Cornell 3 RPI 3 Post-game Thread

[marty]

[quote Beeeej]I'll take the tie, after going down 0-3.[/quote]

After the first period I thought I was going to need a few shots but seeing the Red stop almost all RPI chances in the third period (2 shots on goal) and during the end of the second period - after Scrivens was needed - (no shots by RIP) gave me hope for this team.

This was a very encouraging tie.

LGR!  One Onion salad to go please.::drunk::

[Omie]

[quote ebilmes]
Davenport was at least partially responsible for yet another poor first period. Yes, our PK wasn't good, but I'm starting to think he has a problem changing angles to keep up with where the puck is. Seems like a lot of the goals he's given up are back-door kinds of goals where he's just not turned around quickly enough. I still think he's a better goalie than Scrivens, but it's good to have a quality #2 option to turn to. I didn't think Scrivens was challenged much until some big stops at the end. That said, I hope Troy's injury isn't anything serious.
[/quote]

Maybe it's just me but I am not impressed by Davenport at all. He has poor first periods and then we have to try to make it back (Harvard, Dartmouth, Quinnipiac, Wayne State, and last night). Maybe Scrivens might not be much better but he has definitely come thru when needed. Also, just from an entertainment standpoint, I think Scrivens is more fun to watch. He sometimes makes weird decisions but he is definitely more active in the game.

As an end note, I can't say how happy I am we managed to get that one point after being down 3-0 for the second time in 3 games. However, we have not defeated RPI in our last 3 meetings with them.

[RichH]

[quote Omie] Also, just from an entertainment standpoint, I think Scrivens is more fun to watch. [/quote]

As a guy who thinks back to the days of Andy Bandurski..."fun to watch" is not one of the traits I like in a goaltender.  Give me solid, stoic, boring, calm goaltending anyday.  I'm fine with having flashy, spectacular forwards, but I want my defensemen and goaltenders to be about as exciting and skillful at stopping things as rocks.

[Dafatone]

Davenport has been very good at being between the net and the puck consistently.  Overall, he's been alright.  And really, were any of us expecting any better than alright from our goalie coming into this season?

Scrivens looked very unpolished, but skilled.

[evilnaturedrobot]

you've got to be pleased when you come back from 3-0, but I don't understand how you can fail to win a game in which you spend 29 minutes on the powerplay.  

I meen 29 minutes! the game was only 65 minutes long.

[ursusminor]

Charlene Markham's pictures of yesterday's games http://www.rpihockey.net/pics.061201.shtml. Yes, she is focusing on RPI, but Cornell players do seem to wander into her field of vision.

[Tom Lento]

[quote Dafatone]Scrivens made an incredible glove save in the OT.  Dell sucked.  We scored in the 2nd period, but Alford grabbed the puck and threw it out of the net (it was barely over the line) and Dell never blew the whistle.  We looked good for the second two periods.  That's about it.[/quote]

I had a clear view of the play (sitting up in H, totally unobstructed view) and it seemed like Dell got that one right.  The puck somehow stopped on the line.  Disappointing, certainly, but the puck was only partway over.  No goal.

As for the rest of the game - Cornell came as close to doing every thing wrong in the first period as it's possible to come without actively trying, and somehow came back to tie it up.  That's a huge negative followed by a huge positive.

Cornell wasted a major penalty by having that first PP unit on the ice for 3.5 minutes, and giving the second unit a couple of 30-45 second bursts.  When the second unit had some time to get the puck in and move it around, they made things happen - lots of solid chances, 1 goal, and they drew 2 additional penalties in the second which fueled the comeback and helped wear out RPI's legs.

The biggest problem I see on the first PP line is they hold the puck for far too long.  They have shooting or passing lanes available, but they wait to use themm and then their options are limited.  It's at least partly due to bad spacing, but it may also be bad chemistry, a lack of anticipation on the part of the receivers, or passes that are coming in just a little bit off and therefore the receiver needs to work harder to receive it, which results in those delays between passes and shots.  The second line moves the puck a lot better, and looks to make skip passes (another thing the first PP unit lacks is creativity - the sequence is highly predictable) - instead of going from half boards to point to point to half boards they'll skip that near point, or try to center it straight across for a back door goal.  This is higher risk - RPI got at least one or two free clears off of botched passes - but higher reward, too, as a play like that indirectly led to a goal, and started several flurries which resulted in those extra RPI penalties.  If that line played 2/3 of the PP time instead of a bunch of 30 second bursts you might have seen 3/12 or better instead of 1/12.

Of course, that first PP unit redeemed itself (or at least most of that unit did so) by scoring the EAG fairly quickly in a 5x4 situation.

The PK is terrible.  It seems like a combination of bad positioning, lack of communication, and skaters who don't move their feet enough. There were at least two points where 3 of the Cornell skaters were in a vertical line from the net out to the blue line (top of the circles, really) with the fourth skater pressuring the puck while RPI spread out - this isn't that bad if it's a momentary pattern, but they stayed that way for several seconds.  One of those led to a backdoor goal which Davenport had no chance at stopping.  It's odd to see out of Cornell - one of the constants over the last 6+ years (and maybe even all 10+ years that I've been watching this team) has been the incredible positioning and footwork displayed by the PK units.  Hopefully, the time off will give them a chance to work on their PK positioning and their timing on the PP and you'll see a more effective special teams game.

It was nice to see Scrivens come up big in the OT - he looked really shaky from the time he took the ice through the end of the third period, which isn't that surprising considering the situation.  I think Davenport is a more polished goalie at this point, but Scrivens may have more upside, so at least for the tiem being Davenport is the number 1 guy.

[plrd78]

Agreed,Bitz is overplayed and takes up time of players that can be more effective offensively..
Scali, since he has been in the line the PK looks alive..
Romano..creates offense. Whatever PP he has been on has been the most effective. The 1st unit is so ROBOTIC they do not think.. The 2nd unit moves, passes at the right time and place and makes 5 on 4 sometimes 4 on 3 and so on
Hopefully,the 1st unit can see the 2nd unit and LEARN...

[plrd78]

There were a few players who deserved a Star. Bitz..no way, he fanned on the shot he scored. Greening broke down the right side, Romano came up the middle and drew both defensmen, Bitz received the pass and a knuckle puck beat the goalie..very lucky...On the RPI 3rd goal... whos fault  Bitz and Sawada..2 monsters watched the RPI player shoot the puck, if either one of them simply lifted their stick and picked up the RPI's player stick..no shot..Big Men No body checks, thats a joke.. The 1st PP, Romano started it all, pulled defense high, quickly cut back, passed down low to Gallagher, this allowed a clear path for for Blake to the Net, Carefoot read the play...simple back door. Thats creative Ice Hockey, not our last 2 goals LUCK...or the 1st PP pass the puck on the perimeter..
Ari, you do know your stuff, please do not take our original comments to heart. All of us enjoy your honest knowlegable statements.. MILO, he should be playing regular, to strong of a player..How does an offensive star sit, when the 1st PP has No idea what to do, waste ice time for the 2nd unit. Except for Scott and McCutheon, the rest are lost, PP means up a man, not down one or 2...Back to Romano.. he had another strong game. Brkke thru the middle for breakaway, got hooked at the end, and the beat 2 players thru the high slot, but shot it high, from my angle looked like the puck rolled up on its side...He brings a new deminsion to this program..Excitment, Skills, speed and smarts..Milo and Romano should play together, what do you think...Also, whatever PP Romano has been on is most effective. If his unit got at least 50% of the time instaed of 30 seconds or so.. we would score more goals..Put Milo in the high slot to shoot.. we score we win not struggle...

[RazzBaronZ]

[quote plrd78]There were a few players who deserved a Star. Bitz..no way, he fanned on the shot he scored. Greening broke down the right side, Romano came up the middle and drew both defensmen, Bitz received the pass and a knuckle puck beat the goalie..very lucky...On the RPI 3rd goal... whos fault  Bitz and Sawada..2 monsters watched the RPI player shoot the puck, if either one of them simply lifted their stick and picked up the RPI's player stick..no shot..Big Men No body checks, thats a joke.. The 1st PP, Romano started it all, pulled defense high, quickly cut back, passed down low to Gallagher, this allowed a clear path for for Blake to the Net, Carefoot read the play...simple back door. Thats creative Ice Hockey, not our last 2 goals LUCK...or the 1st PP pass the puck on the perimeter..
Ari, you do know your stuff, please do not take our original comments to heart. All of us enjoy your honest knowlegable statements.. MILO, he should be playing regular, to strong of a player..How does an offensive star sit, when the 1st PP has No idea what to do, waste ice time for the 2nd unit. Except for Scott and McCutheon, the rest are lost, PP means up a man, not down one or 2...Back to Romano.. he had another strong game. Brkke thru the middle for breakaway, got hooked at the end, and the beat 2 players thru the high slot, but shot it high, from my angle looked like the puck rolled up on its side...He brings a new deminsion to this program..Excitment, Skills, speed and smarts..Milo and Romano should play together, what do you think...Also, whatever PP Romano has been on is most effective. If his unit got at least 50% of the time instaed of 30 seconds or so.. we would score more goals..Put Milo in the high slot to shoot.. we score we win not struggle...[/quote]

This was the hardest thing I've had to read all day.  I've been reading technical papers in biomedical and other research. ::smashfreak::

[Will]

[quote plrd78]There were a few players who deserved a Star. Bitz..no way, he fanned on the shot he scored. Greening broke down the right side, Romano came up the middle and drew both defensmen, Bitz received the pass and a knuckle puck beat the goalie..very lucky...On the RPI 3rd goal... whos fault  Bitz and Sawada..2 monsters watched the RPI player shoot the puck, if either one of them simply lifted their stick and picked up the RPI's player stick..no shot..Big Men No body checks, thats a joke.. The 1st PP, Romano started it all, pulled defense high, quickly cut back, passed down low to Gallagher, this allowed a clear path for for Blake to the Net, Carefoot read the play...simple back door. Thats creative Ice Hockey, not our last 2 goals LUCK...or the 1st PP pass the puck on the perimeter..
Ari, you do know your stuff, please do not take our original comments to heart. All of us enjoy your honest knowlegable statements.. MILO, he should be playing regular, to strong of a player..How does an offensive star sit, when the 1st PP has No idea what to do, waste ice time for the 2nd unit. Except for Scott and McCutheon, the rest are lost, PP means up a man, not down one or 2...Back to Romano.. he had another strong game. Brkke thru the middle for breakaway, got hooked at the end, and the beat 2 players thru the high slot, but shot it high, from my angle looked like the puck rolled up on its side...He brings a new deminsion to this program..Excitment, Skills, speed and smarts..Milo and Romano should play together, what do you think...Also, whatever PP Romano has been on is most effective. If his unit got at least 50% of the time instaed of 30 seconds or so.. we would score more goals..Put Milo in the high slot to shoot.. we score we win not struggle...[/quote]

Treat paragraph breaks like you would your friends, and use them.  (Proper typing, spelling, grammar, and punctuation would be helpful as well, but let's start with something easy.)

[evilnaturedrobot]

I'd like to point out that bitz was responcible for the tieing goal (he brought the puck into the offensive zone, established position behind the net and then fed a nice pass to topher who put the puck on net, all of which made it possible for Sawada to put in the rebound.)  Bitz also hit a post in the first period with a nice deflection.

I thought Bitz played better this weekend than he has all season and I can't believe anyone is knocking his play.  Those 4 points wheren't caused by luck, they came about because Bitsy consistently won battles along the boards, played physical hockey, screened the opposing sieve and got his stick on several point shots, and did a good job carrying the puck into the offensive zone.

[plrd78]

This was the hardest thing I've had to read all day. I've been reading technical papers in biomedical and other research.

What type of comment is that...Do you understand the game or are you to busy about reading papers...From that comment you do not understand the game..

[plrd78]

Stop with the grammer etc. WE ARE Commenting on Hockey not school...

[Beeeej]

[quote plrd78]Stop with the grammer etc. WE ARE Commenting on Hockey not school...[/quote]

I still don't understand why anybody would purposely write like that just because it's not an academic paper being turned in for grading.

We're not grading you, and we (well, most of us) aren't going to pick apart your errors or try to teach you how to do better next time.  But when you write a certain way, you're making a choice about how people will view you and your opinions, and even whether they're willing to slog through your opinions in the first place.  Don't you want people to read what you write, or understand it well enough to be able to respond?

If not, hey, nobody's trying to break your spirit of individuality - so keep doin' what you're doin'.