dressing 3 goalies

BMac · December 02, 2006, 05:24:46 PM

We thought that they dressed DiLeo because Davenport's been shaky (ignoring the shutout) and if they put Scrivens in early and he gets shelled, we wouldn't want to put a pulled goalie back in. Kind of convoluted, but Schafer is Schafer.

In any case, I think the "he works hard in practice" theory is pretty good.

ursusminor · December 02, 2006, 06:31:18 PM

I don't know about Cornell, but RPI dresses three goalies for home games but only two for road games. The reason for this is that there is a limit on how many players can go on a road trip, and RPI as well as many other teams feels that it is more important to take along an additional skater than a third goalie. I don't recall the exact limit, and I don't know if it is an NCAA limit or an ECAC limit. It's about 23 players. I think that this is supposed to cut down expenses for hotel rooms and food.

Al DeFlorio · December 02, 2006, 06:45:50 PM

I think the real question is: Why wouldn't you dress a third goalie for home games? What's the downside? Give the kid a chance to suit up and get out on the ice in front of the crowd. Costs nothing and is good for the kid's morale.

MRN one · December 02, 2006, 08:44:08 PM

Maybe two goalies and the extra bench space for cleaner line changes is more valuable than a third goalie you don't plan to play.

Al DeFlorio · December 02, 2006, 08:46:00 PM

[quote MRN one]Maybe two goalies and the extra bench space for cleaner line changes is more valuable than a third goalie you don't plan to play.[/quote]
Right. That must be it.::rolleyes::

Chris '03 · December 02, 2006, 09:51:31 PM

[quote Al DeFlorio][quote MRN one]Maybe two goalies and the extra bench space for cleaner line changes is more valuable than a third goalie you don't plan to play.[/quote]
Right. That must be it.::rolleyes::[/quote]

I don't think it's THAT far fetched. Of course with the tunnell behind the bench now, there's plenty of space to hang out.

Beeeej · December 02, 2006, 10:08:41 PM

[quote Chris '03][quote Al DeFlorio][quote MRN one]Maybe two goalies and the extra bench space for cleaner line changes is more valuable than a third goalie you don't plan to play.[/quote]
Right. That must be it.::rolleyes::[/quote]

I don't think it's THAT far fetched.[/quote]

It certainly didn't deserve that level of sarcasm.

Al DeFlorio · December 02, 2006, 10:22:13 PM

[quote Beeeej][quote Chris '03][quote Al DeFlorio][quote MRN one]Maybe two goalies and the extra bench space for cleaner line changes is more valuable than a third goalie you don't plan to play.[/quote]
Right. That must be it.::rolleyes::[/quote]

I don't think it's THAT far fetched.[/quote]

It certainly didn't deserve that level of sarcasm.[/quote]
Sorry, but it really did.

Trotsky · December 02, 2006, 10:33:41 PM

[quote Al DeFlorio]I think the real question is: Why wouldn't you dress a third goalie for home games? What's the downside? Give the kid a chance to suit up and get out on the ice in front of the crowd. Costs nothing and is good for the kid's morale.[/quote]

And when Scrivens got run tonight and was down for a moment, and again when he went out beyond the circle to try for his Say Hey basket catch, we all saw how close we came to actually having to have the #3 enter the game.

ebilmes · December 02, 2006, 10:36:49 PM

[quote Trotsky][quote Al DeFlorio]I think the real question is: Why wouldn't you dress a third goalie for home games? What's the downside? Give the kid a chance to suit up and get out on the ice in front of the crowd. Costs nothing and is good for the kid's morale.[/quote]

And when Scrivens got run tonight and was down for a moment, and again when he went out beyond the circle to try for his Say Hey basket catch, we all saw how close we came to actually having to have the #3 enter the game.[/quote]

Was Davenport physically unable to play tonight? He did suit up...

Trotsky · December 02, 2006, 10:43:23 PM

[quote ebilmes]Was Davenport physically unable to play tonight? He did suit up...[/quote]

He might have been able, but if Scrivens was hurt late in a 5-0 game, Mike might have elected to put in a healthy #3 rather than risk a #1 coming back from injury.

ugarte · December 03, 2006, 09:44:14 PM

[quote Al DeFlorio][quote Beeeej][quote Chris '03][quote Al DeFlorio][quote MRN one]Maybe two goalies and the extra bench space for cleaner line changes is more valuable than a third goalie you don't plan to play.[/quote]
Right. That must be it.::rolleyes::[/quote]

I don't think it's THAT far fetched.[/quote]

It certainly didn't deserve that level of sarcasm.[/quote]
Sorry, but it really did.[/quote]Eh. I thought about that also. I suspect that you are right, Al, but I don't think MRN one is out of line.

Mostly I just like seeing deep-nested responses.

ugarte · December 03, 2006, 09:44:51 PM

[quote Ronald '09]But I cannot see any explanation that would satisfy me.[/quote]Satisfied?

LaJollaRed · December 04, 2006, 05:00:04 AM

Davenport's been spotty.

In case of emergency, say, if he lets in three in the first period, we pull him, we'd still have a "back up" in DiLeo.

Also, who gives a flying Harvard why...

DeltaOne81 · December 04, 2006, 10:04:58 AM

[quote ugarte][quote Al DeFlorio][quote Beeeej][quote Chris '03][quote Al DeFlorio][quote MRN one]Maybe two goalies and the extra bench space for cleaner line changes is more valuable than a third goalie you don't plan to play.[/quote]
Right. That must be it.::rolleyes::[/quote]

I don't think it's THAT far fetched.[/quote]

It certainly didn't deserve that level of sarcasm.[/quote]
Sorry, but it really did.[/quote]Eh. I thought about that also. I suspect that you are right, Al, but I don't think MRN one is out of line.

Mostly I just like seeing deep-nested responses.[/quote]

Jerk.