Cornell Goaltenders

So who is going to be in goal tomorrow?
We have seen both goalies highest and worst points.
is this the end of the Troy starting streak?

ouch not a good time of year for this loss. let us hope the rest of the season is the opposite

We better see Scrivens tomorrow, I'm surprised Davenport didn't get pulled during the game. He was coughing up rebounds like no other.

That's for sure.
Have we seen this much inconsistency in goaltending before?
I know that no goalie is going to be perfect, but from going from a shutout to allowing 5, really 6 goals, something seems wrong.

redheadfanatic
going from a shutout to allowing goals, something seems wrong.

I think that's a little too much to ask.

Consistency is the major problem. I did notice Davenport gives up a lot of rebounds, but the same can be said about Scrivens. My bet is on Scrivens starting tomorrow.

ryeguy
Consistency is the major problem. I did notice Davenport gives up a lot of rebounds, but the same can be said about Scrivens. My bet is on Scrivens starting tomorrow.

This late in the season Schafer tends to pick a horse and ride him to the end. It'll probably be Davenport from here on out.

Sorry, I definately meant to say allowing 5 (really 6) goals

Chris '03

ryeguy
Consistency is the major problem. I did notice Davenport gives up a lot of rebounds, but the same can be said about Scrivens. My bet is on Scrivens starting tomorrow.

This late in the season Schafer tends to pick a horse and ride him to the end. It'll probably be Davenport from here on out.

Including David LeNeveu's freshman year when Underhill would be the All-America goaltender but LeNeveu just may have been the better goalie. Who knows if we would have gotten further with a different goalie in the nets.

redheadfanatic
Have we seen this much inconsistency in goaltending before?

Eddy Skazyk could run very hot and cold, but for my money, 1998's Ian Burt and Jason Elliott (as a senior) are the all time inconsistent goaltending.

How about these stretches:

A 5 game period giving up 5 goals, followed by 3 games giving up 16.

Or, everybody's favorite:

2-0
2-5
2-1
3-4
0-11
4-1
3-1
2-5
1-5

ryeguy
Consistency is the major problem. I did notice Davenport gives up a lot of rebounds, but the same can be said about Scrivens. My bet is on Scrivens starting tomorrow.

FWIW, Davenport got the win in November, stopping 27 of 29. He made 9 saves in the third to keep Cornell in it and allow the late comeback.

Trotsky

redheadfanatic
Have we seen this much inconsistency in goaltending before?

Eddy Skazyk could run very hot and cold, but for my money, 1998's Ian Burt and Jason Elliott (as a senior) are the all time inconsistent goaltending.

Elliott wound up with pretty good stats that year -- I'd forgotten what an up-and-down season that was for him. (Burt hardly played at all until Elliott got injured with about five games left)

I would vote for the 93-94 season as a monument to goaltending inconsistency, although I suppose you can't use the term "inconsistent" if both goalies are awful. Still, those of you griping about Coach Schafer being quick with the hook this season should be happy you didn't have to live through this mess. A look at the stats from 93-94 (courtesy of [www.tbrw.info]) show Eddy Skazyk appearing in 22 games and Andy Bandurski playing in 19. The Big Red played 30 games that year; simple math shows that there was a goaltending swap in eleven of those. It culminated in a memorable, stomach-churning 9-1 loss at RPI which saw the goalies get swapped three times in the same game.

Chris '03
This late in the season Schafer tends to pick a horse and ride him to the end. It'll probably be Davenport from here on out.

I hope Schafer finds the courage to put in Scrivens. But hey if we lose, at least we'll get to watch more hockey in Lynah (which wouldn't be so bad, right?)!!

Oat
But hey if we lose, at least we'll get to watch more hockey in Lynah (which wouldn't be so bad, right?)!!

How so? We get one series at home, no matter what. The only question is if we get a week to rest up before it happens, rather than having to win a series at home and then having to win ANOTHER series on the road vs. a rested team.

I think it's interesting that Scrivens has only let in more than 3 goals in one game, whereas Davenport has let in 4 or more at least 3 times off the top of my head.

In Scrivens last string, he let in only 1 goal in 4 straight games, then 3 in a tie.

Davenport had a nice start letting in 1 goal total in 2 games, but now has let in 9 in 2 games, in this 4 game swing.

They may both be inconsistent, but I believe Scrivens' worst hasn't been as bad, and to me he looks like a more talented dynamic goalie.

billhoward

Chris '03

ryeguy
Consistency is the major problem. I did notice Davenport gives up a lot of rebounds, but the same can be said about Scrivens. My bet is on Scrivens starting tomorrow.

This late in the season Schafer tends to pick a horse and ride him to the end. It'll probably be Davenport from here on out.

Including David LeNeveu's freshman year when Underhill would be the All-America goaltender but LeNeveu just may have been the better goalie. Who knows if we would have gotten further with a different goalie in the nets.

I've often thought that riding Underhill in the playoffs came back to bite the team in the second ot and then the next week vs. UNH. He wasn't used to playing back to back that season and the fatigue showed.

Oat

Chris '03
This late in the season Schafer tends to pick a horse and ride him to the end. It'll probably be Davenport from here on out.

I hope Schafer finds the courage to put in Scrivens. But hey if we lose, at least we'll get to watch more hockey in Lynah (which wouldn't be so bad, right?)!!

Since we get that by winning, I'll take that route.

In defense of Davenport, he did give up too many rebounds, but he was also left out to dry more times than in almost any Cornell game I have seen in the last few years.

I was sitting in Section 4 right above the goal line for the Troy's 1st and 3rd periods. Our team took a lot of risks, giving up odd-man rushes and also leaving Dartmouth players wide open to rip the rebounds right back at the night. I told a few people that anyone who looks at 23 Dartmouth shots to Cornell's 30 with the 5-1 score will think that Troy sucked and Devine was great.

In reality, Troy didn't get much help from his defense on most of those goals, and our shots were almost all from outside and pretty harmless.

But what does it say that when Davenport played well against Q our defense was top-notch yet when he was really tested he didn't play that well. I mean I understand a couple of goals allowed but 14 saves (13 really if you count the disallowed) on 19 shots is pretty bad.

I'll give you that the team plays better when the goalie is on, but the goalie also plays better when the team is on. Even if the first couple of goals aren't the goalie's fault, it can make it tough to get in a rhythm and play consistentally.

I don't know if you were there or not, but there wasn't much Davenport could do on three of the goals anyway IMO.

Basically, last night sucked for everything Cornell except the band.

Unfortunately I had to settle for the Dartmouth video feed. I agree with you somewhat, but ultimately the goalie has to make some timely saves not just of shots from the perimeter. 68.4% is pretty bad (I'm counting the disallowed goal), defense there or not. The defense was worse on the Union game when we were allowing oddman rushes like no other, IMO.

One shot was through a screen and hit the water bottle, one shot was one-timed on a 2 or 3-on-1 off a rebound from the other side of the net from the initial save. I can't remember the other ones exactly, but these were the 1st couple of goals. The others Troy may-or-may-not have stopped on a good day, but on these two he didn't have much of a chance.

I'm not saying Troy was great by any means, I'm just saying that not many goalies are going to have a good night when they are hung out to dry over-and-over again.

You're right. But I can't help but remember Parris Duffis, and his uncanny ability to cover both corners of the net at the same time. I honestly think his save % was 85% 5 on 5, but 95% on breakaways and odd-man rushes.

To me, Scrivens has more of that ability to do his size & leg-span. And I still think Davenport gives up way too many rebounds.

Scrivens may have gotten the L against Sucks, but you can't be disappointed with stopping 36 out of 39 shots.

When a Cornell goalie faces 35 to 40 shots in a game, this is a different style of hockey from our years of great success in Mike Schafer's first decade ... the years when we managed to win key games 1-0 and 2-1 and when we also lost them by the same scores. Guess we have to choose our poison.

Duffis was very good. My posts describe what I think happens on any given night. On some nights a goaltender can single-handedly keep his team in the game i.e. Leggio in the 2nd playoff game last year, and obviously, a handful of goaltenders are good enough to play like that on more nights than not.

cth95
Duffis was very good.

Duffus was very good.

I'll just chime in here to sing some Scrivens praises.

Ben played well last night. This loss was not his fault in the least. We could have easily been down 3-0 by the middle of the second period. He made some fantastic saves under pressure, including one second-period save in which he had fallen down but managed to stick up his glove in the right place to catch a slapshot. And, unlike in some other games, he placed himself right where he needed to be on some important plays. Rebounds were still an issue, but he kept us in a game in which the defense was mediocre and the offense was nonexistent.

I still think Davenport is a better goalie, but he got shelled in what could have been a devastating loss for Cornell had we not gotten lucky with some of the other results. I still want Troy in game 1, though.

Duffus was outstanding '91-'92. But the year before, when we had all that talent and he rode the bench (McCutcheon didn't know he was that good), we all cheered "Doooffffuuuussss" when he got mop up time in a blowout.

Thought both goalies were pretty good this weekend.

Ari, I agree with a lot of things you say, but Davenport let in 5 goals on only 21 shots. It doesn't matter if those 16 saves were all highlight-reel material and the 5 goals were breakaways and odd-man rushes, there's no good in 5 goals on 21 shots.

WillCMJr
Ari, I agree with a lot of things you say, but Davenport let in 5 goals on only 21 shots. It doesn't matter if those 16 saves were all highlight-reel material and the 5 goals were breakaways and odd-man rushes, there's no good in 5 goals on 21 shots.

Like I said to my friend at the end of the game, anyone looking at the stats is going to think Davenport sucked and cost us the game. Sure he could have had a spectacular night and kept us in it, but when we continually give up odd-man rushes, turn the puck over multiple times in the slot, and leave guys wide open to one-time rebounds, not many goalies are going to look very good.

When you do see a goalie stop everything when his team plays like that in front of him, it should make you appreciate it that much more.

Al DeFlorio

cth95
Duffis was very good.

Duffus was very good.

Thanks. I thought that didn't look right. Should have gone back and checked.

cth95

Al DeFlorio

cth95
Duffis was very good.

Duffus was very good.

Thanks. I thought that didn't look right. Should have gone back and checked.

What makes it tough is that his name is Parris Duffus.

Part of the goalie's job is to NOT give up the rebound. If you block all of your shots with your leg pads and center of your chest, like Davenport, you're going to give up rebounds. There are no excuses for 5 goals on 21 shots, ever.

With that said, 1 goal is good enough only in a shutout. So he didn't cost Cornell the game. But 16/21 is not 'good' by any definition.

I didn't see Friday's game so I can't speak to that, but the loss on Saturday definitely wasn't Scrivens' fault.

WillCMJr
Ari, I agree with a lot of things you say, but Davenport let in 5 goals on only 21 shots. It doesn't matter if those 16 saves were all highlight-reel material and the 5 goals were breakaways and odd-man rushes, there's no good in 5 goals on 21 shots.

Actually, I think you just named the one time. When the goalie was hung out to dry, don't you think he gets a pass on those shots, so long as he was playing well otherwise? (assuming he also made a few nice stops on other breakaways or odd-man rushes, and that's not a distinct weakness)

At Lynah East my friend and I were standing behind Troy Davenport's brother. We talked a bit between periods, and I asked him if he or his brother had any idea what Schafer was planning for the playoffs. He said that they don't have any idea, and that "troy doesn't ever know who's starting the next game, let alone in a few weeks." I got the feeling that Ben and Troy are kept in the dark until like the afternoon of the game or something, more like a "game time decision."

and yes, I agree with Josh '99, I don't think the Harvard loss was Scrivens's fault at all.

I agree 100% except that your #s are a little bit off. According to collegehockeystats.net, Davenport was even worse; he made 14 saves in 19 shots.

Some people mentioned that one of teh weaknesses in Scrivens game was that he gave up too many rebounds, however he was better than Davenport in that aspect during this weekend's games.

Al DeFlorio

cth95

Al DeFlorio

cth95
Duffis was very good.

Duffus was very good.

Thanks. I thought that didn't look right. Should have gone back and checked.

What makes it tough is that his name is Parris Duffus.

So how do you correctly pronounce his name?

min

Al DeFlorio

cth95

Al DeFlorio

cth95
Duffis was very good.

Duffus was very good.

Thanks. I thought that didn't look right. Should have gone back and checked.

What makes it tough is that his name is Parris Duffus.

So how d you correctly pronounce his name?

I believe it's pronounced like it's spelled: D&f-us. The u is short.

KeithK

min

Al DeFlorio

cth95

Al DeFlorio

cth95
Duffis was very good.

Duffus was very good.

Thanks. I thought that didn't look right. Should have gone back and checked.

What makes it tough is that his name is Parris Duffus.

So how d you correctly pronounce his name?

I believe it's pronounced like it's spelled: D&f-us. The u is short.

First name: Paris (like the city)
Last name: Duff-us. (first syllable like the Simpsons fictional beer brand)

Lynah got used to doing this cheer:
[points at Parris]"DUFFUS!!"
[points at opposing sieve]: "DOOFUS!!"

So much that people kept trying to apply similar cheers to the new guys. "Elliott....Idiot" came from these efforts.

RichH
First name: Paris (like the city)
Last name: Duff-us. (first syllable like the Simpsons fictional beer brand)

Lynah got used to doing this cheer:
[points at Parris]"DUFFUS!!"
[points at opposing sieve]: "DOOFUS!!"

So much that people kept trying to apply similar cheers to the new guys. "Elliott....Idiot" came from these efforts.

Shockingly, Coach Schafer didn't accede to our thoroughly reasonable request that he only recruit goalies with names conducive to such mocking.

Beeeej

RichH
First name: Paris (like the city)
Last name: Duff-us. (first syllable like the Simpsons fictional beer brand)

Lynah got used to doing this cheer:
[points at Parris]"DUFFUS!!"
[points at opposing sieve]: "DOOFUS!!"

So much that people kept trying to apply similar cheers to the new guys. "Elliott....Idiot" came from these efforts.

Shockingly, Coach Schafer didn't accede to our thoroughly reasonable request that he only recruit goalies with names conducive to such mocking.

Well, "Underhill"/"Over the hill" worked, but nothing really went with LeNeveu

I wouldn't really say that "worked."

The defense may have allowed some difficult situations, but they still only gave up 21 shots. Many times those rebounds are the goalie's fault. When you know you have an odd man rush coming, you know you either need to hold on to the puck or deflect it laterally. If your deflecting it back out for a rebound shot, that's all on you. We could ask Coach Shafer's opinion, but he started Scrivens the next night, that says a lot after several good games. Coach is experienced, if he thought that was the defense's fault, Davenport would have been between the pipes again the next night.

Troy Davenport 1 0 0 1 7:48 0
EMPTY NET 0 0:05 0
Troy Davenport 1 0 0 1 6:57 0
EMPTY NET 0 0:18 0
Troy Davenport 0 0 0 0 1:02 0
EMPTY NET 0 0:03 0
Troy Davenport (L, 11-5-2) 1 9 4 14 43:47 5

It's separated by times he came out of the net for extra attacker. That last line is not a total, it's the last 43:47 of the game. Add the columns.

Cornell in the last 9 games:

Scrivens 2-2-1 .932 1.98GAA - Offensive Production 2.4 Goals/Game

Davenport 3-1 .915 2.5GAA - Offensive Production 4.25 Goals/Game


Scrivens has been the better goalie, but the offense has just been better on Davenport's nights.

WillCMJr
Cornell in the last 9 games:

Scrivens 2-2-1 .932 1.98GAA - Offensive Production 2.4 Goals/Game

Davenport 3-1 .915 2.5GAA - Offensive Production 4.25 Goals/Game


Scrivens has been the better goalie, but the offense has just been better on Davenport's nights.

Now take out the Princeton outlier... it impacts both gpg and gaa.

WillCMJr
The defense may have allowed some difficult situations, but they still only gave up 21 shots. Many times those rebounds are the goalie's fault. When you know you have an odd man rush coming, you know you either need to hold on to the puck or deflect it laterally. If your deflecting it back out for a rebound shot, that's all on you. We could ask Coach Shafer's opinion, but he started Scrivens the next night, that says a lot after several good games. Coach is experienced, if he thought that was the defense's fault, Davenport would have been between the pipes again the next night.

But also on the odd man rush, it's the defensive teams responsiblility to tie up the offensive players, so they can't get a second shot off. The goalies main job is the shooter, stop the goal. The team has to be responsible to tie up the other offensive players. That's one reason why the grinding out offense works. You keep working the puck around the boards, waiting for an openning and getting the defense tired and out of position. You get a chance, take a shot and your guy is there for a rebound, since the defense is tired and not in position.


It's not that a goalie doesn't try and not give up a rebound, but rather that it's the whole team's responsibility to cover their players or their spot on the ice. That's why it's called team defense.We used to do it well, this year we have been suspect. Just look at the goal Harvard scored after we tied it up. That was a classic Cornell goal, work it, work it, work it, then a shot, some offense not tied up and a chance to poke it in. Just bad team defense.

WillCMJr
Cornell in the last 9 games:

Scrivens 2-2-1 .932 1.98GAA - Offensive Production 2.4 Goals/Game

Davenport 3-1 .915 2.5GAA - Offensive Production 4.25 Goals/Game


Scrivens has been the better goalie, but the offense has just been better on Davenport's nights.

The numbers may indicate that, but Davenport has unquestionably been the better goaltender.

calgARI '07
unquestionably

I question it. I've thought from day one Scrivens is a better goaltender. Davenport may be more polished, as he's had more experience, but I truly feel more confident with Ben in the net. I also feel he's outshined Davenport this latter part of the season, which is the money time.

WillCMJr

calgARI '07
unquestionably

I question it. I've thought from day one Scrivens is a better goaltender. Davenport may be more polished, as he's had more experience, but I truly feel more confident with Ben in the net. I also feel he's outshined Davenport this latter part of the season, which is the money time.

The away Clarkson-SLU and Union-RPI weekends really stand out to me. Scrivens was terrible when he played those games while Davenport was solid. Davenport has had some rough moments but he has definitely looked more comfortable. He is more experienced and has played in bigger games. Scrivens has played better of late but he has looked horrible periodically this season and has cost the team more points than Davenport has IMO.

calgARI '07

WillCMJr

calgARI '07
unquestionably

I question it. I've thought from day one Scrivens is a better goaltender. Davenport may be more polished, as he's had more experience, but I truly feel more confident with Ben in the net. I also feel he's outshined Davenport this latter part of the season, which is the money time.

The away Clarkson-SLU and Union-RPI weekends really stand out to me. Scrivens was terrible when he played those games while Davenport was solid. Davenport has had some rough moments but he has definitely looked more comfortable. He is more experienced and has played in bigger games. Scrivens has played better of late but he has looked horrible periodically this season and has cost the team more points than Davenport has IMO.

Totally agree. I didn't see the Union/RPI games, but after the northcountry weekend, I think I posted that I hoped that put an end to the goalie controversy. Scrivens was terrible. Yes I've gotten more comfortable with him in net, but Davenport seems to me to be more polished now and with more upside potential.

We also have to realize that coaches change goalies for more reasons than just bad play; teams respond differently when goalies are changed, often times for the better. Often, when you make a change, you are trying to tell a team that you'd better play better defense.

This is a fun thread to read, but my money is on Mike making the correct call......

bandit1
This is a fun thread to read, but my money is on Mike making the correct call......

No offense intended, but comments like this always annoy me. I realize that I and most of the folks here are not qualified to coach a college hockey team. That's why we're in the stands and not behind the bench. but it's far from a given that coaches, even a good one like ours, will always make the right call. Coaches make mistakes just like everyone else. It's our prerogative as fans to analyze and/or criticize the decisions of the coach.


Saying "Mike will make the right call" can mean one of two things. In can mean that you have faith in the knowledge and abilities of the coach and thus are willing to trust his judgement. Nothing wrong with that - it's probably a good thing. But it can also mean "shut up you fools, you're not qualified to comment on this". I am NOT saying that you necessarily meant it this way but it has been used to convey that meaniing on this board before.
[/rant]

Why cause you say so? The fact that this thread exists and that Schafer has been rotating goalies even thought Davenported was the starting goalie at the beginning of the season say otherwise.

Totally disagree. Half of Ben's losses have come when he has had to come in relief of Davenport after he put us in a huge hole. Wayne State, Maine and Colgate, for example. Davenport played awful against Dartmouth both times and put us in huge holes against RPI at home, Wayne State, Maine, at Quinipiac, and at Colgate. Davenport has had more than his fair share of awful games. If Davenport may be more polished but Scrivens has more potential for growth and more of an upside.

Omie
Totally disagree. Half of Ben's losses have come when he has had to come in relief of Davenport after he put us in a huge hole. Wayne State, Maine and Colgate, for example. Davenport played awful against Dartmouth both times and put us in huge holes against RPI at home, Wayne State, Maine, at Quinipiac, and at Colgate. Davenport has had more than his fair share of awful games. If Davenport may be more polished but Scrivens has more potential for growth and more of an upside.

Thank you. Everything I was thinking you just put into words. But I'm at work and don't have the time to type them

Omie
Scrivens has more potential for growth and more of an upside.

OK, but how exactly? What about him makes you believe these two things?

Scrivens is much improved from his first few starts. Probably the most improved player on the team, IMO. But I'll always see him as a bit of a flopper. Every so often, I still see him leave his feet to stop a puck headed for his chest, and the flying glove flourish on pucks outside the post may look good, but are dangerous. I'll take a calm, quiet, technically-sound goaltender just about every day over a flopper. Davenport has several big weaknesses, that I believe can be fixed with work. Right now, I think it's a #1 and #1A situation, and given what we have, I'm fine with that. But for the reasons I gave above, I think Davenport has a higher potential and the better goaltender right now.

I respect your opinion and your relentless Scrivens fandom, Omie. But what are your reasons?

Not sure what games you were watching, but they sure weren't the ones I saw. At SLU, he got peppered with 17 shots in 15 minutes - stopping 14 of them. Yeah, he gave up an easy one that got him pulled, but how's that any different than the three easy rebounds Davenport gave up at Dartmouth? Scrivens didn't play at Clarkson, and played pretty damn well at Union, making 31 stops - more than Davenport had made at that point in the season, then didn't play at RPI. Had he not played well in the third period at Union, that's another loss and we're playing this weekend.

Thing is, Scrivens, while he may or may not be better, has at least been more consistent than Davenport. Davenport's much more likely to follow up a stellar shutout with a ghastly stinker. As proof, I implore you to check out the two shutouts he has posted this year - against Wayne State and against Quinnipiac. The following game, what did he do?

RPI - 32:35, 3 GA
Princeton - 60:00, 4 GA

Anyway, more examples....
Last six appearances for both goalies, regardless of time played
Davenport
2/23 @ Dartmouth - 5 GA, 16 svs - L
2/17 vs. Princeton - 4 GA, 37 svs - W
2/16 vs. Quinnipiac - 0 GA, 27 svs - W
2/10 @ RPI - 1 GA, 28 svs - W
1/25 @ Colgate - 2 GA, 4 svs - no decision (L)
1/19 vs. Yale - 2 GA, 15 svs - T

Scrivens
2/24 @ Harvard - 3 GA, 36 svs - L
2/9 @ Union - 3 GA, 31 svs - T
2/3 vs. SLU - 2 GA, 21 svs - L
2/2 vs. Clarkson - 2 GA, 26 svs - W
1/27 vs. Colgate - 1 GA, 24 svs - W
1/25 @ Colgate - 1 GA, 6 svs - L (in relief)

Say what you will, but I'll take the more consistent player any day of the week. At this point, isn't consistency what this team needs more of anyway?

Right on the money Bandrews. Scrivens may be a 'flopper' but Davenport has flopped many more times this season.

One more important point, Scrivens had a good game in his last game, and the next two are at Lynah. The crowd definitely shows more support for Scrivens, we need them as loud as they can get. Him getting the start will pump them up!

Didn't mean to annoy you. I always love reading about the fans perspective. Although I don't play "monday morning quaterback" for hockey, I do as a huge football fan.

New to posting on the forum here, but have been following for awhile. I'll preface this post by saying I believe Davenport is the better goalie and has shown it. This is also not done to take a stab at Scrivens. He has done well and is a capable goalie.

It has just been painful to watch this debate go on at times this year. Many of the things said regarding the goalies just shows how much some people on here do not know regarding the goaltender position, and at times, hockey in general. There are people on this forum who just keep pulling numbers out of the box scores and are trying to make a point to say Davenport has been bad based on the numbers. By reading this it is obvious that these people have not been to a number of the games they talk about and, if they have, they obviously don't know what they are watching.

Many of the games that constantly get brought up here such as Dartmouth, Quinnipiac, Maine, Wayne State, I question whether the people were even at the games. The team played just garbage in these games and there were numerous goals that went in off of our own players. None of the goals that went in were bad goals on Davenport's side of it.

Also the second Dartmouth game Davenport played a good game. There may have been only 21 shots, but all were within the tops of the circles, with screens,and also unchallanged. The team played terrible defence and did not pick any guys up. When a goalie is getting shots taken on them from inside the hash marks their job is to just stop the first shot, that is it because on those it's pretty much just positioning and reflex. Controlling the rebound is almost impossible on those.

The Wayne State game the team played terrible the entire game, even when Scrivens was in. If you watch they were always out of position and not picking people up and allowing open shots. 2 ppg in the first 13 minuts, one 5x3. On second ppg all four of the penalty killers were on the opposite side of the ice as the puck and the two Wayne State players. One skated around the back of the net and threw a pass to a wide open man standing just outside the crease to pound it home.

In the first Quinnipiac game there were numberous turnovers in our own end and lots of screens and odd man rushes.

Maine, the team did not cover men in the slot at all. That is where all the goals came from. On one of the goals the Maine player got the puck at the point and all of our players skated away from him and let him walk all the way down.

The second Princeton game has also been mentioned lately and that is just garbage. It just shows how far people are reaching to try to show Scrivens has been better. In that game the team was up 8-1 going into the third and packed it in (just like they packed it in during the third period in the first game which carried over to the next night just like it did here). They left Davenport all alone the whole period and did not pick anyone up. He made some huge saves in that game as well and had he not the game could have been different.

Also the game in which he has saved the team are not mentioned here such as Princeton (game 1, game saving save on a 3 on 0 off a turnover in our own zone with under 5 minutes left), Harvard (game 1, made the comeback possible), Quinnipiac (enough said), Brown (numerous guys streaking in untouched taking and tipping shots inside the hashes), Wayne State (we ony got 2 goals), Clarkson (huge saves and one on Grenzy in the third after he was left alone to walk all the way in, even the Clarkson announcers named him the #1 star and he had less saves than Leggio) and a great game against UNH.

This post, as I said earlier, is not to be taken as a hit against Scrivens. It is just to show why debates about goaltenders on this forum are going to go nowhere. People come on here with their biases and are just fishing for numbers to try and put against Davenport. Ex.

Omie
68.4% is pretty bad (I'm counting the disallowed goal)

First of all those numbers aren't even correct, Omie just went on to a site to find the lowest saves Davenport was credited for (as opposed to the official saves credited) then added a goal that wasn't counted. This is so terrible. You can't go counting goals that aren't scored against goalies. That is like saying, the team won the game 2-o, but the goalie with the shutout had 15 saves, but 3 goals were disallowed because of high sticking. So the team really lost 3-2 and his save percentage was .833 as opposed to 1.000. So until people stop looking for made numbers and actually learn something about goaltending and team hockey this is pointless.

WillCMJr
The crowd definitely shows more support for Scrivens, we need them as loud as they can get. Him getting the start will pump them up!

Now you're just making things up. No way Lynah is louder or more supportive for one goalie or the other. Volume depends on the level of opponent hatred, excitement of the game, and the way CU is playing (and if school is in session).

based on my limited exposure to cornell this year, here is my opinion.

Davenport is a really good goalie when he is on (see game at cheel). However, when davenport isn't on... he is down right brutal (see Wayne State game one).

Scrivens is a solid goalie who has highs that aren;t as high and lows that aren;t as low. from what I have seen, he plays a solid game and can keep the puck out of the net most of the time.

I think scrivens might be a more consistant goalie, but when cornell runs up against a team with a good offense (Clarkson, Quinipac, SLU(t), Dartmouth) Davenport will give you the best chance to win, as long as he is having a good night.

take it or leave it... but that;s what I think.

Don't be rude. Maybe I'm just more observant. The crowd does give Scrivens a more enthusiastic introduction. And when they win and he's leaving the ice they give him a rousing 'Scrivens, Scrivens,..." Sorry you haven't noticed, but Davenport does not get the same level of support.

I'm sure many of our fellow forum-members appreciated your thought-out, thoroughly described argument. I know I particularly agree with your stance on the Princeton blowout-turned shoot-out, and how Davenport should not be scrutinized based on his performance behind an unimpassioned D with a huge lead. However, you might want to tone it down a little here, Dude. We're all trying to have fun and we're all entitled to our opinions. Whether or not you agree is up to you, and you should certainly state that opinion, but it's not as if we're trying to lie to you. Have some fun. It's college hockey. Let's Go Red.

Dpperk29
based on my limited exposure to cornell this year, here is my opinion.

Davenport is a really good goalie when he is on (see game at cheel). However, when davenport isn't on... he is down right brutal (see Wayne State game one).

Scrivens is a solid goalie who has highs that aren;t as high and lows that aren;t as low. from what I have seen, he plays a solid game and can keep the puck out of the net most of the time.

I think scrivens might be a more consistant goalie, but when cornell runs up against a team with a good offense (Clarkson, Quinipac, SLU(t), Dartmouth) Davenport will give you the best chance to win, as long as he is having a good night.

take it or leave it... but that;s what I think.

I'll take it. I think that's a pretty fair assessment. That being said, I still would have a hard time picking who I want to start in the post-season. Probably Davenport though, as many have said, I feel more comfortable with him in there. I find it very interesting that so many of us feel this way even though he gives such an inconsistent effort. I suppose it's due to his sounder fundamentals.

"Davenport's the guy who had the strange disappearing-year thingy. Why did he come back? He did pretty well at the beginning of the season, but, you know, like, that was a long time ago. Like, before there was a lot of snow here in Ithaca. He did pretty badly in some games after that. Yeah, maybe he won against UNH, but when the hell was that game? Every time he plays, Coach Schaefferr has to take him out.

Oh, good, Scrivens is in! He's the hotelie, the popular freshman. He's more enthusiastic; you can tell he wants to play. He has that unpainted helmet. He should always be in goal."

That is why Scrivens gets more of a response.

I will say one thing, I think neither of them are bad and it's nice to have the competition and a back-up plan. McKee played pretty poor for a while last year, and I think if there was some competition, regardless of his All-American type reputation he would have gotten benched at some point. I think both goalies are performing better right now than he did a good share of last season.

I agree that Scrivens has been more consistent, and even if Davenport has a higher upside right now, I believe this is the wrong time to have a crap shoot.

I will support the goalie who gives the team the best chance to win, even if it's Davenport. But his tendency to let in a flurry of goals is really scary.

WillCMJr
Don't be rude. Maybe I'm just more observant. The crowd does give Scrivens a more enthusiastic introduction. And when they win and he's leaving the ice they give him a rousing 'Scrivens, Scrivens,..." Sorry you haven't noticed, but Davenport does not get the same level of support.

First, I didn't think I was being rude in my previous post. If you took it to be so, I apologize. Second, if you've haven't noticed the crowd chanting the name of the goaltender as the team skates off for just about every CU win, then no, I don't think you're more observant at all. Maybe subconciously biased so you think the crowd is louder for your guy.

Going back 10 years, it seemed only a particularly outstanding game would get the end-game chant (Ell-i-ott! Ell-i-ott!). Starting around Underhill's tenure (probably because the name is so easy to chant, UN-DER-HILL!), the Faithful started doing this after every win, and as the goaltender is usually one of the last ones off the ice, he responds with a stick salute back. It continued with "Le-Ne-Veu!" and "Dave Mc-Kee!" "Scriv-ens!" gets the rare 2 syllable chant, but a fun one was always "BURT! BURT! BURT!" Anyway, my point is that "DAV-EN-PORT!" has most certainly been chanted at Lynah this year, including a very loud one vs. Quinnipiac. Perhaps you weren't at those games where it occurred.

ebilmes
"Davenport's the guy who had the strange disappearing-year thingy. Why did he come back? [/Q]Do you mean why did he leavre school when he realized McKee was always going to be the No. 1 goalie? If you need education about that you need to go back over old threads. It's been well discussed.[Q] Every time he plays, Coach Schaefferr has to take him out.[/Q]Now this shows you really understand the game. What kind of a statement is this, certainly not a true one? And at least learn how to spell the coaches name. It's in the spelling guide that Age has on the right border.

[Q]Oh, good, Scrivens is in! He's the hotelie, the popular freshman. He's more enthusiastic; you can tell he wants to play. He has that unpainted helmet. He should always be in goal."

That is why Scrivens gets more of a response.

Maybe this whole thing is a joke? If not and you really like Scrivens better, just use god discussion and leave it at that. All this other crap is exactly that. Now I'll get off my horse and smile.

Jim Hyla
Maybe this whole thing is a joke?

I think ebilmes, inside his quotation marks, was presenting the theoretical thought process of a typical fringe fan/facetimer. The kind of fan who can't spell coach's name, or doesn't care to. ebilmes himself is a pretty intelligent poster.

WillCMJr
I will say one thing, I think neither of them are bad and it's nice to have the competition and a back-up plan.

I will support the goalie who gives the team the best chance to win

OK, that's two things I can get behind 100%. Well said. I don't think either guy has been anywhere close to Dryden Award caliber, unfortunately, but they're both capable of doing well.

I think this season has made me want to find the Hobey nay-sayers over the last four years and ask them again if they really think it was "The System" with both '03 LeNeveu and '05 McKee.

RichH

Jim Hyla
Maybe this whole thing is a joke?

I think ebilmes, inside his quotation marks, was presenting the theoretical thought process of a typical fringe fan/facetimer. The kind of fan who can't spell coach's name, or doesn't care to. ebilmes himself is a pretty intelligent poster.

And he brought newspaper to Harvard!

RichH
I think this season has made me want to find the Hobey nay-sayers over the last four years and ask them again if they really think it was "The System" with both '03 LeNeveu and '05 McKee.

I don't even know if this is a fair criticism of the naysayers. (NB: LeNeveu is God. God is in the AHL.) Not only did we lose an elite goalie last year, we lost an elite blueline. I suspect that The System is still helping out our goalies, if not as obviously.

You're not more observant (I'll take my chances being rude)...

As RichH said, there is no more enthusiasm for either of the two goalies.

RichH

I think this season has made me want to find the Hobey nay-sayers over the last four years and ask them again if they really think it was "The System" with both '03 LeNeveu and '05 McKee.

Cornell's 06-07 Defense: Seminoff, Krantz, Glover, Davenport, Krueger, Nash, Salmela, McLeod, Hedge

Cornell's 04-05 Defense: Cook, Downs, O'Byrne, Gleed, Pokulok, Glover, Krantz, Salmela

Cornell's 02-03 Defense: Murray, McRae, Wallace, Bell, Cook, Downs, Gleed


Compare this season's defense to those years and it is not even close. That is to say nothing of how much more experience those teams had up front and how much better those forward groups were defensively. With this year's team, we would have had a very good chance to see how good McKee or LeNeveu would have and could have been.

WillCMJr
The crowd does give Scrivens a more enthusiastic introduction. And when they win and he's leaving the ice they give him a rousing 'Scrivens, Scrivens,..."

This was most noticeable when we finally scored the first win in January. The win got the monkey off our back...only L or T since December win vs. UNH and Coach got his winningest record. It was an acknowledgement from a relieved Faithful for a job finally accomplished.

RichH

WillCMJr
The crowd definitely shows more support for Scrivens, we need them as loud as they can get. Him getting the start will pump them up!

Now you're just making things up. No way Lynah is louder or more supportive for one goalie or the other. Volume depends on the level of opponent hatred, excitement of the game, and the way CU is playing (and if school is in session).

Agree - I haven't sensed (or heard) Faithful harbor ill-feelings when either goalie is announced on game night.

Debating this topic on the forum, however, is a good way to pass the time between games!

Sorry if the response seems a little intense for you and maybe some of the other posters on here, but I just stated what my opinion was just like everyone else has done. I am also all about having fun, but when people try to rip on guys based on a lot of garbage (not sure if that is too harsh of a word for you ) it just gets a little old. It was not directed at all of the posters on this forum, just the select few that constantly say the same baseless claims over and over again. I understand not all people in the world, or on here, are vastly knowledgable about hockey. I just think that if people are going to post things they should atleast learn a little bit about the game or the subject they are posting eventually, instead of just posting the same thing they have been since the beggining of the season.

RichH
I think this season has made me want to find the Hobey nay-sayers over the last four years and ask them again if they really think it was "The System" with both '03 LeNeveu and '05 McKee.

Not to pile on, but this gives the nay-sayers more ammo, not less- we bring in BC-type smurfs as Mike starts trying to learn how to play an open style of hockey and no goalie looks good, versus before with Cornell / "clutch and grab" style hockey and even a guy from TX - or God in the AHL - looks invincible...

hockeydude
Sorry if the response seems a little intense for you and maybe some of the other posters on here, but I just stated what my opinion was just like everyone else has done. I am also all about having fun, but when people try to rip on guys based on a lot of garbage (not sure if that is too harsh of a word for you ) it just gets a little old. It was not directed at all of the posters on this forum, just the select few that constantly say the same baseless claims over and over again. I understand not all people in the world, or on here, are vastly knowledgable about hockey. I just think that if people are going to post things they should atleast learn a little bit about the game or the subject they are posting eventually, instead of just posting the same thing they have been since the beggining of the season.

I'll throw my quick two cents in and say that I didn't think your post was too harsh at all. People around here are very quick to post things they think or hope will sound good because it's important for them to have an opinion or a horse in the race, but often they don't think it through very carefully. Until I ran across your post, this thread was mostly making me roll my eyes a lot. Good for you for speaking your mind and then backing it up intelligently.

That having been said, it's not always necessary for someone else to be an idiot for you to be right.

JohnnieAg'99
Not to pile on

No, go ahead an pile on, if I deserve it. I thought about it after posting, and agree with Ari's reply. It was more me viscerally shaking out some cobwebs of bitterness I found back in the corner of my mind. Back to your regularly scheduled bye-week time-wasting.

Jim Hyla
Maybe this whole thing is a joke?

Yup...I would say it is.

RichH

JohnnieAg'99
Not to pile on

No, go ahead an pile on, if I deserve it. I thought about it after posting, and agree with Ari's reply. It was more me viscerally shaking out some cobwebs of bitterness I found back in the corner of my mind. Back to your regularly scheduled bye-week time-wasting.

Jerk.

I'll accept that including the disallowed goal is probably baseless, however you are making way too many assumptions that if someone does not agree with your opinion they either have not been to the games or don't know enough hockey. I have been to every home game this season and half of the away games including Q, Union, RPI, and Colgate. You seem to blame Davenports bad games on the defense but at some point he has to be held accountable for some of those goals. Yea we won versus Harvard and Davenport kept us in the game but he has also played pretty bad at times and there is no denying that.

You are entitled to your opinion but don't call others ignorant about the game because they disagree with you.

I would argue that Scrivens has improved positionally (showing potential for growth) and he also seems to be a more acrobatic goalie.

I think you're right. But, Davenport always looks like he's sulking on the bench. He's not out hanging over the boards giving support to his team. Go DiLeo! lol

I think there's at least 1000 college kids with that thought process haha

WillCMJr
I think there's at least 1000 college kids with that thought process haha

I would be stunned to the point of unconsciousness if there were a thousand Cornell students who even knew that Davenport had left for a year.

Omie
Scrivens ... also seems to be a more acrobatic goalie.

That's usually because he's caught out of position a lot or goes down way too early. Someone like Lenny was often almost boring to watch because he was so good positionally, played the angles, and never panicked. At the other end of the spectrum was someone like McKee who was really just a reaction goalie. And, at least at this level, a really good reaction goalie can be effective. In the pros that typically doesn't fly and, like McKee, they find they need to learn good technique to go along with their inherent talent.

So to summarize the analogy, Davenport is more like Lenny and Scrivens is more like McKee. Scrivens tends to look more spectacular in net, but not necessarily for the right reasons.

JohnnieAg'99
we bring in BC-type smurfs as Mike starts trying to learn how to play an open style of hockey and no goalie looks good

The goaltending has looked soft this year, but let's not go overboard. Davenport was 6th in the ECAC in GAA. Scrivens was 1st: [www.ecachockeyleague.com]

Trotsky

JohnnieAg'99
we bring in BC-type smurfs as Mike starts trying to learn how to play an open style of hockey and no goalie looks good

The goaltending has looked soft this year, but let's not go overboard. Davenport was 6th in the ECAC in GAA. Scrivens was 1st: [www.ecachockeyleague.com]

Well not to pick on you, but since everybody has been trying to show their point backed by stats, let's see how ridiculous they can be.

          Sav %  GAA  Record  %
Davenport .903  2.38  7-3-2  .667
Scrivens  .918  2.17  3-5-2  .400

So Scrivens has better stats except he loses more?? Maybe the teams they each play and how our team plays around them makes a difference. 4 GA Princeton is a good example. Now can we keep this thread going for another week?

calgARI '07


Compare this season's defense to those years and it is not even close.

I would add to this a comparison of forwards as well. They have changed from big and defensive minded to smaller and offensive minded.

Under 6' tall:

2002-2003: Abbott, Abbott, Hornby, Pegoraro, Vesce

2006-2007: Barlow, Gallagher, Milo, Romano, Scali, Scott

Even the "small" guys in 02-03 played big. Scott might try to play like a big guy, but he doesn't succeed like the older guys.

Lenny and McKee benefited from a stronger defense and stronger defensive forwards. I am not knocking their talent, but their defense was good across the board.

Jim Hyla
Now can we keep this thread going for another week?

Easily.

I am not saying that every goal that has gone in is because of the defense. Granted on some of them maybe he wasn't out challenging as far as he should and maybe some rebounds got away that he wish wouldn't have. Or maybe if he had dislocated is left knee and touched the crossbar with the back of his skate he would have made the save . I just don't think you can say that he has played "pretty bad" at times this year. If you look at the goals given up you can't say that any were really his fault or soft goals. Many of them have been defflections off of our own guys, giveaways in our own zone, powerplay goals from blown assignments, and odd man rushes. I don't understand how you can say the goalie should be held accountable for this stuff.

hockeydude
I am not saying that every goal that has gone in is because of the defense. Granted on some of them maybe he wasn't out challenging as far as he should and maybe some rebounds got away that he wish wouldn't have. Or maybe if he had dislocated is left knee and touched the crossbar with the back of his skate he would have made the save . I just don't think you can say that he has played "pretty bad" at times this year. If you look at the goals given up you can't say that any were really his fault or soft goals. Many of them have been defflections off of our own guys, giveaways in our own zone, powerplay goals from blown assignments, and odd man rushes. I don't understand how you can say the goalie should be held accountable for this stuff.

Let me preface that I agree with Beeeej and don't find your tone offensive.

Opinions aside, we can't dispute the fact that Schafer saw fit to pull Davenport several times. How would you explain that?

I don't agree that Troy hasn't given up some soft goals. I've seen them in Lynah. I do agree that he has suffered from an overall weaker defense leading to more opportunities for our opponents. Seminoff's absence doesn't help.

Sidebar: You carry the confident tone of one who knows hockey well, which I can respect. Without revealing your true identity, can you provide a little background??

Jim Hyla
So Scrivens has better stats except he loses more?

I was trying to show that both goaltenders, although not as good as Lenny and McKee, have performed well relative to the rest of the conference. I was not comparing Troy and Ben.

Team goaltending in recent seasons (not including eng):

2000 2.61 .904
2001 2.00 .922
2002 1.68 .927
2003 1.26 .939
2004 1.82 .921
2005 1.24 .947
2006 2.05 .911
2007 2.40 .902

Townie

hockeydude
I am not saying that every goal that has gone in is because of the defense. Granted on some of them maybe he wasn't out challenging as far as he should and maybe some rebounds got away that he wish wouldn't have. Or maybe if he had dislocated is left knee and touched the crossbar with the back of his skate he would have made the save . I just don't think you can say that he has played "pretty bad" at times this year. If you look at the goals given up you can't say that any were really his fault or soft goals. Many of them have been defflections off of our own guys, giveaways in our own zone, powerplay goals from blown assignments, and odd man rushes. I don't understand how you can say the goalie should be held accountable for this stuff.

Let me preface that I agree with Beeeej and don't find your tone offensive.

Opinions aside, we can't dispute the fact that Schafer saw fit to pull Davenport several times. How would you explain that?

I don't agree that Troy hasn't given up some soft goals. I've seen them in Lynah. I do agree that he has suffered from an overall weaker defense leading to more opportunities for our opponents. Seminoff's absence doesn't help.

Sidebar: You carry the confident tone of one who knows hockey well, which I can respect. Without revealing your true identity, can you provide a little background??

You are so correct that Troy has given up some soft goals. ALL goalies do!! That includes Scrivens, McKee, LeNeveu, and, yes, Dryden. It happens. They're all human beings. They're all imperfect. With all of the variables, trying to decide who is the least imperfect is a (somewhat) subjective exercise. The only true value is that it gives us something to do between games.

redice
The only true value is that it gives us something to do between games.

How true!