Princeton Postgame

The team looked good but had the Jitters and a goalie with an off night.
The play Mike drew up for the last play worked great, the puck just didn't go in.
I think this is going to be a good team with some more experience. I would like to see "set lines" that have a chance (to jell together) to learn to play with each other. Cause after some time together set lines just seem to know each others style of play and where each other will be and how they will react in certain situations. This creates a syneregy between members of each line and strengthens their play.

Good Game Guys ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Not sure why this wasn't posted in the "Princeton postgame" thread.

[Edit: Now it's been moved so that it looks like it started the Princeton postgame" thread, when, in fact, it was posted in a new thread with the title of its subject line.]

Davenport let in 2 extremely soft goals and never appeared to have his head in the game, Scrivens will start tomorrow. This team is still struggling desperately to move the puck out of its own zone. Everyone’s timing seems off… especially on breakouts. There were bits and pieces of the game the team played well, but I am skeptical this team has the talent to compete on a nightly basis without giving 100% on every shift. I know Scali’s role on this team is not to be a goal scorer, but he really hurt the team tonight with his inability to finish.

To Princeton’s credit, they played a solid game and made few mistakes. That being said, they will almost certainly be in the bottom half of the conference and if we can’t win games like that at home, we will too. Tomorrow is a must win.

I agree that Davenport looked really shaky, but if he had stopped that third goal, we'd be headed to OT with a good chance to win. You can't place this entirely on him. We had a couple quality looks at open nets and there was lots of junk in front that our guys couldn't finish. We were doing a better job of getting guys in the crease, but they just had no sense of where the rebounds were going. We really should have scored 1-2 more times.

Breakout, as usual, was horrible. It makes me appreciate how well the 02-03 team was able to maintain possession of the puck coast to coast. This team can't make it through the neutral zone without losing possession. There was that stretch between our 2nd goal and Priceton's 3rd when it took us a good 3 minutes to carry the puck out of our own zone.

Great effort tonight by Seminoff, Barlow, Greening, and Scott. Topher's goal fired up the crowd. Riley Nash spent a lot of time carrying the puck around the Princeton net without finding that nice pass or open ice lane that might lead to a goal.

Great effort overall by Cornell. They were flying at the beginning of the game, and I loved the diving to block shots or passes.

Davenport looked much steadier in the exhibition, so it looks like nerves were the cause of his troubles tonight.

Sitting in G, just to the left of the goal, Davenport was off all night. Incredibly uncomfortable in front of the goal and the positioning was miserable too..seemed like he was a step behind at all times. The third goal was a low, soft wrister through the 5-hole and he was for the most part unscreened, pretty weak if you ask me. I would like to see Scrivens become a more steady starter. In my opinion he has a higher upside and has looked much more comfortable thus far.

grizzdan24
Sitting in G, just to the left of the goal, Davenport was off all night. Incredibly uncomfortable in front of the goal and the positioning was miserable too..seemed like he was a step behind at all times. The third goal was a low, soft wrister through the 5-hole and he was for the most part unscreened, pretty weak if you ask me.

I don't think his positioning was bad all night, but it was certainly bad on that goal. I agree with the description of the 3rd goal, except from Section K it looked like a short side goal (right pad) not 5 hole...the result of bad positioning.

Bottom line for me is I doubt either of our goalies are real door closers. They let in too many soft goals and have difficulty rising to the occasion when needed. And, we still allow too many opportunities in front of our own net.

I agree with Davenport's positoning problems , he left big opening on the other side when he posted up . His body angle was inward to much (closer towards the goal line) ,if he had angled himself more outward he still would had been able to hold the post side closed and also decreased the amount of playing angle on the other side .

But his 5 hole was his weekness last night !

Do you think that if we're saving Scrivens for the next night and Davenport is definitely showing a BAD night, perhaps Di Leo should have been given a shot ?

DiLeo certainly can't be any worse than we saw last night !

Clearly, the solution is that Schafer simply has to stop scheduling games against teams with Tigers as their mascot. Although we'll see what happens tonight...it might just be a general feline problem.

ebilmes
Riley Nash spent a lot of time carrying the puck around the Princeton net without finding that nice pass or open ice lane that might lead to a goal.

Umm, did you see the second goal? Nash came around the net and feathered a perfect pass.

As for my thoughts on the game:

Too many bad penalties. You take enough of them and eventualy it will bite you. The Nichols hitting from behind was just pure stupidity (Seminoff had already played the attacker, there was no need to hit him) and the Kennedy slash was clear and apparent from A (and it happened at the other end of the ice.) Now, alot of the dumber penalties where Freshman mistakes, so hopefully they will grow out of that

They're certainly plucky, but I think the the 'smurf line' of Roeszler-Scott-Gallagher needs a big body to win pucks. Replacing Roeszler with Sawada would be a good move.

I really like the Barlow-Nash-Greening line. For the most part, I was impressed with Riley. He needs to be a bit more decisive, he had a tendacy to wait a little too long before making his set up pass. The setup to the second goal, however, was very nice.

On defense I thought Seminoff (as usual), Krueger and Devin all had nice games.
Seminoff was Seminof: Calm and collective, everything you'd want out of a defensive devensemen.
Krueger's improved a lot since last year. His foot speed now seems up to par, and he looks generally more assertive. The one slapper that he got of on the PP was nice and low, they need to hit him for that one timer more often.
I thought Devin looked unusually composed for a freshman defensemen. Nothing about him really sticks out about his play last night, but I was always confident when he had the puck, and that was a rarity last night.

The PP still needs a quarterback. They've just never recovered from the losses of O'Byrne and Sasha. Maybe Brendon Nash can fill this role when he comes back, he's certainly has shown the ability. Until then, I can't really say what the solution is, I don't know who I would trust to handle the point right now (well, I trust Seminoff, but I don't see him as skilled enough to run a pwerplay.)

Davenport played the worst game that I've ever seen out of a Cornell goalie (granted, I've only been here 3 years.) Not only was the third goal weak, but there where 3 bouncing pucks that he made us all very nervous with. One of them actually went through his 5 hole and slid just wide of the post. Scrivens tonight, please!

Not a great way to start the season, but it's early yet.

Just wondering if any of you were actually watching this game at all. To say 2 extremely soft goals, what a joke! Also you talk about Davenport's positioning when you are sitting stationary in the stands to the left of the goal and you are trying to comment on his angles, nice try. The goals: A Cornell player tips in a shot to the upper corner on goal number one that would have hit Davenport right in the gut. The second goal a scramble in front with Davenport making the save and no one tying any body up and allowing two Princeton guys in front all alone, after the save one Princeton player pokes the puck across the crease to another guy all alone on the back door. The third was a turnover at center ice with a bad change taking place and a 4-2 coming back in with the Princeton player using our d-man as a screen. You could tell Davenport didn't pick up the puck until it was about 5 feet past the d-man already. Granted he may have been able to come up with that save, put to call these goals weak is a joke. And to mention Dileo playing better, come on. Not to take anything away, but come on. Davenport played a great came, was comfortable and confident in net and kept Cornell in it all night. Princeton was getting wide open shots and tips all night with Davenport making some great glove saves and stuffing that back door play in the 3rd when 3 Cornell players got sucked to the guy breaking down the wing. I don't know what many of you are talking about when evaluating the goalies, but maybe you should take a lesson from the editorial written in the Daily Sun about being knowledgeable about hockey before making any remarks. Also, the short side goal from the bottom of the circle given up by Scrivens last week against RIT was much weaker than any of these goals tonight. And this whole Davenport and Scrivens debate is played out. Watch the games, watch the tapes, maybe with your Scrivens shaded glasses off, some knowledge, and then maybe you will realize this debate is a joke.

This team as got some issues and to make the goalies the scape goat is ridiculous. Especially after a goalie plays a solid game, makes some huge saves, and keeps the team in it. There were so many mistakes and missed opportunities that no one seems to ever talk about. Lets just blame the goalies, even when they play well and even when we don't know what we are talking about. Maybe if we make some things up people will believe us. I know some of you will probably say I am being too mean again and we are all friends and this and that, but this is just ridiculous.

Too mean? No, but "ridiculous" and "come on" and "take a lesson about being knowledgeable about hockey" and "a joke" aren't very good arguments. You saw things differently; it doesn't make anybody else stupid, any more than them seeing things differently makes you stupid.

Now, you might be independently stupid, but it's not just because you saw the game differently from others who saw it.

he played a great game? He got beat 5 hole by a slowly bouncing puck without a soul within 15 feet. The first two goals where not his fault, but the third was weak and he looked incredibly uncomfortable all night long.

dude- Everyone on this forum has watched enough hockey to know what they're talking about. I assure you, we all know what screens are as we know when goalies are being hung out to dry. However, there are in fact games in which a goalie gives up soft goals. Telling people they don't know hockey because you disagree with a postgame assessment is ridiculous.

Goaltender is the hardest and most individual position to play in all of sports. I think most often, play comes down to confidence and mental focus.

All you can ever expect from a goaltender is to put you in a position to win the game. Whether or not Davenport did that last night was debatable the offense certainly had its share of missed opportunities- however two of the three goals he definitely wants back… the third one especially. Screen or no screen, the “shot” was more of a dump on net than legitimate scoring attempt. Davenport played with little to no confidence last night, which was obvious to Seminoff and the rest of his teammates based on their interactions in the third period. While he only allowed three goals, it could have easily been a half dozen as others have mentioned above; he just did not seem on top of his game last night, he was just not focused and dialed into the game. This is not a personal attack on him, just my observations.

We will almost certainly see Scrivens tonight.

So it's clear Davenport was having an off night ... or from some angles he looked steady in goal. Hmm. When we win games 6-4 (has that ever happened lately?) the goalie isn't seen as the problem. He is when we lose by a goal.

Hard to feel really down on the team just because we're oh-and-two, even if that's against not very good competition. The team could get a lot better with the return of Nash, and as a young team jells rather than turns to Jello. Plus, if not, we've had a really good run the last couple years taking teams of good-to-excellent skills to levels beyond what most other coaches could affect with the same talent pool.

Davenport wasn't THE problem last night, he was A problem. One among a chorus.

The biggest issues I noticed, which seem to be nothing new, focuses on our D. All of Princeton's goals came on defensive meltdowns, whether it be leaving Jubinville wide open in front of the goal like he was a geek at a high school dance, or the inability to effectively move the puck in the defensive zone and then out of the zone and across the neutral zone. Princeton didn't score because of opportunities they created themselves, but rather from breakdowns on our part. I can't count how many times we turned the puck over in our own zone or couldn't maintain possession in the neutral zone. My friend who plays women's soccer at GWU and had only been to one hockey game in her life said to me, wow, Cornell sucks at the transition game. It's that obvious. I can't wait for Nash to come back to take some pressure of Kreuger.

I think a lot of people were angry with Davenport's play because he was fighting long dump-ins on net and he couldn't control the rebounds. Princeton's second goal came because Davenport couldn't cover the puck nor could our D clear it or pick up Princeton players. I don't think Davenport played terribly and actually made a couple of nice saves point-blank.

They took some pretty dumb penalties too. I attributed some, like Patrick Kennedy's, to the fact that he is a rookie, but on the other hand, players like Barlow, Greening, and Mike Kennedy have to stay out of the box. Nichols and Mugford are meant to be scrappy, but seriously, if you are taking the first shift of every period, try not to get penalties in the first minute.

I thought Riley Nash was the best player out there. The second goal was completely thanks to Nash who started the rush, collected Greening's rebound, and then fed it back into the front of the net. The kid has great hands. As for Scott, first goal aside, he definitely was trying to make things happen offensively all night, even though he had a couple bad passes on the PP. I just continue to be skeptical about the ability of that line to finish. Milo, Romano, and Gallagher put up two goals playing together in like 12 games last season, and one came against RPI.

You know, it's going to be tough going this season, and wins won't come easily. Princeton and RIT were not bad teams. RIT was (and is) ranked ahead of us, and Princeton beat Yale 6-2 last weekend. But if the team cannot improve in these areas, they aren't going to win many games. Greening, Sawada, Krueger, and Gallagher have to step up their games. It's early going so let's not rule out a trip to Denver yet (yes, I'm joking) but in all seriousness, it's not as though this team lacks talent, it's just that they haven't found a way to put it all together yet. Schafer did start mixing lines, and I hope it doesn't stop until he finds some chemistry.

If we unmask the Hockeydude I thnik we will find Davenport's mom.

I think our players are setting up to close to the opposing team's goalie and when there is a rebound it's already past them when it carreens of the goalie . Princeton picked up several loose pucks because of this.


is it "pass them" or "passed them" or "past them" ?

I actually thank god every time I see a Cornell body in front of the net.

Davenport didn't play a bad game last night by any means. He did make a couple point blank saves off of Cornell turnovers or lapses. However, that third goal was a wrister from the blue line and should've been stopped. It was a soft goal, and this team is going to have enough trouble scoring without giving up those kind of goals. The other two goals I can't fault him for as Jubinville was either wide open or getting uncontested chances at rebounds.

tvset
I think our players are setting up to close to the opposing team's goalie and when there is a rebound it's already past them when it carreens of the goalie . Princeton picked up several loose pucks because of this.


is it "pass them" or "passed them" or "past them" ?

If your "it's" meant "it is," then it's "past them" - if your "it's" meant "it has," then it's "passed them."

Plus it's "too close," not "to close"; "careens" (but really, "careers" or "caroms" is more appropriate than "careens", not "carreens"; and "off the goalie," not "of the goalie." And periods usually don't have spaces before them.

(Hey, he asked.)

what about the couple of close ones he nearly let in with no one around him sure looked shaky to me. But then again we must have been watching different games.

Well they didn't go in. I was more watching the plays that he did stop like the 2 on 1 that PU had in the 3rd which resulted in a player wide open and literally on top of Davenport for the tip in. He saved it, along with a few others like it.

Either way Scrivens will be starting tonight, so I doesn't really matter what we thought of Davenport last night.

Well , At least I"m PUNCH-U-ALL getting to the games ......

Cactus12
Everyone on this forum has watched enough hockey to know what they're talking about.

not everyone. I would venture to say half.

Post Game: Cornell 4 Quinnipiac 3

Late in the 3rd period the 2 Cornell Skating Bears substitue in for the last 35 seconds and quickly net goals off a Power Play and a Face-off to win 4 to 3 ...................

Wow, you and about eight other people in the universe understand career (as a verb) vs careen. William Safire would be proud.

Doug '08
To Princeton’s credit, they played a solid game and made few mistakes. That being said, they will almost certainly be in the bottom half of the conference and if we can’t win games like that at home, we will too.

Before the weekend, I suspected that Princeton was underrated. Now, I think it's pretty likely that the Tigers will do better than the preseason ECAC poll predictions (8th place).

The archived video of Princeton and Quinny are now posted on the redcast site.

sah67
The archived video of Princeton and Quinny are now posted on the redcast site.

Did you actually see any video? When I click on the links Media Player can't find the files.

cp20
DiLeo certainly can't be any worse than we saw last night !

I wouldn't put any money on that....

redhair34

sah67
The archived video of Princeton and Quinny are now posted on the redcast site.

Did you actually see any video? When I click on the links Media Player can't find the files.

Good call...perhaps I should have actually tried the links before posting. They don't work for me either. It really seems like nothing gets accomplished with Redcast unless we whine to them about it non-stop, and then it gets only quasi-accomplished.

If you are going to say Davenport played with no confidence and he definitely wants two goals back, how about you say what goals and why you think this. The third goal was not as weak as many people are trying to make it seem. I am not saying that he probably wants it back, but it was not as bad as you are trying to make it. Also the whole worst game you have ever seen by a Cornell goalie? You must not watch many games or you must not know what you are watching. Bouncing pucks are beating him and many things are scaring you. Just because you are scared by a play a goalie makes or something that happens does not mean that it is a bad play or that the goalie has no confidence or is shaky. Davenport stood tall in that game and challenged shooters and made some big saves and to say he didn't give the team a chance to win I do not understand. You lose a game by one goal and the team has no chance to win, how does that work. Especially after all of the penalties and missed open chances by the offense, but Cornell had no chance to win because of Davenport, I guess that makes sense.

hockeydude
Also the whole worst game you have ever seen by a Cornell goalie? You must not watch many games or you must not know what you are watching.

How much Cornell hockey are you watching in Rhode Island? I've only been on campus for 3 years, which I stated when I made the comment. Over that time I have never felt less comfortable with the play of the goal tender. You're free to disagree, but don't be childish and claim that I don't watch or know what I'm talking about.
I've been Ranger fan all my live, a Cornell fan since I got my acceptance letter, and I also happen to play a bit in my spare time. Along the way I've actually watched a game or two.

Now I will back off the "worst game I've seen by a Cornell goal tender" because I only believe that one of the goals (the last) was legitimately soft. But as I said, Davenport's overall demeanor just appeared uncomfortable to me. And it wasn't just the soft goals, or even the numerous bouncers that he almost let in, but he just generally seemed indecisive. So I will revise my statement to say that I've never felt less comfortable with a Cornell goalie than I did on friday night. Doesn't mean I want to see him benched, I'd love to see him rebound and I think he should get the chance.

Edit: I see you've revised your post. I'm too lazy to do the same.

Well first of all, I think hockeydude was responding to Doug's post, not yours evilnaturedrobot. Notice how it was posted in response to Doug's, not yours.

Second of all, calling hockeydude childish is, what, more mature?

Third of all, I don't know how long hockeydude has been following Cornell hockey, but I'm guessing from your post you didn't follow it before you came here, and so you know little of Cornell goaltending outside of McKee, LeNeveu, Dryden, Cropper, and maybe Pelletier.

Doug, I think your characterization of Davenport is unfair. Did you go the Onion game last year? Anyone remember how poorly Scriv played? Davenport's performance last night was definitely not the worst ever. Yes he fought some pucks, but the ice was definitely soft this weekend...remember how Sawada almost scored from our own zone last night? To call his performance awful in the first real home game of the season against a league foe, with a pretty poor defense in front of him is unfair to say the least. Jubinville was alone all night and capitalized by being alone in the slot and having his shot deflect off of a defenseman, and by banging home a rebound on the fourth try.

Cornell has been blessed with some all American and Hobey Baker finalist goalies, but you can't expect that every season, and you certainly can't expect Davenport to pitch a shutout with the defense he has in front of him at present.

Very well said amerks and I agree. I have seen numerous Cornell games and hockey games of all levels, more than you may think but I will not go into that. And robot, well said on your edit and you are entitled to your feelings, but people on here seem to say many things but do not back them up. I think if you are going to say things and try to call people out you should try to support what is being said. You also call me childish. Just because I say what I am thinking does not make it childish. Many people on here try to call out the goalies, or other players and make comments with no support or thoughts to back up what they say. Many people also have grudges against players that are extremely evident. Maybe people should try and take an unbiased look at the player's and team's performance, instead of always trying to single out individuals for a teams' mistakes. When players become scared of making a mistake (not saying that what people say on message boards would make a player scared of making a mistake), that is when their play and the team's play suffers more. This is something I think may be occurring with Cornell along with numerous other things, but that is for a different discussion. I thought people on this board were Cornell fans, but some, not all, are individual player fans and constantly sit on here looking for things to single out individuals. This is not just dealing with the goalies, but others. That is one thing that I think is wrong with this team (and numerous others) and why they have struggled recently. Too many individuals, not enough team, and not enough accountability. This seems to resemble some of the fans on here.

hockeydude
I think if you are going to say things and try to call people out you should try to support what is being said.

Amen.

Now go back and read your first post on this thread. You basically spent two long paragraphs saying, "You're wrong and I'm right because I know better."

You may be right; you may even know better. But nothing in that entire post demonstrated either one even a little bit.

To sum up: Mote/plank.

Do I not go on to explain the goals and why they were not weak like previously stated. Do I not go on to give examples about how Davenport played during the game and saves that were made to keep Cornell in the game. Do you really want me to explain how Dileo in goal would not have been better than Davenport. I also talked about a goal given up the weak before. I also did not want to go into goaltender positioning and all of the things that I have mentioned on here before. I could go into the mistakes and missed opportunities by Cornell if you would like, but that would take up a lot of space. So I am not sure how I did not offer backup to my points.

hockeydude
The third was a turnover at center ice with a bad change taking place and a 4-2 coming back in with the Princeton player using our d-man as a screen. You could tell Davenport didn't pick up the puck until it was about 5 feet past the d-man already. Granted he may have been able to come up with that save, put to call these goals weak is a joke.

I think Troy made some good saves due to good positioning, but from where I was sitting in Section K (Troy's right), the 3rd goal looked very weak to me. IIRC, a left-handed shooter was skating in with a d-man on him, The d-man was positioned in the center, and the shooter drifted to his left and released a forehand near the top of Troy's right face-off circle that beat Troy low and right (short-side). I was looking at the play, not Troy, so I couldn't judge whether "Davenport didn't pick up the puck until it was about 5 feet past the d-man already." But from the positioning of the d-man, it didn't seem like a screen to me.

I'm curious how you are able to judge the play so closely. Are you viewing replays?

Something to keep in mind: Schafer didn't play Troy against Quinnipiac. I think that suggests something....

Townie
Something to keep in mind: Schafer didn't play Troy against Quinnipiac. I think that suggests something....

I think it suggests that he is continuing his long standing practice of splitting weekends until one goalie establishes himself as #1.

hockeydude
Do I not go on to explain the goals and why they were not weak like previously stated.

Yes, here, you did explain a little.

Do I not go on to give examples about how Davenport played during the game and saves that were made to keep Cornell in the game.

Not really. You sort of described one example vaguely; but I watched the entire game, and I don't remember what save you're talking about, so it wasn't a very good description. Other than that one, you again just gave your opinion: That he was good, and anybody who feels differently must be wrong.

Do you really want me to explain how Dileo in goal would not have been better than Davenport.

Yes, if I'm to believe your argument at all that he wouldn't be, I'd like an explanation better than "come on." Ah, but wait, you said, "come on" twice - perhaps that was enough.

I also talked about a goal given up the weak before.

You mentioned a goal on Scrivens that in your opinion was weaker, but didn't say which one and didn't back it up.

I also did not want to go into goaltender positioning and all of the things that I have mentioned on here before.

So instead of you backing up your arguments in your actual post, we are supposed to incorporate all the things that you had said in the four or five posts you had previously made in your lifetime on this board?

So I am not sure how I did not offer backup to my points.

You didn't really back up your points, and I sure didn't see you offer to do so, either.

Useless discussion. I'll be spending my time on other things, now.

Doug '08
To Princeton’s credit, they played a solid game and made few mistakes. That being said, they will almost certainly be in the bottom half

Maybe not. The Tigers shut out Colgate 2-0 Saturday. They have improved: they played much better defense than Quinnipiac.

EDIT: Archives now working