Princeton Postgame

[tvset]

The team looked good but had the Jitters and a goalie with an off night.
    The play Mike drew up for the last play worked great, the puck just didn't go in.
     I think this is going to be a good team with some more experience. I would like to see "set lines" that have a chance (to jell together) to learn to play with each other. Cause after some time together set lines just seem to know each others style of play and where each other will be and how they will react in certain situations. This creates a syneregy between members of each line and strengthens their play.

Good Game Guys ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

[Al DeFlorio]

Not sure why this wasn't posted in the "Princeton postgame" thread.

[Edit:  Now it's been moved so that it looks like it started the Princeton postgame" thread, when, in fact, it was posted in a new thread with the title of its subject line.]

[Doug '08]

Davenport let in 2 extremely soft goals and never appeared to have his head in the game, Scrivens will start tomorrow.  This team is still struggling desperately to move the puck out of its own zone.  Everyone's timing seems off... especially on breakouts.  There were bits and pieces of the game the team played well, but I am skeptical this team has the talent to compete on a nightly basis without giving 100% on every shift.  I know Scali's role on this team is not to be a goal scorer, but he really hurt the team tonight with his inability to finish.

To Princeton's credit, they played a solid game and made few mistakes.  That being said, they will almost certainly be in the bottom half of the conference and if we can't win games like that at home, we will too.  Tomorrow is a must win.

[ebilmes]

I agree that Davenport looked really shaky, but if he had stopped that third goal, we'd be headed to OT with a good chance to win. You can't place this entirely on him. We had a couple quality looks at open nets and there was lots of junk in front that our guys couldn't finish. We were doing a better job of getting guys in the crease, but they just had no sense of where the rebounds were going. We really should have scored 1-2 more times.

Breakout, as usual, was horrible. It makes me appreciate how well the 02-03 team was able to maintain possession of the puck coast to coast. This team can't make it through the neutral zone without losing possession. There was that stretch between our 2nd goal and Priceton's 3rd when it took us a good 3 minutes to carry the puck out of our own zone.

Great effort tonight by Seminoff, Barlow, Greening, and Scott. Topher's goal fired up the crowd. Riley Nash spent a lot of time carrying the puck around the Princeton net without finding that nice pass or open ice lane that might lead to a goal.

Great effort overall by Cornell. They were flying at the beginning of the game, and I loved the diving to block shots or passes.

Davenport looked much steadier in the exhibition, so it looks like nerves were the cause of his troubles tonight.

[grizzdan24]

Sitting in G, just to the left of the goal, Davenport was off all night.  Incredibly uncomfortable in front of the goal and the positioning was miserable too..seemed like he was a step behind at all times.  The third goal was a low, soft wrister through the 5-hole and he was for the most part unscreened, pretty weak if you ask me.  I would like to see Scrivens become a more steady starter.  In my opinion he has a higher upside and has looked much more comfortable thus far.

[Townie]

[quote grizzdan24]Sitting in G, just to the left of the goal, Davenport was off all night.  Incredibly uncomfortable in front of the goal and the positioning was miserable too..seemed like he was a step behind at all times.  The third goal was a low, soft wrister through the 5-hole and he was for the most part unscreened, pretty weak if you ask me.[/quote]

I don't think his positioning was bad all night, but it was certainly bad on that goal.  I agree with the description of the 3rd goal, except from Section K it looked like a short side goal (right pad) not 5 hole...the result of bad positioning.

Bottom line for me is I doubt either of our goalies are real door closers.  They let in too many soft goals and have difficulty rising to the occasion when needed.  And, we still allow too many opportunities in front of our own net.

[tvset]

I agree with Davenport's positoning problems , he left big opening on the other side when he posted up . His body angle was inward to much (closer towards the goal line) ,if he had angled himself more outward he still would had been able to hold the post side closed and also decreased the amount of playing angle on the other side .

But his 5 hole was his weekness last night !

Do you think that if we're saving Scrivens for the next night and Davenport is definitely showing a BAD night, perhaps Di Leo should have been given a shot ?

[cp20]

DiLeo certainly can't be any worse than we saw last night !

[sah67]

Clearly, the solution is that Schafer simply has to stop scheduling games against teams with Tigers as their mascot.  Although we'll see what happens tonight...it might just be a general feline problem.

[evilnaturedrobot]

[quote ebilmes]
 Riley Nash spent a lot of time carrying the puck around the Princeton net without finding that nice pass or open ice lane that might lead to a goal.
[/quote]

Umm, did you see the second goal?  Nash came around the net and feathered a perfect pass.

[evilnaturedrobot]

As for my thoughts on the game:

Too many bad penalties.  You take enough of them and eventualy it will bite you. The Nichols hitting from behind was just pure stupidity (Seminoff had already played the attacker, there was no need to hit him) and the Kennedy slash was clear and apparent from A (and it happened at the other end of the ice.)  Now, alot of the dumber penalties where Freshman mistakes, so hopefully they will grow out of that

They're certainly plucky, but I think the the 'smurf line' of Roeszler-Scott-Gallagher needs a big body to win pucks.  Replacing Roeszler with Sawada would be a good move.

I really like the Barlow-Nash-Greening line.  For the most part, I was impressed with Riley. He needs to be a bit more decisive, he had a tendacy to wait a little too long before making his set up pass.  The setup to the second goal, however, was very nice.

On defense I thought Seminoff (as usual), Krueger and Devin all had nice games.  
Seminoff was Seminof: Calm and collective, everything you'd want out of a defensive devensemen.
Krueger's improved a lot since last year.  His foot speed now seems up to par, and he looks generally more assertive.  The one slapper that he got of on the PP was nice and low, they need to hit him for that one timer more often.  
I thought Devin looked unusually composed for a freshman defensemen.  Nothing about him really sticks out about his play last night, but I was always confident when he had the puck, and that was a rarity last night.

The PP still needs a quarterback.  They've just never recovered from the losses of O'Byrne and Sasha.  Maybe Brendon Nash can fill this role when he comes back, he's certainly has shown the ability.  Until then, I can't really say what the solution is, I don't know who I would trust to handle the point right now (well, I trust Seminoff, but I don't see him as skilled enough to run a pwerplay.)

Davenport played the worst game that I've ever seen out of a Cornell goalie (granted, I've only been here 3 years.)  Not only was the third goal weak, but there where 3 bouncing pucks that he made us all very nervous with.  One of them actually went through his 5 hole and slid just wide of the post.  Scrivens tonight, please!

Not a great way to start the season, but it's early yet.

[hockeydude]

Just wondering if any of you were actually watching this game at all. To say 2 extremely soft goals, what a joke! Also you talk about Davenport's positioning when you are sitting stationary in the stands to the left of the goal and you are trying to comment on his angles, nice try. The goals: A Cornell player tips in a shot to the upper corner on goal number one that would have hit Davenport right in the gut. The second goal a scramble in front with Davenport making the save and no one tying any body up and allowing two Princeton guys in front all alone, after the save one Princeton player pokes the puck across the crease to another guy all alone on the back door. The third was a turnover at center ice with a bad change taking place and a 4-2 coming back in with the Princeton player using our d-man as a screen. You could tell Davenport didn't pick up the puck until it was about 5 feet past the d-man already. Granted he may have been able to come up with that save, put to call these goals weak is a joke. And to mention Dileo playing better, come on. Not to take anything away, but come on. Davenport played a great came, was comfortable and confident in net and kept Cornell in it all night. Princeton was getting wide open shots and tips all night with Davenport making some great glove saves and stuffing that back door play in the 3rd when 3 Cornell players got sucked to the guy breaking down the wing. I don't know what many of you are talking about when evaluating the goalies, but maybe you should take a lesson from the editorial written in the Daily Sun about being knowledgeable about hockey before making any remarks. Also, the short side goal from the bottom of the circle given up by Scrivens last week against RIT was much weaker than any of these goals tonight. And this whole Davenport and Scrivens debate is played out. Watch the games, watch the tapes, maybe with your Scrivens shaded glasses off, some knowledge, and then maybe you will realize this debate is a joke.

This team as got some issues and to make the goalies the scape goat is ridiculous. Especially after a goalie plays a solid game, makes some huge saves, and keeps the team in it. There were so many mistakes and missed opportunities that no one seems to ever talk about. Lets just blame the goalies, even when they play well and even when we don't know what we are talking about. Maybe if we make some things up people will believe us. I know some of you will probably say I am being too mean again and we are all friends and this and that, but this is just ridiculous.

[Beeeej]

Too mean?  No, but "ridiculous" and "come on" and "take a lesson about being knowledgeable about hockey" and "a joke" aren't very good arguments.  You saw things differently; it doesn't make anybody else stupid, any more than them seeing things differently makes you stupid.

Now, you might be independently stupid, but it's not just because you saw the game differently from others who saw it.

[evilnaturedrobot]

he played a great game?  He got beat 5 hole by a slowly bouncing puck without a soul within 15 feet.  The first two goals where not his fault, but the third was weak and he looked incredibly uncomfortable all night long.

[Cactus12]

dude- Everyone on this forum has watched enough hockey to know what they're talking about. I assure you, we all know what screens are as we know when goalies are being hung out to dry. However, there are in fact games in which a goalie gives up soft goals. Telling people they don't know hockey because you disagree with a postgame assessment is ridiculous.