Cornell 3 Princeton 2 Post Game Thread

[Omie]

Wow after controlling two periods of game our guys forgot there was a third period to play. Princeton definitely made close in that period.

Good things: PP is improving! yay

Bad? We need to play the full 60 minutes.

Nice to see Bitz score, McCutcheon is one of my fav players and keeps putting up points, Romano too.

We better be ready for Q tomorrow they have a really good offense but I'm hoping for the W.

LGR!!!

[ebilmes]

[quote Omie]Wow after controlling two periods of game our guys forgot there was a third period to play. Princeton definitely made close in that period.

Good things: PP is improving! yay

Bad? We need to play the full 60 minutes.

Nice to see Bitz score, McCutcheon is one of my fav players and keeps putting up points, Romano too.

We better be ready for Q tomorrow they have a really good offense but I'm hoping for the W.

LGR!!![/quote]

I missed some big parts of the game. Was our play in the first two periods good, or just better than Princeton's? Definitely agree with the "full 60 minutes" comment. Were special teams better tonight?

[Omie]

Special teams were better we had 2 PPGs. I thought that we played really well the 1st and better than PU on the 2nd, not by large margins but definitely better than against Dartmouth. But the 3rd period was just awful, we got wayyyy too comfortable with our lead and almost lost it.

[Rita]

Another good win for Cornell. I'm glad that they were able to hang on in the 3rd and leave NJ with the win. It seems like the freshman are learning some good lessons early in the season: don't ever give up (Harvard and to an extent Dartmouth) and how to hang on to a lead despite being outplayed for much of a period (at least from the radio perspective).

Our PK seemed to be better and we got some PPGs!!:-)

In goal, Davenport once again held his own, and then some.

Did Taylor Davenport play in the rest of the game? I do not recall hearing his name after the hit he took in the first.

Here's hoping they can leave CT with at least a point.

[Omie]

I know Davenport has been pretty solid in goal and has kept us in the games but he is certainly not great. He did a great job of keeping us in the game against Dartmouth in the 2nd and 3rd periods but he also let in 2 goals in 7 shots in the 1st which is partly why we trailed the whole game. And tonight he had awesome saves but also let in 2 shots in 3 mins, granted it was also the D's fault.

[JasonN95]

[quote Omie]I know Davenport has been pretty solid in goal and has kept us in the games but he is certainly not great. He did a great job of keeping us in the game against Dartmouth in the 2nd and 3rd periods but he also let in 2 goals in 7 shots in the 1st which is partly why we trailed the whole game. And tonight he had awesome saves but also let in 2 shots in 3 mins, granted it was also the D's fault.[/quote]

Have you seen his play in person? I've seen the RIT, Dartmouth and Harvard games live and would say Davenport plays was excellent. I don't think any of the goals were soft.  If you're solely basing your opinion of Davenport's play on the number of goals given up in a insignificant sampling of shots or the time elapsed between two goals, I don't think that is particularly sound analysis.  Of course, to each his own opinion.

[Al DeFlorio]

[quote Omie]...he also let in 2 goals in 7 shots in the 1st which is partly why we trailed the whole game.[/quote]
Not all "shots" are created equal.

[LaJollaRed]

Correct me if I'm wrong, and bother me with your superior knowledge if you must:

But this is how I've been explaining the difference between McKee and Davenport, thus far in the season:

McKee was more of a Hasek Type.
Davenport is more of a Roy.

That is - McKee makes acrobatic gasper saves....Davenport seems to be in the right place at the right time.

BUT! 6-1-0....I'm feeling pretty good...They're already better than predicted.

[Omie]

Yea I have seen him play at Lynah (have season tickets), I am not saying he is bad I am saying he isn't great. Considering we had a huge question mark on goal, I think he is doing very good. I just don't understand the praise as if he were making amazing saves because he hasn't either.

[fullofgas]

I never quite felt comfortable when McKee was in goal.  I do however, feel a bit more at ease with Davenport.  He is solid and will only improve (we can hope).

[DeltaOne81]

[quote Omie]Yea I have seen him play at Lynah (have season tickets), I am not saying he is bad I am saying he isn't great. Considering we had a huge question mark on goal, I think he is doing very good. I just don't understand the praise as if he were making amazing saves because he hasn't either.[/quote]

I've only seen the team once this year in person, so I'm not claiming to speak from experience, but just a thought... could it be his style?

If he's more about being good positionally, then he won't make incredible saves because he won't get himself in the position to need to. Lenny was the same way, he was tremendous positionally, so he didn't have to make any spectacular looking saves, and it was therefore easier to take his play for granted.

I remember going on the North Country trip that year, when Lenny was with the Canadian Jr team, and noticing the difference with Marr was night and day (not that Marr was bad, we won 2 north country away games with him that weekend).

Being good and being flashy are two very different things. Though they can often be confused.

[Omie]

Could be. I am not expert. ::innocent::

[billhoward]

Great 40 minutes of hockey by Cornell. Must have been an awesome speech in the Princeton locker room going into the third. If not, then Cornell just ran out of will to play well. Cornell special teams looked good, yes, with 2 PPG, unless it's that Princeton's special teams were especially not-so-good. Princeton gave Cornell a lot of power play opportunities. In goal, Davenport looked good for the most part, but I thought I also saw a lot of uncovered pucks left availble in the crease for a couple tenths of a second longer than is good for a Cornell fan's blood pressure.

[billhoward]

Cornell's fans owned Baker Rink again. I miss it when the fans don't start the chant, "This is our house." Nice when Princeton pulled its goalie and Cornell fans pointed to Davenport, the Princeton bench, and the empty Princeton net: "Good goalie, bad goalie, better goalie."

We missed the pep band. Even if a dozen people had showed, it would have eliminated the Princeton organ, which was like being stuck in a large elevator with ice in the middle. Thank goodness for the cowbell.

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

Just got home from the game.

I was quite happy with Davenport in goal.  He definitely played well positionally and didn't wander excessive;ly, although he did seem to be fighting off a couple of shots.  I really couldn't fault him on either of the goals.  On one he was badly screened and the other was just a perfect shot.  But he saved the win late in the third.

Some other observations:  the team looked small and they didn't hit very much.  I felt confident that when they tried to rush the puck out of the zone, they'd get it out without turning it over (except for once).  They did pass better than the more recent Cornell teams, and they didn't make any "what was he thinking?" passes in their own zone.  In center ice they were not quite as good defensively, especially in the third.  They let a lot of guys get past them, but made up with the error with speed.

Their defensive strategy in the third seemed to be to stack 5 guys in the slot and dare Princeton to try to get it through.  As my friend put it late in the 3rd, "it's a good thing this game isn't 5 minutes longer or this could be really ugly."

Bitz was disappointing.  He took a lot of faceoffs, but really didn't seem to be in the play much.  None of the freshman  really stood out to me, either for their skills or their errors.