BU Postgame

It was nice to see all the Cornellians come out for the game, but the Cornell team unfortunately is not that good. They gave us a strong effort, but I don't think the overall team talent is there.

I do like the first line of Nash, Greening and Barlow. But the defense does not have good speed or skills and we have trouble clearing the puck out of our zone. I think the strong Cornell teams of recent years have had at least one or two guys who can carry the puck out of our zone. Hopefully they will do this again at MSG soon. I would love to see Cornell-Michigan.

At least Scrivens finally got a shiny new helmet. Or maybe that jinxed us

Negative:

They were faster, more aggressive and got better goaltending. There was no phase of the game that we were not outplayed if not simply outclassed.

The large arena spreads out all Cornell fans, particularly the 18-23 year olds most likely to lead the cheers, so coordination among all fans for cheers is virtually impossible. Though a quick 2-0 deficit probably did as much to quiet the crowd as the distribution of fans.

On the positive side:

Riley Nash sure is fun to watch.

I got chills in anticipation of getting to shout RED at MSG. I'd love for this to be annual event - the sellout probably got MSG's attention.

Cornell fans were probably 2/3 of the crowd. When we finally scored, it was LOUD.

For those who were at the game that didn't check box-scores later...Topher was given the 3rd goal which was originally given to Riley.

great time pregame and during the game. nothing like seeing red and white cover msg. better than red and blue

overall bu outplayed cornell. It may have been a different game without 2 give-aways/softgoals but had it been closer for longer, I am sure BU would not have kept so many back and likely would have scored more goals.

D was weak and had trouble getting out of the defensive zone even with only one man forechecking at times.

all and all the cornell contingent was strong. the bu fans were fun and we had no run ins with bad apples. we were in the bu section.

good times.
hope they do this every year.
I could care less about michigan coming to town. a bu-cornell yearly msg game would be awesome.

All the previous comments are dead-on. Defense lacks puck handling skills, and the first couple of BU goals were the result of lost pucks that BU converted. Simply put, this D is currently not capable of handling a skilled forecheck. Scrivens really did not have much of a chance on most of the goals.

BU simply has more talent right now. Our first line can match-up with them, but there's a drop-off after that.

That being said, I think we will compete reasonably well in the ECAC; nationally, however, it's not realistic.

Nationally, it definitely is not realistic, by any stretch of the imagination. But when will it be? That's what frustrates me.

This was an embarrassment. For us to get blown out of the water by a team that's having a sub-par year in their conference makes me think that a national championship may very well not happen during my lifetime. And that blows. Yes, I know it's not happening this year, and I also know that this was only one game, but all the same...

Cornell came out flat in the first. BU outworked us in our end, and got scores for it. There were times when I think we marginally carried play in the later periods. But those times were with BU sitting on a 3 goal lead so it may not be a fair assessment. And as much as we were outplayed, a lucky bounce here or there could have made if a 5-5 game late. So I dont think it was an emabarrasment. We did not bring our A game and we were without 2 of or stronger players.

Lets not forget that sucks beat them last week. Similar shot count (many tonight were not quality shots) for BU but sucks got stellar goal tending. Perhaps we can blame a fired up BU on the loss to sucks.

Chris

HeafDog
For us to get blown out of the water by a team that's having a sub-par year in their conference makes me think that a national championship may very well not happen during my lifetime. And that blows. Yes, I know it's not happening this year, and I also know that this was only one game, but all the same...

Gabe, do you remember how bad the team was your senior year, the "big letdown" after two straight (overachieving, by the way) ECAC tournament titles? Finishing 8th, and just barely beating RPI on the road to make it to the "play-in" game in Lake Placid only to be humiliated by Princeton?

It was only five years later we were in the Frozen Four and really belonged there.

We may very well not have a national championship during our lifetimes, because in addition to a great team, you need the bounces to go your way, too. But I believe that under this leadership, we will legitimately contend for it for two years out of every ten, and for an Ivy to do that is a spectacular achievement. This ain't gonna be the year, but I like what I see coming down the road.

There's something to be said of talent, and how much of the supposed gap was responsible for the loss. I think that the reason we struggle to score is that we struggle to finish. We set up opportunities just fine but always seem just one move away from capitalizing, we just don't make enough of those quick critical finishing moves (with the exception of Greening/Nash).

Agree completely with HeafDog that this was an embarrassment.

What more could one have asked for in a hockey game? The rekindling of a decades-old rivalry, a sold-out MSG with 12,000 Cornell fans, the union of young and old fans in the stands, many of whom hadn't seen a game in years, Cornell legends shown on the scoreboard, Andy Noel receiving a special on-ice introduction.

This game had it all, but the team didn't show up.

Spin this however you want. This team obviously doesn't have the talent of the '02-03, '05 teams. BU was fired up after losing to Harvard last week. Scrivens should have stopped a couple of the later goals. We missed Scali and Krueger. Being at MSG overwhelmed us. Our breakout play sucks. Defense needs work.

Blah, blah, blah. Honestly, this team was not ready to play tonight. Make all the excuses you want. Schafer had to know BU would be fired up. Breakout play has sucked for a while. Old news. Schafer has to motivate his team before a game like this.

I don't know the secret behind the success of the '03, '05, etc., teams. Did we have big-game players who were ready to make an impact on the big stage? Was Schafer better able to motivate his team a few years back? Maybe he needs to break another stick over his head.

I don't think this team can deliver anymore when it counts. The big losses to Harvard at the end of '06 that handed them Ivy and ECACHL titles might have been an omen. The biggest games last year were the playoff disasters against Quinnipiac. Abysmal performance tonight. What will March bring?

This team had the energy of a large, loud, pro-Cornell crowd, and it took the crowd out of the game astoundingly quickly. Back to back penalties against BU early in the first--4 mins of PP produces only 3 SOG for us and two dangerous shorthanded rushes for BU. Then, three quick goals caused by a lack of effort on our part. Our team looked slow...out of shape...flatfooted...out of position...ambivalent. BU was flying, and instead of exerting effort to defend, we let them skate around us and get great looks at Scrivens. We were out of the game when it was 3-0.

Did Schafer tell the team to play conservatively? Three penalties all game in what I thought was a well-officiated contest.

This "Red Hot Hockey" thing is really cool. I'd love to see it happen again. But Coach Schafer has to figure out how to energize his team for a game like this. BU was the better team, but a motivated Cornell team keeps this one close.

I was about to write something long and rambling about the craptacular experience tonight... but this team simply isn't worth the effort. Hopefully 08-09 will bring better effort and better skillz. It's going to be a loooooooong season.

Kyle

Game reminded me of the 06 ECAC Final against Harvard. No attention to detail and mentally poor all over the ice.

It wasn't that the team didn't work hard, it was just that they were not well-prepared. It's gotta be a weird experience playing in that environment tonight and it wasn't shocking that at least one of the two teams came out like a deer in headlights. Cornell is a hard-working team, far more so than the last couple years and I was particularly impressed with how hard they pushed the second half of the game despite the deficit. They weren't doing the little things anywhere on the ice for much of the game and were making small mistakes everywhere. They did not look prepared whereas BU looked like they have played in this type of situation before.

Not sure why on earth Roezler played over Fontas - maybe I missed if Fontas was suspended or something. Roezeler if freakin' terrible though and his lack of attention in the neutral zone (leaving the ice for a change) led directly to BU's third goal. He didn't play again until late in the second period and even then he was soft, slow, weak, and had hands of stone. Very poor coaching move by Schafer when Fontas is a solid guy who never makes mental mistakes. His age and experience should have taken priority over the timid alternative.

Riley Nash is far and away the best player on the team and among the best players in the NCAA. Every time he is on the ice, it needs to be the priority to get the puck to him, find open ice, and crash the net. He is incredible and I can't believe he missed on that late chance that would have given him his third goal.

Krantz has been bad this year and has taken noticable steps backwards. Speaking of which, I haven't noticed Sawada at all and Scott has been average. The seniors have been pretty much non-factors.

Scrivens couldn't stop a beach ball and that fourth goal was both soft and an absolute back-breaker for the team who had gotten themselves back in the game. No coincidence that turned out to be the game winner.

They didn't play well tonight and the score was generous. They battled hard though for all 60 minutes even though they were never sharp in any zone. I like this team though. They work hard and have a fair amount of room to grow. If by some miracle both these teams made it to the NCAA Tournament, Cornell could take them I think.

playing the talent angle of this is way overrated. did we get out worked, without a doubt. did we get out coached, that remains to be seen. did we get "out talented", no way!

the larger offensive zone definitely played to BU's advantage without a doubt but we definitely did not get "out talented." personally, watching from 3,000 miles away on tv, we lost this game on goaltending and simple defense. the Cornell teams i grew to love would have made the saves and plays to minimize the scoring chances BU got tonight. as has been said here in the past, Scrivens et al. was(were) lackluster. in a notmal year, Cornell goalies/defenses make 4/5 saves and we're winning 2-1, instead we're losing 5-2! am i possibly picking the easy scapegoat, yes. have i seen a game in person or on tv since wisconsin '06, no. bottom line is that we need to get a solid goalie in net who isn't splaying/sprawling himself all over the ice, diving at saves and getting out of position every time a shot gets him the least bit uncomfortable. or just simply having the poor defensive positioning to let your man just skate circles around you and walk in 1-1 w/ our goalie to score.

there are certainly things we can do to make the team-defense better w/out doubt but saying they had more talent is just a copout! we have the talent, they just haven't figured out how to make it work. this team had moments of brilliance, all be them short, they were there ... tonight. the magic happens when they can replicate that every friday and saturday night. so here's to hoping this team finds the formula to make that happen more often than not ... LGR!

btw ... to those who had the chance to attend the game, great showing and i am seriously jealous i wasn't there!

Knowing Jack Parker's respect for the Faithful, and hearing his comments about BU not being the "home team" in that building, I have no doubt his instructions to his players were clear: take the crowd out of the game early.

Regarding the attendance, they reported it as the full 18,200, but I would guess there were about 2000 scattered empty seats. Maybe fewer. I have a friend who's going to try to get me the actual gate attendance. There were NOT droves of scalpers trying to unload outside the arena, a la Buffalo.

I think 12,000 Cornell fans seems about right... hard to tell with everyone wearing red, but there was a noticeable difference when the goals were scored.

The Cornell hockey fan base has its A-game on sooner and better this season than the team on the ice.

Once we got the Jared Seminoff PPG 3 minutes into the third, our group all breathed a sigh of relief. That made it 5-2 and there was enough time to make it 5-3 before the game ended, so the line score wouldn't be so embarrassing to the outside world. It wound up 6-3 with the empty net goal, but 6-3 isn't as bad a 3-goal margin as 4-1 or 3-0, and it almost wound up 5-4 which would have been unfair to BU in capturing the one-sidedness of the game. Boy, were we outplayed.

BU had two soft, goalie-should've-had-them goals (plus the ENG) that were killers and made it impossible for us to crawl out of the 3-0 we wound up in during a 3-minute span at the midway point of the first. Maybe Seminoff's goal seemed that way to the BU fans. But Scrivens got hung out to dry by a defense that left someone alone on the other side of the net for a rebound or deflection; must have been a dozen like that. Had Krueger not been DQ'd, would it have made a difference? Probably not to the final outcome. Plus we had Brendon Nash back. [Edit add: If what I called soft goals were deflections or redirections, then they weren't soft goals.]

There were some things to like:

Scrivens showed he's capable of stopping 35 shots in game. It's too bad that BU showed itself capable of putting 40 shots on goal against him.

Cornell didn't take many penalties (3, allowing 1 PPG) although some might feel that made us too gentlemanly. And our PK was pretty fair.

The power play was awesome to watch when we switched to the points booming shot after shot on goal. Even if we don't score, it is immensely satisfying. As it was, we were 2x7, a reasonable outcome.

Riley Nash continues to impress. And for those who say Cornell has reached a bottom from which we'll never ascend, RN proves Schafer can still recruit quality players.

The "Red!" during the anthem wasn't just noticeable, it rocked the Garden. Fears of dilution were unfounded.

However:

Scrivens' status as No. 1 goalie seems less secure. Also, BU's goalie, Brett Bennett, had a strong stick and did a good job pushing the puck up ice on the power play (mini-Brodeur) while Ben seemed content (coach's orders?) to just push it off to the side and one or two times when he tried to move it more than a few feet, it seemed really weak.

Boy, do we need to improve close-in defense around the net.

The offense generates excitement more than goals.

The breakout from our defensive zone could be, ah, more confidence-inspiring.

This was not an optimal, show-Cornell-at-its-best game for national TV.

Bottom line: This was a great event for Cornellians marred by a rebuilding or mediocre (take your pick - glass half-full or half-empty) team that had an off-night running into a BU team that was well-prepared and playing its best game.

Most of the BU fans seemed friendly and exuberant. Just not the half-dozen drunken louts in front of us. My wife was fearful when they leaned far over the balcony rail to jeer the Cornell fans below (earning a loud "flip our burgers" return); I was hopeful when they leaned over. And fearful only that it wasn't that much of a drop. It distressed me greatly that in a few short years they'll be reproducing unless through divine providence they're holding hands while one pees on the third rail attempting his own segment on Myth Busters.

Did anyone else notice the in-house video of the BU fan in the team jersey who, several times when she was on camera, grabbed, extended, and shook the part of her jersey that said "BOSTON"?

It was nice, after the first period, to see members of the 1967 and 1970 Cornell championship teams honored and incredible to see Ned Harkness out there, too. BU won that mini-competition of hockey alums on parade by trotting out, after the second period, Dave Silk, Jack O'Callahan, and a well-fed Mike Eruzione: only unbeaten/untied team in college hockey history vs. key players in the upset of the century.

I'm reminded of the line used by a friend about Cornell versus the rest of the Ivies: So many of the people who go there really enjoyed the experience, not just getting the degree and moving on. What a great night except for the scoreboard.

Beeeej
We may very well not have a national championship during our lifetimes, because in addition to a great team, you need the bounces to go your way, too. But I believe that under this leadership, we will legitimately contend for it for two years out of every ten, and for an Ivy to do that is a spectacular achievement. This ain't gonna be the year, but I like what I see coming down the road.

Beeeej, I hear ya. And I sincerely hope you're right.

I too was at the game and,unfortantely, agree with all the neagatives. The game was uglier than the score....BU could have sored nine or ten goals. Nearly every BU rush resulted in a shot on goal...rarely did we cross the -offensive blue line in control of the puck. When a 3-7-2 team beats so skillfully and decisively a 4-3-0 team, the issue of conference strength must be reopened.Last night was an eye opener, I (naively) thought BU was low hanging fruit. Unless and until recruiting becomes far more successful I think I will hold out for the occasional Ivy Championship.

The game was lost in the first period, obviouslly. That was perhaps the worst period of hockey I have seen Cornell play in my 4 years here... to be honest I thought we were lucky to just be down 3-0. Cornell just did not come to play.

I'll echo the sentiments of disbelief about Schafer playing Roeszler over Fontas. Unless there was an injury or disciplinary issue we don't know about, we really could have used Fontas's size, defensive prowess and faceoff ability. We got killed on faceoffs if I remember correctly. Perhaps Schafer thought this was going to be a run-and-gun shootout, and put Roeszler in to have another small, fast, sniper...well it was a shootout for BU, but we definitely needed more size and defense.

Please, Topher...you played fine, but shoot the puck every once in a while! I know he's gotten a reputation as a play-maker rather than a scorer, but it was disheartening to watch the little guy zoom up the boards, and then instead of making a move to the middle, or wristing one towards the goalie, he either waits for a trailing player to pass it to and gets muscled off the puck in the process, or tries to wrap around the net looking for a pass, and gets muscled off the puck in the process.

Krantz, as others have mentioned, has really taken a step back this year. Is it time to give Johnston a shot? Or maybe move Fontas back to D as he's done a couple times?

Berk has a lot of energy out there, and I really like him on the pp. Fewer of those mistakes he was making at Harvard/Dartmouth also. With a little more muscle on him, he's going to be a great Cornell defenseman in another year.

The Devins really seem to have dropped off the radar since the first couple of games. They're not doing anything noticeably bad...but when was the last time Mike Devin let fly one of those blasts from the point? And Joe Devin really doesn't stand out all that much. Speaking of blasts from the point, was that Riley taking slap-shot after slap-shot rapid-fire on that powerplay in the 2nd period? Or was I imagining him on the point?

Sawada really needs to step up his game and get to where he was at the end of last year. At least he's finishing his checks now (and he made some good ones last night), but he needs to be more of a scoring threat.

Greening, Mugford, and Seminoff also played an excellent game as can be expected from those three at this point. Would have really been nice to have Krueger out there though, and probably Scali too.

It's really nice to have Brendon Nash back...he looked solid out there. Not quite up to last year's standards yet, but then again, it's his first game back from a major injury; I'm sure he'll be fine.

Scrivens was OK. Not terrible. The first three BU goals were not really softies, but he's made plenty of stops on those kind of shots in the past, especially Yip's breakway shot that went top-shelf. Usualy Scrivens seems to get beat by the low/five-hole shots. I was personally surprised that Schafer had the confidence to keep him in there after the 3 goals in 3 minutes. I'm glad he stayed in there (I don't think Davenport would have saved our butt), but it seemed like Schafer yanked him and Davenport for much less last season...I'm particularly thinking of the two difficult PPGs Davenport allowed at Colgate, and then got pulled for rather surprisingly.

The 4th goal seemed like it was just a dump-in from the BU player, and it deflected off a Cornell skater standing to Scrivens's side, right past Scrivens. Then again, I was all the way at the other end of the ice, and watching MSG's video screens. Can anyone confirm that it deflected off a Cornell skater into our own net, or was Scrivens just not ready for it?

The 5th goal seemed like it was sliding right for his 5-hole, which he shut down, but then suddenly hit a weird bounce (maybe an edge on the ice?) and skipped right over his pad. Definitely want to watch that again when I get home to my DVR.

This reminded me of last year's game against Maine in Florida. We got outclassed by a better Hockey East team with a lot more individually talented players, who may not have been the #1 team in the country, but certainly came ready to send Cornell a message, while Schafer simply had the boys way too complacent. A few of us kept wondering to each other during intermissions last night, how Schafer was going to fire up the boys between periods...I saw almost no instance of anyone on our team being "fired up", except mayyyybe after Nash got us on the board, and the pp started clicking.

Oh yeah, the powerplay isn't abysmal this year! One less thing to bitch about!

Faithful,

That was a tough game. BU is very good and was similarly, very good against Harvard as well. They are fast, tenacious, and do a great job in the neutral zone.

However, BU is undisciplined and can play unfocused at times and to beat them, you need to capitalize on those opportunities. After watching BU play twice now, it amazes me that their record is so abysmal with the talent they can throw out there.

There is a fairly large talent discrepancy between BU and teams like Cornell and Harvard right now. Goaltending can often alleviate the disparity, but Cornell has the worst goaltending it has had in a long, long time. Scrivens isn't horrible, but he's not going to win a game for you and I think that prevents Cornell from playing the game it can and wants to play. When you have a shut-down goalie, it allows everyone to play a much different style.

Good luck.

sah67
Oh yeah, the powerplay isn't abysmal this year! One less thing to bitch about!

What is abysmal, however, is the penalty kill, which is hanging around the high 70s (78.1 after last night). For a team that seeks to play a physically aggressive style, a shut-down penalty kill (a "power kill" is essential. An "average" Cornell penalty kill in the high 80s lets in three fewer goals this season, and I don't think I need to pile on the pedantry to indicate what a difference that would've made. (Goodbye bad losses to RIT and Princeton.)

Confidence in the penalty kill leads to confidence in other facets of the game, allowing a team to play aggressively and go for small "advantages" that can make all the difference. I hope Schafer can find the right mix to make-over this year's substandard kill.

EDIT: Of course, as bothman indicates above, part of the problem lies in goal.

We played poorly and BU played well. Neither the future of the program or the season is in doubt because of the outcome of the game. This was a different team than the one I saw improve over the last two weekends. They just made mistakes they weren't making 7 days ago. And as Ari said, I had a feeling one team was coming out with the deer in the headlights look and it was us. This team has enough talent and work ethic to compete for the ECAC Championship.


By the way, I commented after the Dartmouth game that towards the end of the third period Fontas could barely skate off the ice and never saw the ice again. I'd be pretty surprised if he was a healthy scratch.

bothman
Faithful,

That was a tough game. BU is very good and was similarly, very good against Harvard as well. They are fast, tenacious, and do a great job in the neutral zone.

However, BU is undisciplined and can play unfocused at times and to beat them, you need to capitalize on those opportunities. After watching BU play twice now, it amazes me that their record is so abysmal with the talent they can throw out there.

There is a fairly large talent discrepancy between BU and teams like Cornell and Harvard right now. Goaltending can often alleviate the disparity, but Cornell has the worst goaltending it has had in a long, long time. Scrivens isn't horrible, but he's not going to win a game for you and I think that prevents Cornell from playing the game it can and wants to play. When you have a shut-down goalie, it allows everyone to play a much different style.

Good luck.

Thoughtful posting, bothman. Agree on all counts.

Regarding BU's fourth goal toward the end of the second period that sah67 described above as a "dump-in" that deflected off a Cornell player, the Ithaca Journal had this to say:

"Riley Nash got the Big Red on the board in the second period, deflecting Blake Gallagher’s point shot past BU goalie Brett Bennett, but the Terriers answered with Pete MacArthur’s waist-high deflection to restore the three-goal lead heading into the third period.

Schafer said that goal was essentially the turning point.

“'The kid knocked it out of mid-air,'” he said. 'That really took the wind out of our sails.'”

I couldn't see that on the telecast, and I don't recall the awful CSTV announcers describing it that way. That broadcast may have hit an all-time low for quality. The graphic showing NCAA tournament statistics had the two schools reversed, giving Cornell four NCAA championships and BU two. Same with frozen four and tournament appearances.

It also tried to hype the game by saying that between the two teams they had sixteen championships, then showed the ECAC totals for the two teams, saying nothing about BU's twenty-plus years in Hockey East and their success there. Simply dreadful preparation work.

Al DeFlorio
That broadcast may have hit an all-time low for quality. The graphic showing NCAA tournament statistics had the two schools reversed, giving Cornell four NCAA championships and BU two. Same with frozen four and tournament appearances.

It also tried to hype the game by saying that between the two teams they had sixteen championships, then showed the ECAC totals for the two teams, saying nothing about BU's twenty-plus years in Hockey East and their success there. Simply dreadful preparation work.

I'll agree that these were terrible, however the announcers seemed to know the players on the teams, and not just what prep schools they went to. I actually enjoyed their talk. they had good discussions on the 4 official format, and could fill in the times in the third period where we were all just waiting for the end. All in all, I think better than other college hockey announcers we can get.

I've got to say I'm a little surprised at all the the negativity.

I'm not one for drawn-out post-game analysis, but as someone said earlier, it would be hard not to expect at least one of the sides to come out and be a deer in headlights given the atmosphere. And that was us. BU was flying around, had odd-man rushes to their hearts content, was ridiculous sharp with their passing, seemed to find every loose puck on their stick in the slot, and blitzkrieged us for 3 goals in 3 minutes.

I guess I prefer to look at the fact that we kept working, kept playing hard, and tried to scratch back into the game. BU was just better last night, and a better team at the moment. It doesn't portend doom for the future of Cornell hockey. It was a bad night for a talented, young squad that we have. If there is one thing that I have confidence in Schafer doing, it is improving a team off of a let-down like last night.

Atmosphere obviously was incredible. It's a shame the Cornell side was effectively taken out of the game 15 minutes in, but it was still a great showing of support. I think doing this every year would take the steam out of the incredible buzz that was in the arena last night, but once every 3 or 4 years would be a fantastic idea. And maybe by next time the MSG crew will nix the piped in music and mic the bands.

LET'S GO RED!

redhair34
...This team has enough talent and work ethic to compete for the ECAC Championship...

No. I'm sorry but this team does not have enough talent. They also do not have enough speed, size, and strength to wear down the opponents. If they are going to compete for any championship, they will need to make up for the lackings in some other ways (perhaps by being more organized and cohesive, perhaps by taking less risks, perhaps by focusing more on tactics). I don't know what the magic formula is, but team talent is just not there this year.

Man, I can't believe how negative almost everyone has been. It's sad when Ari is the most positive. No we're not a Frozen Four team, but we have shown that we can do well in the ECAC. We could win it and get an NCAA bid, but not having seen Clarkson I'm doubtful.

The game announcers showed a good stat of how slowly BU teams have started and how well they can finish the season. We played a very good team, one that will finish with a much better record than now.

Now everyone is talking about how good our PP looks, well a few weeks ago we were all talking about how awful it looked. Another stat they showed on TV was how we are getting about 40% of our goals from our freshman and another sizable chunk from sophs. It takes time for them to jell and be a consistent factor. Maybe that's why our PP looks so much better. If so, the team could look a lot better as the year progresses.

None of our defensemen are producing as I'd like, but I'm willing to give them some time. Scrivens worries me in net, but he came in with a .922 save percentage. He maybe the best we'll get. McKee was great, but he had his bad spells when we all complained; too much athleticism and not enough technique for me.

All in all, the best I hope for is that they use these next few games to play more solidly together and put a strong ECAC run together.

As I and others have said before, the best we can expect is contention for Albany each year, contention to win 30-50% of the time, NCAA bids about half the time and Frozen Four every 4-8 years. Get that and I'm happy.

Think about the other ECAC schools, any that can expect better than that? And what about those Hockey East powerhouses, Maine and BC, where are they now? I expect they will be around at the end of the year but their fans must be pulling hair now. So let's see about UMass and the rest of the season..

I think the failure to land either Thiessen or Bachman as McKee's heir is coming back to haunt us now. Scrivens/Davenport was clearly plan C or D and it shows; Garman can't come fast enough

Jim Hyla
Man, I can't believe how negative almost everyone has been. It's sad when Ari is the most positive. No we're not a Frozen Four team, but we have shown that we can do well in the ECAC.

I'm with you Jim. Yes, it was a frustrating game to watch. Yes, we got outplayed. Yes, we have the same weaknesses that we've been talking about for a month and took advantage. It looks and feels worse because of the big stage. But it's still one game in November.

"Matt" Devin, Joe only having 2 cups, and "Give my Regards to Rory" were a bit grating.

Jim Hyla
McKee was great, but he had his bad spells when we all complained; too much athleticism and not enough technique for me.

And Scrivens has enough technique for you?! I can't understand why people are still defending him and why he was still playing after the first period. He's practically flat on the ice by the time the other team hits the blue line. Anyone who can lift the puck will light him up, just like BU did. He was very overdue for a game like this, and if Schafer sticks with him, there will be more. His technique sucks and often has to make spectacular saves because he's way out of position, scrambling to get back, and fumbling with the puck. Rebounds always end up big and juicy in the slot, and he seems to have no confidence. Davenport has good position and gets himself in place to make almost every save. He does let in soft goals at times, but at least he's in the right place to make those saves.

As someone who never played hockey... I am curious how much of the defense and goalie issue might be a communication problem. The closest sport I played to hockey was soccer, I know the goalie there can be very vocal or leave the 'quarterbacking' to the sweeper. Given that Scrivens likes to wander a bit at times to play the puck, my guess is that he would have to be VERY vocal for this to work at all (even if he played the puck less than he does now)
Besides positioning and athleticism, how big a role does the goalie's verbal control of the defense play into success, particularly on a team with Cornell's style?
I dont want to hang recent problems on Scrivens (easy scapegoat), but I have been surprised at how quickly most have downplayed his role at the back of the defense, particularly the announcers last night who seemed to come up with half a dozen excuses for why every goal wasnt his fault.

Being a hockey-induced manic-depressive, I'm swinging back towards the positive as well, but with some trepidation. Yes, it's the worst start since 2001, but (at 4-3-1) the 2006 team wasn't that much better at this point and they almost went to Milwaukee. The 2005 team was "2 points" better at this point, including gaudy wins over Army and Sacred Heart, losses to Michigan State and Dartmouth, and ties with Michigan State and Vermont.

What happens in the next couple of games is what matters. UMass at home and Mass-Lowell in Florida are both games we should win, even if KRACH disagrees. Teams that lose three in a row aren't going anywhere. If we win through to the championship in Florida, we'll be OK.

I'm just finally getting home from the game now, so most of what I wanted to say about it has already been thrown out there.

calgARI '07
Game reminded me of the 06 ECAC Final against Harvard.

I think this is an excellent comparison.

Doug '08
to be honest I thought we were lucky to just be down 3-0.

I was saying the same thing as the first period was winding down. Cornell came out and played pretty brutal hockey to start that game and dug themselves a hole they couldn't climb out of. That being said once they got into the flow of the game it wasn't as big a disparity as some people are suggesting. Unfortunately, it looks like Cornell isn't ready to play a full 60 min game with BU. In stretches yes, but a full game no. However, within the ECAC this team is still in the upper half and competing for a bye and home ice.

Regardless of the outcome of the game though, and Bill said it pretty well I think, what a great night except for the score. The experience of having that many Cornell fans in one place was amazing. It is a shame Cornell didn't bang home the first goal because we fans may have blown a new skylight in the roof at MSG. I'd say the crowd turnout got the attention of a few people out there, and I'm glad I could be a part of it.

CowbellGuy

Jim Hyla
McKee was great, but he had his bad spells when we all complained; too much athleticism and not enough technique for me.

And Scrivens has enough technique for you?! I can't understand why people are still defending him and why he was still playing after the first period. ...

Davenport has good position and gets himself in place to make almost every save. He does let in soft goals at times, but at least he's in the right place to make those saves.

Well, I never defended him, unless you call, "He may be the best we get.", a defense. I also said, "Scrivens worries me.", but Davenport has not looked a lot better, at least last year and his one appearance this year. I'm willing to go with Coach on this one, as neither are great.

Oat

redhair34
...This team has enough talent and work ethic to compete for the ECAC Championship...

No. I'm sorry but this team does not have enough talent.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Neither did the '96 or '97 teams.

underskill
I think the failure to land either Thiessen or Bachman as McKee's heir is coming back to haunt us now. Scrivens/Davenport was clearly plan C or D and it shows; Garman can't come fast enough

That begs the question, why was Garman left at Nanaimo for a second season if he's as good as advertised? I believe he's at least 18, possibly even 19, so youth shouldn't be the issue.

Oat

redhair34
...This team has enough talent and work ethic to compete for the ECAC Championship...

No. I'm sorry but this team does not have enough talent. They also do not have enough speed, size, and strength to wear down the opponents. If they are going to compete for any championship, they will need to make up for the lackings in some other ways (perhaps by being more organized and cohesive, perhaps by taking less risks, perhaps by focusing more on tactics). I don't know what the magic formula is, but team talent is just not there this year.

I get the feeling that most of this the "sky is falling," "we're doomed" shit is coming from folks who saw their first game of the season on Saturday. I can't really blame you for being so pessimistic, but I'm not buying it. Look around the ECAC right now--the conference is as weak as it's been since 03-04. Even if you don't subscribe to the theory that Cornell is primed to improve over the course of the season, the team is in the top three in conference right now and we've pretty much owned the ECAC's top team lately. I'm sure I'll catch some flack for that last comment, but Schafer has had Roll's number the past few seasons. They also just took 6 out of 8 points on the road the last two weeks. I'm not saying they're going run over Clarkson or sleepwalk their way to an ECAC championship, but Cornell has the talent to compete with any team in the ECAC.

redhair34
I can't really blame you for being so pessimistic, but I'm not buying it. Look around the ECAC right now--the conference is as weak as it's been since 03-04.

Absolutely agree. My take from seeing most of our competition this year is that this season may demonstrate the most parity of a league famous for its parity. Usually, the league breaks down into 3 tiers. This year, I see this:

Clarkson: slightly better than everyone else
<Everyone Else>
Union: slightly worse than everyone else

If Richter continues to put up Cornell goaltender-like stats, I can see Harvard sneaking into the Clarkson class, unfortunately. Anyway, the recent OOC results (RPI tied AIC, WSU took 3 points from SLU, UConn beat Colgate, LSSU & SCSU took down Clarkson...RIT, BU over us) suggest that the EZAC is EZ-ier than usual. The good news is that this makes the reg. season and league is more up for grabs in a down year for Cornell. Any team that puts it all together and catches fire by the end of Feb. has a shot to win the league Championship. But really, I'll never be happy about a bad year for the league.

What really frustrated me was that this loss was not strictly a matter of being overmatched, but also of being outworked. The second BU goal was a result of a BU forechecker laying a hard hit, causing a turnover and putting the puck in front of the net. The third was idiotic, as Roeszler just forgot that he was still on the ice as he went for a line shift.

It's one thin to be outplayed, but these goals had nothing to do with talent, and they where not mistakes that we're used to seeing a Cornell team make.

I"m actually more optimistic on this team's talent than most. One of the lone bright spots from Saterday's game was that Brendon Nash looked like he hadn't missed a step. Greening-Nash-Barlow is a tremendous line and they will only get better as the season progresses. I continue to be impressed with Both Mike Devin and Jordan Berk, and with the freshman class as a whole. For all the griping about Scrivens, he's been pretty good this year (I don't think you can really blame any of Saterday night's goals on him), and I think with his size he shows some nice promise for improvement.
There are glaring deficiencies on this team (PP, PK, the Breakout) that can be fixed with coaching, not talent acquisition. I think this collection of players playing efficient, full throttle, and tight hockey, can compete at the ECACs. But if they're sloppy, as they where Saterday night, they won't have a chance.

calgARI '07

Scrivens couldn't stop a beach ball and that fourth goal was both soft and an absolute back-breaker for the team who had gotten themselves back in the game. No coincidence that turned out to be the game winner.

The fourth goal soft? It was a poor angle shot sent wide that was batted out of mid air by a BU forward left open infront of the crease. What was Scrivens supposed to do?

Honestly, I can't think of a single goal that was soft. Ben wasn't fantastic, but this was not his fault.

The team in front of McKee didn't give up the looks that the team in front of Davenport/Scrivens have. I know it's the nature of the position, but the net minders are just drawing too much flack for losses that have not been there fault. I really can't think of a game that goaltending has won or lost us over the last two seasons (and that includes Davenport's performance in the home opener which I was so critical of.)

evilnaturedrobot

calgARI '07

Scrivens couldn't stop a beach ball and that fourth goal was both soft and an absolute back-breaker for the team who had gotten themselves back in the game. No coincidence that turned out to be the game winner.

The fourth goal soft? It was a poor angle shot sent wide that was batted out of mid air by a BU forward left open infront of the crease. What was Scrivens supposed to do?

Honestly, I can't think of a single goal that was soft. Ben wasn't fantastic, but this was not his fault.

The first and fourth goals were soft. On the fourth goal, the player just threw the puck on net and it deflected off of a jersey or maybe a stick just above the crease--I'm pretty sure it wasn't batted out of mid air.

I'd like to see a replay, but I recall it going in off a stick. Regardless, the fact is that the puck deflected off an object (stick, jersey, it really doesn't matter) that was positioned to the right of and behind Scrivens, who had squared to the shooter on his left.

Now, the spectacular save would have been to have reached out to his rightand deflected that wide shot into a corner, but that's asking a lot considering that the shot was well off goal. The man standing at the top of the crease behind Scrivens is the defesemen's responsibility, not the goaltender.

Edit: as Al Deflorio pointed out, Schafer also seems to be of the opinion that the puck was batted out of the air by a stick.

evilnaturedrobot
I'd like to see a replay, but I recall it going in off a stick. Regardless, the fact is that the puck deflected off an object (stick, jersey, it really doesn't matter) that was positioned to the right of and behind Scrivens, who had squared to the shooter on his left.

Now, the spectacular save would have been to have reached out to his rightand deflected that wide shot into a corner, but that's asking a lot considering that the shot was well off goal. The man standing at the top of the crease behind Scrivens is the defesemen's responsibility, not the goaltender.

Edit: as Al Defloria pointed out, Schafer also seems to be of the opinion that the puck was batted out of the air by a stick.

There is a difference between "deflected off of a stick" and "batted out of air by a stick." It may have been the former, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't the latter. We're not talking about a slapshot or a good wrist shot--he just lobbed the puck on net and it bounced off of the BU player into the net. My point is, he had ample time to recover and put himself in position to make the save. If it was a hard shot on net that was deflected, or if it was batted into the net I would agree with you. Perhaps I'm splitting hairs but that was my initial impression after watching it once in real time and once in slow motion.

redhair34

evilnaturedrobot
I'd like to see a replay, but I recall it going in off a stick. Regardless, the fact is that the puck deflected off an object (stick, jersey, it really doesn't matter) that was positioned to the right of and behind Scrivens, who had squared to the shooter on his left.

Now, the spectacular save would have been to have reached out to his rightand deflected that wide shot into a corner, but that's asking a lot considering that the shot was well off goal. The man standing at the top of the crease behind Scrivens is the defesemen's responsibility, not the goaltender.

Edit: as Al Defloria pointed out, Schafer also seems to be of the opinion that the puck was batted out of the air by a stick.

There is a difference between "deflected off of a stick" and "batted out of air by a stick." It may have been the former, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't the latter. We're not talking about a slapshot or a good wrist shot--he just lobbed the puck on net and it bounced off of the BU player into the net. My point is, he had ample time to recover and put himself in position to make the save. If it was a hard shot on net that was deflected, or if it was batted into the net I would agree with you. Perhaps I'm splitting hairs but that was my initial impression after watching it once in real time and once in slow motion.

Agreed, this is how I saw it too. The 4th goal was in my mind the softest he had let in all season, and he will definitely want the first one back as well.

Without seeing a replay I will just have to agree to disagree. But I saw it as a much faster play than others seem to have, but I could easily be wrong.

Either way, I don't see Saturday night as Scriven's fault, nor do I think too many games are going to won or lost in net this year I guess I'm just more comfortable with Scrivens than others on this board. While he has some significant flaws, I'm confident that he will give the team a chance to win if the team in front of him gives him a chance to stop the shots he faces. And there are parts of his game that I really like, mainly his size, agility, and the aggressiveness with which he challenges shooters.

calgARI '07
Not sure why on earth Roezler played over Fontas

I think Fontas was injured at the end of the Dartmouth game. When he skated through the handshake he was definitely favoring one leg.

evilnaturedrobot
Either way, I don't see Saturday night as Scriven's fault, nor do I think too many games are going to won or lost in net this year.

We've become used to having a goalie who can win a couple of games per year by making the saves that he shouldn't. Scrivens (and Davenport) may not be bad but we no longer have someone who can frequently pick up the defense when they have a lapse.

evilnaturedrobot
I'd like to see a replay, but I recall it going in off a stick. Regardless, the fact is that the puck deflected off an object (stick, jersey, it really doesn't matter) that was positioned to the right of and behind Scrivens, who had squared to the shooter on his left.

Now, the spectacular save would have been to have reached out to his rightand deflected that wide shot into a corner, but that's asking a lot considering that the shot was well off goal. The man standing at the top of the crease behind Scrivens is the defesemen's responsibility, not the goaltender.

Edit: as Al Deflorio pointed out, Schafer also seems to be of the opinion that the puck was batted out of the air by a stick.

I just watched the play again on my DVR in stop action. MacArthur skated right down the slot, skated to the outside of Mike Devin who was supposed to be marking him, raised his stick off the ice as the BU guy coming down right wing (#10?) fired it cross ice in front of Scrivens, and tipped it down and toward the goal to Scrivens's right.

Think about this from Scrivens's point of view: The puck is coming at high speed from your direct left and passing about a yard in front of you toward your right, when someone whacks at it with a stick about two feet above ice level and directs it down and to your lower right from less than a yard away. Are you going to be able to react and reach down to your right to stop it? Yes? You've got to be kidding.

Even the announcers didn't get it right after reruns, mumbling something about it hitting Scrivens's right sleeve and deflecting in. It was an amazing deflection by the kid. I'd like to see him try to do it again. Nothing soft about it. As Mike said, it "took the wind out of our sails."

Al DeFlorio

evilnaturedrobot
I'd like to see a replay, but I recall it going in off a stick. Regardless, the fact is that the puck deflected off an object (stick, jersey, it really doesn't matter) that was positioned to the right of and behind Scrivens, who had squared to the shooter on his left.

Now, the spectacular save would have been to have reached out to his rightand deflected that wide shot into a corner, but that's asking a lot considering that the shot was well off goal. The man standing at the top of the crease behind Scrivens is the defesemen's responsibility, not the goaltender.

Edit: as Al Deflorio pointed out, Schafer also seems to be of the opinion that the puck was batted out of the air by a stick.

I just watched the play again on my DVR in stop action. MacArthur skated right down the slot, skated to the outside of Mike Devin who was supposed to be marking him, raised his stick off the ice as the BU guy coming down right wing (#10?) fired it cross ice in front of Scrivens, and tipped it down and toward the goal to Scrivens's right.

Think about this from Scrivens's point of view: The puck is coming at high speed from your direct left and passing about a yard in front of you toward your right, when someone whacks at it with a stick about two feet above ice level and directs it down and to your lower right from less than a yard away. Are you going to be able to react and reach down to your right to stop it? Yes? You've got to be kidding.

Even the announcers didn't get it right after reruns, mumbling something about it hitting Scrivens's right sleeve and deflecting in. It was an amazing deflection by the kid. I'd like to see him try to do it again. Nothing soft about it. As Mike said, it "took the wind out of our sails."

I agree with Al. The big problem was that on this and other goals, our defensemen weren't marking closely or clearing people out from in front of the crease. If you let opposing forwards walk in unchallenged on your goalie, they will score goals even against the likes of Ken Dryden.

Also, some of our players seemed asleep. Was it Roeszler who set up their third or fourth goal by not watching for the pass on the breakout, even though he was the off-side wing? When the pass came, it bounced off his stick straight to a back-checking BU forward, who then walked in on Scrivens.

Swampy
Also, some of our players seemed asleep. Was it Roeszler who set up their third or fourth goal by not watching for the pass on the breakout, even though he was the off-side wing? When the pass came, it bounced off his stick straight to a back-checking BU forward, who then walked in on Scrivens.

I believe this (the third goal) occurred in the midst of a Cornell line change with Roeszler's line leaving(?) the ice, and it may have been a situation where if he had touched the puck it would have resulted in a "too many men" penalty. The CSTV announcers did mention this as it was happening and that's how it appeared to me as well. I'll watch the DVR when I have a chance to confirm.

Hey KeithK, I always enjoy your posts and humor, may I ask... are your goalies a symptom or the problem?
Cheers!
Drew

EDIT: It was always my contention McKee benefitted from an outstanding D-corps.

Drew
EDIT: It was always my contention McKee benefitted from an outstanding D-corps.

Are there goalies that haven't?

ithacat

Drew
EDIT: It was always my contention McKee benefitted from an outstanding D-corps.

Are there goalies that haven't?

I probably will get in trouble for saying this here, but WTF. I have always thought that if Ken Dryden didn't have the defense that he had while playing for Cornell and Montreal, he would have been no more remembered than his brother Dave. I add that the only time I was at a game in which he played, he lost to RPI in December 1968.

Edit: Games vs. the Caps in their first few years don't count.

ithacat

Drew
EDIT: It was always my contention McKee benefitted from an outstanding D-corps.

Are there goalies that haven't?

Ok let me rephrase, would scrivens and davenport be more successful if they had the same defense that McKee had in front of him? That is why I asked if the goalies were only a symptom to the problem, the real problem being the defense.

ursusminor

ithacat

Drew
EDIT: It was always my contention McKee benefitted from an outstanding D-corps.

Are there goalies that haven't?

I probably will get in trouble for saying this here, but WTF. I have always thought that if Ken Dryden didn't have the defense that he had while playing for Cornell and Montreal, he would have been no more remembered than his brother Dave. I add that the only time I was at a game in which he played, he lost to RPI in December 1968.

Edit: Games vs. the Caps in their first few years don't count.

In his first NHL season, Dryden, and not the defense, won the series against the Bruins for Montreal. He gave new meaning to a goalie "standing on his head." If you can ever view the series, doing so is worthwhile, if for no other reason than to watch his work.

I'm pretty sure that Roeszler's replacement had not stepped onto the ice yet, I'm assuming since the bench had a clear view that the puck had been passed to him. Either way this is a pretty poor example of communication, either someone didn't know there was a line change taking place or Roeszler wasn't aware he had been passed to.

oceanst41
I'm pretty sure that Roeszler's replacement had not stepped onto the ice yet, I'm assuming since the bench had a clear view that the puck had been passed to him. Either way this is a pretty poor example of communication, either someone didn't know there was a line change taking place or Roeszler wasn't aware he had been passed to.

I'm sure whoever was gong on for him (I think it was Barlow because he was standing up and ready to go on) was well aware that Roeszler was coming off but the puck was going towards him so it would be stupid to go on the ice and draw a Too Many Men penalty. The reason he didn't come on was because he WAS paying attention. Roeszler was not only not paying attention, he wasn't going hard to the bench, but rather just gliding there with his stick in the air not paying any attention. Until you are off the ice, you better be totally engaged in the play. The turnover was Roeszler's fault without question and Schafer affirmed that by planting him on the bench for the next 30 minutes or so.

Drew

ithacat

Drew
EDIT: It was always my contention McKee benefitted from an outstanding D-corps.

Are there goalies that haven't?

Ok let me rephrase, would scrivens and davenport be more successful if they had the same defense that McKee had in front of him? That is why I asked if the goalies were only a symptom to the problem, the real problem being the defense.

I can't comment about this year, because I haven't seen the team play yet (I got shut out of MSG tickets - that'll teach me to assume they can't possibly sell 18,200 tickets to a college hockey game in Manhattan).

Last year, if McKee had stayed for his senior season, he would not have posted his usual numbers behind that defense. But he would have looked a lot better than Scrivens or Davenport. This isn't totally fair, of course - McKee would have been a senior with 3 years of collegiate experience. Scrivens and Davenport were effectively first-year players (although Davenport had more experience than Scrivens, he didn't see much ice time in the NCAA).

McKee was an excellent collegiate goaltender - I don't want to take anything away from him or what he did here - but if he'd played for Yale or Union I bet his save percentage would have been merely ordinary in the ECAC, if not below average. He was a reflex goaltender who had a tendency to flail at shots well outside of the posts and pull himself out of position. He was big enough, and quick enough, to get away with that in college, and over time he developed into a solid netminder down low who usually made the first save, and the defense in front of him was good enough to limit high-percentage second chance shots (I never felt his rebound control was exceptional - LeNeveu and Underhill were amazing at it - but it didn't matter as much on those Cornell teams). He also had the potential to play out of his mind and steal a game on a reasonably regular basis - see the 2006 regional final at Wisconsin for an extended highlight-reel example, although unfortunately their goaltender played just as well.

Scrivens and Davenport, to date, have impressed me as pretty good young college goaltenders with some upside. Last year they weren't as good as McKee was as a freshman, and I don't think they have as much upside as he did, but they're not bad. They have different strengths and weaknesses, and on the whole I either or both of them should develop into at least competent and possibly solid if unspectacular collegiate netminders. I never got the sense that they were capable of stealing games on a reasonably regular basis, and although I don't think they're *that* far behind where McKee was as a freshman they're nowhere near where he was as a junior.

Having said all that, I think Cornell's problem on the defensive end is equal parts goaltending and defense. Their goaltenders are ok, not great, and that exposes the weaknesses of the defense. The defense, at least last year, was not particularly good, and in fact was downright bad in areas, and that exposed the weaknesses of the goaltenders.

Very well said.

The bad news is, with the current situation of normally benching the goalie after a loss neither Scivens nor Davenport are going to get the amount of ice time they need to develop their games. It's pretty routine to simply blame the goaltending after each loss.

McKee was blessed to play every night without the feeling that one mistake and it may be his last game.

I don't have much to add beyond what Tom said. Sure, McKee (and others) benefited from the defense in front of him. But from what I have seen and heard the current guys have less ability to "stand on their heads" and steal a game on occasion.

When someone figures out a way to objectively evaluate a goalie that is completely independent of the defense let me know. Until then we're stuck with the data we have and a lot of subjective interpretation.

puckstopper2
Very well said.

The bad news is, with the current situation of normally benching the goalie after a loss neither Scivens nor Davenport are going to get the amount of ice time they need to develop their games. It's pretty routine to simply blame the goaltending after each loss.

McKee was blessed to play every night without the feeling that one mistake and it may be his last game.

What "current situation"? Scrivens started at Dartmouth after losing at Hahvahd. Schafer's comments thus far give a pretty clear indication, to me at least, that Ben is the starter for now unless something really awful happens. And I certainly don't think his performance in the BU game is anywhere near reason enough to bench him in favor of Davenport against UMass.

As for "blessed," a lot of coaches and fans - Schafer included - seem to feel that rolling a goalie tandem, when it's justified by relatively equivalent skills and performance, helps both goalies elevate their games. McKee happened to be the clear starter after a certain point, but I've no doubt that if he'd had a horrible couple of games in a row Schafer would've benched him for one.

ursusminor

ithacat

Drew
EDIT: It was always my contention McKee benefitted from an outstanding D-corps.

Are there goalies that haven't?

I probably will get in trouble for saying this here, but WTF. I have always thought that if Ken Dryden didn't have the defense that he had while playing for Cornell and Montreal, he would have been no more remembered than his brother Dave. I add that the only time I was at a game in which he played, he lost to RPI in December 1968.

I don't know what kind of trouble you think we can get you into, but here are the regular season stats for the Montreal goalies in 1970-71, all of whom, I assume played behind the same defense:

Ken Dryden 6-0-0, 1.65 GAA
Rogatien Vachon 23-12-9, 2.64 GAA
Phil Myre 13-11-4, 3.11 GAA

Then, as you know, he backstopped all 20 playoff games and Montreal won the Stanley Cup.

calgARI '07
I'm sure whoever was gong on for him (I think it was Barlow because he was standing up and ready to go on) was well aware that Roeszler was coming off but the puck was going towards him so it would be stupid to go on the ice and draw a Too Many Men penalty. The reason he didn't come on was because he WAS paying attention. Roeszler was not only not paying attention, he wasn't going hard to the bench, but rather just gliding there with his stick in the air not paying any attention. Until you are off the ice, you better be totally engaged in the play. The turnover was Roeszler's fault without question and Schafer affirmed that by planting him on the bench for the next 30 minutes or so.

I totally agree. No need to step on the ice when you know it's going to be a penalty. I was more saying that whoever passed the puck to Roeszler also may not having been paying attention enough to see that a change was taking place. That being said I absolutely agree that Roeszler half-assed it to the bench and a goal resulted from it.

ursusminor

ithacat

Drew
EDIT: It was always my contention McKee benefitted from an outstanding D-corps.

Are there goalies that haven't?

I probably will get in trouble for saying this here, but WTF. I have always thought that if Ken Dryden didn't have the defense that he had while playing for Cornell and Montreal, he would have been no more remembered than his brother Dave. I add that the only time I was at a game in which he played, he lost to RPI in December 1968.

Edit: Games vs. the Caps in their first few years don't count.

To add to Beeeej:

Goalie     Years    Save% GA   Sav/Game
McKibbon   63-66   .905  2.54   24
Dryden     67-69   .939  1.59   24
LeNeveu    02-03   .938  1.29   20
McKee      04-06   .926  1.71   22

The two best goalies in the group, Dryden and LeNeveu, and I think we'd all agree. 63-69 all Harkness players, yes the defense probably got better with time, but Dryden hands down better.
The bottom line you need both good defense and goalies, but no one who has seen him more than once would not take Dryden. As an aside, you're in limited company since he only lost 4 games in his career. How to pick your spots.

Jim Hyla
The bottom line you need both good defense and goalies, but no one who has seen him more than once would not take Dryden. As an aside, you're in limited company since he only lost 4 games in his career. How to pick your spots.

One can only hope Ralph was being tongue-in-cheek. Else he missed his Aricept dose.

ugarte

ursusminor

ithacat

Drew
EDIT: It was always my contention McKee benefitted from an outstanding D-corps.

Are there goalies that haven't?

I probably will get in trouble for saying this here, but WTF. I have always thought that if Ken Dryden didn't have the defense that he had while playing for Cornell and Montreal, he would have been no more remembered than his brother Dave. I add that the only time I was at a game in which he played, he lost to RPI in December 1968.

I don't know what kind of trouble you think we can get you into, but here are the regular season stats for the Montreal goalies in 1970-71, all of whom, I assume played behind the same defense:

Ken Dryden 6-0-0, 1.65 GAA
Rogatien Vachon 23-12-9, 2.64 GAA
Phil Myre 13-11-4, 3.11 GAA

Then, as you know, he backstopped all 20 playoff games and Montreal won the Stanley Cup.

Maybe "trouble" was a poor choice of a word. Yes, I remember that he backstopped the Canadiens to the Stanley Cup that year. I remember also the game shown in my avatar. I certainly would have taken him at RPI as would anyone, but I really wonder how he would have fared without Stanowski, Orr, Lodboa, et al. at Cornell, and Lapointe, Robinson, Savard, et al. in Montreal.

We'll never know.

ursusminor
Edit: Games vs. the Caps in their first few years don't count.

You could probably say that as well today. I was at the Caps game that preceded Hanlon being fired, and, compared to that fiasco, the Red effort at MSG looked pretty decent.

ursusminor
I remember also the game shown in my avatar.

I really find it hard to believe that RPI turns out graduates who reach conclusions about anything based on a sample of one. But I suppose I could be wrong.

And wouldn't you think that with RPI's distinguished hockey history there should be a more significant accomplishment to depict in an avatar than an overtime regular season win?

Al DeFlorio
And wouldn't you think that with RPI's distinguished hockey history there should be a more significant accomplishment to depict in an avatar than an overtime regular season win?

Well, this game is known as "the game that saved RPI hockey". After Harkness left and that carpetbagger Rube Bjorkman left after one year and doing no recruiting, RPI was strongly considering leaving Div-I hockey like they did in lacrosse. That game made RPI decide that it was possible for the school to remain competitive. So, I think it is significant.


In my signature file on USCHO (which I rarely display however) there currently is a picture from the 1954 NCAA championship game. This one, however, seems more appropriate here.


Edit: Pete Chiarelli's father scoring vs. Minnesota in 1954 [board.uscho.com]

ursusminor

ugarte

ursusminor

ithacat

Drew
EDIT: It was always my contention McKee benefitted from an outstanding D-corps.

Are there goalies that haven't?

I probably will get in trouble for saying this here, but WTF. I have always thought that if Ken Dryden didn't have the defense that he had while playing for Cornell and Montreal, he would have been no more remembered than his brother Dave. I add that the only time I was at a game in which he played, he lost to RPI in December 1968.

I don't know what kind of trouble you think we can get you into, but here are the regular season stats for the Montreal goalies in 1970-71, all of whom, I assume played behind the same defense:

Ken Dryden 6-0-0, 1.65 GAA
Rogatien Vachon 23-12-9, 2.64 GAA
Phil Myre 13-11-4, 3.11 GAA

Then, as you know, he backstopped all 20 playoff games and Montreal won the Stanley Cup.

Maybe "trouble" was a poor choice of a word. Yes, I remember that he backstopped the Canadiens to the Stanley Cup that year. I remember also the game shown in my avatar. I certainly would have taken him at RPI as would anyone, but I really wonder how he would have fared without Stanowski, Orr, Lodboa, et al. at Cornell, and Lapointe, Robinson, Savard, et al. in Montreal.

We'll never know.

We do know that the coaches in Montreal felt that he was better, right out of college, than two NHL goalies already on their roster. We know that he lived up to that confidence with six straight regular season wins and a stellar playoff run that was just a preview of a Hall of Fame career. It is a given that if his defense was worse, the Canadiens would have won fewer games but it is also a fact that, though the Canadiens had the opportunity to try another goalie in front of that stellar D, they didn't.

ugarte

ursusminor

ugarte

ursusminor

ithacat

Drew
EDIT: It was always my contention McKee benefitted from an outstanding D-corps.

Are there goalies that haven't?

I probably will get in trouble for saying this here, but WTF. I have always thought that if Ken Dryden didn't have the defense that he had while playing for Cornell and Montreal, he would have been no more remembered than his brother Dave. I add that the only time I was at a game in which he played, he lost to RPI in December 1968.

I don't know what kind of trouble you think we can get you into, but here are the regular season stats for the Montreal goalies in 1970-71, all of whom, I assume played behind the same defense:

Ken Dryden 6-0-0, 1.65 GAA
Rogatien Vachon 23-12-9, 2.64 GAA
Phil Myre 13-11-4, 3.11 GAA

Then, as you know, he backstopped all 20 playoff games and Montreal won the Stanley Cup.

Maybe "trouble" was a poor choice of a word. Yes, I remember that he backstopped the Canadiens to the Stanley Cup that year. I remember also the game shown in my avatar. I certainly would have taken him at RPI as would anyone, but I really wonder how he would have fared without Stanowski, Orr, Lodboa, et al. at Cornell, and Lapointe, Robinson, Savard, et al. in Montreal.

We'll never know.

We do know that the coaches in Montreal felt that he was better, right out of college, than two NHL goalies already on their roster. We know that he lived up to that confidence with six straight regular season wins and a stellar playoff run that was just a preview of a Hall of Fame career. It is a given that if his defense was worse, the Canadiens would have won fewer games but it is also a fact that, though the Canadiens had the opportunity to try another goalie in front of that stellar D, they didn't.

This has been posted elsewhere, but IMHO it makes a very convincing case for Dryden's greatness: [www.canada.com]

Swampy
This has been posted elsewhere, but IMHO it makes a very convincing case for Dryden's greatness: [www.canada.com]

It does, but there is no way anyone who wasn't following the NHL in 1970-1971 can really understand how dominant a team those Orr-and-Esposito-led Bruins were and what an incredible upset that was.

Swampy
This has been posted elsewhere, but IMHO it makes a very convincing case for Dryden's greatness: [www.canada.com]

Wait, I'm confused: was Dryden's greatness being disputed by someone?

Josh '99

Swampy
This has been posted elsewhere, but IMHO it makes a very convincing case for Dryden's greatness: [www.canada.com]

Wait, I'm confused: was Dryden's greatness being disputed by someone?

ursusminor

Josh '99

Swampy
This has been posted elsewhere, but IMHO it makes a very convincing case for Dryden's greatness: [www.canada.com]

Wait, I'm confused: was Dryden's greatness being disputed by someone?

Sorry, I skimmed some of this thread.

Swampy
This has been posted elsewhere, but IMHO it makes a very convincing case for Dryden's greatness: [www.canada.com]

If getting Dryden was only the #2 trade in Canadiens history, what was #1?