drake Murray should compete for starting spots.
Questions:
I thought Ben MacDonald, Joe Miller, Mike Callow, and Cam Johnson (was strong early) were just too inconsistent from game to game. Too passive, commitment to defense was not always there. There is talent here, but without a higher work rate, compete level, and decision making, I'm not sure that these players can be counted on in big moments and to put teams away that Harvard should put away
Challenging:
Defense - The defense was a head scratcher all year, especially since it was supposed to be a team strength and you had strong senior leadership. An inability to possess the puck out of the zone (see Clarkson series), way too many turnovers and poor decision making, and just a lack of identity. The defense let forwards enter the zone unimpeded, did not play physical enough, etc. The defense was not skilled enough to be a finesse team, but also not physical enough to play a heavy game. They were not committed to taking the body (see Clarkson GWG in game 1 of their playoff series). What does this unit want to be next season? How are they going to play?
Faceoffs - Harvard continues (2 years and counting) to lose possession of the puck after re-starts. This has to be addressed in the offseason.
I think Harvard should be a little bit better next year (forward group should be better, goaltending should be better.....defense should be worse on paper, but because the defense played so poorly this year, I wonder if next year this should be neutral to even a little better). Need to look at other schools to see what they lose and what they bring in.
Joe Miller and Ben MacDonald should be producing a lot more given their talent. Someone has to light a fire under them next season. I think Miller benefits from having a strong center and MacDonald isn't that player. Ben should be on left wing, third line. Solovey and Miller should have a center between them that can set them up. Hoping one of the frosh displaces Tresca because I just don't think he's strong enough as a winger. That would give them two very good lines and then you could put Tresca between MacDonald and one of the frosh as a third line moving Fine to center the fourth line between Hedjuk and Cam Johnson.
The other option is to move Ryan Healey to right wing on Severo's line. I can't for the life of me see why they insist on playing him on the backline.
They have Thatcher Bernstein listed as coming in next year so at least we'll have three goalies although two of them will be unproven.Aku just signed with the Canucks. I am a bit surprised, but I guess the Canucks did not want him to become a free agent, had he stayed for his senior year. Congrats to Aku and best of luck in the future.
PullTheGoalie
Active member
Skate79, Bernstein did not play this year for Nobles that I could find. Two other goalies played. When I asked where he was (thinking he'd moved on to the USHL) I was told by a knowledgeable guy that Bernstein was no longer headed to Harvard, and was instead headed to Princeton to play lacrosse.
PullTheGoalie
Active member
Skate79, Bernstein did not play this year for Nobles that I could find. Two other goalies played. When I asked where he was (thinking he'd moved on to the USHL)I wastold by a knowledgeable guy that Bernstein was no longer headed to Harvard, and was instead headed to Princeton to play lacrosse.