Turning point in the season? I hope so.
The Mugford-Kennedy-Carefoot line was unbelievable all night. Mugford is back. Milo was buzzing all night and finally cashed in. That kill at the end may be what ultimately turns this thing around. Big time character win.
And somehow they are along in fourth place! Let the flood gates open.
Mugford and Barlow were all over the ice. Seemed to me to be the best players tonight, even if they don't get credit in the boxscore.
Bitz had a couple good rushes/good shifts, but overall did very little. Topher was also quiet.
This was the loudest Lynah has been since Harvard; it was good to see people actually caring about the hockey team.
The kill on the major at the end seemed to be the best our PK has been all year. Hopefully it'll be a springboard to success down the stretch.
Schafer was walking pretty gingerly, but he seems more recovered from his surgery.
LGR!!!!
The referees gave them an excuse at the end with the 5 min major and Cornell didn't take it.
They were both strong off the rush and on the boards tonight. That shift(s) in the second when 'Gate couldn't make a line change, before the quick whistle bailed them out, was unbelievable. Cornell looked like they were just rolling, and I've got to hand it to Colgate for not taking the easy way out and just hauling our players down during that sequence.
One of the nicest things to see was how physical they were, really taking the play to 'Gate. There were a lot of clean, hard checks that ended up turning into some great chances off the forecheck.
[quote calgARI '07]Turning point in the season?[/quote]
God, I hope so. Great effort from everyone, all night. Dekanich and Burton should be All-East All-American -- those two single- (double-?) handedly prevented Cornell from sweeping.
This was very exciting, upbeat, fun Cornell hockey. I'm coming up next weekend and I hope it continues. Are they back? We'll see. These past two games, they sure looked like it.
after harvard, the best game all year. this one might have been a season savor.
on a non-game note: I love the latonized new cowbell coming out of section A, I hope it becomes regular.
[quote evilnaturedrobot]after harvard, the best game all year. this one might have been a season savor.
on a non-game note: I love the latonized new cowbell coming out of section A, I hope it becomes regular.[/quote]
I too loved it. Very funky.
Barlow got hurt in the second period and didn't play in the third. Thought he was playing his best game at Cornell until he got hurt. Ironically, Milo got most of his ice time in the third.
[quote oceanst41]The referees gave them an excuse at the end with the 5 min major and Cornell didn't take it.
They were both strong off the rush and on the boards tonight. That shift(s) in the second when 'Gate couldn't make a line change, before the quick whistle bailed them out, was unbelievable. Cornell looked like they were just rolling, and I've got to hand it to Colgate for not taking the easy way out and just hauling our players down during that sequence.
One of the nicest things to see was how physical they were, really taking the play to 'Gate. There were a lot of clean, hard checks that ended up turning into some great chances off the forecheck.[/quote]
All points, absolutely agreed, and well-stated. Really, this post is a freestanding summary of the entire game -- too bad we can't give rep. One thing I would add is that while he wasn't tested with any sort of regularity, Scrivens made a couple saves during the game that, had he not, would have been undestandable, and would have lost the points. Also, Burton's goal was from a crazy angle, and I can't fault Ben a bit on it. On the replay, you could actually see Scrivens thinking, "you have GOT to be kidding."
[quote Trotsky]
One thing I would add is that while he wasn't tested with any sort of regularity, Scrivens made a couple saves during the game that, had he not, would have been undestandable, and would have lost the points.[/quote]
Doesn't this sum up Cornell goaltending over the previous 5 years?
[quote oceanst41]
One of the nicest things to see was how physical they were, really taking the play to 'Gate. There were a lot of clean, hard checks that ended up turning into some great chances off the forecheck.[/quote]
In my view, this was the key difference compared with most our play this season. Starting about midway through the second period, we were checking like we meant it and kept Colgate from generating offense. We MUST continue to play tight physical hockey, keeping pressure on our opponent.
[quote Townie]In my view, this was the key difference compared with most our play this season. Starting about midway through the second period, we were checking like we meant it and kept Colgate from generating offense. We MUST continue to play tight physical hockey, keeping pressure on our opponent.[/quote]
I think it may have been a gift from 'Gate. The Raiders completed a few great open ice checks in the middle period, and at a certain point Cornell appeared to say, "Oh, is that the way you want to play it?" From then on, the guys were playing the body better than they have for 2-3 years. It was a fine sight to behold. Hopefully Mike will review the tape and say, "now THAT'S what I'm talkin' about!"
Burton took 45% of the faceoffs for Colgate.
I was a couple rows behind them...they also had a washboard, tamborine, and rhythm sticks!
[quote calgARI '07]Turning point in the season? I hope so.
The Mugford-Kennedy-Carefoot line was unbelievable all night. Mugford is back. Milo was buzzing all night and finally cashed in. That kill at the end may be what ultimately turns this thing around. Big time character win.[/quote]
Does anyone have faceoff stats? Mugford was money on the draws.
It was amazing, though it looked like it was a group of alums. It was probably the group from the 80's (I think it was). Respect for the alums coming back to A and cheering for us. Hockey... it's what brings us all together.
[quote Trotsky][quote Townie]In my view, this was the key difference compared with most our play this season. Starting about midway through the second period, we were checking like we meant it and kept Colgate from generating offense. We MUST continue to play tight physical hockey, keeping pressure on our opponent.[/quote]
I think it may have been a gift from 'Gate. The Raiders completed a few great open ice checks in the middle period, and at a certain point Cornell appeared to say, "Oh, is that the way you want to play it?" From then on, the guys were playing the body better than they have for 2-3 years. It was a fine sight to behold. Hopefully Mike will review the tape and say, "now THAT'S what I'm talkin' about!"[/quote]
Maybe. I can't remember a game in recent history where we were physically outplayed as consistently as we were on Thursday.
The stiff checking was certainly "a fine sight to behold", and will play heavily in any success from here on out. Maybe the missing ingredient??
From the box score http://cornellbigred.cstv.com/sports/m-hockey/stats/2006-2007/cumih21.html
Colgate - Faceoffs
## Player W L
------------------------------
9 Burton, Tyler 11 16
11 Riley, Tom 6 7
14 Winchester, Jesse 4 4
26 McIntyre, David 3 8
12 Camper, Ben 0 1
Totals......... 24 36
Cornell - Faceoffs
## Player W L
------------------------------
27 Gallagher, Blake 9 1
18 Kennedy, Michael 9 10
26 Scott, Topher 7 2
21 Mugford, Tyler 5 3
29 Bitz, Byron 5 6
14 Milo, Justin 1 0
19 Fontas, Chris 0 1
11 Carefoot, Mitch 0 1
Totals......... 36 24
Great game great game. Student section was amazing, great energy and intensity. People were really jacked up for this game. I don't know if it was because it was a TV game or what but phenomenal energy.
I really liked the play of our defensemen tonight; I only counted 2 quality scoring opportunities for them. Penalty kill was as aggressive as I've seen, very good. I thought our first power play had great puck movement, and we were actually getting the puck down low and in front of the net for once and not settling for one timers from the blue line. After that though I thought each power play got progressively worse except for the last one.
That being said Scrivens didn't impress me and I'd prefer to see Davenport. His positioning was unorthodox and at times he was just plain beaten, but that being said he made every save (but one, and yeah that goal was pretty bad) and results are what counts. He can let in a soft goal here and there, as long as we WIN.
Overall very encouraging, GREAT WIN. For a while I thought we forgot how to win close games, I think this is exactly what we needed to get back on track. Next weekend I think will determine our season; see how we stack up when the big boys come to town. Biggest weekend of the season left if you ask me.
Quote from: Doug '08That being said Scrivens didn't impress me and I'd prefer to see Davenport. His positioning was unorthodox and at times he was just plain beaten, but that being said he made every save (but one, and yeah that goal was pretty bad) and results are what counts. He can let in a soft goal here and there, as long as we WIN.
I respectfully disagree with you here. Scrivens looked very solid in goal. He made some really impressive saves, and has done so every time he's been put in goal. I don't think you could hold that goal against him either, that was an impressive shot.
There's no doubt that Scrivens had a great game, and it would have been completely understandable if he gave up at least one more goal. However, I believe Ben is really inconsistent--this is the best we will see from him this season, but we have seen (and will see if he keeps playing) much worse. Good job Scrivens, but let's see Troy play some more. That said, Scrivens put us in a position to win tonight.
This turned into a very physical game. Colgate had good size (looking at their roster I see six guys 6'3" or taller) but our guys dished out the hits, too. Our checking reminded me of the dominating physical games we had the past few seasons.
Burton, Dekanich, and Winchester all struck me as very good players, and I'm surprised 'gate hasn't had more success this season. All three will (I assume) be back next year, so you figure they have the fixings to contend for the title.
As for the great crowd energy, I think it was a combination of a few things. This was the largest crowd we've had in a while: winter break and then rush activities hurt attendance the past few weeks. Also, there was no game last night, so people who might (sadly) only want to come to (or stay for the entirety of) one game could focus there efforts on tonight. Thirdly, the game was televised, so maybe that perked people up a little. (It seemed the band was reluctant to lead LGRs during TV timeouts.) Fourth, Colgate brought a lot of fans, including their band. At the start of warmups, there were more Colgate fans there than Cornell fans. Throughout the game, the Faithful seemed happy to vent their anger towards Section O. And, lastly, people got excited when the toothpaste went flying. That definitely set the tone for more high-intensity cheering.
This game will hopefully set the tone for a more cheerful eLynah week and I'd be surprised if the momentum from this one doesn't help us out next weekend when we take revenge on the North Country teams.
[quote MB]
Quote from: Doug '08That being said Scrivens didn't impress me and I'd prefer to see Davenport. His positioning was unorthodox and at times he was just plain beaten, but that being said he made every save (but one, and yeah that goal was pretty bad) and results are what counts. He can let in a soft goal here and there, as long as we WIN.
I respectfully disagree with you here. Scrivens looked very solid in goal. He made some really impressive saves, and has done so every time he's been put in goal. I don't think you could hold that goal against him either, that was an impressive shot.[/quote]
Point taken. My main gripe was that he is slow to react at times. While I agree the shot was impressive, I think it was certainly a savable opportunity as all Burton really did was go near post and slide it between the post and his skate. I guess I've been biased against him ever since the St. Lawrence game, where he let up one of the softest goals I've ever seen, it was really just a dump from a little past the blue line that caught Scrivens off guard and bounced off his glove and into the net. I thought that after that game the "controversy" would be put to rest, and Davenport would emerge as a true #1, although all of us that were at Colgate on Thursday were shocked when he got the hook.
Regardless though, I agree there is no reason to hold tonight's goal against him. He did his job and then some, we got the win and that's all that matters.
Nice game by Scrivens in goal. Wonder how messed up Davenport's head must be. Davenport's still more likely the No. 1 goalie. But will he start next weekend? Or does Schafer go with the goalie who got January's only win and then quick-yank him next weekend when Cornell goes down 2-1 early?
Seriously! Scrivens was amazing tonight and was pretty solid on Thursday. He has had only two starts at Lynah both of them wins. The guy has proven himself several times and you are all stuck on the other goalie who has been pulled more times in this season than Mckee in his career. Schafer said in the pregame that they made the decision to rotate the goalies which seems to be a good thing. Instead of taking away from his performance give some credit where it is due, Scrivens kept us in the game and I am not sure Davenport could have done that.
All that said, this is the best game I think Cornell has played all year; lots of offense, physical play and a very stingy defense. The special teams looked great, too. Plus we have to keep in mind Dekanich is a ridiculously tough goalie, so this amount of offense would generate more goals against other teams. Let's hope the guys have started a winning streak.
Let's Go Red!!!
Not all of us were shocked Davenport got pulled on Thursday, allowing 2 goals on 6 shots, cm'on! I was glad Scrivens started and he played a great game, I just watched the replay and Scrivens positioned himself correctly for the Burton goal. It was bad luck.
I'll accept I am biased against Davenport but he put us in positions to loose to Dartmouth, Harvard, Wayne State gm.1, RPI, at Quinnipiac, and at Colgate. Of those we got a not so deserved win against Harvard, a tie against RPI, and lost but after comebacks against Wayne State and Colgate with Scrivens in relief.
Schafer said he plans on rotating the goalies until a clear #1 emerges, I think it is best.
Did anybody else think Ray Sawada was playing real well? Not anything super-awesome, but solid hits and very few mistakes?
And who missed that goal opportunity in the second period, when he skated right in front of an empty net? (From Section A, it looked wiiiiide open, like he only needed to twitch the stick to his left.. I'm sure it was just our perspective, though. I think it was Taylor Davenport- did anybody get a good look at that?)
We really gave it to "Dexsuck."
[quote BMac]Did anybody else think Ray Sawada was playing real well? Not anything super-awesome, but solid hits and very few mistakes?[/quote]
Oh, yeah. Sawada, Carefoot, McCutcheon and Milo were the players of the game, IMHO. Seminoff and Nash played really well, too.
Seminoff is by far our best defenseman. It was nice seeing Glover getting back into the game more, he was pretty solid.
my 3 stars:
1. Mugford: he never stopped playing physically at all. If the puck was near his check, his check was made to fear him.
2. Carefoot: total hustle.
3. Scrivens: maybe he was out of position sometimes, but he made at least 2 improbable saves. That was the difference.
I also thought that Krantz was having a great game up until the major/misconduct. I come to expect it from Sawada (really solid/smart every game)and when Carefoot is on, it reminds me of the dominant past Cornell teams.
Seminoff played great as well, but I disagree about Nash. I don't think he played very well at all (to put it lightly)- mishandling the puck, inability to stay with the Colgate forwards,lack of physical play, and the hockey sense just doesn't seem to be there right now. He does join the attack though... maybe he'd be better as a big forward.
[quote David Harding]From the box score http://cornellbigred.cstv.com/sports/m-hockey/stats/2006-2007/cumih21.html
Colgate - Faceoffs
## Player W L
------------------------------
9 Burton, Tyler 11 16
11 Riley, Tom 6 7
14 Winchester, Jesse 4 4
26 McIntyre, David 3 8
12 Camper, Ben 0 1
Totals......... 24 36
Cornell - Faceoffs
## Player W L
------------------------------
27 Gallagher, Blake 9 1
18 Kennedy, Michael 9 10
26 Scott, Topher 7 2
21 Mugford, Tyler 5 3
29 Bitz, Byron 5 6
14 Milo, Justin 1 0
19 Fontas, Chris 0 1
11 Carefoot, Mitch 0 1
Totals......... 36 24
[/quote]
Fontas must have sneaked out of the locker room when no one was looking to take that one faceoff.**]
[quote Al DeFlorio][quote David Harding]From the box score http://cornellbigred.cstv.com/sports/m-hockey/stats/2006-2007/cumih21.html
Colgate - Faceoffs
## Player W L
------------------------------
9 Burton, Tyler 11 16
11 Riley, Tom 6 7
14 Winchester, Jesse 4 4
26 McIntyre, David 3 8
12 Camper, Ben 0 1
Totals......... 24 36
Cornell - Faceoffs
## Player W L
------------------------------
27 Gallagher, Blake 9 1
18 Kennedy, Michael 9 10
26 Scott, Topher 7 2
21 Mugford, Tyler 5 3
29 Bitz, Byron 5 6
14 Milo, Justin 1 0
19 Fontas, Chris 0 1
11 Carefoot, Mitch 0 1
Totals......... 36 24
[/quote]
Fontas must have sneaked out of the locker room when no one was looking to take that one faceoff.**][/quote]
So what's up with Blake Gallagher? Impressive 90% of faceoffs won last night. What else has he done for us lately?
[quote Townie][quote Trotsky][quote Townie]In my view, this was the key difference compared with most our play this season. Starting about midway through the second period, we were checking like we meant it and kept Colgate from generating offense. We MUST continue to play tight physical hockey, keeping pressure on our opponent.[/quote]
I think it may have been a gift from 'Gate. The Raiders completed a few great open ice checks in the middle period, and at a certain point Cornell appeared to say, "Oh, is that the way you want to play it?" From then on, the guys were playing the body better than they have for 2-3 years. It was a fine sight to behold. Hopefully Mike will review the tape and say, "now THAT'S what I'm talkin' about!"[/quote]
Maybe. I can't remember a game in recent history where we were physically outplayed as consistently as we were on Thursday.
The stiff checking was certainly "a fine sight to behold", and will play heavily in any success from here on out. Maybe the missing ingredient??[/quote]
I hope that the missing ingredient for the rest of the season is the tightly called games by the ECACHLMNOP refs.
I think you can make an argument that the most physically imposing team of the past 5+ years in league may have been a bit off balance due to the calls of Feola et al. (albeit at the request of the management).
(http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/images/smilies/bumpit.gif)
[quote billhoward]Nice game by Scrivens in goal. Wonder how messed up Davenport's head must be. Davenport's still more likely the No. 1 goalie. But will he start next weekend? Or does Schafer go with the goalie who got January's only win and then quick-yank him next weekend when Cornell goes down 2-1 early?[/quote]
my guess is that its going to be Friday Davenport/Saturday Scrivens for the rest of the year, or untill the playoffs.
[quote marty][quote Al DeFlorio][quote David Harding]From the box score http://cornellbigred.cstv.com/sports/m-hockey/stats/2006-2007/cumih21.html
Colgate - Faceoffs
## Player W L
------------------------------
9 Burton, Tyler 11 16
11 Riley, Tom 6 7
14 Winchester, Jesse 4 4
26 McIntyre, David 3 8
12 Camper, Ben 0 1
Totals......... 24 36
Cornell - Faceoffs
## Player W L
------------------------------
27 Gallagher, Blake 9 1
18 Kennedy, Michael 9 10
26 Scott, Topher 7 2
21 Mugford, Tyler 5 3
29 Bitz, Byron 5 6
14 Milo, Justin 1 0
19 Fontas, Chris 0 1
11 Carefoot, Mitch 0 1
Totals......... 36 24
[/quote]
Fontas must have sneaked out of the locker room when no one was looking to take that one faceoff.**][/quote]
So what's up with Blake Gallagher? Impressive 90% of faceoffs won last night. What else has he done for us lately?[/quote]
Gallagher is the best faceoff man on the team & has been all year. For a freshman, that's not too bad. Now, pick on someone your own size. **]
The Good: 231 (congrats)...4:37 (amazing)...4,267 (they're back).
The Bad: TV timeouts (maybe necessary, but I hate 'em)...quick whistles...Colgate's band.
The Ugly: Should see this effort every game, but don't...too many whiffs...Powerpuffplay still a mystery.
"We really gave it to "Dexsuck.""...in your dreams, little person.....
[quote marty]
So what's up with Blake Gallagher? Impressive 90% of faceoffs won last night. What else has he done for us lately?[/quote]
Thought he really struggled out there last night. He is another one who has been on the powerplay all year and contributed close to nothing. He has been consistently good on the draw though.
I thought this might be useful in the ongoing goalie debate:
Date Opponent GA SV Mins Dec
Scrivens:
Nov. 25 Wayne State 2 16 45:26 L
Dec. 1 Rensselaer 0 4 31:52 T
Dec. 2 Union 0 22 59:54 W
Dec. 30 Maine 2 6 30:26 N
Jan. 12 at St. Lawrence 3 11 15:47 L
Jan. 20 Brown 4 21 58:30 L
Jan. 25 at Colgate 1 6 29:26 L
Jan. 27 Colgate 1 24 60:00 W
TOTALS 13 110 331:2 2-4-1
Davenport:
Oct. 26 Robert Morris 1 16 59:40 W
Oct. 28 RIT 3 20 59:57 W
Nov. 3 at Brown 2 22 59:52 W
Nov. 4 at Yale 2 17 60:00 W
Nov. 10 Harvard 2 27 59:36 W
Nov. 11 Dartmouth 2 20 58:06 L
Nov. 17 at Princeton 2 24 60:00 W
Nov. 18 at Quinnipiac 4 17 58:17 L
Nov. 25 Wayne State 3 2 12:29 N
Nov. 26 Wayne State 0 21 60:00 W
Dec. 1 Rensselaer 3 12 32:35 N
Dec. 29 New Hampshire 2 17 60:00 W
Dec. 30 Maine 4 13 29:34 L
Jan. 6 Sacred Heart 2 19 59:05 L
Jan. 12 at St. Lawrence 1 19 44:13 N
Jan. 13 at Clarkson 1 21 64:47 T
Jan. 19 Yale 2 15 65:00 T
Jan. 25 at Colgate 2 4 29:41 N
TOTALS 38 306 932:2 8-4-2
My conclusion based on the stats is that Scrivens has only given us two legitimately solid performances this season: Union and last night. Davenport, though he has been awful in several games in the last two months, has had enough good games that I think it's unfair to leave this cloud of "give up two goals and you'll get pulled" over his head. The more Scrivens plays, and the quicker he is brought in, will continue to erode Troy's confidence. If Schafer decides to go with some sort of Friday/Saturday goalie rotation, I hope he will let Ben or Troy know that they won't be pulled unless they're hurt or are so off they need to be pulled (i.e. McKee @Dartmouth last year).
[quote Omie]Schafer said he plans on rotating the goalies until a clear #1 emerges, I think it is best.[/quote]
That much I can definitely agree on. This game is all mental, goaltending especially, and whatever it takes to give our players and edge or spark is what we have to go with. However I only hope this doesn't get in Davenport's head because I think he definitely has the most upside. My bet is we are going to see both goalies next weekend and probably for the rest of the season as well.
[quote Doug '08]
Point taken. My main gripe was that he is slow to react at times. While I agree the shot was impressive, I think it was certainly a savable opportunity as all Burton really did was go near post and slide it between the post and his skate.
Regardless though, I agree there is no reason to hold tonight's goal against him. He did his job and then some, we got the win and that's all that matters.[/quote]
I was watching the video, so I was able to see the replay. Burton's shot was going across the crease and may or may not have had the angle to go in. It snuck through Scrivens' 5-hole and deflected in off the inside of his right leg pad. Regardless of what anyone thinks of his play overall, he definitely wanted that one back. I know I get frustrated when I give up a goal that way, and he is far better than I am. On the other hand, we need to score enough that we don't need a shutout to win. Fortunately, 2 goals were enough.
One thing I did notice- it seemed like when Scrivens was guarding the post he really crouched in tightly, giving up more of the rest of the net than I am used to seeing. Maybe it was just the camera angles that made it look that way.
I agree that rotating goalies should be the way to go. Even though I think Davenport is a little more consistent and seems to position himself better, neither goalie has really established himself. Giving each one game time at this level can only make them better.
Goaltending on a night-to-night basis is hugely mental. Even in pick-up games I am twice the goalie if I am focused and confident than if I am worried about work or something else is on my mind. Of course, being confident feeds on itself because playing better breeds more confidence.
[quote Doug '08][quote Omie]Schafer said he plans on rotating the goalies until a clear #1 emerges, I think it is best.[/quote]
That much I can definitely agree on. This game is all mental, goaltending especially, and whatever it takes to give our players and edge or spark is what we have to go with. However I only hope this doesn't get in Davenport's head because I think he definitely has the most upside. My bet is we are going to see both goalies next weekend and probably for the rest of the season as well.[/quote]
That would be good news. I think anything that can be done to "simplify" the game as this point from the net on out would be good. Hopefully by just focusing on one opponent for the weekend (without fear of being yanked) will help each goalie find a comfort zone.
My approach for the PP (besides declining them) would just be to park Swada/Greening and/or Mugford in front of the net,and just drive the puck there. Minimize the number of passes and looking for that perfect shooting lane. We are not going to get it.
I think it was last night's 2nd PP that McCutcheon had 2 good plays, one a shot from the point that was on net and then the next rush down he just took the puck to the net. No goals scored, but good opportunities.
BTW, it does rain in paradise :(, but maybe I'll see a pretty rainbow later this morning.
Aloha!
[quote cth95][quote Doug '08]
Point taken. My main gripe was that he is slow to react at times. While I agree the shot was impressive, I think it was certainly a savable opportunity as all Burton really did was go near post and slide it between the post and his skate.
Regardless though, I agree there is no reason to hold tonight's goal against him. He did his job and then some, we got the win and that's all that matters.[/quote]
I was watching the video, so I was able to see the replay. Burton's shot was going across the crease and may or may not have had the angle to go in. It snuck through Scrivens' 5-hole and deflected in off the inside of his right leg pad.
One thing I did notice- it seemed like when Scrivens was guarding the post he really crouched in tightly, giving up more of the rest of the net than I am used to seeing. Maybe it was just the camera angles that made it look that way.[/quote]
Burton shot from an extreme angle in the left circle. Scrivens' positioning was poor. His pads were open, as though he was trying to get a jump on moving across the crease to his right. Burton shot instead, and hit Ben's wide open 5-hole, deflecting off the inside of his right pad/skate. Soft goal.
I think Ben's doing an adequate job, but I'm not especially impressed. I'd rate him a B-. He's made some nice saves and let in some soft goals. I still find myself holding my breath!
Frankly, I believe Ben benefitted from a tighter defense last night, especially from the forwards. The team played more physically and sounder overall hockey, missing on some prime opportunities. Easier for a goalie to look good when the team is playing well.
ps: the 5 minute misconduct was bogus! I just saw the replay, and it looked as weak as when I saw it in Lynah.
[quote Townie]I think Ben's doing an adequate job, but I'm not especially impressed. I'd rate him a B-. He's made some nice saves and let in some soft goals. I still find myself holding my breath!
Frankly, I believe Ben benefitted from a tighter defense last night, especially from the forwards. The team played more physically and sounder overall hockey, missing on some prime opportunities. Easier for a goalie to look good when the team is playing well.[/Q]
Agree with this. The team has gone back to a lot more grinding in the corners and wearing them down. They still do more freelance skating to get offensive ops than we've done in the past. However, I like the fact that if it's not there, they are not adverse to playing the physical. Our free skating offensive players are too young to make that our only offense.
[Q]ps: the 5 minute misconduct was bogus! I just saw the replay, and it looked as weak as when I saw it in Lynah.[/quote]
I disagree, it's a tough judgement call. Seeing it in replay it didn't look as harmful as in person, but a crosscheck from behind, into the boards, is almost always going to be called these days. Basically it was an unrestrained move on our point. We have to be able to walk away and just be happy keeping the man in check, especially at that point in the game.
[quote Townie]
Burton shot from an extreme angle in the left circle. Scrivens' positioning was poor. His pads were open, as though he was trying to get a jump on moving across the crease to his right. Burton shot instead, and hit Ben's wide open 5-hole, deflecting off the inside of his right pad/skate. Soft goal.
I think Ben's doing an adequate job, but I'm not especially impressed. I'd rate him a B-. He's made some nice saves and let in some soft goals. I still find myself holding my breath!
Frankly, I believe Ben benefitted from a tighter defense last night, especially from the forwards. The team played more physically and sounder overall hockey, missing on some prime opportunities. Easier for a goalie to look good when the team is playing well.[/quote]
I think you hit Ben's performance right on the head- both tonight and overall. There were only 3 or 4 shots allowed for the whole 21 minutes of PK, and I think all of them were on that last, 5-minute kill. The defense was very impressive.
As a goalie, I have gotten burned just like he did, anticipating a pass and leaving my legs open to get a jump moving across the crease. Unfortunately, this leaves a pretty wide target if you get fooled and get a shot instead.
[quote Townie] ps: the 5 minute misconduct was bogus! I just saw the replay, and it looked as weak as when I saw it in Lynah.[/quote]
The TWCNY announcers were very surprised it wasn't a 2-min penalty, saying that both players were battling. I was actually thinking 5 before it was announced, though, because the Colgate player went face-first into the boards.
[quote cth95]ps: the 5 minute misconduct was bogus! I just saw the replay, and it looked as weak as when I saw it in Lynah.[/quote]
+1. I thought the game was well called up to that point. That would have been a perfect situation for a dive and a boarding call. Give that guy an oscar he deserved it.
exactly how I felt, both at the game last night, and watching it more than once today. I do think it could have warranted a penalty, but in no way did I see a 5 minute, especially without some sort of penalty for the 'Gate player.
[quote duffs4][quote cth95]ps: the 5 minute misconduct was bogus! I just saw the replay, and it looked as weak as when I saw it in Lynah.[/quote]
+1. I thought the game was well called up to that point. That would have been a perfect situation for a dive and a boarding call. Give that guy an oscar he deserved it.[/quote]
That's actually Townie's quote. I said I wasn't surprised it was a 5-min major even if it was the wrong call, because the Colgate player was driven face first into the boards. I even was thinking 5 before it was official and the announcers were saying it would only be 2-min.
I was suprised, as were the announcers on the telecast. It was soft live and even softer on the broadcast. Was it a disqulification or misconduct? Will we see Krantz Friday??
Isn't hitting from behind an automatic major these days? The ref definitely made the hitting from behind signal, and as soon as he does that, it's 5 (I think).
It was a misconduct, so Krantz should be able to play. Like I said above, the hit was soft, but it was from behind. It might not have been deserved, but I wasn't surprised with the 5-min call.
from watching it on TV last night, my first reaction was that it should be a Major. it looked like Krantz stopped trying to play the puck and simply decided to bury Bogdanich. 98% of the time when there is a check from behnd along the boards like that you will see a major. The other 2% of the time the player pops right back up and you see a boarding minor. but when it is along the boards, I am fairly certain checking from behind is an automatic major.
[quote Robb]Isn't hitting from behind an automatic major these days? The ref definitely made the hitting from behind signal, and as soon as he does that, it's 5 (I think).[/quote]
Sort of. It's possible to get hitting from behind as a minor penalty, but according to the rulebook hitting from behind into the side boards or end boards is a flagrant violation and results in a major penalty.
I've seen some pretty clear boarding incidents where the hit was from behind and the official (appropriately, IMO) called a boarding minor instead of a major for hitting from behind, so the ref has some leeway in deciding whether or not it should be a five minute major. If he decides it's a clear case of hitting from behind into the boards then it'll be a major penalty, which may be what happened in this case.
Agreed. I watched the game again on tws26 today. There was barely contact. Great acting though... I especially liked the part where he came out for his next shift 30 seconds later.
Bogdanich still had the puck...
My opinion- great acting (the "burying" contact was very, very minimal at most), but if the ref. feels so compelled to use his whistle- boarding(2min) is the better call.
All said and done, the resultant penalty kill is probably good for team momentum going into next weekend.
[quote Cactus12]Agreed. I watched the game again on tws26 today. There was barely contact. Great acting though... I especially liked the part where he came out for his next shift 30 seconds later.[/quote]
That's a fairly dangerous line of thinking - no blood, no foul? If an action is illegal, it's illegal, period, and not dependent on the result of the play.
It was a 2-minute shove from behind, not a 5-minute major. If you believed the refs were in debt to a bookie who had money on Colgate, it would have been understandable. Since that's not the case, the next best explanation is: It was a bad call by referees who wanted to keep the game safe ... and over-reacted.
[quote Robb][quote Cactus12]Agreed. I watched the game again on tws26 today. There was barely contact. Great acting though... I especially liked the part where he came out for his next shift 30 seconds later.[/quote]
That's a fairly dangerous line of thinking - no blood, no foul? If an action is illegal, it's illegal, period, and not dependent on the result of the play.[/quote]
I agree. I haven't seen the play (and couldn't see it at all from Section A, but, personally, I think any back check should result in a five minute major. Checking from behind is extremely dangerous. I don't know if it's the same around here, but in high school hockey the players wear bright orange stop signs to prevent back checking (due to the number of players paralyzed and otherwise seriously hurt by unnecessary back checks). Of course, if you do choose to check from behind, you are suspended and would have to be lucky (or really good) to see the ice again that season.
Agreed- if there's a real check from behind on the play... no one who knows how to skate much less play hockey goes down from that "hit"
[quote billhoward]It was a 2-minute shove from behind, not a 5-minute major. If you believed the refs were in debt to a bookie who had money on Colgate, it would have been understandable. Since that's not the case, the next best explanation is: It was a bad call by referees who wanted to keep the game safe ... and over-reacted.[/quote]
We had a clear view from Section G. Bill's assessment is right on...it was just a shove. Lynah was starting to rock; the ref's thinking, "We need to keep it safe for 4:37 more minutes" makes a lot of sense. Add to that Cornell seemed careful regarding penalties all night.
[quote Cactus12]Agreed- if there's a real check from behind on the play... no one who knows how to skate much less play hockey goes down from that "hit"[/quote]
Exactly, if krantz skated into him and planted him from behind there is no question that is a 5er. Since they were both standing there and Krantz shoved him into the boards, 2 minutes, at most. I think the Colgate player put himself in a more dangerous position by diving than Krantz did by shoving him. I am glad, however, that the situation turned into a charater builder rather than a crushing one.
*exhale*
No rest for the weary. I'm not looking forward to the Clarkson game like I usually do.
Hey! I'm new to the board, but heres my opinion on the call. Now i sit in section F, and from my point of view there was no way thats a 5 min penalty. When i saw it i was thinking maybe 2 minutes, and was very shocked when he made it a 5 min penalty. That did end up being a great thing for momentum, however so it all worked out.
The replay on Time Warner made it look pretty bad -- the guy was low on the boards and he crumpled. I wasn't too surprised it was a major.
The kill for that final 4:35 was amazing and will certainly carry the momentum forward. And, the fans during the kill were equally as impressive. However, I do have to say that I was disappointed in the Lynah Faithful because of the lack of a curtain call for Coach Schaefer after the game. Was it ignorance? Apathy? Maybe I missed something, but I was SHOCKED that the fans didn't demand that he come back out and acknowledge all that he's done for the program.
[quote krimsman]The kill for that final 4:35 was amazing and will certainly carry the momentum forward. And, the fans during the kill were equally as impressive. However, I do have to say that I was disappointed in the Lynah Faithful because of the lack of a curtain call for Coach Schaefer after the game. Was it ignorance? Apathy? Maybe I missed something, but I was SHOCKED that the fans didn't demand that he come back out and acknowledge all that he's done for the program.[/quote]
Yes, that would have been a nice thing to do, but I'll admit that it didn't immediately register to me that this was the record win. Though I had been following his quest for the win, I was caught up in the thrill of the last 4:35 and forgot all about it when the game ended. So, to answer your question, I'd think ignorance.
Just saw the replay on CSTV. It jolted my memory about something:
It reminded me of the "battle of the bands" - when our Tubas tried to play the Die/Drop Dead/Go Home and the Colgate band drowned them out. The tubas played it in its entirety, stopped, then played it again when the Colgate band was done. The Colgate band played over them once again, but the crowd went crazy when the tubas began the second rendition.
The crowd energy skyrocketed with that and we scored the goal not long after. I'm not saying it was a direct correlation, but I remember being so pumped after that back and forth.
A few us attempted a "thank you schafer" chant but in all honesty everybody was pretty psyched and animated about the win that it problably didn't register on most people.
[quote Omie]A few us attempted a "thank you schafer" chant but in all honesty everybody was pretty psyched and animated about the win that it problably didn't register on most people.[/quote]So, start it before the next game. Too bad there aren't enough people at the warm-up.
[quote krimsman]Maybe I missed something, but I was SHOCKED that the fans didn't demand that he come back out and acknowledge all that he's done for the program.[/quote]
Even if they did, I doubt he would acknowledge it. He's downplayed the record in the media, and coming out to "take a bow" would be extremely out of character. He's never been one to shift the adulation onto himself away from the players, and even seemed uncomfortable going back to all the "Thank you, Schafer" chants in '96 & '97. Besides, having a coach take a public bow after such a huge confidence-building game might appear to take credit for the hard work and execution the players just showed. Something this team doesn't need right now.
A great photo of the team after the win from 14850 suggests that he got his due in a way that probably means more to him than chants from the crowd. I'm fine with that.
http://sports.14850.com/0127redvictory.html
The crowd did love it so i guess it worked out OK for us. It was pretty funny. While I realize that etiquette and Colgate do not usually go together in the same sentence, unless preceded by the word poor, didn't Colgate violate band etiquette of not playing over one another? Do tubas not count as a band or is it just a lack of class?
As long as I am on the topic of poor etiquette and Colgate, what is the deal with Colgate's WWF announcer at Starr not announcing Cornell's goals? It seemed a bit childish and I think hw did the same thing last year. I was wondering if only we get this treatment or if they roll out the red carpet like that for everyone.
-WillR
[quote WillR]
As long as I am on the topic of poor etiquette and Colgate, what is the deal with Colgate's WWF announcer at Starr not announcing Cornell's goals? It seemed a bit childish and I think hw did the same thing last year. I was wondering if only we get this treatment or if they roll out the red carpet like that for everyone.
-WillR[/quote]
Colgate returns to FUULLLLLL strength!!
[quote redhair34][quote WillR]
As long as I am on the topic of poor etiquette and Colgate, what is the deal with Colgate's WWF announcer at Starr not announcing Cornell's goals? It seemed a bit childish and I think hw did the same thing last year. I was wondering if only we get this treatment or if they roll out the red carpet like that for everyone.
-WillR[/quote]
Colgate returns to FUULLLLLL strength!![/quote]
And they still suck!
[quote WillR]The crowd did love it so i guess it worked out OK for us. It was pretty funny. While I realize that etiquette and Colgate do not usually go together in the same sentence, unless preceded by the word poor, didn't Colgate violate band etiquette of not playing over one another? Do tubas not count as a band or is it just a lack of class?
-WillR[/quote]
I believe that the argument is that Swannee River is not really a song, but instead a chant or taunt, and thus the rule about not playing over each other doesn't apply.
Not sure how I feel about that. Though it has to be said that Swannee is one of the more obnoxious things done to the apposing team at lynah, and thus I could see why colgate would take particular offence. I've always been amazed that we get away with it at all on the road.
[quote evilnaturedrobot][quote WillR]The crowd did love it so i guess it worked out OK for us. It was pretty funny. While I realize that etiquette and Colgate do not usually go together in the same sentence, unless preceded by the word poor, didn't Colgate violate band etiquette of not playing over one another? Do tubas not count as a band or is it just a lack of class?
-WillR[/quote]
I believe that the argument is that Swannee River is not really a song, but instead a chant or taunt, and thus the rule about not plaing over each other doesn't apply.
Not sure how I feel about that. Though it has to be said that Swannee is one of the more obnoxious things done to the apposing team at lynah, and thus could see why colgate would take particular offence. I've always been amazed that we get away with it at all on the road.[/quote]
The best part about that whole Swanee pissing match was when the RPI band played over the Colgate Band at Placid after the Colgate band played over Swanee. As I noted at the time
[Q]I think the fact that a neutral band illustrated what it's like to have one of your cheers played over shows that it's not something wrong with Swanee, the Colgate band are just assholes.[/Q]
[quote evilnaturedrobot][quote WillR]The crowd did love it so i guess it worked out OK for us. It was pretty funny. While I realize that etiquette and Colgate do not usually go together in the same sentence, unless preceded by the word poor, didn't Colgate violate band etiquette of not playing over one another? Do tubas not count as a band or is it just a lack of class?
-WillR[/quote]
Not sure how I feel about that. Though it has to be said that Swannee is one of the more obnoxious things done to the apposing team at lynah, and thus could see why colgate would take particular offence. I've always been amazed that we get away with it at all on the road.[/quote]
Why is that? It's not like they play it right above/behind the home team's bench.
[quote redhair34][quote evilnaturedrobot][quote WillR]The crowd did love it so i guess it worked out OK for us. It was pretty funny. While I realize that etiquette and Colgate do not usually go together in the same sentence, unless preceded by the word poor, didn't Colgate violate band etiquette of not playing over one another? Do tubas not count as a band or is it just a lack of class?
-WillR[/quote]
Not sure how I feel about that. Though it has to be said that Swannee is one of the more obnoxious things done to the apposing team at lynah, and thus could see why colgate would take particular offence. I've always been amazed that we get away with it at all on the road.[/quote]
Why is that? It's not like they play it right above/behind the home team's bench.[/quote]
Hmm, I've only been to two away games (both at Ingalls) and I seem to recall the tubas being pretty close to the home team. At the same time, my memory is pretty foggy here and I could be wrong.
[quote evilnaturedrobot][quote redhair34][quote evilnaturedrobot][quote WillR]The crowd did love it so i guess it worked out OK for us. It was pretty funny. While I realize that etiquette and Colgate do not usually go together in the same sentence, unless preceded by the word poor, didn't Colgate violate band etiquette of not playing over one another? Do tubas not count as a band or is it just a lack of class?
-WillR[/quote]
Not sure how I feel about that. Though it has to be said that Swannee is one of the more obnoxious things done to the apposing team at lynah, and thus could see why colgate would take particular offence. I've always been amazed that we get away with it at all on the road.[/quote]
Why is that? It's not like they play it right above/behind the home team's bench.[/quote]
Hmm, I've only been to two away games (both at Ingalls) and I seem to recall the tubas being pretty close to the home team. At the same time, my memory is pretty foggy here and I could be wrong.[/quote]
In my experience with away games (a bit more than two), the tubas never leave wherever they put our band in their rink for Swannee.
I hope he was made happy enough to brave the smell of that crush of players in so confined a space...scary.
[quote Will][quote evilnaturedrobot][quote redhair34][quote evilnaturedrobot][quote WillR]The crowd did love it so i guess it worked out OK for us. It was pretty funny. While I realize that etiquette and Colgate do not usually go together in the same sentence, unless preceded by the word poor, didn't Colgate violate band etiquette of not playing over one another? Do tubas not count as a band or is it just a lack of class?
-WillR[/quote]
Not sure how I feel about that. Though it has to be said that Swannee is one of the more obnoxious things done to the apposing team at lynah, and thus could see why colgate would take particular offence. I've always been amazed that we get away with it at all on the road.[/quote]
Why is that? It's not like they play it right above/behind the home team's bench.[/quote]
you are most likely correct, my memory must be playing tricks on me.
your probably right, my memory's just playing tricks on me.
Hmm, I've only been to two away games (both at Ingalls) and I seem to recall the tubas being pretty close to the home team. At the same time, my memory is pretty foggy here and I could be wrong.[/quote]
In my experience with away games (a bit more than two), the tubas never leave wherever they put our band in their rink for Swannee.[/quote]
[quote krimsman]The kill for that final 4:35 was amazing and will certainly carry the momentum forward. And, the fans during the kill were equally as impressive. However, I do have to say that I was disappointed in the Lynah Faithful because of the lack of a curtain call for Coach Schaefer after the game. Was it ignorance? Apathy? Maybe I missed something, but I was SHOCKED that the fans didn't demand that he come back out and acknowledge all that he's done for the program.[/quote]
There was a letter in the Sun today criticizing the students for not thanking Schafer and for not being creative. The writer also misspelled coach's name, except he used two "f"s. I can't seem to find the link on the Sun's site.
[quote WillR]
As long as I am on the topic of poor etiquette and Colgate, what is the deal with Colgate's WWF announcer at Starr not announcing Cornell's goals? It seemed a bit childish and I think hw did the same thing last year. I was wondering if only we get this treatment or if they roll out the red carpet like that for everyone.
-WillR[/quote]
Along those lines, is it me or does the Clarkson announcer call us Colgate for our penalties and goals? I swear I have heard him say "Colgate penalty on..." and "Colgate goal by....." without hearing "Cornell..." I thought I just heard wrong or he screwed up a few times last year, but then this year I heard it again.
[quote cth95]
Along those lines, is it me or does the Clarkson announcer call us Colgate for our penalties and goals? I swear I have heard him say "Colgate penalty on..." and "Colgate goal by....." without hearing "Cornell..." I thought I just heard wrong or he screwed up a few times last year, but then this year I heard it again.[/quote]
Same.
[quote WillR]
As long as I am on the topic of poor etiquette and Colgate, what is the deal with Colgate's WWF announcer at Starr not announcing Cornell's goals? It seemed a bit childish and I think hw did the same thing last year. I was wondering if only we get this treatment or if they roll out the red carpet like that for everyone.[/quote]
If a goal is announced in Starr Rink, and Cornell is not playing, is anyone there to hear it?
Why is Justin Milo, in his post game interview, the only one to give credit to Dan Glover for Milo's goal? He made a strong move in a moment of opportunity and put a good shot on net, one that provided a rebound opportunity. It was quick and it was not flashy, but Glover made a good play to set up that goal. I choose not to comment on the rest of Glover's play.
[quote mtmack25][quote WillR]
As long as I am on the topic of poor etiquette and Colgate, what is the deal with Colgate's WWF announcer at Starr not announcing Cornell's goals? It seemed a bit childish and I think hw did the same thing last year. I was wondering if only we get this treatment or if they roll out the red carpet like that for everyone.[/quote]
If a goal is announced in Starr Rink, and Cornell is not playing, is anyone there to hear it?
Why is Justin Milo, in his post game interview, the only one to give credit to Dan Glover for Milo's goal? He made a strong move in a moment of opportunity and put a good shot on net, one that provided a rebound opportunity. It was quick and it was not flashy, but Glover made a good play to set up that goal. I choose not to comment on the rest of Glover's play.[/quote]
Glover didn't actually put a shot on net. If you watch a replay he was trying to (and did) get it to Milo. Milo shot, then put in his own rebound.
[quote WillR]
As long as I am on the topic of poor etiquette and Colgate, what is the deal with Colgate's WWF announcer at Starr not announcing Cornell's goals? It seemed a bit childish and I think hw did the same thing last year. I was wondering if only we get this treatment or if they roll out the red carpet like that for everyone.
-WillR[/quote]
He announced the first one, but barely above a whisper. He definitely omitted the second one though, as several of us noticed, and responded with a "PA Guy sucks" chant. I was totally enamored of the biographies he tacked onto each Colgate goal though, i.e. "The second Colgate goal was scored by ________, and it was his 8th goal this season, 14th in his career, 4th backhand wrist-shot he's ever taken from the slot, etc etc." I was half expecting him to add "and he enjoys long walks on the beach, world peace, and ladies...he's single!"
The idiot Colgate kids (oxymoron?) in our section tried to start an argument about why we would ever care about the PA announcer in a hockey game...not that they were all that interested in the game anyway...quite busy text-messaging on their phones. Although I should add that Mugford was also texting on his phone during the game, very noticeably as he and the other scratches were seated a few rows behind us.
[quote sah67]
The idiot Colgate kids (oxymoron?)[/quote]
Don't you mean "redundant and repetitive?"
[quote sah67]Although I should add that Mugford was also texting on his phone during the game, very noticeably as he and the other scratches were seated a few rows behind us.[/quote]
I'm sure he was sending score updates...
[quote Robb][quote sah67]
The idiot Colgate kids (oxymoron?)[/quote]
Don't you mean "redundant and repetitive?"[/quote]
Touche...it's a good thing I'm not a Linguistics major.