Cornell at Colgate postgame

Not for lack of shots on goal (36) did we lose 4-2 at Colgate including the ENG.

First time ever for Schafer to go without winning over 7 games (0-5-2).

If critics such as Ari going to keep on Bitz for leadership issues, his penalty with 2 minutes left was not very captain-like.

Goaltending seems more unsettled than ever. If Davenport has as much upside as McKee, he's showing a bit more downside. I don't think McKee got the hook after seeing just six shots.

This is going to be one hell of a comeback in the next six weeks.

Definately not lack of shots. 41-13.
I think Topher definately played better than he has been playing lately.
If only the numbers that really matter had been in our favour as well.

Seemed like Davenport put us in a tough position by letting in 2 on only 6 shots. Scrivens made some big saves, especially one on a breakaway, to keep us in the game. Unfortunately, this might start up the starting goalie discussion again.

Lots of shots, but not enough goals. Huge faceoff edge, too, for Cornell. Dekanich had a great night: 34 saves on 36 shots.

Whatever end-of-game chance we had was killed by Bitz's penalty. Absolutely stupid.

Hopefully Taylor Davenport will be able to play tomorrow. He was able to skate to the bench.

Penalty kill was back to embarrassing. Perhaps last weekend was a fluke.

We didn't look all that bad. The first goal was somewhat of a defensive breakdown, the second was simply an amazing (or lucky) shot, and the third, well, Scrivens kinda fell on his ass and couldn't move over.

I can't begin to describe how badly I felt Bitz played. The terrible penalty at the end aside, I thought he was our worst player out there. He was slow, didn't use his size all that effectively, and handled the puck badly. On the PP, he always takes about a half second to second before deciding what to do with the puck. He also never takes more than this amount of time to pass or shoot. Makes our PP fall into a very predictable rhythm.

Seminoff, as usual, was fantastic. Well, until the penalty that led to the go ahead goal, but he still played very well. Barlow needs to stop skating with the puck toward other players and then pass to them. He should be making this pass from the start. He sort of puckhandles with his head down, doing a great job of eluding defenders but getting nowhere in particular. And our second PP line looked pretty useless.

Defense, all in all, played extremely well.

Had this game happened to the 02, 03, 05 or 06 team, we would have dismissed it as a game stolen by a hot goalie. 41-15 shots -- you're going to win 90% of those games.

But... although it was impossible to tell just from the radio call (especially Jason's, which aint cutting it after you are brought up listening to Grady), this felt like a loss pretty much all the way through. Maybe I'm just getting worn out, but I have no confidence now that the team can take, retain or retake a lead... and those are the only three ways you win.

More and more this feels like one of those rare but depressing seasons when a team simply loses heart. Although Mike is a notably great motivator, that did happen to the Schafer teams in 98 and 99. (The good news is that the young players from those classes led this decade's resurgence.)

The other thing that strikingly reminds me of those teams is underwhelming goaltending. Ian Burt was mediocre, and Matt Underhill was actually sub-mediocre his first two seasons. Then, Matt blossomed and became a very solid goaltender behind the dominating defenses of 01 and 02. Perhaps Davenport can, or perhaps Garman (though he so unfortunately sounds like "Gartman" will. But as of today, I might trade goaltender corps with any team in the ECAC, and that's bad.

can't say I agree with the decision to pull davenport. No, you never want to give up a bad angled shot, but if you watch the replay you'll see that davenport gave Mcintyre very little to shoot at and he hit the 2 or three inches above his left shoulder on the short side. It wasn't unsaveable, but it wasn't soft either.

And while Scrivens did make two nice saves on the shorthanded breakaway, that third goal was just awful. There's no excuse for loosing your balence before the shot even goes off.

It's going to be interesting to watch how Schafer rotates the netminders from here on out, because I think it's becoming clear that he has little faith in his #1.

I didn't like the move to bring in Scrivens. I can't really blame him for that second goal, he basically forced McIntyre to make an incredible shot, and he did.

I also didn't like starting Scrivens against Brown, as I felt Davenport played well against Yale. I don't really hold that second goal against him, just terrible luck.

the thing is that Davenport's looked shakey more times than not when he's come out of the net all year. Sooner or later somthing bad was going to happen, maybe this convinces him to stay within the pipes.

Unless your a Brodeur, Turco, or Dipietroesque puck handler, you really can't be coming out of the net with two forecheckers in the near vicinity and your team down a man.

I have a much bigger problem with the decision to pull Troy tonight than the one to start Scrivens against Brown.

The goaltending situation does seem like a major "toss-up" as to who will start and how long the leash will be. I have been relying on the game write-ups (last game I heard/saw live was Maine), but it seems like the goalie/PK is a big problem.

I was really hoping that the PK would come together after the break and be an "anchor" for the team with respect to being a facet of the game that you can count on. It has often been said that your goalie needs to be your strongest penalty killer and he just can't give up bad goals, particularly in tight games.

Yes our PP is horrible, but if you can take care of things in your own end and 5v5, you should be able to survive with a horrid PP. However, we just haven't put enough pucks in the back of the net, 5v5 or PP and the offensive chemistry that we saw glimpses of early on this season apparently has a very short half-life.

Scrivens was the 1st intermission radio guest and he mentioned how he hoped that the team had confidence in the goalie no matter who was in net. When it appears that Coach doesn't have confidence, I think that might put even more pressure on the D.

I certainly do not know what the answer is, but at this point I would like to see Coach go to a goalie rotation (one for Friday, and the other one gets Saturday, no matter what the outcome of the previous night's game) and the goalie of the night stays in for the whole game (pending injury or brutal shelling). I don't think either goalie can have a lot of "good vibes" at this point and maybe letting them know up front which game is "theirs" will help them focus and prepare and not have them being choked by a short leash.

It is becoming evident that this is indeed a "re-building year" and as such I would like to see Coach Schafer give the returning players some quality game experience, even if it means rotating the forwards (as well as the goalies).

This summer we were pretty much resigned that this would be a tough year, but when you end 2006 with a 10-4-1 record, optimism for a very good 2nd half abounds. Not to say I think we should "cut bait" on this season, but maybe giving the young players a set opportunity to just "play" on given nights might help boost the confidence level.

Just my musings while waiting for sunset .

ebilmes
Hopefully Taylor Davenport will be able to play tomorrow. He was able to skate to the bench.

He played later in the game, so I'd be surprised if he doesn't.

I thought our PK looked good tonight, believe it or not. We had the first Colgate power play almost completely shut down... until they scored. Seems like the story of every game that hasn't gone our way for the past few years. We take all the shots, get all the chances, and lose.

The PK was awful on the 3rd goal, Colgate had complete control and you could just feel the momentum building 30-40 seconds before they actually scored.

evilnaturedrobot
The PK was awful on the 3rd goal, Colgate had complete control and you could just feel the momentum building 30-40 seconds before they actually scored.

Yes. I don't fault Scrivens for that third goal.

evilnaturedrobot
can't say I agree with the decision to pull davenport. It's going to be interesting to watch how Schafer rotates the netminders from here on out, because I think it's becoming clear that he has little faith in his #1.

You never know why a coach pulls a goal-tender. If you look at it, we certainly played as well if not better after the change. I certainly don't think Davenport could be blamed for the goals. Both PP and both good plays by them. Burton was left all alone at the side of the net, the only chance Davenport had was to stop the pass. McIntyre took an incredibly sharp angle shot. Davenport had the post covered and the shot was in a small triangle over his shoulder. That type of shot will go in against most goalies. It was Burton's 11^th goal and McIntyre's 6^th. So both are goal scorers. Our PK was the problem, not the goalies.

The team has to look at how well they played 5-5 or 4-4 and just keep trying.

Trotsky
But... although it was impossible to tell just from the radio call (especially Jason's, which aint cutting it after you are brought up listening to Grady), this felt like a loss pretty much all the way through.

I can't agree after watching in person. We dominated them except for our usual specials. The team never quit, right to the end. If we didn't have the Seminoff penalty, who knows?

The real test will be Sat., if they come to play we can beat 'gate and get Bertrand's monkey off our back. Then comes NC foes,so it could be interesting and a way to right our ship.

Look as I've said before, a top 4 ECAC finish and a chance to win in Albany is what we can expect. And yes, I'm pissed, after-all I've got Frozen Four tickets.

And I just watched a replay of Krantz's goal, give us an open shot and we can score, even against Dekanich.

Jim Hyla

ebilmes
Hopefully Taylor Davenport will be able to play tomorrow. He was able to skate to the bench.

He played later in the game, so I'd be surprised if he doesn't.

Missed that. Thanks, Jim.

Just got back from Hamilton...worst rink pizza ever...not that Lynah's is anything to brag about, but yeah...totally unsatisfying.

I also disagreed with Davenport being pulled early...I felt like the two PPGs that got past him weren't totally equated with poor goaltending on his part. On the other hand, we did seem to get a rhythm going when Scrivens was in there, and he played much better than he did against Brown and SLU...some great saves, but (as offensive as his Facebook group is), Dekanich was a complete brick wall as the SOG showed, and absolutely saved Colgate's ass tonight. It could have easily been a 5-2 game in our favor with a lesser goalie.

Once Seminoff took the penalty, I had a funny feeling we were about to get scored on, with our best d-man and pk guy, and possibly our best player heading to the box.

Bitz was horrible, as he has been...it was such a letdown everytime he turned over the puck, missed a pass, or completely whiffed on a good shot. Topher on the other hand seemed to be stepping up his game, and it was good to see Milo back in there. I'm not completely behind the idea of benching Mugford as he does do well on the PK, and is a great physical force, but since he does inevitably take some stupid penalties, it might be worth giving him some rest.

Just a strategy question for the players/coaches out there: when Bitz took the dumb penalty with Scrivens pulled, is it normal to leave the goalie pulled even though the attackers are 5x5 (or 4x4 in tonight's case). In other words, is it better to be down an attacker and push hard for a SHG, but have a goalie in there to prevent an ENG, or is it more effective to leave the goalie pulled and even up the attacker situation to push the offense more (as Schafer did tonight)?

evilnaturedrobot
the thing is that Davenport's looked shakey more times than not when he's come out of the net all year. Sooner or later somthing bad was going to happen, maybe this convinces him to stay within the pipes.

Unless your a Brodeur, Turco, or Dipietroesque puck handler, you really can't be coming out of the net with two forecheckers in the near vicinity and your team down a man.

Are you talking about the Yale goal? Davenport played that correctly, right up to the point where he fell down. There were no Yale forecheckers in the vicinity. It's his job on a hard dump-in around the boards to stop the puck and leave it for his defense in those situations.

I'm guessing Schafer's decision to start Scrivens vs. Brown was either 1) due to an injury we don't know about, 2) to give him a mental break after a horribly unlucky incident, 3) because of Davenport's apparent inability to control even the most routine rebounds in the Yale game, or 4) all of the above.

sah67
Just a strategy question for the players/coaches out there: when Bitz took the dumb penalty with Scrivens pulled, is it normal to leave the goalie pulled even though the attackers are 5x5 (or 4x4 in tonight's case). In other words, is it better to be down an attacker and push hard for a SHG, but have a goalie in there to prevent an ENG, or is it more effective to leave the goalie pulled and even up the attacker situation to push the offense more (as Schafer did tonight)?

If you want to score in that situation, then you leave the goalie on the bench. It does depend on where the faceoff is, how much time is left, and how much faith you have in your guys to win the faceoff. If it's on the defensive side of the ice a coach *might* opt to put the goalie back in until his team can control the puck.

Given that the penalty happened with less than a minute to play in a 1-goal game, Schafer pretty much had to keep the extra attacker on the ice if he wanted to come back and tie the game. The only way I'd take any issue with it is if he'd kept Scrivens on the bench for a defensive zone faceoff.

So who wants to Email Coach Vaughan a screenshot of Dekanich's facebook group, so we can get him benched for disciplinary reasons on Saturday?

The good news is that you know a losing streak is coming to an end when you're losing games you should win.

Schafer is doing everything in his power to kill Davenport's confidence. Pulling him after two goals that he couldn't do anything about when the team hadn't scored yet. Brutal. Is it Davenport's job to score goals?

Bitz's penalty at the end was pretty symbolic of this stretch.

This was Cornell's third best game of the season after UNH and away Yale. They'll win on Saturday. The powerplay is still an embarrassment and the laughing-stock of college hockey. Schafer continues to send the same guys over the boards though.

evilnaturedrobot
And while Scrivens did make two nice saves on the shorthanded breakaway, that third goal was just awful. There's no excuse for loosing your balence before the shot even goes off.

I was at the game and it wasn't Scrivens' fault. He had to dive to make one save, and they got a rebound that they lofted above him. It was pretty impossible to save from my angle. I also agree that Scott was playing with intensity tonight, and it was finally nice to see it come out.

I thought we should have taken the game when we could, such as when we had enormous momentum after scoring on the 5 minute major. We had time left on it, and we should've scored again. Not sure how much of that was Dekanich and how much was just us not being able to follow through. We outplayed them for most if not all of the game, but once again had nothing to show for it.

Sorry guys, but it really doesn't look like we're going to win on Saturday, It will be a long and frustrating night for us with Colgate fans celebrating in section O. The picture is quite clear now.

Hockey God hates us..

Trotsky
Had this game happened to the 02, 03, 05 or 06 team, we would have dismissed it as a game stolen by a hot goalie.

This game did happen to the 03 team. But in the context of that season it was a lot easier to write off as a fluke.

sah67
Just got back from Hamilton...worst rink pizza ever...not that Lynah's is anything to brag about, but yeah...totally unsatisfying.

Pizza tends to be more satisfying when you eat it rather than having it thrown at you.

jtwcornell91

Trotsky
Had this game happened to the 02, 03, 05 or 06 team, we would have dismissed it as a game stolen by a hot goalie.

This game did happen to the 03 team. But in the context of that season it was a lot easier to write off as a fluke.

Who could forget that Gilbert Gottfried impersonator as the announcer of the Colgate student produced video that night in 03?

Watching Davenport this season, I have had little confidence in him most of the year. With that said, I don't fault him for these two goals. The problem is in the play of our power play. We have a consistant deficiency in the rotation of our penalty killers that leaves the back side of the net open. I have seen it all year and the opposition is attacking it. Two goals last night and if I had a decent memory I could name more specfic goals in the past. Watch the play and you will see it, even if a goal is not scored, the backside is open.

mtmack25
Watching Davenport this season, I have had little confidence in him most of the year. With that said, I don't fault him for these two goals.

From my view, the second goal was all Davenport. A short side goal from a steep angle?? He was not in position. From the steep angle of the shot, he shouldn't have needed to move at all to make the save. His right shoulder was dropped, perhaps covering the low corners and 5 hole with his stick. He had to reach up with his glove to make the save, which he missed. He looked very awkward on that play. It was a decent shot made better by poor goaltending.

I'm not saying I agree with the decision to pull him, but I don't think it was completely unwarranted. Plus, we're not in practice every day. Perhaps this is a nagging problem for him.

mtmack25
The problem is in the play of our power play [I think you mean penalty-kill.]. We have a consistant deficiency in the rotation of our penalty killers that leaves the back side of the net open. I have seen it all year and the opposition is attacking it. Two goals last night and if I had a decent memory I could name more specfic goals in the past.

Exactly right. Both Harvard goals were scored that way, and more than a few others throughout the season. The kill is frightening to watch.

Cornell is shaky in too many areas to be successful: (1) goaltending; (2) penalty kill; (3) power play; (4) lack of discipline (dumb penalties late in games; penalties immediately after scoring tying goals; penalties in the offensive zone for no good reason). Add this to the ongoing--for years and years now--inability to produce consistent offense at even strength, and even reasonably solid defense (this year's anticipated weakness, ironically) can't overcome it all over the course of a sixty-minute game.

jtwcornell91

sah67
Just got back from Hamilton...worst rink pizza ever...not that Lynah's is anything to brag about, but yeah...totally unsatisfying.

Pizza tends to be more satisfying when you eat it rather than having it thrown at you.

Surprisingly, the Colgate students weren't all that offensive. Apparently, the worst they could throw at us were those Mickey Mouse-voiced girls in the sports-bras who were just as keen to dance and sing along with OUR band, and quickly shut up when the band let them have it with "Cheap hotel rooms clap clap clap-clap-clap" in response to their lame "Hotel management" chant.

There were a few obnoxious guys two rows behind us, who tried to pick a fight with the Cornell fans right behind us, starting with something like "Wow...you guys are really funny with all your synchronized cheers...that's really cool." The Cornell fans informed them that we're able to do that because we go to more than one game a year, with the Colgate kids' response being "Every game? Man, you guys are fucking losers." That was pretty much all that needed to be said

Al DeFlorio
even reasonably solid defense (this year's anticipated weakness, ironically)

This tends to get obscured by the ongoing necklacing that is our special teams, but the defense has been very solid. I assumed that a defense led by Krantz and Seminoff would be productive on offense but suspect on defense, but they've been pretty good.

sah67
the Colgate kids' response being "Every game? Man, you guys are fucking losers."

So, guys attending a hockey game remarked that attending a hockey game makes you a loser?

I can't really say because I wasn't there and didn't see it on TV, but it sounds like pulling Davenport got the desired result. The team played better after he left the game. I'm no expert but sometimes a goalie can be pulled to jump start a team from sleep walking through a game. Shots may have been 14-3 in the first, but maybe Schafer didn't see the fire he though a team trying to come out of an 0-4-2 slump should have.

Not that I agree or disagree with the move, I just think that sometimes a coach pulls a goalie because of how the team is playing in front of him, not because of how the goalie is playing.

Trotsky

sah67
the Colgate kids' response being "Every game? Man, you guys are fucking losers."

So, guys attending a hockey game remarked that attending a hockey game makes you a loser?

No, they remarked that attending any other hockey games makes you a loser. I guess if you're gonna be a facetimer, you may as well be a proud facetimer.

Dekanich played a very good game and I saw him making some nice saves. Does anyone think that his saves are a little inflated? Maybe we can modify the statistic. Can anyone break out shots on goal v. shots on the goalie's chest?

On a more serious note, does it appear to anyone else that Cornell shots generally strike center of mass on the goalie? Is this a coaching strategy aimed at scoring on rebounds, a leftover of the big forwards era? I think it happens on break aways as well. Am I mistaken and there is no trend?

Edit: Also, did anyone notice the change in the PP? Bitz makes the pass to Scott then cuts down to the net, pulling the D in a bit as Scott moves to the blue line and passes to McCutcheon. Was that new last night or did I miss it last week? It seemed to work well to get McCutcheon a better shot than usual.

oceanst41
I can't really say because I wasn't there and didn't see it on TV, but it sounds like pulling Davenport got the desired result. The team played better after he left the game. I'm no expert but sometimes a goalie can be pulled to jump start a team from sleep walking through a game. Shots may have been 14-3 in the first, but maybe Schafer didn't see the fire he though a team trying to come out of an 0-4-2 slump should have.

Not that I agree or disagree with the move, I just think that sometimes a coach pulls a goalie because of how the team is playing in front of him, not because of how the goalie is playing.

The team didn't play any different after Davenport was pulled. They were dictating the play the entire game and were brutal on special team the entire game.

RazzBaronZ

evilnaturedrobot
And while Scrivens did make two nice saves on the shorthanded breakaway, that third goal was just awful. There's no excuse for loosing your balence before the shot even goes off.

I was at the game and it wasn't Scrivens' fault. He had to dive to make one save, and they got a rebound that they lofted above him. It was pretty impossible to save from my angle.

Here's the way I remember the sequence. Nash checked up a Colgate player along the half-wall (who passed the puck behind the net when he was checked) and lost his balance--this set off the breakdown. Because Nash was out of position, Kennedy had to come down to the crease which left St. Pierre wide open on the point. He wisely drifted towards the slot accepted the pass with time to shoot and fired a shot which Scrivens blocked. The rebound came directly out to Fulton's stick and he had a wide open net to shoot at. Even if Scrivens hadn't fallen down, I don't think he would have been able to recover in time to stop one of Colgate's best goal scorers.


Although Dekanich was excellent, I would have liked to see us get some more bodies in front of him to make his job more difficult.

Surprisingly, the Colgate students weren't all that offensive. Apparently, the worst they could throw at us were those Mickey Mouse-voiced girls in the sports-bras who were just as keen to dance and sing along with OUR band, and quickly shut up when the band let them have it with "Cheap hotel rooms clap clap clap-clap-clap" in response to their lame "Hotel management" chant.

There were a few obnoxious guys two rows behind us, who tried to pick a fight with the Cornell fans right behind us, starting with something like "Wow...you guys are really funny with all your synchronized cheers...that's really cool." The Cornell fans informed them that we're able to do that because we go to more than one game a year, with the Colgate kids' response being "Every game? Man, you guys are fucking losers." That was pretty much all that needed to be said [/quote]

I had two obnoxious-Colgate-fan experiences. 1. Just before the second intermission, I had a problem with one of their ushers. I was waiting for the interrmission to start before returning to my seat. Two ushers saw me standing for a few minutes (without bothering me). But as soon as I yelled in celebration of Cornell's second goal, the lady usher immediately asked for my credentials and asked me to leave the area (chicken shit, in my estimation). 2. When Bitz got involved in that scrum at the end of the game, one of the more mature Colgate fans singled me out to yell that our "coach is a thug." I don't know what the hell made her direct that to me. But, it made her feel better (I guess) while making an ass of herself!!

For me, that's two trips to Starr Rink and both trips included bush-league behavior by their fans/staff.

redice
Surprisingly, the Colgate students weren't all that offensive. Apparently, the worst they could throw at us were those Mickey Mouse-voiced girls in the sports-bras who were just as keen to dance and sing along with OUR band, and quickly shut up when the band let them have it with "Cheap hotel rooms clap clap clap-clap-clap" in response to their lame "Hotel management" chant.

The atmosphere was definitely a letdown after last year. I guess the students don't get loaded on Thursday evenings.

redhair34
The atmosphere was definitely a letdown after last year. I guess the students don't get loaded on Thursday evenings.

Those Colgate nerds.

It was nice to see Cornell carry the play for the entire game ... though a win would be nicer. I'm hoping for a solid win on Saturday, especially if the crowd gets to Mark. He's made himself into an easy target.

This has nothing to do with this weekend and is just a random observation, but the team that beats Colgate in the semis has lost the last 3 ECAC finals.

redice
one of the more mature Colgate fans singled me out to yell that our "coach is a thug."

Wonder if she knows that our coach and her coach were assistants together at Cornell.

French Rage
This has nothing to do with this weekend and is just a random observation, but the team that beats Colgate in the semis has lost the last 3 ECAC finals.

At this point, I'd be happy if Cornell could just make it to the semis.

calgARI '07

Schafer is doing everything in his power to kill Davenport's confidence. Pulling him after two goals that he couldn't do anything about when the team hadn't scored yet. Brutal. Is it Davenport's job to score goals?

The Cornell goaltending situation right now is not the best (be it Davenport or Scrivens), so hopefully Garman will be good come '08. Davenport let in the first shot he faced all night and then let in another one. 2 goals in 6 shots and it is not the first time either, remisniscent of the Dartmouth & RPI games. Schafer is willing to pull both Scrivens or Davenport at this point, besides you can't argue that Scrivens played well the rest of the game and it gave a lil bit more spark to our team.

Omie

The Cornell goaltending situation right now is not the best (be it Davenport or Scrivens), so hopefully Garman will be good come '08. Davenport let in the first shot he faced all night and then let in another one. 2 goals in 6 shots and it is not the first time either, remisniscent of the Dartmouth & RPI games. Schafer is willing to pull both Scrivens or Davenport at this point, besides you can't argue that Scrivens played well the rest of the game and it gave a lil bit more spark to our team.

I'm hoping Garman can be something big as well especially considering he has given the highly regarded Cheverie a run for the starting job in Nanaimo.

I'm not sure what Schafer wanted Davenport to do on the Burton goal. He was standing by himself on the either side of the crease with no Cornell players anywhere near him. The second goal could be argued either way. Bottom line is that Cornell wasn't scoring though they were outplaying Colgate by a wide margin. Cornell's play did not change one bit after Davenport was pulled. They were totally carrying the play at even strength the whole game while doing nothing on special teams before he was pulled and after he was pulled.

The penalty kill was brutal and so was the powerplay. Maybe Schafer should focus his energy there rather than the goaltending. He is so quick to make changes in net but leaves the first powerplay alone the whole net. Yeah, they scored in the third period, but they were still 1-for-9 with only a handful of chances.

I agree that Schafer has been harder on the goalies when the special teams have just been brutal. However, on the Brown game people were arguing that Davenport was the clear #1 when Scrivens let in similar goals to the one you just described that Davenport let in, that were mostly due to defensive breakdowns. All I am saying is that there is no clear #1 goalie, period. And it probably is best for Schafer to have them rotate constantly.

Omie
I agree that Schafer has been harder on the goalies when the special teams have just been brutal. However, on the Brown game people were arguing that Davenport was the clear #1 when Scrivens let in similar goals to the one you just described that Davenport let in, that were mostly due to defensive breakdowns. All I am saying is that there is no clear #1 goalie, period. And it probably is best for Schafer to have them rotate constantly.

The rotating of goalies and pulling one for the other is something Morris did quite a bit of at Clarkson when either one was not playing well or he wanted to try to light a fire under the team that was playing poorly in front of its netminder.

A lot of coaches do that whereas others are loath to do so.

I find it interesting that many folks here are now supporting Schafer's moves whereas they roasted Morris for doing the same thing.

There is no difference. When a goalie plays poorly in his coach's judgement, he gets pulled, particularly when the points are so precious this deep into the season.

Rich S

I find it interesting that many folks here are now supporting Schafer's moves whereas they roasted Morris for doing the same thing.

I wouldn't say many of us are supporting Schafer's moves with regard to the goaltenders. It's probably an even split. I think he is killing Davenport's confidence and it has negatively affected his play. Considering McKee stayed in through thick and thin, I really don't understand it.

Rich S

Omie
I agree that Schafer has been harder on the goalies when the special teams have just been brutal. However, on the Brown game people were arguing that Davenport was the clear #1 when Scrivens let in similar goals to the one you just described that Davenport let in, that were mostly due to defensive breakdowns. All I am saying is that there is no clear #1 goalie, period. And it probably is best for Schafer to have them rotate constantly.

The rotating of goalies and pulling one for the other is something Morris did quite a bit of at Clarkson when either one was not playing well or he wanted to try to light a fire under the team that was playing poorly in front of its netminder.

A lot of coaches do that whereas others are loath to do so.

I find it interesting that many folks here are now supporting Schafer's moves whereas they roasted Morris for doing the same thing.

There is no difference. When a goalie plays poorly in his coach's judgement, he gets pulled, particularly when the points are so precious this deep into the season.

There's a difference between platooning goalies on a regular basis and randomly pulling them for goals that aren't their fault to try to wake up the rest of the team.

Playing one goalie all the time isn't always good (but it can be), and playing multiple goalies all the time isn't always bad (but it can be). It would be nice if there were a hard-and-fast rule, because then we could stop paying coaches and just have a spreadsheet behind the bench.

Thing is that Mckee even at his worse was probably better that Davenport or Scrivens on most nights.

What surprises me right now, is that even though we recognized this was a rebuilding year (granted we were spoiled by wins in the Fall) people are questioning Schafer's decisions so much now. What happened to "In Schafer we trust!"?

Only three points separate fourth place from twelfth place now (and none of those nine teams are over .500 in conference play).

Omie
Thing is that Mckee even at his worse was probably better that Davenport or Scrivens on most nights.

What surprises me right now, is that even though we recognized this was a rebuilding year (granted we were spoiled by wins in the Fall) people are questioning Schafer's decisions so much now. What happened to "In Schafer we trust!"?

Does Davenport/Scrivens get the same defensive support that McKee received? I ask the question from the outside looking in and if you ask me, no way.

Robb

Rich S

Omie
I agree that Schafer has been harder on the goalies when the special teams have just been brutal. However, on the Brown game people were arguing that Davenport was the clear #1 when Scrivens let in similar goals to the one you just described that Davenport let in, that were mostly due to defensive breakdowns. All I am saying is that there is no clear #1 goalie, period. And it probably is best for Schafer to have them rotate constantly.

The rotating of goalies and pulling one for the other is something Morris did quite a bit of at Clarkson when either one was not playing well or he wanted to try to light a fire under the team that was playing poorly in front of its netminder.

A lot of coaches do that whereas others are loath to do so.

I find it interesting that many folks here are now supporting Schafer's moves whereas they roasted Morris for doing the same thing.

There is no difference. When a goalie plays poorly in his coach's judgement, he gets pulled, particularly when the points are so precious this deep into the season.

There's a difference between platooning goalies on a regular basis and randomly pulling them for goals that aren't their fault to try to wake up the rest of the team.

Playing one goalie all the time isn't always good (but it can be), and playing multiple goalies all the time isn't always bad (but it can be). It would be nice if there were a hard-and-fast rule, because then we could stop paying coaches and just have a spreadsheet behind the bench.

Robb,

My point was that what Schafer has had to do, i.e., pull the goalie either to shake up the team when they were playing poorly or because the goalie was playing poorly, is the same thing Morris did when he did not have a clear #1.

There isn't a hard and fast rule because goalies have different emotional makeups and it's a real challenge for coaches to know which buttons to push and how his goalie(s) will react. Plus a spreadsheet wouldn't be very much fun to watch behind the bench.

Drew
Does Davenport/Scrivens get the same defensive support that McKee received? I ask the question from the outside looking in and if you ask me, no way.

In the colgate game i would say yes they did. If you only stop 10 shots in a game and lose I think you have to look at the goltending. One thing I would like to point out about our successful PK in years past is that the credit was always givin to our #1 penalty killer, whether it was lenny, underhill, or McKee. I think that when our PK becomes successful again we will not have as much to talk about regarding the 'goaltender situation.' 9 time out of 10 you win that game 2-1, unfortunately this was the 10th game.

If we switched goaltenders with CU thursday night what would the score have been?

Rich S
I find it interesting that many folks here are now supporting Schafer's moves whereas they roasted Morris for doing the same thing.

Just as I thought Morris' wild gyrations with his goalies were counter-productive, I'm starting to feel the same way about Schafer's.

I think it may be different people, however. Current students, who appear to be the ones supporting Schafer's moves, have probably never even heard of Morris. The old fogeys who gleefully reported Morris' repeated undercutting of his goalies' confidence have been pretty underwhelmed by Mike doing the same thing this year.

Cornell had a fairly undistinguished pair of goalies named Edmands and Fawcett once, and the strategy was a rotation broken only by a spectacularly good performance, which earned a repeat start, or a spectacularly bad one, which earned one lost start. Not that it worked, exactly but I don't recall any sort of controversy about the goalies.

Weak goaltending is really the one thing you just have to grin and bear. You can't coach or strategize your way out of it. It is what it is. In my opinion, pulling the goalies willy-nilly just adds to the problems.

Trotsky

Rich S
I find it interesting that many folks here are now supporting Schafer's moves whereas they roasted Morris for doing the same thing.

Just as I thought Morris' wild gyrations with his goalies were counter-productive, I'm starting to feel the same way about Schafer's.

I think it may be different people, however. Current students, who appear to be the ones supporting Schafer's moves, have probably never even heard of Morris. The old fogeys who gleefully reported Morris' repeated undercutting of his goalies' confidence have been pretty underwhelmed by Mike doing the same thing this year.

Cornell had a fairly undistinguished pair of goalies named Edmands and Fawcett once, and the strategy was a rotation broken only by a spectacularly good performance, which earned a repeat start, or a spectacularly bad one, which earned one lost start. Not that it worked, exactly but I don't recall any sort of controversy about the goalies.

Weak goaltending is really the one thing you just have to grin and bear. You can't coach or strategize your way out of it. It is what it is. In my opinion, pulling the goalies willy-nilly just adds to the problems.

I agree. I didn't think Morris's strategy helped, and I don't think Schafer's is helping either.

Yet, I predict that Rich will find some way to try to show that this makes me a hypocrite, proves that Schafer has put on 50 lbs, and Morris deserves a Nobel prize...

I wonder if Schafer's views on alternating goalies have changed over the years. For most of his early tenure he alternated goalies until the stretch run, then went with the hot hand through the playoffs: Skazyk/Elliott, Elliott/Pelletier, Burt/Underhill, Underhill/LeNeveu. The only exception was Elliott's senior year (after JMP left early), and that sort of backfired when Elliott got hurt and Burt was thrust into action with no game experience.

But since Underhill graduated in 2002, he's been primarily a one-goalie coach. With Lenny and McKee, that was sort of an obvious choice, but it seems like this would be a good year to let Davenport and Scrivens show who's best in a game situation before riding one of them the rest of the season. Maybe Schafer now feels that he has enough head coaching experience to identify the top goalie based on their performance in practice.

Rich S
I find it interesting that many folks here are now supporting Schafer's moves whereas they roasted Morris for doing the same thing.

Define "many." From this thread alone:

can't say I agree with the decision to pull davenport.

I didn't like the move to bring in Scrivens.

I have a much bigger problem with the decision to pull Troy tonight than the one to start Scrivens against Brown.

I would like to see Coach go to a goalie rotation (one for Friday, and the other one gets Saturday, no matter what the outcome of the previous night's game) and the goalie of the night stays in for the whole game

I also disagreed with Davenport being pulled early

Pulling him after two goals that he couldn't do anything about when the team hadn't scored yet. Brutal.

While there are some defending the moves here, it seems that the majority are annoyed by it. Like Trotsky said, the current students weren't around for the Morris bashing so are exempt from the hypocrite tag. Most of the people here seem to be non-plussed with Schafer's decisions. Either way, there are definitely differing opinions here, so be careful about painting us with one big "you support Schafer but mocked Morris" stroke.

So much of goaltending is confidence and neither has confidence right now. Scrivens never seemed to have it and Davenport's has been taken away from him.

I am for the rotation of our goalies until one of them clearly proves himself (clearly being debatable). I have no idea how Morris was coaching but rotation of goalies has seemed to work at other schools, just because it didn't work at Clarkson doesn't mean it will not work at Cornell. For those saying that rotating goalies or pulling them after bad performances is killing Davenport's confidence (less have talked about Scrivens') I would counterargue that the threat of rotation and being pulled definitely creates a motivational factor for them to prove themselves.

A highly debatable statement. Scrivens has seemed to be more comfortable than Davenport in goal at times.

RichH
Either way, there are definitely differing opinions here, so be careful about painting us with one big "you support Schafer but mocked Morris" stroke.

But let me, on behalf of us all be clear: Even if Schafer starts subbing his goalies on the fly as he rotates in his defensive pairs, we will continue to mock Morris.