Go to it!
Headline:
Cornell wins 5-3 in Sudden Death Overtime
:)
Yet another game where Cornell lots of things right, puts up a huge number of shots, and doesn't have a walkaway victory to show for it. And yet another game that's solid on defense except for a little lapse here and another one there.
Good to see the three musketeers of defense back and skating. A two-OT game can't be good for the stamina of guys with limited practice time. Plus more ice time equals more change to reinjure yourself.
Leggio deserves credit for making 50 saves. We make ECAC goalie of the week out of a lot of goalies.
Good to see scoring deep in the ranks, not just the main line.
Time to play the how-many-goals-was-David-McKee-responsble-for contest? Or was he hung out to dry on two of them? three?
... see, it was just like Minnesota last year. Wear them down with your four lines and eventually you'll beat them in OT, if they don't get to you first.
Woo!
Hats off to Clarkson for taking it to 2 OTs. They stretched everything they had and survived the wave-offs. It seemed like they were a little more gassed than Cornell in the OTs. Not only did they play well, but this was the cleanest CU-CCT game I can remember in recent years.
No way the refs could've made that call correctly on Moulson's goal at the end of the first OT. When you have 3 things to look at, (puck, green light, red light) it's a tough call. Teet's reactions aren't 0.1 seconds fast and the green light was on before the red light despite the puck in the net. That happens. Great shot by Moulson, and I'm glad we got the frame-by-frame treatment on the CSTV webcast. Great job!
[quote RichH]this was the cleanest CU-CCT game I can remember in recent years.[/quote]
I noticed that too. It was nice to see. Hope it continues.
[quote billhoward]Yet another game where Cornell lots of things right, puts up a huge number of shots, and doesn't have a walkaway victory to show for it. And yet another game that's solid on defense except for a little lapse here and another one there.
Good to see the three musketeers of defense back and skating. A two-OT game can't be good for the stamina of guys with limited practice time. Plus more ice time equals more change to reinjure yourself.
Leggio deserves credit for making 50 saves. We make ECAC goalie of the week out of a lot of goalies.
Good to see scoring deep in the ranks, not just the main line.
Time to play the how-many-goals-was-David-McKee-responsble-for contest? Or was he hung out to dry on two of them? three?
... see, it was just like Minnesota last year. Wear them down with your four lines and eventually you'll beat them in OT, if they don't get to you first.[/quote]
Bill, nice analysis but would it kill you to acknowledge that just maybe those goalies played well and earned the honor?
FYI, Leggio has played very well down the stretch. Tonight was no fluke on his part. Give the other guys some credit in a tight game. Or can't you see that?
So how hard would it be to make the goal light lockout after the buzzer goes off? It wouldn'ty prove that a goal didn't go in in time but it would prove that it did (except for the unlikely event that the goal judge lit it up too early).
They can do it on Jeopardy, why not in hockey?. Maybe I can make a donation to endow the new goal light system.
Of course, downward pointing video or puck-past-the-goal-line sensors couldn't be that far off either.
I'll take Buzzer Shots for $200 Alex.
That shit was absolutely unbelievable. I'm sorry to swear but it just was fucking unbelievable. I figure that the series should be over because Cornell won twice tonight. Cornell dominated this game. Lack of leadership showed in the third period. Pokuluk assisted on two of their goals. Clarkson had one scoring chance in the two overtimes and it came in the first minute of the first one. Cornell absolutely dominated both overtimes and obviously deserved to win this game 1000 times over. There was no question that that was a goal. No question whatsoever, but ya know what, they stuck with it and won. There were a couple shifts in that second ot where it seemed like Clarkson was taking the momentum but man that third line was absolutely amazing. Scott better be on the top line for the rest of the year because with him on it, they actually looked like a top line. Scott was unbelievable as was Mugford. Gleed and Krantz were outstanding on the blueline. Clarkson had seven scoring chances the whole game and scored on three of them.
3 Stars:
1. Scott
2. Gleed
3. Mugford
[quote Rich S]
FYI, Leggio has played very well down the stretch. Tonight was no fluke on his part. [/quote]
Definitely agree. Leggio didn't stand on his head, but he was very solid and just made the plays on each Cornell rush that he had to make. As the game wore on, I was getting that "can we just solve him one more time?" feeling. They did before fatigue became too much of an issue.
McKee was very solid in the 2nd period. I was back to being confident with his play. Couldn't really see if the 3rd period goals were shaky on his part.
[quote Rich S][quote billhoward]Yet another game where Cornell lots of things right, puts up a huge number of shots, and doesn't have a walkaway victory to show for it. And yet another game that's solid on defense except for a little lapse here and another one there.
Good to see the three musketeers of defense back and skating. A two-OT game can't be good for the stamina of guys with limited practice time. Plus more ice time equals more change to reinjure yourself.
Leggio deserves credit for making 50 saves. We make ECAC goalie of the week out of a lot of goalies.
Good to see scoring deep in the ranks, not just the main line.
Time to play the how-many-goals-was-David-McKee-responsble-for contest? Or was he hung out to dry on two of them? three?
... see, it was just like Minnesota last year. Wear them down with your four lines and eventually you'll beat them in OT, if they don't get to you first.[/quote]
Bill, nice analysis but would it kill you to acknowledge that just maybe those goalies played well and earned the honor?
FYI, Leggio has played very well down the stretch. Tonight was no fluke on his part. Give the other guys some credit in a tight game. Or can't you see that?[/quote]
What is wrong with you? Bill's review was highly respectful of Clarkson. Seriously, what is your psychological malfunction?
Great game by both teams tonight. The better team won. Hopefully we'll see a repeat tomorrow.
[quote Roy 82]Headline:
Cornell wins 5-3 in Sudden Death Overtime
:)[/quote]
6-3 you mean?
And O'Byrne was horrible leading to two Clarkson goals. Maybe he should heal a bit more.
Leggio really impressed me with his composure. The guy is like not even human. Kind of reminds of Kiprusoff in that he is so mentally tough in there and absolutely never loses his composure.
Didn't think McKee could do much about any of the goals.
On the second clarkson goal Mckee had no chance.
Highly respectful? Where?
He gave Leggio a backhanded compliment and that's all. No other mention of Tech at all.
Don't play shrink Trots...you're not good at it.
I have a few things to do so you have 15 mins or so to dig up the "highly respectful" stuff.
Enjoy. :-D
[quote Omie]And O'Byrne was horrible leading to two Clarkson goals. Maybe he should heal a bit more.[/quote]
I could be wrong but wasn't Pokuluk the one that got stripped of the puck (reminiscent of Jason Dailey's OT giveaway against Yale that one year) that led to the second Clarkson goal. The first one was definitely Pokuluk's fault as he didn't skate backwards and just kept going forwards with his man, allowing him to get the first shot off. That pairing in general struggled, but I was surprised to see them get so much ice time. Krantz and Gleed were both really really good.
Rich, I've defended you several times over the past few months, but you really are approaching "Troll" status for me. Good lord, please stop being so confrontational.
Kyle
To set the record straight:
We watched the Moulson shot on two cameras on slow motion (I run one of them). On my camera, it SEEMED as though his shot did not clear the line before 0.0.
However, on the webcast shot, we ran it frame by frame. Moulson took the shot at 0.4, and at 0.1 it was over Leggio's left shoulder and past the line. Should've been the game winner right there. -- but so tough to see as a ref.
Hey, we won so it's all good. Hats off to both goalies.
And WOW, Glover's goal was awesome.
[quote krose]Rich, I've defended you several times over the past few months, but you really are approaching "Troll" status for me. Good lord, please stop being so confrontational.
Kyle[/quote]
Offering a different opinion from the one shared by all th ecornell posters here makes me confrontational? You're being a tad close-minded.
[quote Trustnduzt]To set the record straight:
We watched the Moulson shot on two cameras on slow motion (I run one of them). On my camera, it SEEMED as though his shot did not clear the line before 0.0.
However, on the webcast shot, we ran it frame by frame. Moulson took the shot at 0.4, and at 0.1 it was over Leggio's left shoulder and past the line. Should've been the game winner right there. -- but so tough to see as a ref.
Hey, we won so it's all good. Hats off to both goalies.
And WOW, Glover's goal was awesome.[/quote]
Make sure to check the video suggestions thread ;)
You are a Clarkson fan on a Cornell message board. Deal with it.
[quote krose]Rich, I've defended you several times over the past few months, but you really are approaching "Troll" status for me. Good lord, please stop being so confrontational.[/quote]
He's comic relief. For God's sake, don't discourage him.
Done, Tuba. Sorry about that....
[quote Trustnduzt]Done, Tuba. Sorry about that....[/quote]
No prob, thanks for listening to our whining. :)
Hey, that's what I'm here for.
For God's sake, you need to mature a bit.
I understood that both Pokuluk and O'byrne led to the second goal, mostly O'byrne. But then again I could be wrong.
O'Byrne had the TO on the second goal. Pokulok just missed the puck on the first when he was trying make follow the screen from his teammate.
[quote calgARI '07][quote Omie]And O'Byrne was horrible leading to two Clarkson goals. Maybe he should heal a bit more.[/quote]
I could be wrong but wasn't Pokuluk the one that got stripped of the puck (reminiscent of Jason Dailey's OT giveaway against Yale that one year) that led to the second Clarkson goal. The first one was definitely Pokuluk's fault as he didn't skate backwards and just kept going forwards with his man, allowing him to get the first shot off. That pairing in general struggled, but I was surprised to see them get so much ice time. Krantz and Gleed were both really really good.[/quote]
I thought it was OB on that second one. It looked like he tried to split the two wingers on the point and got stripped of the puck.
The "We make ECAC goalie of the week out of a lot of goalies" comment from Bill can be seen as a backhanded slap, but it is true. I can't remember seeing any amazing saves from Leggio like the one from McKee when he was on his stomach and just tipped the Dodge effort wide and then covered up the wide angle rebound attempt. Sure, you can say "positioning" but we had a bunch of empty net opps when Leggio was clearly beaten and out of position. Don't get me wrong, Leggio stood in tough and stay focused but we're not exactly hitting corners with our shots.
Honestly, I wasn't sure whether or not it was a goal live. I thought it was probably too close to call without replay. And I am a Big Red fan, but I don't know if Hansen could end the game on something that close. I don't have a problem with the call (especially now that they won). Either way, our fans were out of line throwing crap on the ice...it's a bad habit that has to stop. We don't want to be that kind of crowd.
Also, I'd like to give Hansen a thumbs up for the job he did in OT by not calling any penalties. There were a few close plays that could have been called, but I like letting the players play and not having the game end on special teams.
[quote Rich S]
Offering a different opinion from the one shared by all th ecornell posters here makes me confrontational? You're being a tad close-minded.[/quote]
First: ALL the Cornell posters? I suggest you re-read the thread.
Second: having a different opinion isn't confrontational. Saying things like "Or can't you see that?" and "Don't play shrink Trots...you're not good at it." is being confrontational.
[Q]He gave Leggio a backhanded compliment and that's all. No other mention of Tech at all.[/Q]
Some fans like to analyze what their team did right and wrong after games. There is no mandate that people must do the same to the other team.
I suggest you get over it and enjoy this thread, as it offers the most glowing praise of the Clarkson team on this board in a while, rather than looking for every nit that might be interpreted as an insult that you have to defend.
[quote Rich S]For God's sake, you need to mature a bit.[/quote]
No, Rich: you need to stop being a sociopath. I know where from I am talking, because I am a pretty confrontational guy in person... but at least my brain has the wiring to tell me when enough is enough.
Kyle
Rich, I don't take it as an insult at all.
As for "all" the fans, thanks, you're right. I see that a number of cornell fans here and on the other thread had no difficulty acknowleding the efforts of the opponent. Something that Trotzky can't bring himself to do.
I say again...that's poor sportsmanship.
In analyzing what your team did right and what they did wrong, you're missing the boat if you don't consider what things the other team did to cause you do do things wrong. As a coach as well as a sports writer, I've learned to see both sides.
As for my comments you called confrontational, you might look at the sarcasm he directed at me..."psychological malfunction?" That's not confrontational by your definition?
Oh right...you only are supposed to look at your side. I forgot that...silly me. :-}
Oh that's a hoot about my enjoying this thread because it's "glowing praise of Clarkson." Like I need to hear that here. Please, get over yourself on that idea. ::rolleyes::
[quote Rich S]Something that Trotzky can't bring himself to do.[/quote]
Are you coming on to me, Rich? I don't recall us being related.
[quote action jackson]Either way, our fans were out of line throwing crap on the ice...it's a bad habit that has to stop. We don't want to be that kind of crowd.[/quote]
Hear, hear. That shit has got to stop.
he's just saying you have been able to gather a large amount of wealth. which your cornell education has made significantly easier than those with a non-cornell education
would throwing the people who throw stuff on the ice be acceptable? or would throwing them into the clarkson locker room be a better idea?
[quote Rich S]Rich, I don't take it as an insult at all.
As for "all" the fans, thanks, you're right. I see that a number of cornell fans here and on the other thread had no difficulty acknowleding the efforts of the opponent. Something that Trotzky can't bring himself to do.
I say again...that's poor sportsmanship.
In analyzing what your team did right and what they did wrong, you're missing the boat if you don't consider what things the other team did to cause you do do things wrong. As a coach as well as a sports writer, I've learned to see both sides.
As for my comments you called confrontational, you might look at the sarcasm he directed at me..."psychological malfunction?" That's not confrontational by your definition?
Oh right...you only are supposed to look at your side. I forgot that...silly me. :-}
Oh that's a hoot about my enjoying this thread because it's "glowing praise of Clarkson." Like I need to hear that here. Please, get over yourself on that idea. ::rolleyes::[/quote]
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA
The first line (Carefoot, Bitz, Moulson) and the first defensive pairing (OB, Pokulok) were absolutely brutal. Pokulok seemed like he was playing in peewee hockey. He couldn't stop, couldn't skate backwards, couldn't pass, couldn't hit, couldn't do anything. I believe that all 5 of those guys were -3 for the night. I was nervous everytime Clarkson was in the offensive zone when those guys were on the ice. The rest of our line combinations were awesome. But, I agree with Ari, leave Scott on that first line.
Not sure if anyone has noticed, but has Carefoot's PK time decreased dramatically. If so, why? He was our best PKer at the beginning of this season and amazing last year.
[quote Trotsky][quote Rich S]Something that Trotzky can't bring himself to do.[/quote]
Are you coming on to me, Rich? I don't recall us being related.[/quote]
Oh snap! It's on! :-D
Rich, the series isn't over--Game two is tomorrow! I hope the Clarkson empty gas tank from the OTs carries over to the second game! Let's go Red!
Greg, you're still not allowed to start the game thread tomorrow! ;-)
It's Friday night! Peace.
[Q]Bill's review was highly respectful of Clarkson.
Great game by both teams tonight.[/Q]
Guess who said those?
Seriously, you can't come on here expecting out and out praise of Clarkson. Just like there's never going to be out-and-out praise of Cornell on the roundtable. At least not until we're all on the same team in the NCAAs.
Please change your standards for behavior to what you would hold you and your fellow Clarkson fans to in reverse on your board. Or just don't come here.
Either one...as long as they get the ass kicking they deserve. They're not real Cornell fans and those are the kids who shouldn't be getting tickets next year.
[quote RichH] When you have 3 things to look at, (puck, green light, red light) it's a tough call. Teet's reactions aren't 0.1 seconds fast and the green light was on before the red light despite the puck in the net. That happens. [/quote]With the help of a friend, you can test your reaction time. Find a ruler marked in centimeters. Sit at a table with your forearm resting on the table and your dominent hand and wrist extending over the edge. Have your friend hold the ruler by the 30 cm end with the 0 mark between your thumb and forefinger, but not touching either. The friend then releases the ruler without warning. When you see the ruler start to move, squeeze your fingers together to catch it. Where you catch it is a good measure of your reaction time. (You rest your arm on the table to prevent to instinctive motion downward that increases your chance of catching it but distorts the measured distance that the ruler falls.)
d (cm) t (sec)
5 0.101
10 0.143
15 0.175
20 0.202
25 0.226
30 0.247
It's a fun parlor game. Try it under different conditions - different levels of distraction, physical condition, ...
If you lock out the red light when the green light goes on, you should build in some reaction time for the goal judge.
A finer grained version of the table: http://tdserver1.fnal.gov/harding/education/ruler%20drop%202.xls
[quote Rich S]
In analyzing what your team did right and what they did wrong, you're missing the boat if you don't consider what things the other team did to cause you do do things wrong. As a coach as well as a sports writer, I've learned to see both sides.
[/quote]
Well, that's dandy that you're not missing the boat and getting everything you can out of your sports experience, but that's not the way the large majority of passionate sports fans work...all teams, all sports, all levels (well, maybe not curling). I lived in Blacksburg, VA last year and listened to many Hokie fans breaking down football games by only talking about their guys. People tend to talk about what they *know*. They *know* their own players and what they do week-in, week-out. Many don't have the time nor the inclination to analyze the opponent's performance, unless it is outstanding. I'm now in CT and many Huskie fans were beside themselves wondering what they did wrong vs. Syracuse. It seemed that only the Courant had MacNamara as the big story.
So maybe all those people are being poor sportsmen by not discussing opponents at length. I don't see it that way. But you know what? Oh well.
[Q]As for my comments you called confrontational, you might look at the sarcasm he directed at me..."psychological malfunction?" That's not confrontational by your definition?[/Q]
I'm not talking about others. I'm talking about you. You asked what made you confrontational, and I told you.
[Q]Oh that's a hoot about my enjoying this thread because it's "glowing praise of Clarkson." Like I need to hear that here. [/Q]
I'm sorry, I was under the impression that that's what you criticized bill for. I apologize for being wrong.
QuotePlease, get over yourself on that idea. ::rolleyes::
Good ol' deflecting my own phrase back on me. You do that a lot. I don't get into "I know you are, but what am I?" fights like you do, so I'll ask you this: What did you think of the game? You've talked about your coaching experience a lot, and you obviously know a lot about hockey. Yet you never talk about the games. You spend most of your posts here getting into fights and swapping insults with people about how biased we all are as Cornell fans. So I'll ask you directly: What are your honest thoughts on tonight's game? This is a post-game thread that is generally used for that end. Instead of yelling at us for not including anything about Clarkson, how about some education about the Knights and if they performed well tonight like I postulated? I admittedly don't know as much about their current roster as you do.
So, I'm confused. My understanding is that when the clock reaches 0:00.0 the green light goes on and the red light is indeed locked out.
Sociopath? ROTFL.
You should share that wiring with Trotsky etal who feel compelled to hurl crap at me for daring to participate in this forum and offer a different view.
Being outnumbered has never bothered me. I'm a goalie, I can stand the heat, thanks.
[quote jtwcornell91]So, I'm confused. My understanding is that when the clock reaches 0:00.0 the green light goes on and the red light is indeed locked out.[/quote]
Yeah, it does. I meant to respond to that, but I forgot :)
[quote Rich S]\\You should share that wiring with Trotsky etal who feel compelled to hurl crap at me for daring to participate in this forum and offer a different view.[/quote]
Y'know, I'd think after spending as much time as you do on this forum you would understand Greg better than you apparently do.
[quote Rich S]
You should share that wiring with Trotsky etal who feel compelled to hurl crap at me for daring to participate in this forum and offer a different view.[/quote]
What different view? You say you have one, but you never let us know what view that is. Other than "You're all biased."
What did you think of the game?
[quote jtwcornell91]So, I'm confused. My understanding is that when the clock reaches 0:00.0 the green light goes on and the red light is indeed locked out.[/quote]
That's correct. The point is that when a goal is scored with only 0.1 seconds left, normal human reflexes of the goal judge prevent the goal from being scored before the green light.
Shucks John, I didn't know that "Trotzky" is Greg's new name. The guy has so many identities, I can't keep up.
I'm not as gifted when it comes to psychoanalysis as he is.
[quote Rich S]Shucks John, I didn't know that "Trotzky" is Greg's new name. The guy has so many identities, I can't keep up.
I'm not as gifted when it comes to psychoanalysis as he is.[/quote]
But what did you think of the game?
[quote Rich S]Highly respectful? Where?
He gave Leggio a backhanded compliment and that's all. No other mention of Tech at all.
Don't play shrink Trots...you're not good at it.
I have a few things to do so you have 15 mins or so to dig up the "highly respectful" stuff.
Enjoy. :-D[/quote]Rich, I've also tried to come to your defense when we over play our criticism of you. But, I agree this time you really had to look hard and find something to complain about. I mean, do you consider "Leggio deserves credit for making 50 saves. " a backhanded compliment?::rolleyes::
As far as his next statement about us making a lot of goalies the goalie of the week, you are on this board often enough to know that we have serious concerns about our teams ability to finish off the plays.
So my only conclusion is that you were trying to pick a fight and I'm glad that we didn't take the bait. Seriously, tomorrow in the light of day look at Bill's post again and see if you come to the same conclusion. I have the luck, good or bad, of not being able to post till at least an hour after the game ends, as it takes me that long to get home, sometimes that lag period adds some clarity to ones thought, try it and see.:-)
No disrespect intended to David Leggio. He played a great game.
My perspective, maybe or maybe not shared by others, is that averages say that in the ECAC odds 1 of the 11 best performances by the Clarkson goalie or the Union goalie or the RPI goalie or the Princeton goalie or the Darmouth goalie (or the combination of goaltender and defense) would come against Cornell, 1 would come against Harvard, 1 against Dartmouth, etcetera. Some fate has it that Cornell saw more than 1/11 of the best goaltending performances this ECAC season, and I'd attribute it to the opponent getting extra-psyched for Cornell, and to our ability to put up a lot of shots that someone don't light the lamp.
with UMD defeating Denver we just went up to 5t with MSU on PWR (using 3-2-1 bonus). If we defeat Clarkson tomorrow and they drop off TUC will that hurt us much?
Rk Team PWR Rec W-L-T Win % Rk RPI
1 Minnesota 31 1 26-6-5 .7703 1 .5859*
2 Wisconsin 30 3 24-9-3 .7083 2 .5793*
3t Miami 28 2 24-7-4 .7429 3 .5635*
3t Boston University 28 7 22-9-4 .6857 4 .5594
5t Michigan State 26 12t 20-11-8 .6154 5 .5567
5t Cornell 26 6 18-7-4 .6897 9 .5464
7 Harvard 23 15t 17-11-2 .6000 10 .5461
[quote DeltaOne81][Q]Bill's review was highly respectful of Clarkson.
Great game by both teams tonight.[/Q]
Guess who said those?
Seriously, you can't come on here expecting out and out praise of Clarkson. Just like there's never going to be out-and-out praise of Cornell on the roundtable. At least not until we're all on the same team in the NCAAs.
Please change your standards for behavior to what you would hold you and your fellow Clarkson fans to in reverse on your board. Or just don't come here.[/quote]
"Leggio deserves credit for making 50 saves. We make ECAC goalie of the week out of a lot of goalies."
The above was the only comment in Bill's review that I commented on. Hardly "highly respectful."
Greg made the other statement, right? Or was it John. Fine.
I don't expect out and out praise for the opponent here or on any forum. But to not recognize the oponent's efforts in a game that went to 2 OTs is taking a very narrow view. The implication is that cornell had to go to 2 OTs only because of their own occasional poor play. That's silly.
Please don't lecture me about my behavior here. Clean up your own house first. When inaccurate or narrow-minded statements are made, I'll call you on it. If you want to throw stones at me, be prepared to catch a few coming back.
If you want to whine about that, then you're dishing it out but are unable to take it as I have said before.
[quote Rich S]
Please don't lecture me about my behavior here. Clean up your own house first. When inaccurate or narrow-minded statements are made, I'll call you on it. If you want to throw stones at me, be prepared to catch a few coming back.
If you want to whine about that, then you're dishing it out but are unable to take it as I have said before.[/quote]
OK, but what did you think of the game?
RichS,
What did Clarkson do well besides Leggio having 50 saves? The second Clarkson goal was clearly a misstep by two Cornell defensemen. So we are all waiting to hear what Clarkson did so exceptionally well that we should recognize, besides those 50 saves by Leggio that we said were awesome and are due to a combination of his goaltending skills AND the fact that Cornell shoots a lot but doesn't come through with the goal.
A little off-topic here...I was delighted to see the bear mascots on the ice. Does anyone know why they have not been out there this year?
So what did you think of the game, Rich? What is your take? With us asking it 10 times now, if you're not answering, its on purpose.
[quote Omie]RichS,
What did Clarkson do well besides Leggio having 50 saves? The second Clarkson goal was clearly a misstep by two Cornell defensemen. So we are all waiting to hear what Clarkson did so exceptionally well that we should recognize, besides those 50 saves by Leggio that we said were awesome and are due to a combination of his goaltending skills AND the fact that Cornell shoots a lot but doesn't come through with the goal.[/quote]
That's a good question, Omie. Although that's a few more words than I would've used...
Hang on. I'm busy helping Greg with the hunt for Bill's praise of Clarkson. :-}
Really, give me a few minutes and I'll respond, I've got a few things on my plate right now.
Don't tell me that you're waiting this long to hear my opinion!
[quote Rich S][quote DeltaOne81][Q]Bill's review was highly respectful of Clarkson.
Great game by both teams tonight.[/Q]
Guess who said those?
Seriously, you can't come on here expecting out and out praise of Clarkson. Just like there's never going to be out-and-out praise of Cornell on the roundtable. At least not until we're all on the same team in the NCAAs.
Please change your standards for behavior to what you would hold you and your fellow Clarkson fans to in reverse on your board. Or just don't come here.[/quote]
"Leggio deserves credit for making 50 saves. We make ECAC goalie of the week out of a lot of goalies."
The above was the only comment in Bill's review that I commented on. Hardly "highly respectful."
Greg made the other statement, right? Or was it John. Fine.
I don't expect out and out praise for the opponent here or on any forum. But to not recognize the oponent's efforts in a game that went to 2 OTs is taking a very narrow view. The implication is that cornell had to go to 2 OTs only because of their own occasional poor play. That's silly.
Please don't lecture me about my behavior here. Clean up your own house first. When inaccurate or narrow-minded statements are made, I'll call you on it. If you want to throw stones at me, be prepared to catch a few coming back.
If you want to whine about that, then you're dishing it out but are unable to take it as I have said before.[/quote]
(http://ic1.deviantart.com/fs9/i/2006/035/b/6/_talkingtowall__by_darkmoon3636.gif)
For someone who wasn't at the game, and didn't even see the video, you're being a tad cocky. You must have run up quite a tab with Ms. Cleo to get this stunning perspective. Not trying to be a troll but seriously... you weren't there and didn't watch the video feed so please try and believe those of us who were there.
I was right there for four out of seven goals tonight (yay for section G) I'll say that Clarkson played a good game and capitalized on our two big mistakes. By the second part of the first OT, however, they were mainly icing the puck every chance they got and didn't really have many chances. Lots of cross ice feeds to a mystery 6th skater who was invisible to the rest of us (when they actually managed to get something set up) but not many "ohshitohshit" moments.
[quote Trotsky][quote Rich S]Something that Trotzky can't bring himself to do.[/quote]
Are you coming on to me, Rich? I don't recall us being related.[/quote]
Whatever made your psychoanalytic mind ::rolleyes:: think of that?
You may have me confused with an inbred "Chicken counting" major classmate of yours. :-D
[quote Rich S][quote Trotsky][quote Rich S]Something that Trotzky can't bring himself to do.[/quote]
Are you coming on to me, Rich? I don't recall us being related.[/quote]
Whatever made your psychoanalytic mind ::rolleyes:: think of that?
You may have me confused with an inbred "Chicken counting" major classmate of yours. :-D[/quote]
I'm glad that's what was on your plate, rather than talking hockey.
What did you think of the game?
Just got back from a fund raiser, see you boys pulled out the first one. Too late for me to read all the threads, sysnopsis for me is always shots on goal, 50ish-30ish it appears you carried the game. if so, nicely done. 2ot's say my boys hung tough.
Ok, so tomorrow, time permitting, I will try ruloffs for a pregame beer and burger, after the game the chapter house for post game festivites ....and as delta was kind enough to provide the menu for the hot truck, will be there afer hours for sure. Appreciate everyone's tips on my first trip....see ya up there!
BTW I will be ready to stick it to you bastards tomorrow! :-D
Cheers!
Drew
Rich, if you're still up, would you remember to put out the cat and turn off the lights? I've got an early start for Ithaca. Hope you can make it. If you decide to drive up Sunday, the rink might be dark.
shh don't rush him, he's waiting for the recap to be posted on uscho so he can find out what actually happened at the game
[quote Drew]Just got back from a fund raiser, see you boys pulled out the first one. Too late for me to read all the threads, sysnopsis for me is always shots on goal, 50ish-30ish it appears you carried the game. if so, nicely done. 2ot's say my boys hung tough.
Ok, so tomorrow, time permitting, I will try ruloffs for a pregame beer and burger, after the game the chapter house for post game festivites ....and as delta was kind enough to provide the menu for the hot truck, will be there afer hours for sure. Appreciate everyone's tips on my first trip....see ya up there!
BTW I will be ready to stick it to you bastards tomorrow! :-D
Cheers!
Drew[/quote]
Rich(S) - see? This is how it's done. Drew calls us bastards to our face, and only makes me want to buy him a beer all the more (keep dreaming - I'm in LA :-( ), while even your sincere compliments (and I think I have read a few from you over the years) just piss me off.
You are truly a twisted human being. I really hope your life is not as empty as you make it appear here.
We have a dog, no cats allowed here.
Can't make it Sunday in any case. Aren't you being a bit smug with the "dark rink" comment? No lessson learned from '04? :-D
Uh oh...Now I've done it again...here comes the wrath of the almighty ones.
[quote Rich S]We have a dog, no cats allowed here.
Can't make it Sunday in any case. Aren't you being a bit smug with the "dark rink" comment? No lessson learned from '04? :-D
Uh oh...Now I've done it again...here comes the wrath of the almighty ones.[/quote]
Excellent. What did you think of the game?
Robb,
Hey we all have different personalities and styles, what else can I say. Drew's works for him and that's cool.
Chalk mine up to having been a "Billy Smith type" of goalie I guess...loved to battle!
If you're in LA, I'd say you're the "twisted" one. I traveled out there a lot on biz back in the 90s and met and worked with plenty of entertainment industry types. 'nuff said.
Ok "bastard"....where's my beer? I'm due for a West Coast trip. :-}
[quote Rich S]Robb,
Hey we all have different personalities and styles, what else can I say. Drew's works for him and that's cool.
Chalk mine up to having been a "Billy Smith type" of goalie I guess...loved to battle!
If you're in LA, I'd say you're the "twisted" one. I traveled out there a lot on biz back in the 90s and met and worked with plenty of entertainment industry types. 'nuff said.
Ok "bastard"....where's my beer? I'm due for a West Coast trip. :-}[/quote]
hahaha!! ::laugh:: What did you think of the game?
[quote nr53]shh don't rush him, he's waiting for the recap to be posted on uscho so he can find out what actually happened at the game[/quote]
Nope.
a) I'm a writer and I dont believe in plagarizing.
b) not that devious. :-D
[quote Rich S][quote nr53]shh don't rush him, he's waiting for the recap to be posted on uscho so he can find out what actually happened at the game[/quote]
Nope.
a) I'm a writer and I dont believe in plagarizing.
b) not that devious. :-D[/quote]
Touche, nr53. What did you think of the game, Rich?
(waiting to hear what Rich thought of the game...)
::popcorn::
[quote redhair34](waiting to hear what Rich thought of the game...)
::popcorn::[/quote]
or maybe more like ::bang::
That's officially my favorite post tonight. :-}
just to help out :-D
http://cornellbigred.collegesports.com/sports/m-hockey/recaps/031106aaa.html
I really haven't chimed in on the RichS issue, aside from one brief comment that earned me a "grow up" comment from Rich. But it's just getting ridiculous when we have these threads that are so ensnared by this bickering that it's difficult to sift out the actual hockey chatter. Simply put, this is the Cornell hockey fan forum. We have no obligation to give credit to opponents, portray both sides of an issue, or be gracious winners. Many of us choose to give small compliments to worthy opponents, but we are by no means required to write objectively. Opposing fans are certainly welcome to come and give insight about opponents or about their take on the game. But I don't see where any opposing fan has a right to instigate posting wars. Read what you want, post what you want, and think what you want, but we don't always have to say what you want.
Jim,
Thanks for your comments, thoughtful as always. It's so much easier to read them and to try to respond in kind as opposed to reading the sarcastic and mean-spirited junk that is the stock in trade of many of your colleagues.
The backhanded compliment comment pertained to his statement that cornell made him look like the GOTW. I'm confident that I know what I'm talking about re: goalies, having played the position and now coached quite a few for a number of years.
No goalie makes 50 saves without deserving a lot of credit. Cornell may have trouble finishing but even the odds say you should get a few on that many shots. Or that the goalie will allow a softie facing that many. Am I mistaken or did Leggio not allow any soft goals? Didn't he keep his team within striking distance allowing them to come back to tie? Did he not keep it tied in th eOT when cornell outshot Clarkson handily? Ok, I'm guilty of perhaps applying a writer's standard to the comments of a partisan fan. I can handle the criticism.
No, I wasn't trying to pick a fight. It's about discussing hockey. It seems easy for you guys to conclude that when you read a dissenting opinion. Me thinks it's often some of you that are ready to leap at any comment that takes a more balanced view.
I've read Bill's comments over already and the comments about the 4th line, the injured D-men returning, etc are great. But not even a throw away "Clarkson really hung in there?"
Mull it over. Thanks.
[quote calgARI '07]I could be wrong but wasn't Pokuluk the one that got stripped of the puck (reminiscent of Jason Dailey's OT giveaway against Yale that one year) that led to the second Clarkson goal.[/quote]
The only Jason Dailey OT giveaway against Yale that I know of wasn't a stripping at all; he quite literally passed the puck from behind the Cornell net directly to a Yale player in front of it, who scored easily as a result. Nothing like any of tonight's goals, IMHO.
Beeeej
Not until I get my beer. Heck I didnt even eat dinner all night!
Help me out here Rich...who asked first and who asked that question more times since this lunacy started? You or was it Bill?
[quote Rich S]We have a dog, no cats allowed here.
Can't make it Sunday in any case. Aren't you being a bit smug with the "dark rink" comment? No lessson learned from '04? :-D
Uh oh...Now I've done it again...here comes the wrath of the almighty ones.[/quote]
Good. You got the hidden meaning, and in just a couple minutes. You're a natural to try the Wonderlic. Pat McInally, watch your backside.
The lesson from 2004 is beat your opponent on the ice, keep your gloves on, don't play down to an oponent's level, and don't give your opponent a psychological edge by winning a battle while neglecting the war. But in all deference to Clarkson -- I'm serious here -- what pixellated images came across to my TV seemed to indicate this was nothing like the 2004 street brawl and its attendant hard feelings.
Clarkson is not No. 12 Brown, but Adam D'Alba's goaltending exploits against St. Lawrence were also amazing, maybe even more so than Legg-- wait, I won't go there -- but it seemed like the best Leggio could do would be to get lucky once. Question is, did David Leggio have his one lucky and good night Friday, has he got more of the same in him Saturday, or will he be just good and not lucky?
Not many nights a team loses in overtime 5-3.
is that what you're doing while you're waiting? ::laugh::
Sure, you dont have to say what vistors want to hear.
But you're wrong to charge vistors with instigating posting wars. The war starts when one or more of you let a dissenting opinion tick you off. So you respond with vitriol or trashing my opinion along with snarky remarks. If you throw trash at me, I'll often fire back. Fair enough?
You don't have to be a supremely gracious host; that's certainly not my expectation.
But I'd expect that you'd respond with more civility and less arrogance and at least acknowledge that someoen else's view has some validity, as least some of the time.
But, Rich, seriously. You attacked Bill right out of the gate and insulted him for his opinion. No one attacked you. Bill just didn't compliment Clarkson enough and you insulted him.
It wasn't you disagreeing with the opinion, it was you insulting Bill harshly for his opinion.
[quote Rich S]Sure, you dont have to say what vistors want to hear.
But you're wrong to charge vistors with instigating posting wars. The war starts when one or more of you let a dissenting opinion tick you off. So you respond with vitriol or trashing my opinion along with snarky remarks. If you throw trash at me, I'll often fire back. Fair enough?
You don't have to be a supremely gracious host; that's certainly not my expectation.
But I'd expect that you'd respond with more civility and less arrogance and at least acknowledge that someoen else's view has some validity, as least some of the time.[/quote]
...::popcorn::
[quote Rich S]I've read Bill's comments over already and the comments about the 4th line, the injured D-men returning, etc are great. But not even a throw away "Clarkson really hung in there?"[/quote]
I personally took "Leggio deserves credit for making 50 saves" to mean that Bill was impressed with Leggio, despite what he said next. You apparently didn't. Maybe it's because I was there, and also feel Leggio deserves credit. Frankly I think we had a lot more decent chances than usual tonight, rather than hitting Leggio in the chest constantly as we've done much of the season (and as Clarkson did to McKee for most of their shots tonight, aside from the ones we coughed up to them). Ergo, Leggio good. You read it a different way, fine.
But to criticize an analysis of the game (that, mind you, wasn't written for publication) because in your opinion it does an improper job of praising everything the defeated team did right is really kind of petty, I think, and it's an absurd expectation. As much as you know about hockey, 98% of your "contribution" to this board seems to be criticism of the way other people behave on it, while for some reason you are incapable of seeing that your own behavior often leaves a lot to be desired.
Best of luck tomorrow night. If you wish, come find me in Section C. I'll be the one with too many pins on his sweatshirt.
Beeeej
really Rich S, all you have to do is say "I wasn't there, I really don't know enough to have a straight opinion on the game". Don't worry, it won't hurt that badly in fact its actually good to have that ego balloon popped every once in a while (my grades ensure mine is never close to full so I can attest to this :-P). If you can't formulate an answer to "what did you think about the game" 3+ hours after it ended, just toss in that towel and leave it at that.
But you don't have a view except that we don't share yours, if you at least express your view/opinion of the game then we'd be alright but you just say "you are wrong" without backing it up.
"Attacked"? "Insulted harshly"?
Those are overstatements for sure on your part.
I was surprised he'd offer such a one-sided analysis of a tight 2 OT game. But again, I'm probably using my own standards in my local sportwriting so maybe it's not fair of me to expect him to do anything more than throw Leggio a nod.
What if Clarkson, despite having been so severely outshot, won on a great individual effort on one of their few shots in OT?
Or on a fluke goal that a cornell D man kicked past McKee in OT ?
Would that have altered the tenor off his comments? I wonder if he'd have said in effect, "We dominated them, we had goals waved off, they got lucky."
One team dominated. A key player kept the other team close. Mistakes and opportunism tied the game. Better team could have lost. Better team won.
Beeej,
Thanks.
Your math leaves something to be desired. A big % of my posting is in responding (defending?) to inane, tasteless, and often inaccurate comments directed towards me and the Clarkson team and program. You guys critize me incessantly and that must be acceptable to you.
But if I do the same, it ticks you guys off. That's odd.
I neither expected nor asked for praise of "everything" Clarkson did right. But he only mentioned the goalie. To not mention anything else that they must have done right to take a rightfully highly favored team to 2 OTs is absurd.
I'm making a long road trip tom'w if indeed I can go. Another road trip to your section isn't in the cards. You know where to look for me if you like.
I don't recall saying "you are wrong" without offering backup. What are you referring to?
[quote Rich S]I was surprised he'd offer such a one-sided analysis of a tight 2 OT game.[/quote]
Not every game that goes to OT has necessarily been "tight." Few who were there tonight - including, I dare say, the dozens of Clarkson folks - would claim the Golden Knights played as well as the Big Red. Nearly twice as many shots by Cornell, enormous differential in time spent in the offensive zone. Take away two dumb-as-a-post defensive giveaways, it's a 3-1 game that barely raises the pulse rate.
Obligatory Praise of Opponent: That Clarkson capitalized on those giveaways, and that Leggio played a very, very good game, were the high points for your boys.*
But "tight" this game was not.
Beeeej
*Rule 1(d): All cheers must contain praise for Laing Kennedy.
[quote Rich S]"Attacked"? "Insulted harshly"?
Those are overstatements for sure on your part.[/quote]
"would it kill you to acknowledge that just maybe those goalies played well..."
"Give the other guys some credit in a tight game. Or can't you see that?"
I dunno. Coming from a guy who just gave his honest assessment of a game - one which is naturally coming from a Cornell persepctive - your insults to him were completely uncalled for. I'm not saying you insulted him personally, but rather than stating a disagreement calmly, you outright insulted his opinion and attacked his ability to evaluate the game.
[Q]I'm probably using my own standards in my local sportwriting so maybe it's not fair of me to expect him to do anything more than throw Leggio a nod.[/Q]
I don't think it is fair to expect more than that. Throwing the other team a nod is called sportsmanship. Praising them just ain't gonna happen. Do you really want me to go to the Roundtable and find the thread from after the Clarkson beat Cornell at Cheel a few weeks back? If a person or two threw a Cornell player or two a nod, that's about all I could possibly expect.
If they didn't even do that, that's fine, its their board.
Meanwhile, its nearly 4 hours later. And your full opinion on this game seems to be that our opinion is wrong. Without actually expressing an opinion of your own. If you're so sure we're wrong and biased, so what is your (totally unbiased, I'm sure) view of the game, so that we can discuss it. Seriously, I'm honestly asking.
[quote Rich S]I'm making a long road trip tom'w if indeed I can go. Another road trip to your section isn't in the cards. You know where to look for me if you like.[/quote]
Honestly? I'm rather surprised and put off by your response to my friendly invitation, and can't imagine why you'd think I would accept yours instead.
Or perhaps you don't really think I would, since you didn't give any description of yourself anyway.
Enjoy the game.
Beeeej
I've never liked that "better team lost" concept. If the winner is defined by the one that had the most goals or runs or whatever, doesn't that make them "better" by the only measure that really matters?
For example, IF a hockey game winner took advantage of three defensive miscues to win 4-3 after trailing 3-1, doesn't that make them the "better" team by definition despite having been outshot by a wide margin?
Better at capitalizing on the other guys errors? Better at finishing than the team that controlled play and got 55 shots? Better because their goalie held them in and gave them a chance to come back?
And if the losing team played poorly on D to make that many mistakes that led to so many cheap goals, how can they say they were the better team?
A few points I'll make to try and get this "postgame" thread back on topic...
1) The Clarkson shot in OT right after the first disallowed goal that pretty much rolled a few inches across the top of the crossbar almost gave me a heart attack
2) I don't think anyone else mentioned this but I hope Glover is ok and back tomorrow
3) For his ~50 save performance, Leggio was pretty far out of position on a few almost goals, my favorite of which was a pass that Pegoraro(?) slid under Leggio from behind the goal line that unfortunately went right to a Clarkson player in the crease (a step or two in front of a Cornell player) who passed it to Leggio for the cover. Probably a bad description but whatever, it was cool to me :-}
4) The Slapshot from Pegoraro (again, I think...) that went up over the goal but bounced off the glass back over to the front and would have made one of the coolest goals ever but Leggio reacted in time to stop it.
5) The diving call on Cayer was one of the most deserving penalties I've ever seen.
edited to fix my grammer before someone calls me on it:-P
[quote Rich S]
It's about discussing hockey.[/quote]
Thank you.
Please read what you wrote again.
Drew, daredevilcu, Dartmouth Ben, ursaminor, ttnorm, Nostradamus, etc. are all opposing fans who are welcomed and respected members of this community. They post about hockey. Sure, they interject some things about their lives or fan behavior, but for the most part, they contribute to the discussion about hockey. And I value that greatly because they often provide a different viewpoint, or insights to players and fans around the league/nation. We don't always agree or see eye-to-eye, but they are valued here. Dissenting opinions don't start wars with those folks.
You don't give viewpoints. Your main reason of coming here to me seems to be to knock us down several pegs, no matter what. Instead of being a fan, you play some twisted bad-cop role you've invented whose job it is to defeat this community using antagonizing insults and reflected phraseology. You rarely talk about hockey itself.
Maybe you get off starting these fights...who knows? Maybe you hate the Cornell faithful so much, you swore to go on a crusade of hate until we're eradicated from the internet. I can't get into your head. But I do know that you've had a few good moments here interspersed with all the nasty ones. If you took more time to talk about hockey constructively instead of incessantly attacking our fanbase with "you aren't so great" vitriol all the time, there wouldn't be so much animosity towards you. Many of us here are very sick of the "you started it" game you play, when you're just as at fault, if you could only see past your own biases. You're very firm in your mission of painting yourself as the only outsider here giving "balanced" viewpoints and accusing us of being intolerant, but you know as much as anyone here that you could be a good contributor to this forum. I just don't see any viewpoints or hockey discussion...mostly insults and behavioral snarkiness.
That was the point of all this, and I apologize to everyone if I annoyed you with my persistance. I told myself last year after I called him a dick that I was done dealing with this. I'll stop tonight before someone makes a sandbox for me.
http://elf.elynah.com/read.php?1,1072
Let's talk some hockey.
[quote Rich S]I've never liked that "better team lost" concept. If the winner is defined by the one that had the most goals or runs or whatever, doesn't that make them "better" by the only measure that really matters?
For example, IF a hockey game winner took advantage of three defensive miscues to win 4-3 after trailing 3-1, doesn't that make them the "better" team by definition despite having been outshot by a wide margin?
Better at capitalizing on the other guys errors? Better at finishing than the team that controlled play and got 55 shots? Better because their goalie held them in and gave them a chance to come back?
And if the losing team played poorly on D to make that many mistakes that led to so many cheap goals, how can they say they were the better team?[/quote]
It's semantics, and I don't think your alternative concept is an improvement.
The day Princeton beat Denver earlier this season, they played better than Denver. But I have no qualms about saying "the better team lost." The winning team, however, won - as did the team that played better that night. That still doesn't make Princeton a "better team" than Denver.
Even a blind pig finds a truffle now and again. Doesn't make him a better truffle pig than the one who finds truffles every day except the day the blind one did. Just means he had a better day.
Beeeej
[quote nr53]The diving call on Cayer was one of the most deserving penalty I've ever seen.[/quote]
Yeah, he's a terrible actor.
Obligatory Praise of Opponent: A fine dancer, though.
Beeeej
Beeej,
Why would you be put off? Did my wording offend you?
What makes my invitation less friendly than yours? You guys on this board engage in banter that is less than "friendly" all the time.
At beyond 2 am, I wasn't giving a lot of thought to whether or not you'd accept. No description? I don't think you'll have trouble finding me, even without anything as distinctive as a lot of pins.
But here ya go...about 5' 9", brown hair with a fair amt of gray covered in part by one Clarkson hockey hat or another and a Clarkson sweatshirt or sweater. I have no idea right now.
Ah who knows...maybe I'll walk over, we'll see how it goes.
Look out Beeej, someone's gonna accuse us of flirting again. :-D
[quote Rich S]Why would you be put off? Did my wording offend you?[/quote]
Because apparently you can't be bothered to walk to the other side of the rink after crawling to Ithaca on your hands and knees, or something. Yet you expect me to do so. I sure hope you don't have to go to the bathroom during the game, or anything.
Beeeej
P.S. It's over. I want my t-shirts and 45s back.
Hey next times you guys decide a pick a fight with Rich S or flirt whatever you want to call it can you just start a new thread. Just call it Rich S. You can then get all indignant or kumbaya like in one central easy to shop place. :)
Just for the record, now that i know that Rich S is a goalie i think that the more abuse you all hurl at him the better. Goalies love abuse almost as much as their defensement enjoy poking fun at them when they are not in the locker room.
Aw come on Beeej,
I can't be bothered you say...
But apparently you can't either, so...??
I won't be crawling to Ithaca if I come. There's a more serious non-hockey related situation that may keep me here. Won't know for several more hours at least.
Oh...I don't have your stinkin' 45s. And I'm keeping your Mariah Carey CD! :-D
[quote Rich S]I can't be bothered you say...
But apparently you can't either, so...??[/quote]
There's a difference. I'm declining your invitation solely because you declined mine in a way I took as rude.
Tell me you're hobblin' around on a cane? Afraid of having your Clarkson hat stolen if you cross the rink? Want to introduce me to nine of your friends and worried they won't be allowed down the stairs with you? Extend your invitation first before I even have a chance to extend mine? Your nine friends are hobblin' around on canes? I'm happy to venture over to Section O and offer a handshake. I'm a friendly, accomodating dude.
What read to me like "I don't feel I should come to you, rather you should come to me"? No, thanks. Not worth it.
Obligatory Praise of Opponent: Your Clarkson hat is both stylish and well-fitting.
Beeeej
That pass slid under Leggio play was Bitz, actually.
Thank you all so much for not posting the score! I was all set to watch the archive when I got home from playing hockey myself, and it wasn't up for some reason. This really pissed me off, but at least I was able to enjoy the game through the extensive posts and got very nervous as I read about the tie and overtime before getting pumped after the game winner. Can't wait to watch in person tonight. LGR!!!!
Rich,
Despite your latest diatribe which smacks of the same approach or worse that you accuse me of, here's some hockey talk. After all, if you're up this late (in Horseheads?) you've earned it despite all your shots at me. And yeah, I was a goalie so I'm thick-skinned enough to take it. :-D
I shared the opinion that Clarkson would have to play their game at the same high level as in recent games, or higher, to have a chance in this series. As one of the cornell D men said, and everyone knows, Clarkson is young, short on experience, esp on the back line, and has a dreadful road record this year.
They are a finesse team with more skilled players and speed than in quite a few years. But their physical, gritty play has been lacking often this year and hence the mediocre record.
Beyond Leggio's performance which was at least "solid" if not spectacular, I give this young team, especially playoff-experience wise, credit for battling back, for playing pretty disciplined hockey (not many penalties) and for hanging in there and continuing to play hard. In recentyears, the 3-1 score would have become 5-1 or worse.
If you want to say cornell's defensive miscues allowed a couple of goals but Clarkson had to have some part in causing them and certainly capitalized and that in itself is creditable.
I believe they expected to get outshot in what was expected to be a cornell-style physical game where Tech's free flowing offense would be limited but with solid goaltending, sound defense, and opportunistic offense, they had a chance. Basically, that's how I think it went. Certainly cornell's game wore them down and that's reflected in the SOG. I know cornell has had a bit of an uneven season but they play a disciplined style that wears on teams and they don't bet themselves.
Both teams missed glorious chances. Open nets, shots wide, didputed goals, etc. Part of the game. If McKee hadn't made a great stop on Dodge, it could have ended in Tech's favor. Sounds like the winner came on a great effort by Sawada and perhaps a defensive letdown off the faceoff on Tech's part or even an poorly directed rebound by Leggio. Just going by what descriotions I read.
Could be a deflating loss for Clarkson, it will test their character tom'w night. A bigger loss for Tech than a bug win for cornell if only because cornell has the home ice advantage and clarkson needed a confidence jolt with a first game win, however they could have gotten it.
This Clarkson team is a year away at least but they've matured and I think they'll come out with passion tomorrow. Can they get blown out tomorrow? Sure, they don't have a margin for error and playing without Genovy will continue to hurt. But they also can still win although Leggio will have to play as well, or better. Cornell will come out smelling blood I expect.
Clarkson may not win but I'm proud of the progress they've made this year and very proud of the job the coaches have done. I know all three of them well and I think they're first rate men as well as coaches.
Hope to get there tom'w and I hope to see a game that forces a game three on Sunday.
As to your comments above Rich, I see some merit in it, regarding my behavior which is admitedly somewhat testy at times and I have not denied that in the past. But you fail to recognize that indeed you guys do start many "fights" with me. I do give viewpoints but if I dont express them in the obsequious manner you want, sorry, that's not always my style any more than I always expect you guys to be "nice" to me. Just the inclusion of that link to an issue with Al D should be enough to remind you of the reality of the snarky, nasty manner that you guys use in response to me. Before you paint yourself as being attacked, how about calming down those who fire shots like he and others do? It's your house, right?
The way you feel compelled to respond (is it defense if your turf?) precludes your recognizing the viewpoints I offer. I can't control that. You want me to be responsible for my behavior but many of you don't seem to want to do the same.
I'm not here to "knock you down" or "start fights." Maybe one of your gifted analysts here can figure out why some of you react that way. Meantime, I'll just call it Ivy arrogance" until I get a btter explanation. You guys poke fun at the North Country with all manner of tasteless jokes and it's cool in your view. But turnabout is not fair play, it seems.
I don't paint myself as anything. That's the spin you want to put on it.
Lastly, you didn't annoy me with your persistance at all. You're to be commended. Not sure that my hockey analysis at this late hour is up to speed, esp given that I didn't see the game but that's a good effort I believe.
What I did find annoying was your calling me "a dick" last year. I thought that was uncalled for and tasteless. To bring it up again was unncessary and equally tasteless. But as I said, I'm thick skinned as all goalies and former goalies should be. I can handle it, no problem.
Good night and enjoy the game tomorrow.
I can see Rich is at it again trolling the Cornell message board picking nits on every word that is typed. Just like in years past and just like in the Red Sox thread of the USCHO cafe.
Good win tonight by our team, and no we don't have to praise Clarkson if we don't feel like it. This is, after all, our message board.
Rich needs to get a life, or this message board needs an ignore feature. In the meantime it's probably best not to feed the troll to prevent these threads from becoming dominated by constant petty nonsense.
I am a very biased hockey fan. I don't know very much about the game myself. I've only been following hockey since I learned the rules in 2002. There is a tremendous flame war going on in this thread. I don't care. I just want to share my opinion of the game with the rest of the community here. So here is what I think:
Clarkson was not that good a team. I was expecting to see us dominate a 3-1 or 4-2 game. I was disappointed with Cornell performance tonight. If we're already struggling this hard against Clarkson, how will we do against the midwest powerhouses? BU? Even Dartmouth? Penalty Kill was ok tonight. I also don't remember the last time our team scored a powerplay goal though. Moulson has been solid. He just needs to show some flare. I think that there will be a fight tomorrow night. It will most likely be Bitz and the big guy who kept shoving people's faces after the whistle.
I would have to disagree about Moulson being solid, granted he is the leading scorer in the team but that is in part cause they always position him in the point. In my opinion, Moulson has been a major let down this year; hardly any even strength goals, leads an erradic power play, and has shown no leadership as captain. Knoepfli showed much more leadership on the ice. Also, the majority of the big goals (ie. in close games and OTs) have come from other players like McCutcheon, Abbott, etc.
My Saturday Morning QB opinion:
We clearly controlled the play, but as has been the case all year, a couple of defensive screw-ups cost us significantly. I think the 3-1 score at th end of 2 is far more indicative of the play than the regulation score. I think Leggio played a good game, but not a great game. From what I can tell from the Clarkson broadcast, he made some great saves, but was caught out of position several times and Cornell missed the empty net.
OTOH, I kept wondering when the top line would show up. We seem to be doing it with balance in the scoring. In a way, that's a good thing, but if it means that the top line has to disappear from the radar, I'm not sure I'm happy with that behavior.
Now, to address RichS: I tend to stay out of these arguments, but I've pretty much come to the conclusion that if I see RichS is posting it's going to turn into a flame-fest. And that instinct hasn't been wrong too often. So what does that say to me? Since I don't see that same level of consistency of deterioration in other threads, I'm forced to conclude that RichS is the catalyst for that deterioration.
Either Rich is looking to pick a fight or has such a thin skin he can't help but see extreme insults where only mild tweak of the nose were intended. Personally I think he gets off on these fights, but that's just pop psych on my part.
I know it's difficult, people, but we have to ignore him (despite my not doing so here). That's the only way to modify his behavior. If we don't, he'll continue to troll on this boaqrd and feed his need for attention.
LGR! I wanna go to Albany! (and how often do you hear that? ::help:: )
Just woke up and re-read (parts of) the thread. Man, did we slide off topic or what -- if this was an advertising sponsored forum, I'd say Rich and Age were conspiring to split the click money and going out for two very handsome dinners tonight. Since that's not the case, it's just hockey passions.
Wonder what it's like to bait Dookies on the CoachKIsLord.com forum?
[quote Rich S][quote krose]Rich, I've defended you several times over the past few months, but you really are approaching "Troll" status for me. Good lord, please stop being so confrontational.
Kyle[/quote]
Offering a different opinion from the one shared by all th ecornell posters here makes me confrontational? You're being a tad close-minded.[/quote]
Why this isn't an argument, it's just contradiction.
[quote automaton version of Rich S]No it isn't![/quote]
Yes it is!
[quote automaton version of Rich S]No it isn't![/quote]
Yes it is!
http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm
[quote Rich S][quote DeltaOne81][Q]Bill's review was highly respectful of Clarkson.
Great game by both teams tonight.[/Q]
r board. Or just don't come here.[/quote]
"Leggio deserves credit for making 50 saves. We make ECAC goalie of the week out of a lot of goalies."
The above was the only comment in Bill's review that I commented on. Hardly "highly respectful."
Greg made the other statement, right? Or was it John. Fine.
I don't expect out and out praise for the opponent here or on any forum. But to not recognize the oponent's efforts in a game that went to 2 OTs is taking a very narrow view. The implication is that cornell had to go to 2 OTs only because of their own occasional poor play. That's silly.
Please don't lecture me about my behavior here. Clean up your own house first. When inaccurate or narrow-minded statements are made, I'll call you on it. If you want to throw stones at me, be prepared to catch a few coming back.
[/quote]
1) This is precisely the the place to make narrow-minded statements. It's *elynah* by gosh. Our home rink. The place to kick off your shoes and be as narrow minded as we like. If we make the same comments on USCHO call us on it. But you don't storm in to someone's home, track mud around on the floor, start shouting "Where's the food?!?!" and then criticize them for not being hospitible.
2) You want an objective assessment of Leggio? He played OK, but I didn't see any saves he made that I thought were particularly great. The second and third Cornell goals were ones for which at least some of the people here would have been all over McKee had he let them in.
At least once he found himself mind bogglingly out of position to the point that he was sprawled out on the ice nowhere near the goal for no real apparent reason. Maybe his own player decided to check him or something; the camera work wasn't great so it was hard to tell. That should have been an easy Cornell goal but Moulson for some reason couldn't get a clean poke at the puck. Another time he seemed to think he was in position but was clearly leaving Pegararo about 2/3rds of the goal to shoot at from the slot. Should have been another goal but Pegs decided to get cute.
Even though on paper it looks like he had a great game making 50 saves, watching the play gave a different impression. If I'm the Clarkson coach he doesn't start tonight.
Now, take this all with a grain of salt not just because I'm a Cornell Fan but because the camera work last night left a bit to be desired. I suspect I only saw 2 out of every 3 shots that reached the Clarkson net.
[quote Rich S]Rich,
... I shared the opinion that Clarkson would have to play their game at the same high level as in recent games, or higher, to have a chance in this series. As one of the cornell D men said, and everyone knows, Clarkson is young, short on experience, esp on the back line, and has a dreadful road record this year.
They are a finesse team with more skilled players and speed than in quite a few years. But their physical, gritty play has been lacking often this year and hence the mediocre record.
Beyond Leggio's performance which was at least "solid" if not spectacular, I give this young team, especially playoff-experience wise, credit for battling back, for playing pretty disciplined hockey (not many penalties) and for hanging in there and continuing to play hard. In recentyears, the 3-1 score would have become 5-1 or worse.
If you want to say cornell's defensive miscues allowed a couple of goals but Clarkson had to have some part in causing them and certainly capitalized and that in itself is creditable.
I believe they expected to get outshot in what was expected to be a cornell-style physical game where Tech's free flowing offense would be limited but with solid goaltending, sound defense, and opportunistic offense, they had a chance. Basically, that's how I think it went. Certainly cornell's game wore them down and that's reflected in the SOG. I know cornell has had a bit of an uneven season but they play a disciplined style that wears on teams and they don't bet themselves.
Both teams missed glorious chances. Open nets, shots wide, didputed goals, etc. Part of the game. If McKee hadn't made a great stop on Dodge, it could have ended in Tech's favor. Sounds like the winner came on a great effort by Sawada and perhaps a defensive letdown off the faceoff on Tech's part or even an poorly directed rebound by Leggio. Just going by what descriotions I read.
Could be a deflating loss for Clarkson, it will test their character tom'w night. A bigger loss for Tech than a bug win for cornell if only because cornell has the home ice advantage and clarkson needed a confidence jolt with a first game win, however they could have gotten it.
This Clarkson team is a year away at least but they've matured and I think they'll come out with passion tomorrow. Can they get blown out tomorrow? Sure, they don't have a margin for error and playing without Genovy will continue to hurt. But they also can still win although Leggio will have to play as well, or better. Cornell will come out smelling blood I expect.
Clarkson may not win but I'm proud of the progress they've made this year and very proud of the job the coaches have done. I know all three of them well and I think they're first rate men as well as coaches.
Hope to get there tom'w and I hope to see a game that forces a game three on Sunday...
Good night and enjoy the game tomorrow.[/quote]Who is the new guy?
This is kind of a random observation...but did anbody else notice how many water bottles Leggio was going through in the 1st OT?!? He must have gone through at least 4 or 5. Thirsty sieve (well..that and he was pouring it over his head)
[quote DisplacedCornellian]This is kind of a random observation...but did anbody else notice how many water bottles Leggio was going through in the 1st OT?!? He must have gone through at least 4 or 5. Thirsty sieve (well..that and he was pouring it over his head)[/quote]
He needed to lubricate himself for when those goals would get through.
[quote Section A Banshee][quote DisplacedCornellian]This is kind of a random observation...but did anbody else notice how many water bottles Leggio was going through in the 1st OT?!? He must have gone through at least 4 or 5. Thirsty sieve (well..that and he was pouring it over his head)[/quote]
He needed to lubricate himself for when those goals would get through.[/quote]
Makes it easier to slip into the hot tub after the game too.
:-D
[quote jtwcornell91][quote action jackson]Either way, our fans were out of line throwing crap on the ice...it's a bad habit that has to stop. We don't want to be that kind of crowd.[/quote]
Hear, hear. That shit has got to stop.[/quote]
Did anyone get tossed from the rink for throwing stuff?
... 'cause they should have.
[quote KP '06][quote jtwcornell91][quote action jackson]Either way, our fans were out of line throwing crap on the ice...it's a bad habit that has to stop. We don't want to be that kind of crowd.[/quote]
Hear, hear. That shit has got to stop.[/quote]
Did anyone get tossed from the rink for throwing stuff?
... 'cause they should have.[/quote]
What I didn't see get thrown onto the ice was Jim's candy, but apparently bottles aren't as dangerous as a milky way.
any reason why they dont switch sides for the 1st/2nd OT? Each team defended the same net for 3rd/1stOT/2ndOT. I wanted to see more action in section G :P
Not switching keeps your bench near your defensive zone indefinitely.
NHL changed that rule a few years ago. Now they change sides each of the OT's.
Rich,
Sincere thanks for your hockey thoughts. That wasn't so hard, was it? :-)
[quote Rich S]
As to your comments above Rich, I see some merit in it, regarding my behavior which is admitedly somewhat testy at times and I have not denied that in the past.[/quote]
Thanks for admitting that.
[Q]But you fail to recognize that indeed you guys do start many "fights" with me. [/Q]
I think I did when I wrote, "you're just as at fault," implying that there are people who have unfair knee-jerk reactions to you. But that's generally based on the snarky capital you've built up over the years and your overall reputation here. I listed a number of opposing fans who have no problem participating here, yet you're the only one who manages to engage flame wars often.
I hope everything is OK with your family for you to make the trip to Ithaca. Enjoy the game.
[quote Tub(a)][quote Section A Banshee][quote DisplacedCornellian]This is kind of a random observation...but did anbody else notice how many water bottles Leggio was going through in the 1st OT?!? He must have gone through at least 4 or 5. Thirsty sieve (well..that and he was pouring it over his head)[/quote]
He needed to lubricate himself for when those goals would get through.[/quote]
Makes it easier to slip into the hot tub after the game too.
:-D[/quote]
Hey, the water just got warmer! ::uhoh::
[quote Ack][quote KP '06][quote jtwcornell91][quote action jackson]Either way, our fans were out of line throwing crap on the ice...it's a bad habit that has to stop. We don't want to be that kind of crowd.[/quote]
Hear, hear. That shit has got to stop.[/quote]
Did anyone get tossed from the rink for throwing stuff?
... 'cause they should have.[/quote]
What I didn't see get thrown onto the ice was Jim's candy, but apparently bottles aren't as dangerous as a milky way.[/quote]Hey, that's Snickers, only Snickers.:-D
That wasn't the only diving call he should have gotten either. When Abbott was whistled after the play down by Section A, Cayer threw himself to the ice by swinging his own legs out from underneath him. Hansen, on the ball as usual, call the nearest Cornell player because he only saw a Clarkson player on the ice.
Maybe he'd be better off playing soccer the way he flopped to the ice last night.
All four lines looked good for the most part last night. As usual the Mugford, Abbott, Sawada line played great, and got the game winner. McCutcheon, Abbott and Pegs had a lot of scoring chances, they had a good chunk of those 50 shots. Freshmen line + Topher had some great energy and I'm glad they got on the board to show something for it.
I also agree with one of the few hockey related comments above that the first line was much, much more of a threat when Topher was out there with Bitz and Mouslon. This is no knock on Carefott, but Topher is just so good along the boards that Clarkson has to commit fully to taking him off the puck. That provides so much more space for Bitz and Mouslon to get chances.
McKee looked generally solid. The tip away of Dodge's chance was by far his best save of the night. The first and third goals looked indentical, initial right pad save and rebound gets put home, and not much he could do about either second chance. Second goal was in the net before McKee could even turn his head, not the place you want the puck bouncing off your skate.
Way too much time has been spent dwelling on this... Elynah.com... this is a forum to talk about CORNELL hockey,hence the lynah. The fact of the matter is that most cornell fans don't give a shit about leggio, much less want to complement him- if they do acknowledge him at all, that's their perogative.
If you want to talk about clarkson's strong points start your own forum, ehack.com, or whatever the hell you want to call it
[quote Jim Hyla][quote Ack][quote KP '06][quote jtwcornell91][quote action jackson]Either way, our fans were out of line throwing crap on the ice...it's a bad habit that has to stop. We don't want to be that kind of crowd.[/quote]
Hear, hear. That shit has got to stop.[/quote]
Did anyone get tossed from the rink for throwing stuff?
... 'cause they should have.[/quote]
What I didn't see get thrown onto the ice was Jim's candy, but apparently bottles aren't as dangerous as a milky way.[/quote]Hey, that's Snickers, only Snickers.:-D[/quote]
Oh I know. Just razzin' ya. I've caught my fair share. And thanks for those!
Regardless if it was a penalty or not, Cayer streaked to the net after the whistle and Abbott took care of that. Should be coincidentals in my book. The goalie should be offered some protection by the rules (and is) and Cayer was flying in long after the play was stopped.
[quote KP '06][quote jtwcornell91][quote action jackson]Either way, our fans were out of line throwing crap on the ice...it's a bad habit that has to stop. We don't want to be that kind of crowd.[/quote]
Hear, hear. That shit has got to stop.[/quote]
Did anyone get tossed from the rink for throwing stuff?
... 'cause they should have.[/quote]
No one in E got tossed that I saw, though at least three people threw stuff. I screamed at each of them and told them that throwing things these days is NOT a good idea, in light of the recent heavy enforcement of the throwing rules. Convinced at least one kid not to throw his waterbottle, and hopefully convinced some others not to do it again.
[quote Oat]I was expecting to see us dominate a 3-1 or 4-2 game.[/quote]
I was actually surprised to see us play as well as we did, for several reasons:
1. We were adding several guys back into the mix who were previously injured, so it was definitely an adjustment.
2. We had a week out of competition. Schafer played it up as an opportunity to rest, but I think to some extent, no matter how hard you practice it doesn't really compare to the effort put forth in a real game.
3. Just because we had a week out of competition and an extra day off practice doesn't really mean the players got to relax. Hello, prelim week!
All right, time for me to get some of my own studying done for a little while before the game... LET'S GO RED!
Aaaah, now I understand why we needed more than one goal in overtime to win:
According to the Official Cornell Athletics Website, Sawada's goal apprently wasn't needed for the Clarkson game and so they instead used it to beat Dartmouth on the same night:
http://cornellbigred.collegesports.com/sports/m-hockey/spec-rel/031006aaa.html
(since they will probably fix it soon here is what the headline said)
Sawada's Double Overtime Goal Lifts Men's Hockey Over Dartmouth, 4-3
Big Red back in action for second game of ECAC Quarterfinal tomorrow night
March 10, 2006
I guess it was a late night at the sports desk.:)
We must certainly have gotten a PWR boost from beating two TUC simultaneously.
Out of curiosity, I missed the beginning of the first OT and didn't see why the first Schroedinger's goal was disallowed. Anything interesting or just the standard puck was already blown dead sort of thing?
Play was already blown dead, basically
Roger. Thanks.
[quote schoaff][quote Rich S][quote DeltaOne81][Q]Bill's review was highly respectful of Clarkson.
Great game by both teams tonight.[/Q]
r board. Or just don't come here.[/quote]
"Leggio deserves credit for making 50 saves. We make ECAC goalie of the week out of a lot of goalies."
The above was the only comment in Bill's review that I commented on. Hardly "highly respectful."
Greg made the other statement, right? Or was it John. Fine.
I don't expect out and out praise for the opponent here or on any forum. But to not recognize the oponent's efforts in a game that went to 2 OTs is taking a very narrow view. The implication is that cornell had to go to 2 OTs only because of their own occasional poor play. That's silly.
Please don't lecture me about my behavior here. Clean up your own house first. When inaccurate or narrow-minded statements are made, I'll call you on it. If you want to throw stones at me, be prepared to catch a few coming back.
[/quote]
Even though on paper it looks like he had a great game making 50 saves, watching the play gave a different impression. If I'm the Clarkson coach he doesn't start tonight.
Now, take this all with a grain of salt not just because I'm a Cornell Fan but because the camera work last night left a bit to be desired. I suspect I only saw 2 out of every 3 shots that reached the Clarkson net.[/quote]
Well, good thing for Clarkson they didn't pay any attention to me. Thought Leggio played much better tonight.