Cornell 3 RPI 3 Post-game Thread

I'll take the tie, after going down 0-3.

I'll definitely take the tie as well, but if they didn't lay an egg in the first they were really taking it to RPI. The team that played in the second and third period should've won this game. They played pretty well, but I think the focus need to be on cutting back on 3 goal 1st periods.

If you were watching All-Access to see who got the stars of the game, "this event has not yet begun..."

oceanst41
If you were watching to see who got the stars of the game, "this event has not yet begun..."

Switch to the Audio feed.

So how many games have we given up multiple goals in the 1st and had to climb back (this being the first of those we tied)?

Off the top of my head DC, WSU, RPI...

Edit: QU too, but it wasn't as close as those games mentioned above

Stars of the game:
3. Seminoff
2. Romano
1. Bitz

Well, no post-game show via all access.

I'm impressed that this team does not give up. I just wish they wouldn't put themselves in such a deep hole at the start of games. Here's hoping Santa brings Cornell a very strong PK unit. I can deal with a PP that isn't clicking, but by this point of the season I would have thought that the PK units would be better.

So, will we see Scrivens tomorrow night? Given that it is the last game before a 3 week break and that Scrivens has held his own in net, I say let Troy rest whatever injury he has and let Scrivens play.

Hard to comment on a game watched on video where it was unavailable more than not. Having dug a 3-0 hole, a 3-3 tie is acceptable, and we could have, should have, won 4-3. RPI was dragging at the end.

Good points:
Cornell came back.
Scrivens played and held RPI in check.

Bad points:
Getting in a hole early.
More dumb penalties including by the guys who've been spoken to abouut it.
Million monkeys typing eventually complete a Britannica level of power play. 1 for 12? Ouch.

Off the top of my head, I believe this is only the fourth time in the Schafer era that Cornell has trailed by three goals in a game and not lost. The others I can remember are against Princeton in '99 (down 3-0 in the first, Cornell proceeded to score the next *eight*), at Princeton in the '99 playoffs (tie), and St. Lawrence last year (tie).

Agree with the above comments about taking the tie after going down 3-0 in the first. Bitz, by far, definitely #1 star. He stepped up in a big way. I'll get some other comments down later tonight.

This is a different Cornell team. They have already nearly come back from -3 against both Dartmouth and Wayne State, and nearly blown +3 against Princeton, and it's only December 1st.

Give My Regards
St. Lawrence last year (tie).

That game was fabulous.

A lot of positives to take out of this game, except the fact that we didn't win. Let's hope we can get our asses in gear for all 3 periods tomorrow.

Don't know what to say. The special teams HAVE to get it together, or CU isn't going anywhere this year. Davenport has a particular weakness, and the D is doing a horrible job stopping the opponents from exploiting it. Good that Scrivens had a foot-wetting last week, and the team actually seems to want to protect him anyway. The big save late was great to see.

The PP...we just aren't the '03 team that could use the corner-cycle as a primary *offensive* weapon. Now when we spend 1:00 of a PP along the boards, it looks like we're just trying to swim upstream. We keep the puck, but it's not doing anything for the PP. And the heavy shot from the top isn't working...even though McCutcheon had a couple nice looks, but nothing cashed in. Let's use the positioning that Topher is able to get and start to get some crossing passes going and collapse the zone instead of the linear passing pattern back to the point. Anything...this 1x12 stuff is getting old.

Frankly, I went in assuming we were going to get rolled (I picked RPI as my "sleeper", and CU showed that this team is indeed capable of playing strong hockey in the 3rd. Just stop coming out asleep!

Players I noted who had strong games:
Krueger, Scott (again), Bitz, Greening.

I'm still really high on the potential of the freshmen forwards. They can all skate *really* well...some experience with puckhandling and being aware of the passing lanes, and they each can be very dangerous.

Well, Krueger had a great game, I thought. That makes me think that Salmela will sit when Glover returns. Or maybe a rotation of guys sitting game-to-game, just to keep people fresher.

A final note: It is so terrific to see Kirk McDonald back. Major applause to him. Now, can I say how much I hate him on the ice?

Joe Scali you

Scrivens made an incredible glove save in the OT. Dell sucked. We scored in the 2nd period, but Alford grabbed the puck and threw it out of the net (it was barely over the line) and Dell never blew the whistle. We looked good for the second two periods. That's about it.

Oh, Scali was fantastic. Forgot that part.

Not to nit pick, because I did like what I saw when he was on the ice, but didn't Scali put Cornell two men down twice?

nm

oceanst41
Not to nit pick, because I did like what I saw when he was on the ice, but didn't Scali put Cornell two men down twice?

Once. He was called for interference and I didn't see him do a ***ing thing.

Anyone have a good look at the two plays where RPI players ended up needing medical attention on the ice? I didn't have a good view, but the first one seemed like a play where the RPI skater lost his balance and fell in front of our guy. Didn't really see the second play. We were penalized both times.

I don't post particularly often, but sitting behind the bench in the front row of D, Nash looked particularly sloppy tonight. Also, did anyone catch why Krantz went to the locker room for a few minutes in the first?

ebilmes
Anyone have a good look at the two plays where RPI players ended up needing medical attention on the ice? I didn't have a good view, but the first one seemed like a play where the RPI skater lost his balance and fell in front of our guy.

That is precisely what happened. Anyone else notice that every time we lined up an RPI player they turned their back?

I saw the first one, looked like a clean, shoulder-to-shoulder hit, but Dell was trailing the play so you know how that goes.

Second one I didn't catch, but I think it was on Greening at the end of the third to negate a Cornell PP. It happened away from the puck whatever it was.

Agreed. I have actually always preferred Scriven in the net. I think Scriven is a better shot stopper but I have to admit, he makes some funny decisions from time to time (passing the puck when he should have held on, leaving the crease at the wrong moments, hesitating etc.). He just needs more time on the ice, so he can accumulate experience and make better judgments.

redhair34

oceanst41
Not to nit pick, because I did like what I saw when he was on the ice, but didn't Scali put Cornell two men down twice?

Once. He was called for interference and I didn't see him do a ***ing thing.

It was interference, but RPI did score on the ensuing 5 on 3. Technically it was on Seminoff's penalty, but either way that's one of the things Schafer was unhappy with, untimely penalties.

According to gametracker, scrivens only had to make 4 saves in about 32 minutes of play. That's crazy.

RPI is WEAK.

oceanst41
It was interference

Please explain what happened.

grizzdan24
Also, did anyone catch why Krantz went to the locker room for a few minutes in the first?

Announcer said it was an equipment problem.

How the hell did Romano get a star?

Anyways, first period was pretty much identical to the first Wayne State game. Not playing with any sense of urgency and having just horrendous special teams. PK got better, obviously killing off the 5-on-3 in the second period. The PP is plain brutal. Just get the puck to the net and they keep passing around.

Happy that the team battled back but they should have never been in the hole in the first place especially when it happened six days ago.

They carried the play in the second and third periods while RPI just sat on their lead - always a recipe for blowing the lead. This team is not generating anywhere near the amount of chances I thought they would be or they should be. Everyone seems scared of going to the middle of the ice. The mixing the lines up every shift is not helping.

Outstanding pass by Greening on the Bitz goal. I had Greening, Bitz, and Carefoot as the team's best players tonight. Seminoff was good too. Scali got a lot of ice time and was very good. Barlow had a good game as well. Not sure why Milo gets so little ice time - he's been good when he's actually been out there.

Team is lacking identity right now.

They have played just one good sixty minute game all season - the game at Yale.

redhair34

oceanst41
It was interference

Please explain what happened.

Sorry, I was just stating that it was an interference call according to the box score. I too didn't see the play since it was away from the puck, and Jason presumed he was preventing an RPI player from reaching McCutcheon? who was killing time with the puck.

calgARI '07
How the hell did Romano get a star?

One assist, flying around on the ice trying to make things happen, effort, grit, any more reasons you need?

calgARI '07
Team is lacking identity right now.

They have played just one good sixty minute game all season - the game at Yale.

I think they actually played a pretty good game against Dartmouth. Not a fun result, but things happen.

fullofgas

calgARI '07
How the hell did Romano get a star?

One assist, flying around on the ice trying to make things happen, effort, grit, any more reasons you need?

He was alright, but Greening was a much bigger factor in this game.

I was very impressed with the performances tonight from Topher, Romano, and McCutcheon. Topher just seems to have non-stop hustle, and is always looking to make things happen or scramble for the puck, even when an odd-man rush or breakaway gets shut down.

Romano was sloppy again on finishing his rushes, but he still gets the puck to the point where the entire rink "gasps" in frustration when he gets it taken away or lets loose a sloppy shot...many other players might be able to finish the play better, but Romano keeps showing an ability to get the play to a climactic point...now if only he could finish.

As far as McCutcheon, I don't think he did anything particularly spectacular tonight, but he played very solidly as he has all season. I was actually impressed with his hustle at the end of overtime where the rest of the team seemed content to hold the puck and tie, whereas McCutcheon challenged the RPI defender behind the net, and seemed to be actually trying to pull off a last second goal.

Not much else to say that hasn't already been said...but I wasn't as impressed with Bitz as others have been. He played better than he has in other games and the goal was definitely key, but he looked very slow a good deal of the time I watched him, and often just didn't seem to be very aware of where the puck was. Nash also disappointed tonight with a lot of sloppy passes and playing in general, especially after having played so well in previous games.

Another thing that irked me and few others a bit: every odd-man rush or breakway of ours seems to end up along the boards instead of down the middle, and then the offense gets held up, or the puck taken away. Perhaps these are set plays or Schafer strategies, but it seems like some different scoring chances might be created by rushing the goalie right down the middle.

Overall...very happy coming away with one point...and also very happy that we have proven our ability to come from behind with this game and and the Harvard and Dartmouth games as well...if only we could put ourselves in positions where we weren't forced to use that clutch ability.

I'll try to make this as coherent as possible.

I don't see how you could not say that Bitz had a great game. Really showed leadership, grinding it out along the boards, taking the puck behind the RPI net and trying to make things happen, leading some rushes. And, a goal. The best game I've seen from Bitz this season.

Scali was also impressive. Reminds me a lot of Hornby, a scrappy player not afraid to get physical with the opposing players.

Romano continued to show off his excellent skating skills. Even if his one-man rushes don't lead to a quality shot on goal, they are effective in either drawing a penalty or bringing the puck deep into the RPI zone.

Davenport was at least partially responsible for yet another poor first period. Yes, our PK wasn't good, but I'm starting to think he has a problem changing angles to keep up with where the puck is. Seems like a lot of the goals he's given up are back-door kinds of goals where he's just not turned around quickly enough. I still think he's a better goalie than Scrivens, but it's good to have a quality #2 option to turn to. I didn't think Scrivens was challenged much until some big stops at the end. That said, I hope Troy's injury isn't anything serious.

I'll take the way we played in the third period any night. Given our 3-0 hole, I was happy to salvage a point tonight and hope for a three-point weekend.

As a side note, the crowd just seems to be getting worse and worse as the season goes on. Lots of empty seats again tonight, and B pretty empty for lineups. Lots of annoying facetimers tonight who couldn't seem to understand why Kennedy(?) didn't touch the puck as he came out of the RPI zone (would have been offsides) and didn't undersand why Cornell didn't have 10 SOG in each PP. [/rant]

The good news for Cornell is that Onion's powerplay is just as horrible as their's also going 1-for-13 tonight.

yeah man, there was that one where scrivens came out and stopped it between the circles and then hit the puck far back down the ice towards a waiting RPI defenseman... like he was clearing or something but his defense was coming back to pick it up... i really didn't understand that play...

but that glove save in OT.... crazy...

calgARI '07
How the hell did Romano get a star?

because he was all over the ice creating scoring opetunities and generally causing havoc. Romano's problem right now is that he's week and gets pushed off the puck, but even so he still created three break away opertunites and one of thise drew a penalty.

romano won't reach his full potential untill he's strong enough to regain puck possesion when chalenged physically, but as of right now he's still creating and preasuring the other team.

ebilmes
Davenport was at least partially responsible for yet another poor first period. Yes, our PK wasn't good, but I'm starting to think he has a problem changing angles to keep up with where the puck is. Seems like a lot of the goals he's given up are back-door kinds of goals where he's just not turned around quickly enough.

Goalies aren't supposed to stop back door plays. Just like on 2 on 1 breakaways, his job is the shooter. It's the teams job to cover the other players. If the PP team executes it correctly it's a goal. If the PK team plays it correctly, there is no pass available. Yes goalies can sometimes make a save, but usually that's because of a poor pass. Basically the idea on the PP is that you can pass the puck faster than players can react and move. Crisp passes, where the payer doesn't have to gather the puck but can imediately pass again or shoot, are the key on any PP.

Bitz played well most of the time - but looked realy tired end of many shifts (he was stuck out on ice too long). Plus he had at least 4 missed passes 2 of which were give aways to RPI... so loved his offensive contribution in points - but there are two sides to the coin.

The team looked really GOOD! overall in last two periods - hope we can play like that for a full 60 minutes!

ebilmes
]As a side note, the crowd just seems to be getting worse and worse as the season goes on. Lots of empty seats again tonight, and B pretty empty for lineups. Lots of annoying facetimers tonight who couldn't seem to understand why Kennedy(?) didn't touch the puck as he came out of the RPI zone (would have been offsides) and didn't undersand why Cornell didn't have 10 SOG in each PP. [/rant]

I sit in B, and yesterday and today I have to arrive late and leave early because I'm in a show at the Schwartz. It really really sucks (especially last night, having to leave right after the second period, and still being a bit late to my call for the show), but I think it's better than not going at all.

Also, I was one of the ones complaining about SOG. Not because I don't realize the value of sometimes waiting for an opportunity and not just blindly shooting, but it seems like all we do in our PP is cycle in the same predictable patterns. I can think of several PPs where we've just cycled and cycled until someone finally loses the puck, either because it gets taken or due to sheer clumsiness, but absolutely no shots are taken. I think I posted this once in an earlier thread, but there have been times where it seems like we have a shot lined up, but decide to wait for the other defenders to get in place before actually taking it, and then are forced to cycle it to try to get a new opportunity. I forget which specific game it was recently (or maybe all of them, thinking back), but we got killed in the first period and it seemed like Schafer's only instruction in the locker room on the break was "shoot. Just shoot. I don't care what your chances are, take a shot." And then we started playing a lot better. I realize it's pretty ignorant when the players are cycling and facetimers are yelling "SHOOT!" (note that that is NOT me), but they do have a point in that you can't score if you don't ever take a shot.

There are a few points that have not been mentioned so I thought I would add my opinion.

Overall, I thought this was the most encouraging games over the past month (especially the second and third periods) with signs of work on several of the key problems.

Veteran leadership - I thought the veterans, Bitz in particular, stepped up the effort last night. It was nice to see the older guys play with some intensity and win battles for the puck on a regular basis.

Penalty Kill - I know we gave up two shorthanded goals, but I saw some effort on the PK that I liked. We really pressured the puck, even at the RPI point and on the RPI breakout (including deap in the RPI zone) which is something recent teams with the great PKs have done and I haven't seen out of this team yet. The first shorthanded goal way too easy for RPI, but I think that was largely a result of having three forwards on the ice and one defenseman (probably because we only had five defense dressed and I think it was Davenport in the box). The 5-3 goal was a great adjustment by RPI after the timeout and, as was mentioned somewhere else, if a team exeuctes with crisp plays on a 5-3 they will score some goals.

Quality Opportunities - We were able to move the puck into quality scoring areas better than I've seen all year. A few partial breakaways and many shots from the slot area (especially in the third). Hopefully that is a result of a real focus on that area and not just a result RPI being tired from killing off so many penalties in the second period.

Power Play - Despite the positive signs, the power play really needs some work. As was mentioned last week by someone, not being able to convert early in the game on the power play is really killing us. I thought there was decent effort by the team at the start of the game, but the inability to convert on the PP is what I think led to the 3-0 deficit. Much of our momentum was taken away after not converting on the first couple of PP opportunities and then RPI seized on this by turning the momentum in their favor and converting for a couple of goals. Momentum is so important and the lack of ability to convert is killing it for us and giving momentum to the other team. Not to bring up bad memories, but the UNH game in 2003 was the perfect example of this. Cornell absolutely dominated the beginning of the game, but UNH fed off the phantom high stick call negating a goal and it was 2-0 in just a couple of minutes. In order to have successful season, the PP needs to start clicking soon, not for the goals it will produce, but because the momentum shifts resulting from failing to convert.

RPI's 3rd goal - This was just bad. Banging it in on a scramble is fine, but allowing the guy to skate in outnumbered behind our net, come back around into the slot to fire off a shot without being touched. Even when the momentum has swung the other way, we can't allow that type of play.

Teams Effort to Fight Back - I like to end on a positive and the team's effort to fight back from 3-0 down is great and hopefully this result is something the team can build on.

LGR!

Beeeej
I'll take the tie, after going down 0-3.

After the first period I thought I was going to need a few shots but seeing the Red stop almost all RPI chances in the third period (2 shots on goal) and during the end of the second period - after Scrivens was needed - (no shots by RIP) gave me hope for this team.

This was a very encouraging tie.

LGR! One Onion salad to go please.

ebilmes
Davenport was at least partially responsible for yet another poor first period. Yes, our PK wasn't good, but I'm starting to think he has a problem changing angles to keep up with where the puck is. Seems like a lot of the goals he's given up are back-door kinds of goals where he's just not turned around quickly enough. I still think he's a better goalie than Scrivens, but it's good to have a quality #2 option to turn to. I didn't think Scrivens was challenged much until some big stops at the end. That said, I hope Troy's injury isn't anything serious.

Maybe it's just me but I am not impressed by Davenport at all. He has poor first periods and then we have to try to make it back (Harvard, Dartmouth, Quinnipiac, Wayne State, and last night). Maybe Scrivens might not be much better but he has definitely come thru when needed. Also, just from an entertainment standpoint, I think Scrivens is more fun to watch. He sometimes makes weird decisions but he is definitely more active in the game.

As an end note, I can't say how happy I am we managed to get that one point after being down 3-0 for the second time in 3 games. However, we have not defeated RPI in our last 3 meetings with them.

Omie
Also, just from an entertainment standpoint, I think Scrivens is more fun to watch.

As a guy who thinks back to the days of Andy Bandurski..."fun to watch" is not one of the traits I like in a goaltender. Give me solid, stoic, boring, calm goaltending anyday. I'm fine with having flashy, spectacular forwards, but I want my defensemen and goaltenders to be about as exciting and skillful at stopping things as rocks.

Davenport has been very good at being between the net and the puck consistently. Overall, he's been alright. And really, were any of us expecting any better than alright from our goalie coming into this season?

Scrivens looked very unpolished, but skilled.

you've got to be pleased when you come back from 3-0, but I don't understand how you can fail to win a game in which you spend 29 minutes on the powerplay.

I meen 29 minutes! the game was only 65 minutes long.

Charlene Markham's pictures of yesterday's games [www.rpihockey.net]. Yes, she is focusing on RPI, but Cornell players do seem to wander into her field of vision.

Dafatone
Scrivens made an incredible glove save in the OT. Dell sucked. We scored in the 2nd period, but Alford grabbed the puck and threw it out of the net (it was barely over the line) and Dell never blew the whistle. We looked good for the second two periods. That's about it.

I had a clear view of the play (sitting up in H, totally unobstructed view) and it seemed like Dell got that one right. The puck somehow stopped on the line. Disappointing, certainly, but the puck was only partway over. No goal.

As for the rest of the game - Cornell came as close to doing every thing wrong in the first period as it's possible to come without actively trying, and somehow came back to tie it up. That's a huge negative followed by a huge positive.

Cornell wasted a major penalty by having that first PP unit on the ice for 3.5 minutes, and giving the second unit a couple of 30-45 second bursts. When the second unit had some time to get the puck in and move it around, they made things happen - lots of solid chances, 1 goal, and they drew 2 additional penalties in the second which fueled the comeback and helped wear out RPI's legs.

The biggest problem I see on the first PP line is they hold the puck for far too long. They have shooting or passing lanes available, but they wait to use themm and then their options are limited. It's at least partly due to bad spacing, but it may also be bad chemistry, a lack of anticipation on the part of the receivers, or passes that are coming in just a little bit off and therefore the receiver needs to work harder to receive it, which results in those delays between passes and shots. The second line moves the puck a lot better, and looks to make skip passes (another thing the first PP unit lacks is creativity - the sequence is highly predictable) - instead of going from half boards to point to point to half boards they'll skip that near point, or try to center it straight across for a back door goal. This is higher risk - RPI got at least one or two free clears off of botched passes - but higher reward, too, as a play like that indirectly led to a goal, and started several flurries which resulted in those extra RPI penalties. If that line played 2/3 of the PP time instead of a bunch of 30 second bursts you might have seen 3/12 or better instead of 1/12.

Of course, that first PP unit redeemed itself (or at least most of that unit did so) by scoring the EAG fairly quickly in a 5x4 situation.

The PK is terrible. It seems like a combination of bad positioning, lack of communication, and skaters who don't move their feet enough. There were at least two points where 3 of the Cornell skaters were in a vertical line from the net out to the blue line (top of the circles, really) with the fourth skater pressuring the puck while RPI spread out - this isn't that bad if it's a momentary pattern, but they stayed that way for several seconds. One of those led to a backdoor goal which Davenport had no chance at stopping. It's odd to see out of Cornell - one of the constants over the last 6+ years (and maybe even all 10+ years that I've been watching this team) has been the incredible positioning and footwork displayed by the PK units. Hopefully, the time off will give them a chance to work on their PK positioning and their timing on the PP and you'll see a more effective special teams game.

It was nice to see Scrivens come up big in the OT - he looked really shaky from the time he took the ice through the end of the third period, which isn't that surprising considering the situation. I think Davenport is a more polished goalie at this point, but Scrivens may have more upside, so at least for the tiem being Davenport is the number 1 guy.

Agreed,Bitz is overplayed and takes up time of players that can be more effective offensively..
Scali, since he has been in the line the PK looks alive..
Romano..creates offense. Whatever PP he has been on has been the most effective. The 1st unit is so ROBOTIC they do not think.. The 2nd unit moves, passes at the right time and place and makes 5 on 4 sometimes 4 on 3 and so on
Hopefully,the 1st unit can see the 2nd unit and LEARN...

There were a few players who deserved a Star. Bitz..no way, he fanned on the shot he scored. Greening broke down the right side, Romano came up the middle and drew both defensmen, Bitz received the pass and a knuckle puck beat the goalie..very lucky...On the RPI 3rd goal... whos fault Bitz and Sawada..2 monsters watched the RPI player shoot the puck, if either one of them simply lifted their stick and picked up the RPI's player stick..no shot..Big Men No body checks, thats a joke.. The 1st PP, Romano started it all, pulled defense high, quickly cut back, passed down low to Gallagher, this allowed a clear path for for Blake to the Net, Carefoot read the play...simple back door. Thats creative Ice Hockey, not our last 2 goals LUCK...or the 1st PP pass the puck on the perimeter..
Ari, you do know your stuff, please do not take our original comments to heart. All of us enjoy your honest knowlegable statements.. MILO, he should be playing regular, to strong of a player..How does an offensive star sit, when the 1st PP has No idea what to do, waste ice time for the 2nd unit. Except for Scott and McCutheon, the rest are lost, PP means up a man, not down one or 2...Back to Romano.. he had another strong game. Brkke thru the middle for breakaway, got hooked at the end, and the beat 2 players thru the high slot, but shot it high, from my angle looked like the puck rolled up on its side...He brings a new deminsion to this program..Excitment, Skills, speed and smarts..Milo and Romano should play together, what do you think...Also, whatever PP Romano has been on is most effective. If his unit got at least 50% of the time instaed of 30 seconds or so.. we would score more goals..Put Milo in the high slot to shoot.. we score we win not struggle...

plrd78
There were a few players who deserved a Star. Bitz..no way, he fanned on the shot he scored. Greening broke down the right side, Romano came up the middle and drew both defensmen, Bitz received the pass and a knuckle puck beat the goalie..very lucky...On the RPI 3rd goal... whos fault Bitz and Sawada..2 monsters watched the RPI player shoot the puck, if either one of them simply lifted their stick and picked up the RPI's player stick..no shot..Big Men No body checks, thats a joke.. The 1st PP, Romano started it all, pulled defense high, quickly cut back, passed down low to Gallagher, this allowed a clear path for for Blake to the Net, Carefoot read the play...simple back door. Thats creative Ice Hockey, not our last 2 goals LUCK...or the 1st PP pass the puck on the perimeter..
Ari, you do know your stuff, please do not take our original comments to heart. All of us enjoy your honest knowlegable statements.. MILO, he should be playing regular, to strong of a player..How does an offensive star sit, when the 1st PP has No idea what to do, waste ice time for the 2nd unit. Except for Scott and McCutheon, the rest are lost, PP means up a man, not down one or 2...Back to Romano.. he had another strong game. Brkke thru the middle for breakaway, got hooked at the end, and the beat 2 players thru the high slot, but shot it high, from my angle looked like the puck rolled up on its side...He brings a new deminsion to this program..Excitment, Skills, speed and smarts..Milo and Romano should play together, what do you think...Also, whatever PP Romano has been on is most effective. If his unit got at least 50% of the time instaed of 30 seconds or so.. we would score more goals..Put Milo in the high slot to shoot.. we score we win not struggle...

This was the hardest thing I've had to read all day. I've been reading technical papers in biomedical and other research.

plrd78
There were a few players who deserved a Star. Bitz..no way, he fanned on the shot he scored. Greening broke down the right side, Romano came up the middle and drew both defensmen, Bitz received the pass and a knuckle puck beat the goalie..very lucky...On the RPI 3rd goal... whos fault Bitz and Sawada..2 monsters watched the RPI player shoot the puck, if either one of them simply lifted their stick and picked up the RPI's player stick..no shot..Big Men No body checks, thats a joke.. The 1st PP, Romano started it all, pulled defense high, quickly cut back, passed down low to Gallagher, this allowed a clear path for for Blake to the Net, Carefoot read the play...simple back door. Thats creative Ice Hockey, not our last 2 goals LUCK...or the 1st PP pass the puck on the perimeter..
Ari, you do know your stuff, please do not take our original comments to heart. All of us enjoy your honest knowlegable statements.. MILO, he should be playing regular, to strong of a player..How does an offensive star sit, when the 1st PP has No idea what to do, waste ice time for the 2nd unit. Except for Scott and McCutheon, the rest are lost, PP means up a man, not down one or 2...Back to Romano.. he had another strong game. Brkke thru the middle for breakaway, got hooked at the end, and the beat 2 players thru the high slot, but shot it high, from my angle looked like the puck rolled up on its side...He brings a new deminsion to this program..Excitment, Skills, speed and smarts..Milo and Romano should play together, what do you think...Also, whatever PP Romano has been on is most effective. If his unit got at least 50% of the time instaed of 30 seconds or so.. we would score more goals..Put Milo in the high slot to shoot.. we score we win not struggle...

Treat paragraph breaks like you would your friends, and use them. (Proper typing, spelling, grammar, and punctuation would be helpful as well, but let's start with something easy.)

I'd like to point out that bitz was responcible for the tieing goal (he brought the puck into the offensive zone, established position behind the net and then fed a nice pass to topher who put the puck on net, all of which made it possible for Sawada to put in the rebound.) Bitz also hit a post in the first period with a nice deflection.

I thought Bitz played better this weekend than he has all season and I can't believe anyone is knocking his play. Those 4 points wheren't caused by luck, they came about because Bitsy consistently won battles along the boards, played physical hockey, screened the opposing sieve and got his stick on several point shots, and did a good job carrying the puck into the offensive zone.

This was the hardest thing I've had to read all day. I've been reading technical papers in biomedical and other research.

What type of comment is that...Do you understand the game or are you to busy about reading papers...From that comment you do not understand the game..

Stop with the grammer etc. WE ARE Commenting on Hockey not school...

plrd78
Stop with the grammer etc. WE ARE Commenting on Hockey not school...

I still don't understand why anybody would purposely write like that just because it's not an academic paper being turned in for grading.

We're not grading you, and we (well, most of us) aren't going to pick apart your errors or try to teach you how to do better next time. But when you write a certain way, you're making a choice about how people will view you and your opinions, and even whether they're willing to slog through your opinions in the first place. Don't you want people to read what you write, or understand it well enough to be able to respond?

If not, hey, nobody's trying to break your spirit of individuality - so keep doin' what you're doin'.

I didn't even read that post simply because it looked like a mess. I didn't feel like putting the effort into deciphering the mass of text.

cth95
I didn't even read that post simply because it looked like a mess. I didn't feel like putting the effort into deciphering the mass of text.

Ditto, the purpose of grammar and rules are basically to made it comprehensible for the reader. Otherwise you can have stream of consiousness and maybe a trip to your shrink.

plrd78
This was the hardest thing I've had to read all day. I've been reading technical papers in biomedical and other research.

What type of comment is that...Do you understand the game or are you to busy about reading papers...From that comment you do not understand the game..

He was saying he had trouble understanding your post. And not surprisingly, your reply was difficult to understand as well. First of all, you should leave in the "quote" tags so we can tell which text is yours and which is his. Second, "are you to busy about reading papers" is very hard to parse. You may think it's trivial that you wrote "to" when you meant to write "too", but the reader needs every clue he or she can get when your sentence includes expressions like "busy about" which most of us have never seen before in the English language. (A question mark at the end of the question wouldn't hurt either.)

jtwcornell91

plrd78
This was the hardest thing I've had to read all day. I've been reading technical papers in biomedical and other research.

What type of comment is that...Do you understand the game or are you to busy about reading papers...From that comment you do not understand the game..

He was saying he had trouble understanding your post. And not surprisingly, your reply was difficult to understand as well. First of all, you should leave in the "quote" tags so we can tell which text is yours and which is his. Second, "are you to busy about reading papers" is very hard to parse. You may think it's trivial that you wrote "to" when you meant to write "too", but the reader needs every clue he or she can get when your sentence includes expressions like "busy about" which most of us have never seen before in the English language. (A question mark at the end of the question wouldn't hurt either.)

See, I thought it was worth explaining that clarity of writing is about presentation, not about being graded. But now you're just correcting the individual flaws in his writing, which I think is a complete waste of time and also makes you look pedantic. Insert singing pigs metaphor here.