Cornell Goaltenders

[Chris '03]

[quote billhoward][quote Chris '03][quote ryeguy]Consistency is the major problem. I did notice Davenport gives up a lot of rebounds, but the same can be said about Scrivens. My bet is on Scrivens starting tomorrow.[/quote]

This late in the season Schafer tends to pick a horse and ride him to the end. It'll probably be Davenport from here on out.[/quote]

Including David LeNeveu's freshman year when Underhill would be the All-America goaltender but LeNeveu just may have been the better goalie. Who knows if we would have gotten further with a different goalie in the nets.[/quote]

I've often thought that riding Underhill in the playoffs came back to bite the team in the second ot and then the next week vs. UNH. He wasn't used to playing back to back that season and the fatigue showed.

[Jordan 04]

[quote Oat][quote Chris '03]
This late in the season Schafer tends to pick a horse and ride him to the end. It'll probably be Davenport from here on out.[/quote]

I hope Schafer finds the courage to put in Scrivens. But hey if we lose, at least we'll get to watch more hockey in Lynah (which wouldn't be so bad, right?)!![/quote]

Since we get that by winning, I'll take that route.

[cth95]

In defense of Davenport, he did give up too many rebounds, but he was also left out to dry more times than in almost any Cornell game I have seen in the last few years.  

I was sitting in Section 4 right above the goal line for the Troy's 1st and 3rd periods.  Our team took a lot of risks, giving up odd-man rushes and also leaving Dartmouth players wide open to rip the rebounds right back at the night.  I told a few people that anyone who looks at 23 Dartmouth shots to Cornell's 30 with the 5-1 score will think that Troy sucked and Devine was great.  

In reality, Troy didn't get much help from his defense on most of those goals, and our shots were almost all from outside and pretty harmless.

[Omie]

But what does it say that when Davenport played well against Q our defense was top-notch yet when he was really tested he didn't play that well. I mean I understand a couple of goals allowed but 14 saves (13 really if you count the disallowed) on 19 shots is pretty bad.

[cth95]

I'll give you that the team plays better when the goalie is on, but the goalie also plays better when the team is on.  Even if the first couple of goals aren't the goalie's fault, it can make it tough to get in a rhythm and play consistentally.

I don't know if you were there or not, but there wasn't much Davenport could do on three of the goals anyway IMO.

Basically, last night sucked for everything Cornell except the band.

[Omie]

Unfortunately I had to settle for the Dartmouth video feed. I agree with you somewhat, but ultimately the goalie has to make some timely saves not just of shots from the perimeter. 68.4% is pretty bad (I'm counting the disallowed goal), defense there or not. The defense was worse on the Union game when we were allowing oddman rushes like no other, IMO.

[cth95]

One shot was through a screen and hit the water bottle, one shot was one-timed on a 2 or 3-on-1 off a rebound from the other side of the net  from the initial save.  I can't remember the other ones exactly, but these were the 1st couple of goals.  The others Troy may-or-may-not have stopped on a good day, but on these two he didn't have much of a chance.

I'm not saying Troy was great by any means, I'm just saying that not many goalies are going to have a good night when they are hung out to dry over-and-over again.

[WillCMJr]

You're right.  But I can't help but remember Parris Duffis, and his uncanny ability to cover both corners of the net at the same time.  I honestly think his save % was 85% 5 on 5, but 95% on breakaways and odd-man rushes.

To me, Scrivens has more of that ability to do his size & leg-span.  And I still think Davenport gives up way too many rebounds.

Scrivens may have gotten the L against Sucks, but you can't be disappointed with stopping 36 out of 39 shots.

[billhoward]

When a Cornell goalie faces 35 to 40 shots in a game, this is a different style of hockey from our years of great success in Mike Schafer's first decade  ... the years when we managed to win key games 1-0 and 2-1 and when we also lost them by the same scores. Guess we have to choose our poison.

[cth95]

Duffis was very good.  My posts describe what I think happens on any given night.  On some nights a goaltender can single-handedly keep his team in the game i.e. Leggio in the 2nd playoff game last year, and obviously, a handful of goaltenders are good enough to play like that on more nights than not.

[Al DeFlorio]

[quote cth95]Duffis was very good.[/quote]
Duffus was very good.

[ebilmes]

I'll just chime in here to sing some Scrivens praises.

Ben played well last night. This loss was not his fault in the least. We could have easily been down 3-0 by the middle of the second period. He made some fantastic saves under pressure, including one second-period save in which he had fallen down but managed to stick up his glove in the right place to catch a slapshot. And, unlike in some other games, he placed himself right where he needed to be on some important plays. Rebounds were still an issue, but he kept us in a game in which the defense was mediocre and the offense was nonexistent.

I still think Davenport is a better goalie, but he got shelled in what could have been a devastating loss for Cornell had we not gotten lucky with some of the other results. I still want Troy in game 1, though.

[RatushnyFan]

Duffus was outstanding '91-'92.  But the year before, when we had all that talent and he rode the bench (McCutcheon didn't know he was that good), we all cheered "Doooffffuuuussss" when he got mop up time in a blowout.

[calgARI '07]

Thought both goalies were pretty good this weekend.

[WillCMJr]

Ari, I agree with a lot of things you say, but Davenport let in 5 goals on only 21 shots.  It doesn't matter if those 16 saves were all highlight-reel material and the 5 goals were breakaways and odd-man rushes, there's no good in 5 goals on 21 shots.