The Bulldogs from Duluth are tied 1-1 with the evil gophers at the start of the second period.
Gophers win 3-2 in OT.
SLU over Harvard 5-4
Clarkson over Dartmouth 6-3
Union 4 Princeton 3 F OT
QU 2 RPI 2 F OT
So early season favorites Dartmouth and Harvard took the double dip at home against the North Country. And Quinnipiac looks like they are for real too. It's only November and a lot can still happen.
Overtime at Brown
Final 6-6
Maine 2 - BU 2
UHN 3 - Northeastern 1
BC 1 - UVM 0
[quote Chris 02]Union 4 Princeton 3 F OT
QU 2 RPI 2 F OT
So early season favorites Dartmouth and Harvard took the double dip at home against the North Country. And Quinnipiac looks like they are for real too. It's only November and a lot can still happen.[/quote]
The Q Bobcats looked good last week and tonight. Mathias Lange the RIP goalie along with their defense stopped Q from winning. There were long stretches during which RIP couldn't get out of their end of the morgue. That said, the Puckman-less engineers do look a lot more inspired than last year.
Interesting. There is only one unbeaten and untied team left in the country.
::banana::
Not woofing. Just sayin'.
[quote Jeff Hopkins '82]Interesting. There is only one unbeaten and untied team left in the country.
::banana::
Not woofing. Just sayin'.[/quote]
If it looks like a woof and smells like a woof etc., it sure ain't no banana.
[quote marty][quote Jeff Hopkins '82]Interesting. There is only one unbeaten and untied team left in the country.
::banana::
Not woofing. Just sayin'.[/quote]
If it looks like a woof and smells like a woof etc., it sure ain't no banana.[/quote]
Merely a statement of fact.
Plus a banana ::banana::
[quote Jeff Hopkins '82]Interesting. There is only one unbeaten and untied team left in the country.
::banana::
Not woofing. Just sayin'.[/quote]Keep in mind that we were the last unbeaten and untied team in 1997-98 too. So lets not get cocky.
Who have they played worth woofin' about?
[quote Rich S]Who have they played worth woofin' about?[/quote]
Oh shut the fuck up. Can you go 30 seconds without yapping?
[quote nyc94][quote Rich S]Who have they played worth woofin' about?[/quote]
Oh shut the fuck up. Can you go 30 seconds without yapping?[/quote]
That's one answer. We would have also accepted: "Someone other than the U-18 team."
A bit touchy are we? Simply made the point that it's far to early to be woofin' especially given the competition they've faced.
No need to use such language either.
Thanks.
[quote Rich S]Who have they played worth woofin' about?[/quote]Whether or not Rich is trolling, he's right. Four wins is four wins. But it doesn't say that much about what things will look like in March, except that I doubt we'll be atthe bottom of the league (but we knew that anyway).
By the way, woofing would be saying that based on the last four games we're definitely going to put 33 more win on the board. For the record on IRC I only said "33 more wins to go", I didn't claim that we would win 'em. :-D
[quote Rich S]A bit touchy are we?[/q]
Pot calling the kettle black, eh?
Nope, not all. How do you figure "pot calling" here?
I wasn't the one woofin'.
And no, your team won't be at the bottom of the league.
[quote Rich S]Nope, not all. How do you figure "pot calling" here?
I wasn't the one woofin'.
And no, your team won't be at the bottom of the league.[/quote]
No, you weren't woofing. But calling me touchy when you fly off the handle at the mere mention of your team in anything less than glowing praise, even when it is obvious to everyone that the comments were in jest is pretty hypocritical.
[quote nyc94]
No, you weren't woofing. But calling me touchy when you fly off the handle at the mere mention of your team in anything less than glowing praise, even when it is obvious to everyone that the comments were in jest is pretty hypocritical.[/quote]
It's a little unfair to bring that up in this thread, where the only mention of Clarkson is that they won. Rich S doesn't deserve that tonight.
[quote KeithK][quote Rich S]Who have they played worth woofin' about?[/quote]Whether or not Rich is trolling, he's right. Four wins is four wins. But it doesn't say that much about what things will look like in March, except that I doubt we'll be atthe bottom of the league (but we knew that anyway).[/quote]
But Jeff wasnt trying to say it made us the best team in the league, he was just pointing out an interesting statistical fact. Of course, someone on a different team's board pointing out an interesting fact was just too much for someone to take.
[quote KeithK]Keep in mind that we were the last unbeaten and untied team in 1997-98 too. So lets not get cocky.[/quote]
Given the late start we're forced to have, I'm willing to bet that this distinction usually rests with an Ivy. I seem to remember saying that about Cornell in '96 and/or '97. I'm sure it's happened more than once since the season Keith referenced.
Oh, cut me a break. I was rather excited about what I considered a good win. And it was just something I noticed when reviewing the various conference standings. As I said, "just sayin." I never expected this would become a RichS flamefest.
WRT RichH's observation that this is something that usually rests with an Ivy, I'd suppose he's right. But within my recent memory, it usually hasn't been us. And it usually ends one or two games into the season.
Now, to appease the sniping gods, Clarkson looks pretty good so far this year. Happy, RichS?
[quote Jeff Hopkins '82]Oh, cut me a break. I was rather excited about what I considered a good win.[/quote]
So was I. Here's another stat... we've allowed the fewest goals of any team this season. Sure most of the teams have played twice as many games as we have, but it's still nice to see.
[quote Jeff Hopkins '82]I never expected this would become a RichS flamefest.[/quote]
You should know better than that at this point. Every thread seems to become a RichS flamefest and I'm pretty sure he likes it that way. I'd much prefer it if he took his shots on USCHO but I doubt he'll stop until eLynah becomes uninhabitable.
http://elf.elynah.com/read.php?1,100222,101218#msg-101218
[quote schoaff][quote Jeff Hopkins '82]I never expected this would become a RichS flamefest.[/quote]
You should know better than that at this point. Every thread seems to become a RichS flamefest and I'm pretty sure he likes it that way. I'd much prefer it if he took his shots on USCHO but I doubt he'll stop until eLynah becomes uninhabitable.[/quote]Unless, of course we stop reacting. If we shut up it will get awfully lonely for him. It's hard to carry on a one sided flamefest, at least for very long.
[quote Jim Hyla][quote schoaff][quote Jeff Hopkins '82]I never expected this would become a RichS flamefest.[/quote]
You should know better than that at this point. Every thread seems to become a RichS flamefest and I'm pretty sure he likes it that way. I'd much prefer it if he took his shots on USCHO but I doubt he'll stop until eLynah becomes uninhabitable.[/quote]Unless, of course we stop reacting. If we shut up it will get awfully lonely for him. It's hard to carry on a one sided flamefest, at least for very long.[/quote]
But then what would we have to do between 9:30 on Saturdays and 7:00 on Fridays?
[quote Rich S]A bit touchy are we? Simply made the point that it's far to early to be woofin' especially given the competition they've faced.[/quote]
Other than in the transitive sense of a Yale team that beat New Hampshire, you're quite right, the competition hasn't been worth writing home about just yet. That doesn't change the fact that we're the only unbeaten, untied team remaining this season - or the fact that Jeff actually said, "Not woofing."
So thanks for helping to point out that it's too early to be doing something that nobody's doing.
Settle down Jeff.
Just because you say "just sayin," that doesn't mean you aren't woofing.
Yes Clarkson is off to a good start record-wise but you don't see me woofing about it. They have faced stronger opponents than Cornell has but the season is much too young to get carried away with the early success.
And there are a few aspects of their game to be concerned about. I'll see their Thanksgiving weekend set live at Cheel and will have a more informed opinion then.
If you guys think this has become a flamefest, you have only yourselves to hold responsible for the overreaction. My comment about woofing was not inflammatory; just a statement of opinion about something many people here have warned others in the past not to do.
[quote Rich S]If you guys think this has become a flamefest, you have only yourselves to hold responsible for the overreaction.[/quote]
In this case, my namesake is correct.
That said, so what if somebody on a silly internet message board woofed or not? That's one of the stupidest things to have an argument about.
OK, truce.
RichS' comment was mildly antagonistic, but we did escalate it rather rapidly.
Let's focus on Sucks, OK?
ok, cool.
What is Teddy in for this week at Lynah?
[quote Jeff Hopkins '82]RichS' comment was mildly antagonistic, but we did escalate it rather rapidly.
[/quote]
I escalated it rather quickly. I'll take responsibility but I won't apologize. This was just the latest in a long series of these types of replies. For RichS to come back by saying I (or we) overreact is hypocritical at best considering his incredibly thin skin when it comes to comments about Clarkson. But he conveniently didn't address this when I called him on it. And I guarantee his next response would be, you guys can dish it out but you can't take it. If anything in his tone once suggested his comments weren't meant to knock us down or if he threw in a ;-) once in a while he might actually build up some goodwill here.
[quote Rich S]What is Teddy in for this week at Lynah?[/quote]
Teddy's going to get scrod. :-D
To throw in my two cents:
I was at the Clarkson games this weekend at Bright and Thompson. Harvard was, in my opinion, the weaker of the two opponents, but mostly because they let their effort deflate after giving up the shortie in the second. Biega, the rookie they've been touting so loudly, did not look as impressive as I'd expected. When Harvard works hard, they'll compete with any team, but if they give it any less than their best, they'll have trouble with most of the teams in the league. Then again, they may just need time to get their skates warmed up. Dartmouth, on the other hand, looked very solid. Clarkson made the most of their chances, but DC controlled the majority of play (probably due to the referee calling it so poorly). Dartmouth had 16 power plays to Clarkson's 8 and only one goal to show for them. They'll get more comfortable soon and be a dangerous team.
Clarkson looked great all weekend. If Leggio plays as steady as he has, the offense is so deep teams are going to have serious trouble holding them to less than three goals and thus Clarkson could have a great year. Sure, Richter and Devine didn't have the best weekends, but still at least half the goals couldn't be attributed to goaltender error. They're a serious contender for a first-round bye and possibly the league title. As a Clarkson fan, I'm extremely glad to have the HU/DC trip taken care of now, so we don't have to face them away later when they're comfortable and they feel like there's more at stake.
From what I understand, Davenport has pretty much done what any Cornell fan could have asked in the departure of McKee. Anyone have any reports on him?
[quote daredevilcu]
From what I understand, Davenport has pretty much done what any Cornell fan could have asked in the departure of McKee. Anyone have any reports on him?[/quote]
Yeah, he has been fantastic. He saved our hides at Brown and turned in a performance that rivaled McKee's best (save the Wisconsin game). He was particularly solid on the many odd man rushes and breakaways he faced. Also, I disagree with the prevailing opinion here that he is a poor puck handler. He might not be the best, but he is an improvement on McKee.
That's so discouraging and disappointing.
my sentiments exactly. then again He hasn;t faced a good offense yet...
[quote Rich S]Who have they played worth woofin' about?[/quote]My instinct was to respond like nyc94. Because (s)he is right. I decided to let my better nature prevail, wait a little bit, and explain why I think Jeff is right and Rich S was out of line.
1) It isn't a woof. Being happy about past success isn't woofing. Jeff didn't say that we would have an undefeated season. He didn't even say that we would beat Harvard! He stated a fact that we at eLynah should be happy about and maybe even a little proud of.
2) By the time Rich S checked in, marty had already accused Jeff of woofing and KeithK threw a wet blanket on the fire, so it isn't like we weren't self-regulating.
3) Even if you assume (incorrectly) that it was woofing, and even if you think (incorrectly) it was another case of those crazy Cornell people letting homer-y nonsense go unresponded to on the forum ... before the weekend Yale was a team that people were talking about as a comer. Beating them soundly in their building is, I think, something about which our team and fans should feel damn good.
Verdict? Rich S's comment was snotty, unnecessary and altogether typical.
That said, I am not exactly looking forward to playing Clarkson. I get the feeling that those dudes can play.
[quote RichH][quote Rich S]If you guys think this has become a flamefest, you have only yourselves to hold responsible for the overreaction.[/quote]
In this case, my namesake is correct.
That said, so what if somebody on a silly internet message board woofed or not? That's one of the stupidest things to have an argument about.[/quote]Except in the case of assigning blame when the woofing gods slam your team in response to the offense. That's a perfectly rational thing to do! :-D
BTW, shouldn't a good Clarkson fan be encouraging us to woof?
[quote KeithK]
BTW, shouldn't a good Clarkson fan be encouraging us to woof?[/quote]
I think that sums it up nicely. ::whistle::
Well, I'm not sure my praise of Davenport would be quite that glowing. I think he's solid, but does go out to play the puck every single opportunity he gets. Nothing disastrous as a result of that so far, but I could easily see him getting burned for 2 or 3 goals a season as a result of it. Does it balance out with all the puck possession gained? Perhaps.
Other than that, he has a tendency to go down early, but he's solid positionally. I think we can expect 2-3 goals against each game, and if the offense can score more than that, they should win. I'm not saying those 2-3 goals are all Davenport, either. The defense is still rocky at times.
To this point, he hasn't really faced a steady barrage from any team. He hasn't really been tested. This weekend should be very telling.
I'll take the "risk" here.
The adjectives you ascribed to my post relate to almost all of the comments you've directed towards me in the recent past. Particularly your consistent typical snottiness. Success breeds contempt.
I must have missed the self-regulating you referred to before I commented on what I felt was Jeff's woofing.
[quote Rich S]The adjectives you ascribed to my post relate to almost all of the comments you've directed towards me in the recent past. Particularly your consistent typical snottiness.[/quote] Agreed! No regrets!
QuoteSuccess breeds contempt.
That, alas, is not the catalyst.
[quote CowbellGuy]Well, I'm not sure my praise of Davenport would be quite that glowing. I think he's solid, but does go out to play the puck every single opportunity he gets. Nothing disastrous as a result of that so far, but I could easily see him getting burned for 2 or 3 goals a season as a result of it. Does it balance out with all the puck possession gained? Perhaps.[/quote]
For video evidence of the bad things that can happen when the goalie wanders out to play the puck watch the first period of last Friday's OSU-Notre Dame game. IIRC, it was ND's second goal that they got the puck behind the goal and put it into a wide open net. The first ND goal looked a bit weak and the OSU goalie (Fillion) got pulled at the end of the first period.
OSU has 2 rather smallish but very good players: Andrew Schembri (5 ft 6 in, 165 lb, #9) and Tommy Goebel (5 ft 7 in, #6). It was a bit confusing as to how many "small guys" OSU had since sometimes it is hard to distinguish 9's and 6's on TV. But they were quick and knew how to find the back of the net; they got both OSU goals on Friday and Goebel got another one in Saturday's 1-1 tie v. ND.
[quote CowbellGuy]Well, I'm not sure my praise of Davenport would be quite that glowing. I think he's solid, but does go out to play the puck every single opportunity he gets. Nothing disastrous as a result of that so far, but I could easily see him getting burned for 2 or 3 goals a season as a result of it. Does it balance out with all the puck possession gained? Perhaps.
Other than that, he has a tendency to go down early, but he's solid positionally. I think we can expect 2-3 goals against each game, and if the offense can score more than that, they should win. I'm not saying those 2-3 goals are all Davenport, either. The defense is still rocky at times.
To this point, he hasn't really faced a steady barrage from any team. He hasn't really been tested. This weekend should be very telling.[/quote]
That's totally fair, and in hindsight I was a little overzealous with my praise. I guess I'm in the minority on this one, but I thought he faced that steady barrage from Brown and really saved our bacon for a long stretches during the game (especially 2nd/3rd periods). With the exception of one against RIT and one against Robert Morris all of his goals against have been scored from the low slot. And I'd only call one or maybe two of them soft. Let's see see how he handles this weekend.