other games 11-3 and 11-4-06

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

OK, truce.

RichS' comment was mildly antagonistic, but we did escalate it rather rapidly.

Let's focus on Sucks, OK?

[Rich S]

ok, cool.

What is Teddy in for this week at Lynah?

[nyc94]

[quote Jeff Hopkins '82]RichS' comment was mildly antagonistic, but we did escalate it rather rapidly.
[/quote]

I escalated it rather quickly.  I'll take responsibility but I won't apologize.  This was just the latest in a long  series of these types of replies.  For RichS to come back by saying I (or we) overreact is hypocritical at best considering his incredibly thin skin when it comes to comments about Clarkson.  But he conveniently didn't address this when I called him on it.  And I guarantee his next response would be, you guys can dish it out but you can't take it.  If anything in his tone once suggested his comments weren't meant to knock us down or if he threw in a ;-) once in a while he might actually build up some goodwill here.

[Beeeej]

[quote Rich S]What is Teddy in for this week at Lynah?[/quote]

Teddy's going to get scrod. :-D

[daredevilcu]

To throw in my two cents:

I was at the Clarkson games this weekend at Bright and Thompson.  Harvard was, in my opinion, the weaker of the two opponents, but mostly because they let their effort deflate after giving up the shortie in the second.  Biega, the rookie they've been touting so loudly, did not look as impressive as I'd expected.  When Harvard works hard, they'll compete with any team, but if they give it any less than their best, they'll have trouble with most of the teams in the league.  Then again, they may just need time to get their skates warmed up.  Dartmouth, on the other hand, looked very solid.  Clarkson made the most of their chances, but DC controlled the majority of play (probably due to the referee calling it so poorly).  Dartmouth had 16 power plays to Clarkson's 8 and only one goal to show for them.  They'll get more comfortable soon and be a dangerous team.

Clarkson looked great all weekend.  If Leggio plays as steady as he has, the offense is so deep teams are going to have serious trouble holding them to less than three goals and thus Clarkson could have a great year.  Sure, Richter and Devine didn't have the best weekends, but still at least half the goals couldn't be attributed to goaltender error.  They're a serious contender for a first-round bye and possibly the league title.  As a Clarkson fan, I'm extremely glad to have the HU/DC trip taken care of now, so we don't have to face them away later when they're comfortable and they feel like there's more at stake.

From what I understand, Davenport has pretty much done what any Cornell fan could have asked in the departure of McKee.  Anyone have any reports on him?

[redhair34]

[quote daredevilcu]
From what I understand, Davenport has pretty much done what any Cornell fan could have asked in the departure of McKee.  Anyone have any reports on him?[/quote]

Yeah, he has been fantastic.  He saved our hides at Brown and turned in a performance that rivaled McKee's best (save the Wisconsin game). He was particularly solid on the many odd man rushes and breakaways he faced.  Also, I disagree with the prevailing opinion here that he is a poor puck handler.  He might not be the best, but he is an improvement on McKee.

[daredevilcu]

That's so discouraging and disappointing.

[Dpperk29]

my sentiments exactly. then again He hasn;t faced a good offense yet...

[ugarte]

[quote Rich S]Who have they played worth woofin' about?[/quote]My instinct was to respond like nyc94. Because (s)he is right. I decided to let my better nature prevail, wait a little bit, and explain why I think Jeff is right and Rich S was out of line.

1) It isn't a woof. Being happy about past success isn't woofing. Jeff didn't say that we would have an undefeated season. He didn't even say that we would beat Harvard! He stated a fact that we at eLynah should be happy about and maybe even a little proud of.

2) By the time Rich S checked in, marty had already accused Jeff of woofing and KeithK threw a wet blanket on the fire, so it isn't like we weren't self-regulating.

3) Even if you assume (incorrectly) that it was woofing, and even if you think (incorrectly) it was another case of those crazy Cornell people letting homer-y nonsense go unresponded to on the forum ... before the weekend Yale was a team that people were talking about as a comer. Beating them soundly in their building is, I think, something about which our team and fans should feel damn good.

Verdict? Rich S's comment was snotty, unnecessary and altogether typical.

That said, I am not exactly looking forward to playing Clarkson. I get the feeling that those dudes can play.

[KeithK]

[quote RichH][quote Rich S]If you guys think this has become a flamefest, you have only yourselves to hold responsible for the overreaction.[/quote]

In this case, my namesake is correct.

That said, so what if somebody on a silly internet message board woofed or not?  That's one of the stupidest things to have an argument about.[/quote]Except in the case of assigning blame when the woofing gods slam your team in response to the offense.  That's a perfectly rational thing to do! :-D

BTW, shouldn't a good Clarkson fan be encouraging us to woof?

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

[quote KeithK]
BTW, shouldn't a good Clarkson fan be encouraging us to woof?[/quote]

I think that sums it up nicely.  ::whistle::

[CowbellGuy]

Well, I'm not sure my praise of Davenport would be quite that glowing. I think he's solid, but does go out to play the puck every single opportunity he gets. Nothing disastrous as a result of that so far, but I could easily see him getting burned for 2 or 3 goals a season as a result of it. Does it balance out with all the puck possession gained? Perhaps.

Other than that, he has a tendency to go down early, but he's solid positionally. I think we can expect 2-3 goals against each game, and if the offense can score more than that, they should win. I'm not saying those 2-3 goals are all Davenport, either. The defense is still rocky at times.

To this point, he hasn't really faced a steady barrage from any team. He hasn't really been tested. This weekend should be very telling.

[Rich S]

I'll take the "risk" here.

The adjectives you ascribed to my post relate to almost all of the comments you've directed towards me in the recent past.  Particularly your consistent typical snottiness.  Success breeds contempt.

I must have missed the self-regulating you referred to before I commented on what I felt was Jeff's woofing.

[ugarte]

[quote Rich S]The adjectives you ascribed to my post relate to almost all of the comments you've directed towards me in the recent past.  Particularly your consistent typical snottiness.[/quote] Agreed! No regrets!

Success breeds contempt.

That, alas, is not the catalyst.

[Rita]

[quote CowbellGuy]Well, I'm not sure my praise of Davenport would be quite that glowing. I think he's solid, but does go out to play the puck every single opportunity he gets. Nothing disastrous as a result of that so far, but I could easily see him getting burned for 2 or 3 goals a season as a result of it. Does it balance out with all the puck possession gained? Perhaps.[/quote]

For video evidence of the bad things that can happen when the goalie wanders out to play the puck watch the first period of last Friday's OSU-Notre Dame game. IIRC, it was ND's second goal that they got the puck behind the goal and put it into a wide open net. The first ND goal looked a bit weak and the OSU goalie (Fillion) got pulled at the end of the first period.

OSU has 2 rather smallish but very good players: Andrew Schembri (5 ft 6 in, 165 lb, #9) and Tommy Goebel (5 ft 7 in, #6). It was a bit confusing as to how many "small guys" OSU had since sometimes it is hard to distinguish 9's and 6's on TV. But they were quick and knew how to find the back of the net; they got both OSU goals on Friday and Goebel got another one in Saturday's 1-1 tie v. ND.