Goalie Choice for Atlantic City

I have been to four games this season (law school tends to get in the way of my trips to Lynah). Iles has been between the pipes for all of them. So, I have not had the chance to witness Garman playing firsthand. Garman has looked impressive lately against Yale in New Haven and then in Game Three against Quinnipiac. According to the poll on here, we prefer generally Iles over Garman. I belonged to the Iles camp before last weekend but Garman was very impressive when we needed him in Game Three. I was wondering what the general consensus was after the Quarterfinals, where Garman gave impressive performances on Friday and Sunday, regarding who we should play against Dartmouth tomorrow.

I know I'm a Colgate fan, but the way I see it is that for Cornell to have won last Saturday, he would have needed a shutout. You can't ask for much more than what he did. It was the offense's fault that you guys did not sweep.

I would bet that Schafer sticks with the standard schedule; Garman on Friday, Iles on Saturday. Both goalies are very good, even though at times one looks better than the other. The save % for the two is almost identical: Iles 0.921, Garman 0.922. For the season overall, Garman may have had the tougher schedule with 2 starts against Yale, one against Union and one against UNH. Iles moves faster from side to side, but Garman is much taller (Iles 5' 9", Garman 6' 1"). I think Cornell is very fortunate to have both of them; I bet they will be even better next year.

gatefan
I know I'm a Colgate fan, but the way I see it is that for Cornell to have won last Saturday, he would have needed a shutout. You can't ask for much more than what he did. It was the offense's fault that you guys did not sweep.

Speaking of shutouts -- seems like it's been a long time since CU hasn't thrown one shutout (not including USA development team) in a season. Now would be a good time.

I think Garmen starts, but i dont think either will be the reason we lose.. we need to score.

jeff '84

gatefan
I know I'm a Colgate fan, but the way I see it is that for Cornell to have won last Saturday, he would have needed a shutout. You can't ask for much more than what he did. It was the offense's fault that you guys did not sweep.

Speaking of shutouts -- seems like it's been a long time since CU hasn't thrown one shutout (not including USA development team) in a season. Now would be a good time.

Scrivens is missed.

BigRedHockeyFan

jeff '84

gatefan
I know I'm a Colgate fan, but the way I see it is that for Cornell to have won last Saturday, he would have needed a shutout. You can't ask for much more than what he did. It was the offense's fault that you guys did not sweep.

Speaking of shutouts -- seems like it's been a long time since CU hasn't thrown one shutout (not including USA development team) in a season. Now would be a good time.

Scrivens is missed.

I'm as big of a fan of Scrivens as anyone, but offense is their problem, not goalie perfomance. Not sure he will make that grand of a difference.

Also, I think they will continue to rotate, even though I'm an Iles fan.

jeff '84
Speaking of shutouts -- seems like it's been a long time since CU hasn't thrown one shutout (not including USA development team) in a season.

Cornell had no shutouts in the three seasons immediately prior to Schafer becoming coach.

upprdeck
I think Garmen starts, but i dont think either will be the reason we lose.. we need to score.

I agree 100%... except with the spelling and punctuation.

ajh258

upprdeck
I think Garmen starts, but i dont think either will be the reason we lose.. we need to score.

I agree 100%... except with the spelling and punctuation.

Hypocrite.

TimV

ajh258

upprdeck
I think Garmen starts, but i dont think either will be the reason we lose.. we need to score.

I agree 100%... except with the spelling and punctuation.

Hypocrite.

TimV

ajh258

upprdeck
I think Garmen starts, but i dont think either will be the reason we lose.. we need to score.

I agree 100%... except with the spelling and punctuation.

Hypocrite.

Ha! I didn't even remember that until you mentioned it!


"All right, we'll call it a draw!"

BigRedHockeyFan
Scrivens is missed.

I agree completely, but so are players up front like Greening and R. Nash who would generate the offense that we so desperately need. Cornell's defense and Iles played superbly in Game Two against Quinnipac. There was just no offensive production. Scrivens might have been able to hold Quinnipiac longer and given Cornell a chance in overtime. That is the only difference that I think he might have made. Iles performed amazingly, especially when one considers he is only a freshman. It almost seems like this team needs the pressure of overtime to play at their best. They gave up two goals in the third period of Game Three but then came back to play 5-on-5 in overtime as if they were on a powerplay.

jeff '84
Speaking of shutouts -- seems like it's been a long time since CU hasn't thrown one shutout (not including USA development team) in a season.

Wasn't Cornell's last shutout against Union in the 2010 ECAC Championship game?

I have been leaning toward Iles starting against Dartmouth. He managed to hold D-mouth to a tie and a loss during the regular season. Also, if Colgate-Yale goes as most expect it will, that will put Garman against Yale in the final. Garman gave Cornell the chance to win in New Haven.

Trotsky

jeff '84
Speaking of shutouts -- seems like it's been a long time since CU hasn't thrown one shutout (not including USA development team) in a season.

Cornell had no shutouts in the three seasons immediately prior to Schafer becoming coach.

Wow,thanks Trotsky.

jeff '84

Trotsky

jeff '84
Speaking of shutouts -- seems like it's been a long time since CU hasn't thrown one shutout (not including USA development team) in a season.

Cornell had no shutouts in the three seasons immediately prior to Schafer becoming coach.

Wow,thanks TrotskySchafer.

FYP

marty

jeff '84

Trotsky

jeff '84
Speaking of shutouts -- seems like it's been a long time since CU hasn't thrown one shutout (not including USA development team) in a season.

Cornell had no shutouts in the three seasons immediately prior to Schafer becoming coach.

Wow,thanks Trotsky Schafer Elliott.

FYP

FYP

Good one. "Holy Grail" always cracks me up.

Greenberg '97

marty

jeff '84

Trotsky

jeff '84
Speaking of shutouts -- seems like it's been a long time since CU hasn't thrown one shutout (not including USA development team) in a season.

Cornell had no shutouts in the three seasons immediately prior to Schafer becoming coach.

Wow,thanks Trotsky Schafer Elliott to the System.

FYP

FYP

Garman fixed the posts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Greenberg '97

marty

jeff '84

Trotsky

jeff '84
Speaking of shutouts -- seems like it's been a long time since CU hasn't thrown one shutout (not including USA development team) in a season.

Cornell had no shutouts in the three seasons immediately prior to Schafer becoming coach.

Wow,thanks Trotsky Schafer Elliott.

GARMAN!

FYP

FYP

jeff '84
Speaking of shutouts -- seems like it's been a long time since CU hasn't thrown one shutout (not including USA development team) in a season. Now would be a good time.

Boy, it does seem like a long time. Doesn't it?

Swampy

jeff '84
Speaking of shutouts -- seems like it's been a long time since CU hasn't thrown one shutout (not including USA development team) in a season. Now would be a good time.

Boy, it does seem like a long time. Doesn't it?

jeff '84

Swampy

jeff '84
Speaking of shutouts -- seems like it's been a long time since CU hasn't thrown one shutout (not including USA development team) in a season. Now would be a good time.

Boy, it does seem like a long time. Doesn't it?

So when was the last time Cornell went through a season without two shutouts?

Swampy

jeff '84

Swampy

jeff '84
Speaking of shutouts -- seems like it's been a long time since CU hasn't thrown one shutout (not including USA development team) in a season. Now would be a good time.

Boy, it does seem like a long time. Doesn't it?

So when was the last time Cornell went through a season without two shutouts?

heh - y2k apparently. Now would be a good time for Iles to get HIS first.

WOW, was Garman great. He seemed always in perfect position, and rarely had to scramble. Does Schafer stray from the goalie rotation and try to ride Garman at least one more night?

To me, it has to be Garman tomorrow. He's been great in his last three games (with the exception of one soft goal against Q in game 3).

I bet it will be Iles.

That poor bear!

marty

Greenberg '97

marty

jeff '84

Trotsky

jeff '84
Speaking of shutouts -- seems like it's been a long time since CU hasn't thrown one shutout (not including USA development team) in a season.

Cornell had no shutouts in the three seasons immediately prior to Schafer becoming coach.

Wow,thanks Trotsky Schafer Elliott to the System.

FYP

FYP

Garman fixed the posts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Power of Positive Woofing.

Garman was amazing last night from what I saw on CBS College Sports. Sadly, I could not make the trip over to Atlantic City. There was no better time for him to hit a career high in saves and post his first shutout than last night. Well, save for maybe tonight...

I think Schafer will stay with the rotation. However, that would put a lot of pressure on Iles who is only a freshman to play against Yale. It would be a huge vote of confidence in him though. The last time Cornell beat Yale was in the 2007-08 Season. It was disappointing that during my time on the Hill, I never go to see Cornell beat Yale. Let's hope that Cornell can play the game they need to so that they can beat them when it really counts.

If Iles plans and wins, who'll be the tournament MVP? Garman goes 3-0 but doesn't play the final game. One of the Yale players in a losing cause? Schafer I assume is thinking of what it will take to win the game. And based on how we played last night, I think we've got a chance. We need a few lucky bounces, and with the Boardwalk Hall ice, there'll certainly be bounces.

I was very disappointed to see Iles start in goal in the ECAC final. As the game progressed, I just simply got angry. A team can ride a hot goalie a long way, and Garman had it over Iles recently. No goalie wins a game, and other posts talked about needing better offense. But goalies can lose games, and demotivate a team. A hot goalie keeps a team in a game and they can often find a way to win in spite of lesser talent or experience. Tonight, in picking Iles, I thought Shafer failed to give Cornell the best chance to win against a Yale team who recently has shown weaknesses. Sticking with a rotation is one thing for a regular season, another for a championship run.

trainbow
I was very disappointed to see Iles start in goal in the ECAC final. As the game progressed, I just simply got angry. A team can ride a hot goalie a long way, and Garman had it over Iles recently. No goalie wins a game, and other posts talked about needing better offense. But goalies can lose games, and demotivate a team. A hot goalie keeps a team in a game and they can often find a way to win in spite of lesser talent or experience. Tonight, in picking Iles, I thought Shafer failed to give Cornell the best chance to win against a Yale team who recently has shown weaknesses. Sticking with a rotation is one thing for a regular season, another for a championship run.

I disagree. Iles didn't get blown out last Saturday. It's not as if Garman was the overwhelming hot hand. Garman hadn't played back to back nights all season. In 2002 (the last time there was a CU platoon), Schafer rode Underhill into the playoffs and the team suffered consecutive Saturday loses. If I recall correctly, Denver and Miami have both relied on platoons to get to Frozen Fours or win championships in recent memory. Andy Iles is not the reason Cornell lost tonight. Yale was the superior team top to bottom. It's unfortunate Iles will have to wait seven plus months to get another shot but the experience of playing tonight will also help him over the next three years.

It's a disappointing end to a season that, in the end, exceeded expectations.

Chris '03

Garman hadn't played back to back nights all season.

He played back to back nights in Florida.

Chris '03
It's a disappointing end to a season that, in the end, exceeded expectations.

Agreed.

You had a goalie that had been in net for the three victories of the four tournament games that Cornell had played, the last a shutout. Mike says in the pre-game that he picked Iles because it's Saturday, Andy's night, and Garman seemed tired after playing in the overheated rink in AC. (Strangely, Rondeau seemed just fine after playing the day before in the same rink.) I think that Yale was destined to win, but I think Mike's choice made it more embarrassing for Iles and for the team than it had to be.

Wastherein70
You had a goalie that had been in net for the three victories of the four tournament games that Cornell had played, the last a shutout. Mike says in the pre-game that he picked Iles because it's Saturday, Andy's night, and Garman seemed tired after playing in the overheated rink in AC. (Strangely, Rondeau seemed just fine after playing the day before in the same rink.) I think that Yale was destined to win, but I think Mike's choice made it more embarrassing for Iles and for the team than it had to be.

I think he also said that Yale had beaten Garman twice and hadn't seen Iles and he was going on a hunch. Rondeau did have more recovery time than Garman and he only faced 22 shots against Colgate, so he would have been fresher than Garman. Who knows if Garman would have made a difference, though it's highly doubtful. Yale is simply much better than Cornell right now. As good as Scrivens was his last two years he was 0-5 against Yale. Goalie play isn't the main issue.

Besides its a conditioning thing. Iles and Garman have been platooning all season. Rondeau hasn't. He's been the man all season.So as a runner I know the more you run the more you can run in the future. Probably similar for goalies and endurance

Goaltending was *not* the problem in this game. I thought Iles was fantastic positionally and had good reflexes, though he did start flailing a bit as he learned he couldn't trust the D with Yale running up the score. Defense and offense were the problems: you make your life very difficult if you give up 6 goals, and you can't possibly win if you don't score a single goal.

We would have lost to Yale no matter who was in goal. But with Garman in goal, I'm convinced it would have been a more competitive game.

dbilmes
We would have lost to Yale no matter who was in goal. But with Garman in goal, I'm convinced it would have been a more competitive game.

I'm not.

Jim Hyla

dbilmes
We would have lost to Yale no matter who was in goal. But with Garman in goal, I'm convinced it would have been a more competitive game.

I'm not.

I have to agree. I was hoping to see Garman between the pipes, but I'm afraid all that would have changed would have been the guy facing all the pucks. The observations about Yale taking it to us by being faster, always on the move, passing more crisply, almost never hesistating, etc., accurately depict what was happening last night.

Could Garman have stood on his head and made a few more saves? Maybe. But without a drastic change in the flow of the game, it would not have been more competitive. Think back to our ECAC semi in 2003 against Brown. The final score was 2-0. Looks close, right? A real competitive game? IMHO, hardly. Our guys pounded them into submission all game long. Yann Danis is no slouch, but he couldn't make up for what was happening on the rest of the ice.

No knock against Garman and Iles, but they weren't about to make the difference last night.

Killer

Jim Hyla

dbilmes
We would have lost to Yale no matter who was in goal. But with Garman in goal, I'm convinced it would have been a more competitive game.

I'm not.

I have to agree. I was hoping to see Garman between the pipes, but I'm afraid all that would have changed would have been the guy facing all the pucks. The observations about Yale taking it to us by being faster, always on the move, passing more crisply, almost never hesistating, etc., accurately depict what was happening last night.

Could Garman have stood on his head and made a few more saves? Maybe. But without a drastic change in the flow of the game, it would not have been more competitive. Think back to our ECAC semi in 2003 against Brown. The final score was 2-0. Looks close, right? A real competitive game? IMHO, hardly. Our guys pounded them into submission all game long. Yann Danis is no slouch, but he couldn't make up for what was happening on the rest of the ice.

No knock against Garman and Iles, but they weren't about to make the difference last night.

Well said - thinking back a just a few years it wasn't just Leneveu or McKee being spectacular to put up all those shutouts, it was because we had the players (defenseman AND forwards) who could play an effective style that gave the other team very few real scoring chances during the course of the game. Unfortunately, not so this year.

Larry72

Killer

Jim Hyla

dbilmes
We would have lost to Yale no matter who was in goal. But with Garman in goal, I'm convinced it would have been a more competitive game.

I'm not.

I have to agree. I was hoping to see Garman between the pipes, but I'm afraid all that would have changed would have been the guy facing all the pucks. The observations about Yale taking it to us by being faster, always on the move, passing more crisply, almost never hesistating, etc., accurately depict what was happening last night.

Could Garman have stood on his head and made a few more saves? Maybe. But without a drastic change in the flow of the game, it would not have been more competitive. Think back to our ECAC semi in 2003 against Brown. The final score was 2-0. Looks close, right? A real competitive game? IMHO, hardly. Our guys pounded them into submission all game long. Yann Danis is no slouch, but he couldn't make up for what was happening on the rest of the ice.

No knock against Garman and Iles, but they weren't about to make the difference last night.

Well said - thinking back a just a few years it wasn't just Leneveu or McKee being spectacular to put up all those shutouts, it was because we had the players (defenseman AND forwards) who could play an effective style that gave the other team very few real scoring chances during the course of the game. Unfortunately, not so this year.

One striking (and consistent) theme was how often we were significantly outshot by the opponents, often by a 2 to 1 margin. Ironically, last night the shots were only something like 28-21, which was no reflection on the actual game itself. In our best seasons, we would dominate in SOG as well as puck possession. This team never came close in either category. All-in-all, a bit of a miracle we made it as far as we did.

scoop85
One striking (and consistent) theme was how often we were significantly outshot by the opponents, often by a 2 to 1 margin. Ironically, last night the shots were only something like 28-21, which was no reflection on the actual game itself. In our best seasons, we would dominate in SOG as well as puck possession. This team never came close in either category. All-in-all, a bit of a miracle we made it as far as we did.

On the shots margin, I found the highly negative shots-on-goal differential for this year's team disturbing and find it part of a disturbing trend. I'd like to go back to our traditional dominance there.

That being said, it was a magical, somewhat surprising run. Here's hoping that 2011 ~ 2001, 2012 ~ 2002, etc. etc.

dbilmes
We would have lost to Yale no matter who was in goal. But with Garman in goal, I'm convinced it would have been a more competitive game.

If Cornell hadn't taken a penalty less than three minutes into the game and if our captain hadn't hit someone from behind later in the period (both penalties leading to Yale goals), it might have been "a more competitive game." When you play a team with the skill and scoring capability that Yale has you don't hand them gratuitous opportunities like that and expect to win. You play a smart game and force them to earn every scoring opportunity the hard way.

Al DeFlorio
if our captain hadn't hit someone from behind later in the period

Those pesky Devin twins are difficult to keep straight - even when they have nameplates and numbers!

Al DeFlorio

dbilmes
We would have lost to Yale no matter who was in goal. But with Garman in goal, I'm convinced it would have been a more competitive game.

If Cornell hadn't taken a penalty less than three minutes into the game and if our captain hadn't hit someone from behind later in the period (both penalties leading to Yale goals), it might have been "a more competitive game." When you play a team with the skill and scoring capability that Yale has you don't hand them gratuitous opportunities like that and expect to win. You play a smart game and force them to earn every scoring opportunity the hard way.

While this is certainly a truism, I think about the only way to skate with Yale last night was rocket sleds and amphetamines.

Trotsky

Al DeFlorio

dbilmes
We would have lost to Yale no matter who was in goal. But with Garman in goal, I'm convinced it would have been a more competitive game.

If Cornell hadn't taken a penalty less than three minutes into the game and if our captain hadn't hit someone from behind later in the period (both penalties leading to Yale goals), it might have been "a more competitive game." When you play a team with the skill and scoring capability that Yale has you don't hand them gratuitous opportunities like that and expect to win. You play a smart game and force them to earn every scoring opportunity the hard way.

While this is certainly a truism, I think about the only way to skate with Yale last night was rocket sleds and amphetamines.

I don't disagree, but the major disappointment for me in that game was that we didn't play smart enough to at least give ourselves the best possible chance to win, slim though it may have been. When a team has clearly superior talent to yours, you can't be too disappointed that you lost to them. You can be disappointed that your team didn't do all that it had the ability to control (e.g., staying out of the penalty box against a team with a superb man-up game) to give itself the best chance.