Goaltending Recruit

It appears Cornell's recruiting class is set for next year, but look for the announcement of a goaltender coming in next year. Cornell coaches were not happy with McKee this year.

[Q]stud28 Wrote:

It appears Cornell's recruiting class is set for next year, but look for the announcement of a goaltender coming in next year. Cornell coaches were not happy with McKee this year. [/Q]I quote from the stat line above:

[Q] David McKee (1.84 / 0.920)[/Q]As a freshman. What exactly were the coaches looking for?

Not happy with McKee? Did I miss something? I thought Schafer just liked to have three goalies on hand at all times - weren't we kind of expecting another goalie?

[Q]Big Ben 03 Wrote:

Not happy with McKee? Did I miss something? I thought Schafer just liked to have three goalies on hand at all times - weren't we kind of expecting another goalie? [/Q]Not to mention there were a lot of reports this year that the staff is disenchanted with Chabot - though I have any idea if that rumor is true. Whether or not the coaching staff was pleased with McKee (and it would be hard to believe that they are that upset), we need another goalie on the roster.

[Q]stud28 Wrote:

It appears Cornell's recruiting class is set for next year, but look for the announcement of a goaltender coming in next year. Cornell coaches were not happy with McKee this year. [/Q]

Category?

Alex I'll take Demons from under the bridge for $.02

Answer: Troll

Question: What inhabits the forum during the off season?

There's no surprise that CU is likely looking to recruit a goaltender to come in next year. We carry three. Coach is not likely to get caught with one healthy (or sort of healthy) goaltender as happened several years ago. It's hard to be unhappy about the defensive stats we put us this year, though.

god, do you really think every goalie is as solid as leneveu? cornell was really lucky to have landed david leneveu, but david mckee really stepped it up his freshman year. coming into this season, goal tending was the biggest question mark in my mind. mckee erased that question mark really quickly.

it was expected that the coaching staff would be looking another goalie, and i'm actually surprised that it's taken this long. i would have been nervous if we didn't pick up another goalie.

Let's see, behind this year's team, McKee put up 1.84/.92. With last year's team, Lenny put up 1.2/.94. Put last year's team in front of McKee (remember Murray? Bâby? Paolini?) and his numbers would have been right there. Goaltending was not this year's problem, no matter what the trolls seem to think. McKee should be getting more respect than he currently does, not less.

thats pretty funny homo, quite creative. lets just wait and see who the goalie is for next years team, its the new kid coming in, not mckee

FWIW, I know that Jordan Alford who will be at RPI next season was also recruited by Cornell among others. He turned down a visit to Ithaca and only visited RPI and BU. I found this out from a reliable source -- Jordan's father. Anyway, this shows that Cornell is looking for a goalie.

[Q]ursaminor Wrote:

FWIW, I know that Jordan Alford who will be at RPI next season was also recruited by Cornell among others. He turned down a visit to Ithaca and only visited RPI and BU. [/Q]
Kid must enjoy facing a lot of shots.

i think it is obvious that cornell will want to carry 3 keepers. i think to speculate over why besides the need to carry 3 may not give credit to some of the players. anyway, we shall see. i also think that coach going to a 2 goalie system to start the season next year would not validate this claim that they are disappointed with mckee since besides this year, the duo has been the trend. we shall see..

[Q]Al DeFlorio Wrote:

Kid must enjoy facing a lot of shots.
[/Q]

Yes, exactly. Have you paid attention to the box scores of the Canmore Eagles this season? Most have been discussed on the RPI Recruits thread on USCHO. Example, the game that eliminated Canmore from the playoffs, a 1-0 game where Alford made 35 saves and stopped a penalty shot:


Of course, there is also the fact that both Marsters and Kurk are graduating, and the only returning goalie is Fairfield transfer Andrew Martin.

[Q]since besides this year, the duo has been the trend[/Q]

last year as well

Second that! How on earth could you complain about the preformance he has put out so far?

I dunno, I tend to agree with the poster that doesnt leave his email address and calls people "homo".

McKee did no worse than his predecessors. He was actualy very similar to LeNeveu, Underhill, and Elliot. All outstanding in the regular season and very ordinary in the playoffs. McKee has three more years to prove that he can perform when the games matter most. Although LeNeveu, Underhill, and Elliot were not primarily at fault in the years Cornell was elmininated in the NCAA's, they were not at their best when it mattered most. LeNeveu against UNH. Underhill against UNH. Elliot against North Dakota and Lake Superior State. The respective Cornell teams did not perform their best at times either in these games, but the goalie is who we always look to.
Nothing wrong with McKee, but there is a lot wrong with Chabot, hence the need for another capable (at the very least) goaltender.

I think Cornell played very well in all of those games except for the first ten minutes against Lake State and the final 30 against NoDak (when they ran out of gas against a rested foe).

In particular, Cornell's game against UNH in '02 may have been the best game the team played that year. It is possible to play well and run into a better team.

I'll agree with you that they played well against UNH and Lake State, but the goaltending was not up to par with the rest of the year in either game.

I'm not sure I'd completely agree with you, Ari... Elliott at least was at his best in the playoffs, at least for a couple years in a row in Placid.

i'd have to say that Chabot wouldnt even have a jersey if there was that much wrong with him, Ari. i expect he'll be the #2 guy next year. anyway, i'd love to hear what is so bad about the kid anyway? i'm not saying he's lenny or mckee, and todd marr was a solid player with past experience (and a senior) but chabot does wear the shirt for Goaltender U.

I think to say that Lenny wasn't up to par in the playoffs because of the UNH loss is silly. Keep in mind he won us 6 playoff games up to that point. Yeah, he was a bit less than usual against UNH, but two or three inches on the high-stick or last-second-mask save play, and you'd be signing a different tune... well, unless we lost the title game... i guess he woulda choked then too.

[Q]calgARI '07 Wrote:

McKee did no worse than his predecessors. He was actualy very similar to LeNeveu, Underhill, and Elliot. All outstanding in the regular season and very ordinary in the playoffs. McKee has three more years to prove that he can perform when the games matter most. Although LeNeveu, Underhill, and Elliot were not primarily at fault in the years Cornell was elmininated in the NCAA's, they were not at their best when it mattered most. LeNeveu against UNH. Underhill against UNH. Elliot against North Dakota and Lake Superior State. The respective Cornell teams did not perform their best at times either in these games, but the goalie is who we always look to. [/Q]
I'm not sure how you can say the back-to-back ECAC Tournament MVP was "very ordinary in the playoffs". And it makes little sense to hold up the fact that they eventually lost to somebody in the NCAAs, when as a rule we'll be facing our toughest competition of the season, as a black mark against our goalies.

Elliott had one bad period against Lake State, in our first NCAA tournament appearance in five years, but you have to remember that in 1996 we didn't expect to do anything on the national stage. This was the team that had lost 6-2 to Michigan State, 7-1 to BU, and 11-0 to Colorado College. In 1997, remember that the 6-2 loss to North Dakota included two ENGs at the end. After beating Miami 4-2, Elliott gave up 4 goals to the eventual national champion. Yeah, he really sucked.

And LeNeveu's postseason GAA was 1.36. Assuming you mean "NCAA tournament" when you say "postseason", that was a whopping 1.80. Yeah, too bad we couldn't have had a real goaltender.

You have to take Ari's comments with a grain of salt. Remember...this is the guy who said that Knoepfli shouldn't even dress next season

I assume part of the thought that the goalies were not at their best in the postseason (or at least the NCAAs) relates to the types of goals given up, rather than the stats (particularly because the stats are in large part due to the team defensive system employed). For my part, I agree that LeNeveu could have played better against UNH last year, although I wouldn't blame him for the loss (although I do blame him for 1 or 2 of the goals).

Also, Elliot was stellar in the ECACs -- better in fact than in the regular season.

I'm with you Rancor. Whenever I have watched Chabot in practice or in the Red/White games, he seems to have decent technique and have at least average upside. However, Schafer does not agree. He has said as much on a few occasions including one point where I believe he said that Chabot would never play.

At no point did I ever say that Knoepfli should not dress next season. I argued that he underachieved offensively this season and that there are going to be regulars from this year sitting out next year with 2 more forwards coming in than are leaving. That is until he really stepped up in the playoffs and thus solidified himself as a leader and someone that can fulfill his offensive potential. Thanks for taking what I said out of context though.

CULater understands what I was saying regarding past goaltenders. You can talk about numbers all you want, but GAA in particular applies just as much to team defense (which was obviously outstanding the last three seasons in particular) as to goaltending. How LeNeveu got ECAC Playoff MVP over Paolini is beyond me. The third period goals against Harvard were questionable whereas Paolini scored the OT winner in the championship game. Even if LeNeveu was amazing in the ECAC playoffs, which he was not, the guy that scores the OT winner in the championship game should get playoff MVP (IE Kolarik in 2002).
Many will likely disagree, but I thought LeNeveu was shaky throughout last year's playoffs. Cornell's defensive scheme was hands down the best in the NCAA so they could make it as far as they did on shaky goaltending, IMO. Cornell broke down for ten minutes after the disallowed goal and LeNeveu did not come up with big saves when he needed to. In my eyes, that is the bottom line.

[Q]calgARI '07 Wrote:

At no point did I ever say that Knoepfli should not dress next season. I argued that he underachieved offensively this season and that there are going to be regulars from this year sitting out next year with 2 more forwards coming in than are leaving. That is until he really stepped up in the playoffs and thus solidified himself as a leader and someone that can fulfill his offensive potential. Thanks for taking what I said out of context though. [/Q]


Maybe I didn't get the exact quote right, but I don't think I took what you said out of context. So I dug up the quote.

"Wouldn't be surprised if Knoepfli and McCutcheon both got bounced from the lineup next year with more forward coming in than leaving."

In any event...it doesn't really matter. I was just saying we should take your comments with a grain of salt since you tend to exaggerate a bit. Not the best judge of talent, yet you love to make yourself sound like the authority.

Wow. You disagree with my analysis so you come down on my judgement of talent, which there is really no way you can accurately pass judgement on. And I also love to make myself sound like an authority. Nice work judging my tone from a messageboard. You have a profound talent that I wish I could have been blessed with. You disagree with my assessments, that's fine. I did nothing to warrant your attacks though.

Amen to that displaced cornellian, a regular barry melrose on our hands

[Q]DisplacedCornellian Wrote:

[Q]calgARI '07 Wrote:

At no point did I ever say that Knoepfli should not dress next season. I argued that he underachieved offensively this season and that there are going to be regulars from this year sitting out next year with 2 more forwards coming in than are leaving. That is until he really stepped up in the playoffs and thus solidified himself as a leader and someone that can fulfill his offensive potential. Thanks for taking what I said out of context though.[/Q]


Maybe I didn't get the exact quote right, but I don't think I took what you said out of context. So I dug up the quote.

"Wouldn't be surprised if Knoepfli and McCutcheon both got bounced from the lineup next year with more forward coming in than leaving."
[/Q]

This quote from Ari isn't saying that he believes Knoepfli SHOULD be dropped, but that he believes that he WILL be. There is a difference. Although I disagree with that particular statement, the quote you "dug up" backs up Ari's statement.

blah, blah, blah

somebody wake me when we actually sign a new goalie

thank you for your support!
however.... although i remember reading here that Schafer said such things abot Chabot, i dont recall ever reading it in any interview, radio transcript or game reports. if he has said Louis wouldnt play, I'd love to see some proof. Untill then, if he dresses, hes good enough to play. he wouldnt be here if he wasn't, and Schafer has a reputation for keeping players that are in fact good enough in suits, although they are mostly forwards.
anyway there was much speculation as late as the winter break that McKee would surender the starting spot in favor of Marr, but he suprised everyone (well maby not Big Mike) and stayed put. you gotta go with the hot goalie.

also i'm hoping my tone, and critisizim, isnt too harsh, i'm not trying to flame you Ari... engaged discussion and all, you know.

Just because he dresses doesn't mean Schafer would ever want him playing. You can dress as many goalies as you want and he's obviously a useful asset in practice, so in the event of injuries or game DQ's it's always a good idea to have extra goalies dressed for games, but the fact that he wasn't even brought on most trips this year seems like a good indicator.

I was under the impression that teams are only allowed to bring two goalies on the road, no?

[Q]calgARI '07 Wrote:

Cornell's defensive scheme was hands down the best in the NCAA so they could make it as far as they did on shaky goaltending, IMO. Cornell broke down for ten minutes after the disallowed goal and LeNeveu did not come up with big saves when he needed to. In my eyes, that is the bottom line. [/Q]

No team, no mater how good their scheme makes it "far" in the playoffs on "shaky goaltending". Yes, LeNeveu allowed a couple of bad goals last year but I would not call him "shaky". If he was shaky, how did they get as far as they did all season....and don't tell me it was ALL about the scheme.

Vermont, Brown, Mercyhurst. tOSU, BGSU, WMich all brought three goalies to Lynah this year. I think what you are actually limited in is the number of players overall you can travel with. So I guess picking McLeod over Chabot would be the reasoning, though that might also prove my point about Chabot's chances of playing.

Let me just ask this: if LeNeveu was as amazing last year as his numbers indicated (best ever GAA), why didn't he win the Hobey?
How many genuine scoring chances did opponents have on Cornell all season?
Last year's TEAM was unbelievable and this was exploited playing in the ECAC. Some people hang their success on LeNeveu's numbers. I just don't see it that way. His GAA attributed more to the team, IMO. The majority of the people who voted for the Hobey agreed with this assessment as evidenced by LeNeveu not winning.
LeNeveu was and is a good goalie, but was not the superhuman last year that some people are insinuating.
I'm sure people will disagree and that's fine, but that is how I saw it at the time and how I see it now.

[Q]calgARI '07 Wrote:

Let me just ask this: if LeNeveu was as amazing last year as his numbers indicated (best ever GAA), why didn't he win the Hobey? [/Q]
Simple answer: it was judged by the voters that Peter Senja of Colorado College was a more deserving of the award. Both had amazing seasons.

But, you neglect to mention that by being named as a "Hobey Hat Trick" finalist (I still dislike that there are "finalists" chosen from the pool of 10 Finalists) LeNeveu was either #2 or #3 in the voting. Which is pretty impressive. The local Buffalo media had all but assumed that LeNeveu would win because of the records set.

Some may argue that there were other factors involved, such as the previous 3 winners all being defensive players, or East-West voting biases, player vs. system (as you argue) etc. I happen to think that Senja was deserving. I also believe that if you put LeNeveu's 2002-2003 numbers in this season's pool of candidates, he may have had a better chance of winning.

[Q]How many genuine scoring chances did opponents have on Cornell all season? [/Q]
Well, "genuine scoring chances" is a subjective thing. Since you're class of '07, ARI, I'm not sure how much of his play you actually saw, but while the defense was fantastic last year, it was by no means flawless. While a portion of GAA can be attributed to the play of the team, the .940 save percentage (including playoff action) says something.

My opinion, the team was great, and the goaltending was a great part of that team.

I'm from Ithaca and I've been going to games my whole life. I was at just about every game after January 1 last year.

[Q]calgARI '07 Wrote:

I'm from Ithaca and I've been going to games my whole life. I was at just about every game after January 1 last year. [/Q]

And that's why I didn't assume anything.

Good thing because as we all know when you assume you make an ass of u and me.

Ahh. I knew it was something along those lines. From a cursory glance at box scores, Schafer did travel with three goalies (Underhill, Burt, Gartman) for all of 00-01, so it's certainly not something he's unwilling to do. My bad.

[Q]Let me just ask this: if LeNeveu was as amazing last year as his numbers indicated (best ever GAA), why didn't he win the Hobey?
How many genuine scoring chances did opponents have on Cornell all season?
[/Q]

Going by this logic, then David McKee, who put up similar numbers to LeNeveu's on a team that was not as amazing last years, is in fact a superhuman goalie.

I think McKee is a very good goalie, but if I had to choose between LeNeveu and McKee, I'd choose LeNeveu in a heart-beat. IMO, if LeNeveu played for us this season, at least a few of the ties or 1 goal losses we had would have been a win. Again, this is not an indictment of McKee, but testament to the solid positioning and talent LeNeveu had.

I think this year's team was extremely good defensively, but not as good as they were last year defensively, roughly half a goal per game worse (compare LeNeveu and McKee's GAA and it is a bit more than half a goal per game difference).
I think the jury is still out on how good McKee is. LeNeveu was obviously very good, but I think it's tough to judge how good he actually was playing on such a good defensive team. How good of a goalie he is will be determined on how he does in the pros over a long term period.

[Q]RedAR Wrote:

IMO, if LeNeveu played for us this season, at least a few of the ties or 1 goal losses we had would have been a win. Again, this is not an indictment of McKee, but testament to the solid positioning and talent LeNeveu had. [/Q]


You are comparing a Sophomore (or Junior) LeNeveu to a Freshman McKee. I think this is bit premature. Next year will tell.

Some of the wins and ties this year would have been losses with a lesser goalie.

[Q]IMO, if LeNeveu played for us this season, at least a few of the ties or 1 goal losses we had would have been a win.[/Q]I think you can also make the argument that the inexperience of the team in front of McKee contributed a lot to the early season losses and ties. Maybe LeNeveu wouldn't have made a difference. Of course, McKee did have some shaky moments early on as well, so maybe not.

[Q]calgARI '07 Wrote:

Let me just ask this: if LeNeveu was as amazing last year as his numbers indicated (best ever GAA), why didn't he win the Hobey?
How many genuine scoring chances did opponents have on Cornell all season?
Last year's TEAM was unbelievable and this was exploited playing in the ECAC. Some people hang their success on LeNeveu's numbers. I just don't see it that way. His GAA attributed more to the team, IMO. The majority of the people who voted for the Hobey agreed with this assessment as evidenced by LeNeveu not winning.
LeNeveu was and is a good goalie, but was not the superhuman last year that some people are insinuating.
I'm sure people will disagree and that's fine, but that is how I saw it at the time and how I see it now. [/Q]

I think LeNeveu actually saw quite a few "genuine" scoring chances last year. The team was so good at blocking shots that those Lenny saw were the quality chances, be it on defensive breakdowns or through screens. While he might not have seen as MANY genuine scoring opportunities as other goalies, he probably saw the same percentage of quality shots as any other goalie.

I agree that the GAA is more a testament to the team than the goalie, but a .940 save percentage is pretty impressive, especially given the fact that he could go half a period without seeing a shot and still be focused enough on the game to come up big when he had to.

As for why he didn't win the Hobey...we can all speculate. My theory is that a) Sejna had a great year, and b) they didn't want to give it to a goalie since Ryan Miller won it so recently

I've been able to watch LeNeveu play a few times this year -- and quite literally, he's the only reason the Falcons were able to stay in the games I saw -- in fact, they even won a few. You don't stop 55 of 56 shots (the New Years game @Hartford) if you're an average goalie... and many of these shots were head-on, odd-man rushes that even the home crowd mumbled their disbelief/admiration at the goaltending.

I will admit to flaws in my argument: he's not playing for the same team anymore, he's not on the same level of play anymore, the Falcons are still in last place, his GAA is significantly higher than it was last year (2.68, 91.9%), when you see more shots on goal you stay more focused, etc. And I'm sure there are flaws that I'm not even addressing.

It's my personal belief that the goalie-defense relationship is symbiotic -- each one can only go a certain distance on their own -- evidenced by this very discussion: with a great defense before him, LeNeveu put up spectacular numbers and "led" (I use that term loosely) the team to victory; when he's left out to dry, both he and the team suffer (I even see this codependence with the Wolf*Pack -- they seem to be more comfortable and a better overall team when LaBarbera is in goal as opposed to Osaer, even against teams they've already blown away. But back to the topic at hand...).

But despite all this, I personally think his numbers are above average, and that all praise and accolades he's gotten have been well-earned.

But that's just me.

It's a little bizarre (in my opinion), to say that Lenny not winning the Hobey indicates voters thought that he rode his team's coattails and was nothing special when he was one of the Hobey Hattrick -- the top 3 players in the country. And if he was primarily a passive beneficiary of a great defense and system, why did he win All-American and ECAC POTY?

no doubt LeNeveu is a super-star in the making, assuming he can find his way to a team that can play in front of him. he's young, skilled and soon he'll be seasoned. I think his numbers are amazing this year in the AHL considering the bozos that skate in front of him.
Last years team had what it takes to win, great defense, a system, a goalie beyond expectation, and balanced scoring... they realy spread out those points last season. However, at the end of last year up untill the start of this season there was a lot of talk (myself included) about the extra offensive "oomph" that the team needed. Vesce and Moulson's touch this year was great, but IMHO what the team needed in '03 was a pure goal scorer... not a better goalie (or goaltending performance).
next year, a tighter more seasoned defence will immerge, and i expect that the goal scoring touch we saw much of this year will return, with reinforcements.

[Q]DisplacedCornellian Wrote:


As for why he didn't win the Hobey...we can all speculate. My theory is that a) Sejna had a great year, and b) they didn't want to give it to a goalie since Ryan Miller won it so recently [/Q]

Maybe LeNeveu didn't win the Hobey because he was a semi-rookie. He alternated in goal freshman year, so sophomore year was his first full season as the No. 1 goaltender. And the year before Doug Murray was a Hobey nominee, so maybe some voters figured it was Cornell's defense pulling him along.

It's a long line of Cornellian runner-ups for player of the year award. Well, maybe not that long. Ed Marinaro was second for the Heisman in 1972. Two other players of the year types from Cornell were French and McEneaney 1975-77 in lacrosse. Anybody else who was the dominant player in his sport the last couple decades?

I think it's a little bizarre to say that LeNeveu is as amazing as his numbers indicate if he wasn't voted the best player in the NCAA the year he put up these numbers. Did he do very well? Absolutely, thus warranting the most of the accolades he received (I say most because I don't think he deserved playoff MVP over Paolini). His numbers indicate that he is one of the best goalies in NCAA history and possibly even the best. He may have had the potential to be, but we'll never know IMO. Had he stayed we would have had a much better idea obviously.

you can't really compare apples and oranges, or in this case, goalie and forward. among all the goalies last year, he was undoubtably the best goalie out there. among all the goalies in the history of college hockey, he was very near the top of the list. the fact that he didn't get the hobey baker when he was in contention with sejna does NOT take away from the fact that he was an amazing goalie.

What RedAR said. You can't really compare a goalie and a forward. It doesn't make sense to say that he isn't "as amazing as his numbers indicate" just because he didn't win the hobey. He can be every bit as amazing as the numbers indicated and still not win the award if somebody else had an equally amazing season.

[Q]calgARI '07 Wrote:
I think it's a little bizarre to say that LeNeveu is as amazing as his numbers indicate if he wasn't voted the best player in the NCAA the year he put up these numbers.[/Q]Why? We never really give a whole lot of respect to the voters' choices anyway. The truth is, LeNeveu was underappreciated by the NCAA voters because he came so soon after Ryan Miller, and that is why he didn't win.

LeNeveu wasn't underappreciated by the Canadian WJC coaching staff, who selected him for the squad over two goalies he was expected to lose out to. He wasn't underappreciated by Phoenix, who threw enough money at him that he left a pretty damn good situation in Ithaca. And he wasn't overappreciated by the Faithful who saw him play only one game (UNH 2003) that was less than stellar.

and lets just say that you are a flaming asshole

not sure who you are speaking to, but that is a totally worthless post. at least make some sort of argument pertaining to the topic.

calgARI '07... I'm talking to you.

The topic of the post is you being an asshole.

The argument of the post is that you are a flaming asshole.

A Flaming Asshole.

You are a Flaming Asshole!

totally worthless. get a life.

I disagree with what calgARI has been saying about LeNeveu and goaltending, but he is by no means a flaming. He is expressing his opinion.

Is it me, or has the civility of this forum dropped off significantly from years past? Perhaps it's a sign of the success of Cornell hockey, and eLynah. Who knows?

Ari,

I introduced myself to you during the playoffs a few weeks back … and admire your intense feelings for Cornell hockey and those who support it. Living in NYC only allowed me to make a limited number games this year. I have to say that I noticed you each time I was in Lynah and I must say; it was usually for the wrong reasons. I did my time as a member of the Faithful while on campus and think many would agree I went to great lengths to support our boys. But I did not go about it as you have chosen to. You can lead by example or lead with your mouth, you have chosen the latter. Your sharp criticism of every move on and off the ice is not a tactic that will gain you much support for your views. I'm smart enough to know you are not here to make friends ... but you just might consider taking it down a notch. I am by no means saying that certain opinions posted here carry more weight than others (although there are some on this forum that think otherwise). Maybe adjusting your approach during the off-season will gain you a bit more support here and in the stands.

Second, I've known AJGD '04 for quite some time and think it's safe to say he's been lurking all season. Like a few others I have spoken with, he probably just got a bit fed up with your overly objective and often unnecessarily harsh critiques of our team and fans. Don't get me wrong, I understand you have been following Cornell hockey longer than I, and many others here, but that does not give you some divine license to tell us what is and what should be.

As for the matter of civility ... I agree the level may have fallen off in the past few years but credibility of the posters is not something one gains by the number of posts they have accrued in their eLynah account. I've only met a small number of you in person but maybe AJGD '04 is right on this one ... maybe you are an a**hole … though I can't say for sure.

Such a logical, reasoned opinion, with numbers to back it up...

This has no place on an Internet message board!

[Q]ben03 Wrote:

You can lead by example or lead with your mouth, you have chosen the latter. Your sharp criticism of every move on and off the ice is not a tactic that will gain you much support for your views. I'm smart enough to know you are not here to make friends ... but you just might consider taking it down a notch. [/Q]


[Q]ben03 later wrote:

I've only met a small number of you in person but maybe AJGD '04 is right on this one ... maybe you are an a**hole [/Q]

Yeah, he should take it down a notch, because "leading by example" would be calling another person an asshole for expressing his opinion AND explaining it. Oh wait....

Honestly, though, I can't believe that only a few people were willing to have a mature discussion about Cornell goaltending, past and present. I know I haven't contributed to this thread yet, but it was interesting to read until it recently became ABSURD; there was a healthy debate going on concerning goaltending, defense, and even coaching perspectives, and it suddenly became an immature attack on Ari's character. He expressed his opinion, explained it, and someone (AJGD) who is actually going to graduate this spring (can you believe it?) resorted to unnecessary name-calling. Absolutely pathetic. So what if you don't agree? You can't just say so in a reasonable manner and move on?

I think Ben'03 might be onto something there....

Ari,

I've got your back. I disagree with you a lot, but I've got your back. I can't figure out what inspired these irrational attacks on you, so just let it slide. Trust me, Ben and AJGD are revealing much more about themselves than they are about you.

[Q]Avash '05 Wrote:

ben03 Wrote:

You can lead by example or lead with your mouth, you have chosen the latter. Your sharp criticism of every move on and off the ice is not a tactic that will gain you much support for your views. I'm smart enough to know you are not here to make friends ... but you just might consider taking it down a notch.

ben03 later wrote:

I've only met a small number of you in person but maybe AJGD '04 is right on this one ... maybe you are an a**hole

Yeah, he should take it down a notch, because "leading by example" would be calling another person an asshole for expressing his opinion AND explaining it. Oh wait....

Edited 1 times. Last edit at 04/01/04 02:09AM by Avash '05. [/Q]

hey avash ... how about when you quote someone you use the WHOLE QUOTE. not just the part you like/dislike to make your point. who knows maybe even use an ellipse to at least let other readers know there is more there. just a thought for someone who might graduate next spring (can you believe it)? i reserved judgment on the name calling by saying, "I've only met a small number of you in person but maybe AJGD '04 is right on this one ... maybe you are an a**hole … though I can't say for sure.” take it how you like, just as ari is free to express his opinion, so to am I, as are all others here. deal with it.

Getting back to (one of) the point(s) at hand....

calgARI '07 Wrote:

LeNeveu was and is a good goalie, but was not the superhuman last year that some people are insinuating.

- Lenny's GAA and SV% were superhuman. These are indicative stats, but don't tell the whole story...
- Hobey Hat Trick, ECAC POY, etc., are also indicative, but less so due to subjective factors. However, just like polls vs rankings -- the cream tends to rise to the top.
- There are also "intangible" stats like "how good were the saves", "how timely were the saves", "how often did the goalie keep the team in the games when the team wasn't playing their best", and "how relaxed is the team with the goalie between the pipes". These are truly intangible and your opinion is as valid as anyone's. (Probably more valid than mine since I only saw/listened to games on Internet.)
- Every comment by announcers about Lenny suggest that he is and was one of the most fundamentally sound, "superhuman" young goalies out there. Also, his intensity and perfectionist tendencies were often cited. This is also open to speculation, but I'd really like to hear from people who know hockey (specifically goaltending) well enough to lend real insight.

[Q]KenP Wrote:

- Hobey Hat Trick, ECAC POY, etc., are also indicative, but less so due to subjective factors. However, just like polls vs rankings -- the cream tends to rise to the top. [/Q]


That's not all that rises to the top of some bodies of water.

Which may explain why POTY awards vary in their level of excellence from year to year.

I got your back Ari -- you just tell me when and where the fight is, and we'll take em all.

[Q]ben03 Wrote:

Ari,

I introduced myself to you during the playoffs a few weeks back … and admire your intense feelings for Cornell hockey and those who support it. Living in NYC only allowed me to make a limited number games this year. I have to say that I noticed you each time I was in Lynah and I must say; it was usually for the wrong reasons. I did my time as a member of the Faithful while on campus and think many would agree I went to great lengths to support our boys. But I did not go about it as you have chosen to. You can lead by example or lead with your mouth, you have chosen the latter. Your sharp criticism of every move on and off the ice is not a tactic that will gain you much support for your views. I'm smart enough to know you are not here to make friends ... but you just might consider taking it down a notch. I am by no means saying that certain opinions posted here carry more weight than others (although there are some on this forum that think otherwise). Maybe adjusting your approach during the off-season will gain you a bit more support here and in the stands.

Second, I've known AJGD '04 for quite some time and think it's safe to say he's been lurking all season. Like a few others I have spoken with, he probably just got a bit fed up with your overly objective and often unnecessarily harsh critiques of our team and fans. Don't get me wrong, I understand you have been following Cornell hockey longer than I, and many others here, but that does not give you some divine license to tell us what is and what should be.

As for the matter of civility ... I agree the level may have fallen off in the past few years but credibility of the posters is not something one gains by the number of posts they have accrued in their eLynah account. I've only met a small number of you in person but maybe AJGD '04 is right on this one ... maybe you are an a**hole … though I can't say for sure.



Edited 2 times. Last edit at 04/01/04 12:42AM by ben03. [/Q]

I think it's pretty harsh to say that I sharply criticize every move on and off the ice.
Don't know how many games you were there for, but the ones I feel they are playing well, I don't criticize, but for the ones I feel they are not playing well, I do criticize. Really don't see what is wrong with that. I am not going to just coddle them when they are not playing well. I have every right as a fan (a long time, knowledgable fan that has seen many precedents set in many areas) to speak my mind regarding this team. That is why this is called A FORUM. I will give praise when I feel praise is due and will give criticism when I feel criticism is due. Read my columns and I feel I give a lot more praise than criticism when you add it all up.

freshman UNITE!!!

[Q]calgARI '07 Wrote:

I think it's pretty harsh to say that I sharply criticize every move on and off the ice.
Don't know how many games you were there for, but the ones I feel they are playing well, I don't criticize, but for the ones I feel they are not playing well, I do criticize. Really don't see what is wrong with that. I am not going to just coddle them when they are not playing well. I have every right as a fan (a long time, knowledgable fan that has seen many precedents set in many areas) to speak my mind regarding this team. That is why this is called A FORUM. I will give praise when I feel praise is due and will give criticism when I feel criticism is due. Read my columns and I feel I give a lot more praise than criticism when you add it all up. [/Q]


Let’s try and end this as amicably as possible. I am well aware that this is a forum, you need not shout. The simple fact is … IMHO you lack credibility. The length of time one has been a fan does not (in my book) make you an authority on said team. You may possess a greater knowledge base than most but by no means does that make your “opinion” more/less valuable than others (not trying to insinuate this is the case). You have gained a reputation as a passionate fan that shares his opinions good/bad/indifferent here and in the stands. You have sparked many interesting discussions and I hope you continue to do so. I’ll leave it to you to agree or disagree … but my observations of you in person are mine, like them or not. And as was pointed out earlier, we are all entitled to our opinions. As I said previously, credibility is a form of respect … respect is earned not by the number of posts but rather over time. I imagine you will soon learn that demanding respect will get the opposite reaction. Four years isn’t much of a difference in age, but the four years that separate us will are worlds apart. Just some thoughts from older classmate … take my words however you like.

[Q]calgARI '07 Wrote:
I have every right as a fan (a long time, knowledgable fan that has seen many precedents set in many areas) to speak my mind regarding this team. That is why this is called A FORUM. I will give praise when I feel praise is due and will give criticism when I feel criticism is due. Read my columns and I feel I give a lot more praise than criticism when you add it all up. [/Q]

You do have every right to speak your mind as a fan. I think the thing that bugs me (and maybe some other people), is that any time something doesn't go quite right, you look to place BLAME somewhere. It comes across like you are trying to cut the team down. To me a real fan sticks behind the team in good times and bad. It's one thing to say "yeah, the team didn't play their best game, they just didn't look like they had their hearts in it", it's another thing to say "A,B, and C have underachieved all season. They should be drawn and quartered." (Yes, I realize you've probably never suggested anything quite so drastic, but you get my point).

Again, you do have every right to speak your mind as a fan. But if you're going to make what some might consider inflammatory remarks about the team, you should be prepared to deal with the backlash. Some of your remarks come across as if you think you are some great hockey guru whose posts should be treated as some divine writ. Yes, you have a right to criticize, but we reserve the right to call you a douche bag for it.



side note: your "i've been going to cornell hockey games all my life" spiel is getting kind of old. I don't care if you've been attending games since you were in the womb, that doesn't make you any more of an authority, or any more of a fan, than anybody else. It also doesn't necessarily make you a "knowledgeable fan".

I'm sorry, I just don't see what the problem is. The people that have a problem with me seem to be angry with my tone among other things. You don't seem to like how I talk...on an online forum. I have done nothing but speak my opinion and back it up to the best of my ability. If you don't like what I have to say, simply disagree or don't read it. I am not going to change my feelings on the team just because some people don't like what I have to say. Counter my opinions with opinions of your own, not some character analysis that you are basing from online rhetoric. I have no idea why some of you are taking exception with me and questioning my credibility. Do it all you want. I really don't care whether you think I am credible or not. I know I am credible regardless of how some of you define the word. If you want to rip me apart because of my wording and tone on an online forum, have a ball. We can duke it out over hockey as much as you want to. But I am not going to stray from my opinions just so you guys can feel better.
I'm sorry I have offended or bothered anyone, I really am. But that was absolutely not my intention at any time and I am having trouble seeing how I could have offended anyone with my opinions on the Cornell hockey team. Sure, criticize my opinions, but NO, you do not have the right to call me a douche bag for haivng them. I have met Ben before and really liked him. Just because we disagree on Cornell hockey does not mean we have to have some personality conflict. It just makes no sense. But I beg you, stop putting words into my mouth based on my tone (examples being that I think I am some sort of "guru" or better fan). That is total BS unless you can find one instance where I have claimed to be a "hockey guru" or a greater fan than anyone.
I should also point out that just because I am criticizing certain players or the team as a whole does not mean I am not behind them, it simply means that I care and am analyzing what it is they are not playing well (from my opinion of course). I am freakin' Calgary Flames fan, a team that missed the playoffs for seven years and I stuck with them through thick and thin. Now they have finally made the playoffs and I am very proud to say that I was one of the few fans that stuck with the team through the really bad years and can sit back and finally enjoy playoff hockey. I take offense when anybody insinuates that I am not sticking behind the team through thick and thin.
Bottom line is that I love Cornell hockey. I love hockey in general. I follow the sport very closely for several years. I feel that I know the game very well. I am very opinionated and passionate in general and that is most evident in how I speak about hockey. People can disagree all they want and we can argue about whatever specific points you want to, no problem. But if you are going to call out my character by calling me a "flaming asshole" and question my credibility and other things, I am not going to waste my time or this board's space having a character battle stemming from conflicting views on Cornell hockey.
I hope we can end this argument as I really don't see what positive is coming out of it considering I am not going to sensor myself when I do not feel I am being unfair or breaking any sort of rules.

calgARi,

You are a credit to the game and to Cornell. Don't let idiots get you down. Keep on doing what you are doing, and realize that there will always be some clowns out there who are not able to offer a rational argument or build a case. Of course you are entitled to your opinions. Most of the quality readers of this board can distinguish between passionate Big Red fans with a brain, and the jerks who attack them.. !!

Ari,

I don't think anybody is calling you a douchebag for having the opinions that you do (at least I'm not), it is more the way that you express them. I can't put my finger on what it is, but if something comes up in your future posts that makes me realize what it is then I will try to point it out in as civil a manner as possible.

In any event, this argument is pretty pointless. To the extent that I'm responsible for making it descend to the level of civility of a USCHO thread, I apologize.

[Q]calgARi,

You are a credit to the game and to Cornell. Don't let idiots get you down. Keep on doing what you are doing, and realize that there will always be some clowns out there who are not able to offer a rational argument or build a case. Of course you are entitled to your opinions. Most of the quality readers of this board can distinguish between passionate Big Red fans with a brain, and the jerks who attack them.. !![/Q]

ditto

[Q]calgARI '07 Wrote:

Let me just ask this: if LeNeveu was as amazing last year as his numbers indicated (best ever GAA), why didn't he win the Hobey? [/Q]

Lenny's chances of winning the Hobey were slim at best to begin with. Historically speaking only one or two other goaltenders have won the Hobey, and one of those was just a couple of years ago. I doubt that winning or losing had much to do with the final choice, it just wasn't going to be another goaltender no matter what. High-scoring forwards at big-program schools are just more likely to be chosen because they have a lot more exposure and their programs have a lot more respect from the majority of the media and the people who make these choices. No matter how well the ECAC manages to do, all the other leagues still consider us the "Easy Collegiate Athletic Conference."

[Q]BigD Wrote:

calgARI '07 Wrote:

Let me just ask this: if LeNeveu was as amazing last year as his numbers indicated (best ever GAA), why didn't he win the Hobey?

Lenny's chances of winning the Hobey were slim at best to begin with. Historically speaking only one or two other goaltenders have won the Hobey, and one of those was just a couple of years ago. I doubt that winning or losing had much to do with the final choice, it just wasn't going to be another goaltender no matter what. High-scoring forwards at big-program schools are just more likely to be chosen because they have a lot more exposure and their programs have a lot more respect from the majority of the media and the people who make these choices. No matter how well the ECAC manages to do, all the other leagues still consider us the "Easy Collegiate Athletic Conference." [/Q]

Rightfully so though, eh? If I were a voter it would be hard for me to give the ECAC nearly as much respect as the three other major conferences. It does generate a respectable national contender every few years though. It would have done wonders for the conference's beat up reputation for St. Lawrence (when they were really good) or Cornell to win the whole thing when they were out their respective bests.