ELynah Forum

good to see him get some time.

I have to disagree with this decision by the Cornell coaching staff.

Yes, Princeton scored two goals in the third and Davenport made a phenomenal save on a 2 on 0 after a defensive zone turnover with about two minutes left to preserve the win. I believe that period was the start of the struggles for Cornell last year. With the way Cornell rebounded in the third period against Q, that may be a momentum changer for the rest of the season.

This is a fairly good assessment of the night. Scrivens did struggle at several points during the game, namely in the second period along with the whole team. The penalty shot did go five hole as people on here have mentioned. Scrivens stayed too far in his net on this. Atkinson was pretty much half way in the crease when the shot was taken. The first goal was just a great play by the Q PP. Second he probably could have covered it as mentioned, however like the night before people were open around the net, granted it was a 5x3. The puck also bounced off of Seminoff's glove down to the ice in front of the net as he was trying to swat it out of the air.

Cornell played a fairly decent game. The beginning of the first and the third was a great showing. However, that second period reminded me of last years third period at Princeton, just not to as bad of an extent. Cornell showed great poise to come back. It looked like Q ran out of gas. They also didn't have the advantage of having the whole third period a man up as well.

Do I not go on to explain the goals and why they were not weak like previously stated. Do I not go on to give examples about how Davenport played during the game and saves that were made to keep Cornell in the game. Do you really want me to explain how Dileo in goal would not have been better than Davenport. I also talked about a goal given up the weak before. I also did not want to go into goaltender positioning and all of the things that I have mentioned on here before. I could go into the mistakes and missed opportunities by Cornell if you would like, but that would take up a lot of space. So I am not sure how I did not offer backup to my points.

Very well said amerks and I agree. I have seen numerous Cornell games and hockey games of all levels, more than you may think but I will not go into that. And robot, well said on your edit and you are entitled to your feelings, but people on here seem to say many things but do not back them up. I think if you are going to say things and try to call people out you should try to support what is being said. You also call me childish. Just because I say what I am thinking does not make it childish. Many people on here try to call out the goalies, or other players and make comments with no support or thoughts to back up what they say. Many people also have grudges against players that are extremely evident. Maybe people should try and take an unbiased look at the player's and team's performance, instead of always trying to single out individuals for a teams' mistakes. When players become scared of making a mistake (not saying that what people say on message boards would make a player scared of making a mistake), that is when their play and the team's play suffers more. This is something I think may be occurring with Cornell along with numerous other things, but that is for a different discussion. I thought people on this board were Cornell fans, but some, not all, are individual player fans and constantly sit on here looking for things to single out individuals. This is not just dealing with the goalies, but others. That is one thing that I think is wrong with this team (and numerous others) and why they have struggled recently. Too many individuals, not enough team, and not enough accountability. This seems to resemble some of the fans on here.

If you are going to say Davenport played with no confidence and he definitely wants two goals back, how about you say what goals and why you think this. The third goal was not as weak as many people are trying to make it seem. I am not saying that he probably wants it back, but it was not as bad as you are trying to make it. Also the whole worst game you have ever seen by a Cornell goalie? You must not watch many games or you must not know what you are watching. Bouncing pucks are beating him and many things are scaring you. Just because you are scared by a play a goalie makes or something that happens does not mean that it is a bad play or that the goalie has no confidence or is shaky. Davenport stood tall in that game and challenged shooters and made some big saves and to say he didn't give the team a chance to win I do not understand. You lose a game by one goal and the team has no chance to win, how does that work. Especially after all of the penalties and missed open chances by the offense, but Cornell had no chance to win because of Davenport, I guess that makes sense.

Just wondering if any of you were actually watching this game at all. To say 2 extremely soft goals, what a joke! Also you talk about Davenport's positioning when you are sitting stationary in the stands to the left of the goal and you are trying to comment on his angles, nice try. The goals: A Cornell player tips in a shot to the upper corner on goal number one that would have hit Davenport right in the gut. The second goal a scramble in front with Davenport making the save and no one tying any body up and allowing two Princeton guys in front all alone, after the save one Princeton player pokes the puck across the crease to another guy all alone on the back door. The third was a turnover at center ice with a bad change taking place and a 4-2 coming back in with the Princeton player using our d-man as a screen. You could tell Davenport didn't pick up the puck until it was about 5 feet past the d-man already. Granted he may have been able to come up with that save, put to call these goals weak is a joke. And to mention Dileo playing better, come on. Not to take anything away, but come on. Davenport played a great came, was comfortable and confident in net and kept Cornell in it all night. Princeton was getting wide open shots and tips all night with Davenport making some great glove saves and stuffing that back door play in the 3rd when 3 Cornell players got sucked to the guy breaking down the wing. I don't know what many of you are talking about when evaluating the goalies, but maybe you should take a lesson from the editorial written in the Daily Sun about being knowledgeable about hockey before making any remarks. Also, the short side goal from the bottom of the circle given up by Scrivens last week against RIT was much weaker than any of these goals tonight. And this whole Davenport and Scrivens debate is played out. Watch the games, watch the tapes, maybe with your Scrivens shaded glasses off, some knowledge, and then maybe you will realize this debate is a joke.

This team as got some issues and to make the goalies the scape goat is ridiculous. Especially after a goalie plays a solid game, makes some huge saves, and keeps the team in it. There were so many mistakes and missed opportunities that no one seems to ever talk about. Lets just blame the goalies, even when they play well and even when we don't know what we are talking about. Maybe if we make some things up people will believe us. I know some of you will probably say I am being too mean again and we are all friends and this and that, but this is just ridiculous.

I am not saying that every goal that has gone in is because of the defense. Granted on some of them maybe he wasn't out challenging as far as he should and maybe some rebounds got away that he wish wouldn't have. Or maybe if he had dislocated is left knee and touched the crossbar with the back of his skate he would have made the save ;-). I just don't think you can say that he has played "pretty bad" at times this year. If you look at the goals given up you can't say that any were really his fault or soft goals. Many of them have been defflections off of our own guys, giveaways in our own zone, powerplay goals from blown assignments, and odd man rushes. I don't understand how you can say the goalie should be held accountable for this stuff.

sorry if you do not like the tone I use. I am not trying to upset anyone as I know by reading the board that most people on here know eachother. I was just trying to inform people about what going to play in the Q and O meant to a player and his future. it is very hard to get the tone across when typing. I am just trying to add my opinion and knowledge if I can.

yeah, but if you read on the board people didn't know what the Q or O was so they probably had no idea that be going there he was giving up his eligibility

You forgot the one major "catch" to this. By going to play in the Q, O, or W a player loses their college eligibilty. So if Romano does leave to play in any of these leagues he would no longer be able to return to Cornell or any other NCAA school to play D1 hockey. He would also only have 2 years remaing to play in these leagues beginning next year since eligibility is based on birth year and he is an '88 (this year is the last year for 86's to play in the leagues).

Sorry if the response seems a little intense for you and maybe some of the other posters on here, but I just stated what my opinion was just like everyone else has done. I am also all about having fun, but when people try to rip on guys based on a lot of garbage (not sure if that is too harsh of a word for you ;-) ) it just gets a little old. It was not directed at all of the posters on this forum, just the select few that constantly say the same baseless claims over and over again. I understand not all people in the world, or on here, are vastly knowledgable about hockey. I just think that if people are going to post things they should atleast learn a little bit about the game or the subject they are posting eventually, instead of just posting the same thing they have been since the beggining of the season.

New to posting on the forum here, but have been following for awhile. I'll preface this post by saying I believe Davenport is the better goalie and has shown it. This is also not done to take a stab at Scrivens. He has done well and is a capable goalie.

It has just been painful to watch this debate go on at times this year. Many of the things said regarding the goalies just shows how much some people on here do not know regarding the goaltender position, and at times, hockey in general. There are people on this forum who just keep pulling numbers out of the box scores and are trying to make a point to say Davenport has been bad based on the numbers. By reading this it is obvious that these people have not been to a number of the games they talk about and, if they have, they obviously don't know what they are watching.

Many of the games that constantly get brought up here such as Dartmouth, Quinnipiac, Maine, Wayne State, I question whether the people were even at the games. The team played just garbage in these games and there were numerous goals that went in off of our own players. None of the goals that went in were bad goals on Davenport's side of it.

Also the second Dartmouth game Davenport played a good game. There may have been only 21 shots, but all were within the tops of the circles, with screens,and also unchallanged. The team played terrible defence and did not pick any guys up. When a goalie is getting shots taken on them from inside the hash marks their job is to just stop the first shot, that is it because on those it's pretty much just positioning and reflex. Controlling the rebound is almost impossible on those.

The Wayne State game the team played terrible the entire game, even when Scrivens was in. If you watch they were always out of position and not picking people up and allowing open shots. 2 ppg in the first 13 minuts, one 5x3. On second ppg all four of the penalty killers were on the opposite side of the ice as the puck and the two Wayne State players. One skated around the back of the net and threw a pass to a wide open man standing just outside the crease to pound it home.

In the first Quinnipiac game there were numberous turnovers in our own end and lots of screens and odd man rushes.

Maine, the team did not cover men in the slot at all. That is where all the goals came from. On one of the goals the Maine player got the puck at the point and all of our players skated away from him and let him walk all the way down.

The second Princeton game has also been mentioned lately and that is just garbage. It just shows how far people are reaching to try to show Scrivens has been better. In that game the team was up 8-1 going into the third and packed it in (just like they packed it in during the third period in the first game which carried over to the next night just like it did here). They left Davenport all alone the whole period and did not pick anyone up. He made some huge saves in that game as well and had he not the game could have been different.

Also the game in which he has saved the team are not mentioned here such as Princeton (game 1, game saving save on a 3 on 0 off a turnover in our own zone with under 5 minutes left), Harvard (game 1, made the comeback possible), Quinnipiac (enough said), Brown (numerous guys streaking in untouched taking and tipping shots inside the hashes), Wayne State (we ony got 2 goals), Clarkson (huge saves and one on Grenzy in the third after he was left alone to walk all the way in, even the Clarkson announcers named him the #1 star and he had less saves than Leggio) and a great game against UNH.

This post, as I said earlier, is not to be taken as a hit against Scrivens. It is just to show why debates about goaltenders on this forum are going to go nowhere. People come on here with their biases and are just fishing for numbers to try and put against Davenport. Ex.

Quote from: Omie68.4% is pretty bad (I'm counting the disallowed goal)

First of all those numbers aren't even correct, Omie just went on to a site to find the lowest saves Davenport was credited for (as opposed to the official saves credited) then added a goal that wasn't counted. This is so terrible. You can't go counting goals that aren't scored against goalies. That is like saying, the team won the game 2-o, but the goalie with the shutout had 15 saves, but 3 goals were disallowed because of high sticking. So the team really lost 3-2 and his save percentage was .833 as opposed to 1.000. So until people stop looking for made numbers and actually learn something about goaltending and team hockey this is pointless.