http://www.elynah.com/?articles&id=62
Quote from: calgARI'07Perhaps we should be asking a different question. What would have happened to Cornell either of the last two years if David McKee had gotten hurt in the playoffs? Well, Louis Chabot would have gone in without having started a game during his Cornell career. Quite frankly, that is unacceptable. Although it is Schafer's job to go with the team he thinks has the best opportunity to win each night, he also has an obligation to the long-term success of the program. The team cannot be left in a situation where late in the season injury or poor performance results in Scrivens being thrown to the wolves with no team confidence behind him. It is important for him to get a couple of games of collegiate experience and for the team can get comfortable with him in net.
Remember the only game we lost in the 66-67 season was when Dryden wasn't in the net.
Nothing against Dave Quarrie, but I knew Ken Dryden and Dave Quarrie was not Ken Dryden!::burnout::
[quote Jim Hyla]
Quote from: calgARI'07Perhaps we should be asking a different question. What would have happened to Cornell either of the last two years if David McKee had gotten hurt in the playoffs? Well, Louis Chabot would have gone in without having started a game during his Cornell career. Quite frankly, that is unacceptable. Although it is Schafer's job to go with the team he thinks has the best opportunity to win each night, he also has an obligation to the long-term success of the program. The team cannot be left in a situation where late in the season injury or poor performance results in Scrivens being thrown to the wolves with no team confidence behind him. It is important for him to get a couple of games of collegiate experience and for the team can get comfortable with him in net.
Remember the only game we lost in the 66-67 season was when Dryden wasn't in the net.
Nothing against Dave Quarrie, but I knew Ken Dryden and Dave Quarrie was not Ken Dryden!::burnout::[/quote]Agreed, but the 2006-07 Cornell squad isn't likely to match the 1966-67 team either. After all we've already got twice as many losses as 40 years ago.
[quote Jim Hyla]Remember the only game we lost in the 66-67 season was when Dryden wasn't in the net.
Nothing against Dave Quarrie, but I knew Ken Dryden and Dave Quarrie was not Ken Dryden!::burnout::[/quote]
Ahem...Jim. Troy Davenport is not Ken Dryden, either.
[quote Al DeFlorio][quote Jim Hyla]Remember the only game we lost in the 66-67 season was when Dryden wasn't in the net.
Nothing against Dave Quarrie, but I knew Ken Dryden and Dave Quarrie was not Ken Dryden!::burnout::[/quote]
Ahem...Jim. Troy Davenport is not Ken Dryden, either.[/quote]But the point of using a non-tested goalie remains the same.
[quote Jim Hyla][quote Al DeFlorio][quote Jim Hyla]Remember the only game we lost in the 66-67 season was when Dryden wasn't in the net.
Nothing against Dave Quarrie, but I knew Ken Dryden and Dave Quarrie was not Ken Dryden!::burnout::[/quote]
Ahem...Jim. Troy Davenport is not Ken Dryden, either.[/quote]But the point of using a non-tested goalie remains the same.[/quote]Anyone remember Ian Burt's first action back in 1998 after Jason Elliott got hurt? To protect against an injury I agree that it's wise to give your backup some playing time. You may want to pick the spot carefully depending on how capable the backup is. Might is result in a loss? Sure, but that's the risk you take trying to mitigate future risk.
[quote Jim Hyla][quote Al DeFlorio][quote Jim Hyla]Remember the only game we lost in the 66-67 season was when Dryden wasn't in the net.
Nothing against Dave Quarrie, but I knew Ken Dryden and Dave Quarrie was not Ken Dryden!::burnout::[/quote]
Ahem...Jim. Troy Davenport is not Ken Dryden, either.[/quote]But the point of using a non-tested goalie remains the same.[/quote]
Well, Quarrie had seventeen games under his belt before that season, including eleven the year before when his GAA was 1.99 and save percentage .912--in an era when college teams actually scored goals with some frequency.
More importantly, Davenport hadn't been "tested" until the Robert Morris game in late October. There's a first time for everyone. Lastly, I think you are implying that Scrivens--because he is"untested"--should never be given a chance to play, because you are--by definition-- "untested" until you play!**]
I haven't yet read Ari's piece, but, unless Scrivens has demonstrated in practice that he just doesn't have what it takes to be a college goalie, I wouldn't mind seeing him given a chance this weekend.
[quote Jim Hyla][quote Al DeFlorio][quote Jim Hyla]Remember the only game we lost in the 66-67 season was when Dryden wasn't in the net.
Nothing against Dave Quarrie, but I knew Ken Dryden and Dave Quarrie was not Ken Dryden!::burnout::[/quote]
Ahem...Jim. Troy Davenport is not Ken Dryden, either.[/quote]But the point of using a non-tested goalie remains the same.[/quote]I'm with Al on this one. Davenport is only barely tested in comparison to Scrivens. Unless Scrivens isn't practicing well (and I'm generally content to just trust Schafer's judgment) Davenport isn't so outstanding a commodity that the risk of switching goalies for a game is that high. Anybody that got subbed in for Dryden was going to be a huge step down.
I would like to see Scrivens in net once this weekend.
[quote calgARI '07]Although it is Schafer's job to go with the team he thinks has the best opportunity to win each night, he also has an obligation to the long-term success of the program. The team cannot be left in a situation where late in the season injury or poor performance results in Scrivens being thrown to the wolves with no team confidence behind him. It is important for him to get a couple of games of collegiate experience and for the team can get comfortable with him in net.[/quote]
Ari, I know you work very hard on the reports and I personally appreciate them, but this is the sort of ludicrous hyperbolic bloviation that makes eyes roll. And believe me, I know ludicrous hyperbolic bloviation. ::whistle::
You really want to lecture Schafer on his "obligation to the long-term success of the program"?
[quote Trotsky][quote calgARI '07]Although it is Schafer's job to go with the team he thinks has the best opportunity to win each night, he also has an obligation to the long-term success of the program. The team cannot be left in a situation where late in the season injury or poor performance results in Scrivens being thrown to the wolves with no team confidence behind him. It is important for him to get a couple of games of collegiate experience and for the team can get comfortable with him in net.[/quote]
Ari, I know you work very hard on the reports and I personally appreciate them, but this is the sort of ludicrous hyperbolic bloviation that makes eyes roll. And believe me, I know ludicrous hyperbolic bloviation. ::whistle::
You really want to lecture Schafer on his "obligation to the long-term success of the program"?[/quote]
Lecturing Schafer? What did I say there that isn't true? The team would have likely been screwed had LeNeveu or McKee gone down and a significant part of that was the lack of playing time that the respective backups got (less so with Marr but Schafer was forced to play him). How would the team respond if a totally cold and completely inexperienced goalie was forced to play in a crucial game? Davenport left seemingly because he wasn't getting any playing time. The best thing for the goalies, the players, and the team as a whole is having two goalies that can play at a high enough level that the team can win. Schafer has taken risks in riding goalies and I think most people would agree on that.
Is there any possibility of a Sawada - Scali - Mugford line? I might've mixed up Sawada and Mugford there, but still the same idea.
Scali looked fantastic checking against York, and I think that would be a brutal line to throw against opposing offensive lines.
[quote Dafatone]Is there any possibility of a Sawada - Scali - Mugford line? I might've mixed up Sawada and Mugford there, but still the same idea.
Scali looked fantastic checking against York, and I think that would be a brutal line to throw against opposing offensive lines.[/quote]
I could see that line happening at some point. For now, Scali will need to get into the lineup and do so as a center for that to happen. That would require either Scott moving to the wing and a winger coming out or Gallagher coming out of the lineup. Neither is out of the question, especially if injuries hit.
Also, I think Schafer will want to keep Sawada on Bitz's wing as the two were very good against Quinnipiac.
[quote calgARI '07]The best thing for the goalies, the players, and the team as a whole is having two goalies that can play at a high enough level that the team can win.[/quote]
Sure, if it came at no cost. But suppose that the coaching staff has decided that Davenport is a step above the other goalies and playing one of the others decreases not insignificantly the chance of winning. Cornell is not going to coast to anything, whether it be the ECAC championship or an NCAA bid or an ECAC first round bye, so there are no throw-away games. In that case I think playing your best goalie every game is reasonable; if he goes down, you're probably screwed even with a backup goalie who has seen a game or two of real action. (Again, I'm just supposing that Davenport is better and perceived as better by the coaches, I don't have an opinion on Cornell's other goalies.) I think whether we see one of the others this weekend will tell us how close in ability the coaches think that goalie is to Davenport.
[quote calgARI '07]Schafer has taken risks in riding goalies and I think most people would agree on that.[/quote]
You have to get some breaks and you have to hope to not be bitten by the injury bug and then play your best hockey to grab the big prizes. If trying to prepare for injuries that may never come causes your quality of play to dip, then it might not be worth it. Whether "most people" agree with the opinion you put forth, I don't know. Age, I smell a poll question!
Well, I hope that you realize that I was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but the fact remains that sometimes going with your backup can have bad results. I know we can all argue this, but none of us know how the other goalies look to the coaches.
Secondly,I don't think we can tell Coach what his obligations are. I think he knows much better than any of us what his long term obligations are. He has consistently said he will put the best players on the ice each night to maximize his chances of winning the game. He has played two goalies before and then gone to pick the best for the playoffs. But when he feels one is alot better he sticks with him.
[quote Jim Hyla]Well, I hope that you realize that I was somewhat tongue-in-cheek...[/quote]
You bet. Paraphrasing the allusion to John Kennedy clearly tipped that off.
[quote Al DeFlorio][quote Jim Hyla]Well, I hope that you realize that I was somewhat tongue-in-cheek...[/quote]
You bet. Paraphrasing the allusion to John Kennedy clearly tipped that off.[/quote]I figured you were tonue in cheek the first time also (Good ol' Lloyd. That was as good a line as "There you go again..." and all for nothing.) but I took your "defense" of the statement more seriously.