The Story So Far

[Josh '99]

[quote WillCMJr]I think Davenport had a false ceiling.  Don't be fooled by having those textbook technical skills, that look good.  Many of your great NHL goalies haven't had them.  Look at Martin Brodeur, he flies and flops all over the place, and is one of the very greatest.  Do people forget Duffus?  He was even more unorthodox than Scrivens, but people were sure sad to see him go.[/quote]On the other hand, Rick DiPietro flops all over the place and he sucks.  A goalie with an unorthodox style might make some spectacular saves, but they'll often let in soft goals, and I think that frustrates people.

[Trotsky]

Josh's note to Mike: don't sign Scrivens to a 15-year contract.

[evilnaturedrobot]

[quote Josh '99][quote WillCMJr]I think Davenport had a false ceiling.  Don't be fooled by having those textbook technical skills, that look good.  Many of your great NHL goalies haven't had them.  Look at Martin Brodeur, he flies and flops all over the place, and is one of the very greatest.  Do people forget Duffus?  He was even more unorthodox than Scrivens, but people were sure sad to see him go.[/quote]On the other hand, Rick DiPietro flops all over the place and he sucks.  A goalie with an unorthodox style might make some spectacular saves, but they'll often let in soft goals, and I think that frustrates people.[/quote]

Could you tell him to 'suck' a bit more against the rangers?  Every time I see the guy play he's shutting us out.

[Jordan 04]

[quote evilnaturedrobot][quote Josh '99][quote WillCMJr]I think Davenport had a false ceiling.  Don't be fooled by having those textbook technical skills, that look good.  Many of your great NHL goalies haven't had them.  Look at Martin Brodeur, he flies and flops all over the place, and is one of the very greatest.  Do people forget Duffus?  He was even more unorthodox than Scrivens, but people were sure sad to see him go.[/quote]On the other hand, Rick DiPietro flops all over the place and he sucks.  A goalie with an unorthodox style might make some spectacular saves, but they'll often let in soft goals, and I think that frustrates people.[/quote]

Could you tell him to 'suck' a bit more against the rangers?  Every time I see the guy play he's shutting us out.[/quote]

Hence Josh's bitter post, rooted in his teams inability to beat the "sucky" goalie the last 2 years... :-P

[Josh '99]

[quote Jordan 04][quote evilnaturedrobot][quote Josh '99][quote WillCMJr]I think Davenport had a false ceiling.  Don't be fooled by having those textbook technical skills, that look good.  Many of your great NHL goalies haven't had them.  Look at Martin Brodeur, he flies and flops all over the place, and is one of the very greatest.  Do people forget Duffus?  He was even more unorthodox than Scrivens, but people were sure sad to see him go.[/quote]On the other hand, Rick DiPietro flops all over the place and he sucks.  A goalie with an unorthodox style might make some spectacular saves, but they'll often let in soft goals, and I think that frustrates people.[/quote]

Could you tell him to 'suck' a bit more against the rangers?  Every time I see the guy play he's shutting us out.[/quote]

Hence Josh's bitter post, rooted in his teams inability to beat the "sucky" goalie the last 2 years... :-P[/quote]Hey, we beat him last week and at least one of the goals was directly caused by his flopping.  I'm not bitter, you've got a bad goalie signed for another 13 years.  **]

[RatushnyFan]

[quote Trotsky]3. Nash and Greening

When was the last time Cornell had two all-ECAC quality forwards simultaneously?  For my money, it was 22 years ago, with Nieuwy and Moeser, and those guys were upperclassmen.[/quote]
You're probably right.  '90-'91 had Derraugh (career year), Andison and Hughes who all scored 1.5 points per game or higher but Harvard and Clarkson both had 3 guys with better production, St. Lawrence had 2 strong forwards........the league was just different then.  

But I still liked our guys best.::banana::

[Trotsky]

Derraugh and Andison is a good comparison for this feeling of having young, exciting guys leading the offense, early in the season.  Looking back at the stats, I was surprised to see that flatness of the scoring for Cornell in 87-88.  In my (hazy, failing) memory, Derraugh and Andison revived the team after the disastrous 87 season.

The main difference is that we know Nash is kinda a one-night stand, given the way the game has changed, whereas before when we got a great freshman we could enjoy the anticipation of watching him develop and contribute for four glorious seasons.