BU Postgame

[fink]

"Matt" Devin, Joe only having 2 cups, and "Give my Regards to Rory" were a bit grating.

[CowbellGuy]

[quote Jim Hyla]McKee was great, but he had his bad spells when we all complained; too much athleticism and not enough technique for me.[/quote]

And Scrivens has enough technique for you?! I can't understand why people are still defending him and why he was still playing after the first period. He's practically flat on the ice by the time the other team hits the blue line. Anyone who can lift the puck will light him up, just like BU did. He was very overdue for a game like this, and if Schafer sticks with him, there will be more. His technique sucks and often has to make spectacular saves because he's way out of position, scrambling to get back, and fumbling with the puck. Rebounds always end up big and juicy in the slot, and he seems to have no confidence. Davenport has good position and gets himself in place to make almost every save. He does let in soft goals at times, but at least he's in the right place to make those saves.

[Cornell95]

As someone who never played hockey... I am curious how much of the defense and goalie issue might be a communication problem.  The closest sport I played to hockey was soccer, I know the goalie there can be very vocal or leave the 'quarterbacking' to the sweeper.  Given that Scrivens likes to wander a bit at times to play the puck, my guess is that he would have to be VERY vocal for this to work at all (even if he played the puck less than he does now)
Besides positioning and athleticism, how big a role does the goalie's verbal control of the defense play into success, particularly on a team with Cornell's style?
I dont want to hang recent problems on Scrivens (easy scapegoat), but I have been surprised at how quickly most have downplayed his role at the back of the defense, particularly the announcers last night who seemed to come up with half a dozen excuses for why every goal wasnt his fault.

[Scersk '97]

Being a hockey-induced manic-depressive, I'm swinging back towards the positive as well, but with some trepidation.  Yes, it's the worst start since 2001, but (at 4-3-1) the 2006 team wasn't that much better at this point and they almost went to Milwaukee.  The 2005 team was "2 points" better at this point, including gaudy wins over Army and Sacred Heart, losses to Michigan State and Dartmouth, and ties with Michigan State and Vermont.

What happens in the next couple of games is what matters.  UMass at home and Mass-Lowell in Florida are both games we should win, even if KRACH disagrees.  Teams that lose three in a row aren't going anywhere.  If we win through to the championship in Florida, we'll be OK.

[oceanst41]

I'm just finally getting home from the game now, so most of what I wanted to say about it has already been thrown out there.

[quote calgARI '07] Game reminded me of the 06 ECAC Final against Harvard.[/quote]

I think this is an excellent comparison.

[quote Doug '08]to be honest I thought we were lucky to just be down 3-0.[/quote]

I was saying the same thing as the first period was winding down. Cornell came out and played pretty brutal hockey to start that game and dug themselves a hole they couldn't climb out of. That being said once they got into the flow of the game it wasn't as big a disparity as some people are suggesting. Unfortunately, it looks like Cornell isn't ready to play a full 60 min game with BU. In stretches yes, but a full game no. However, within the ECAC this team is still in the upper half and competing for a bye and home ice.

Regardless of the outcome of the game though, and Bill said it pretty well I think, what a great night except for the score. The experience of having that many Cornell fans in one place was amazing. It is a shame Cornell didn't bang home the first goal because we fans may have blown a new skylight in the roof at MSG. I'd say the crowd turnout got the attention of a few people out there, and I'm glad I could be a part of it.

[Jim Hyla]

[quote CowbellGuy][quote Jim Hyla]McKee was great, but he had his bad spells when we all complained; too much athleticism and not enough technique for me.[/quote]

And Scrivens has enough technique for you?! I can't understand why people are still defending him and why he was still playing after the first period. ...

 Davenport has good position and gets himself in place to make almost every save. He does let in soft goals at times, but at least he's in the right place to make those saves.[/quote]

Well, I never defended him, unless you call, "He may be the best we get.", a defense. I also said, "Scrivens worries me.", but Davenport has not looked a lot better, at least last year and his one appearance this year. I'm willing to go with Coach on this one, as neither are great.

[Beeeej]

[quote Oat][quote redhair34]...This team has enough talent and work ethic to compete for the ECAC Championship...[/quote]

No. I'm sorry but this team does not have enough talent.[/quote]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:  Neither did the '96 or '97 teams.

[scoop85]

[quote underskill]I think the failure to land either Thiessen or Bachman as McKee's heir is coming back to haunt us now.  Scrivens/Davenport was clearly plan C or D and it shows; Garman can't come fast enough[/quote]

That begs the question, why was Garman left at Nanaimo for a second season if he's as good as advertised?  I believe he's at least 18, possibly even 19, so youth shouldn't be the issue.

[redhair34]

[quote Oat][quote redhair34]...This team has enough talent and work ethic to compete for the ECAC Championship...[/quote]

No. I'm sorry but this team does not have enough talent. They also do not have enough speed, size, and strength to wear down the opponents. If they are going to compete for any championship, they will need to make up for the lackings in some other ways (perhaps by being more organized and cohesive, perhaps by taking less risks, perhaps by focusing more on tactics). I don't know what the magic formula is, but team talent is just not there this year.[/quote]

I get the feeling that most of this the "sky is falling," "we're doomed" shit is coming from folks who saw their first game of the season on Saturday.  I can't really blame you for being so pessimistic, but I'm not buying it. Look around the ECAC right now--the conference is as weak as it's been since 03-04.  Even if you don't subscribe to the theory that Cornell is primed to improve over the course of the season, the team is in the top three in conference right now and we've pretty much owned the ECAC's top team lately.  I'm sure I'll catch some flack for that last comment, but Schafer has had Roll's number the past few seasons.  They also just took 6 out of 8 points on the road the last two weeks.  I'm not saying they're going run over Clarkson or sleepwalk their way to an ECAC championship, but Cornell has the talent to compete with any team in the ECAC.

[RichH]

[quote redhair34]I can't really blame you for being so pessimistic, but I'm not buying it. Look around the ECAC right now--the conference is as weak as it's been since 03-04. [/quote]

Absolutely agree.  My take from seeing most of our competition this year is that this season may demonstrate the most parity of a league famous for its parity.  Usually, the league breaks down into 3 tiers.  This year, I see this:

Clarkson: slightly better than everyone else

Union: slightly worse than everyone else

If Richter continues to put up Cornell goaltender-like stats, I can see Harvard sneaking into the Clarkson class, unfortunately.  Anyway, the recent OOC results (RPI tied AIC, WSU took 3 points from SLU, UConn beat Colgate, LSSU & SCSU took down Clarkson...RIT, BU over us) suggest that the EZAC is EZ-ier than usual.  :-(  The good news is that this makes the reg. season and league is more up for grabs in a down year for Cornell.  Any team that puts it all together and catches fire by the end of Feb. has a shot to win the league Championship.  But really, I'll never be happy about a bad year for the league.

[evilnaturedrobot]

What really frustrated me was that this loss was not strictly a matter of being overmatched, but also of being outworked.  The second BU goal was a result of a BU forechecker laying a hard hit, causing a turnover and putting the puck in front of the net.  The third was idiotic, as Roeszler just forgot that he was still on the ice as he went for a line shift.

It's one thin to be outplayed, but these goals had nothing to do with talent, and they where not mistakes that we're used to seeing a Cornell team make.

I"m actually more optimistic on this team's talent than most.  One of the lone bright spots from Saterday's game was that Brendon Nash looked like he hadn't missed a step.  Greening-Nash-Barlow is a tremendous line and they will only get better as the season progresses.  I continue to be impressed with Both Mike Devin and Jordan Berk, and with the freshman class as a whole. For all the griping about Scrivens, he's been pretty good this year (I don't think you can really blame any of Saterday night's goals on him), and I think with his size he shows some nice promise for improvement.
There are glaring deficiencies on this team (PP, PK, the Breakout) that can be fixed with coaching, not talent acquisition. I think this collection of players playing efficient, full throttle, and tight hockey, can compete at the ECACs.  But if they're sloppy, as they where Saterday night, they won't have a chance.

[evilnaturedrobot]

[quote calgARI '07]

Scrivens couldn't stop a beach ball and that fourth goal was both soft and an absolute back-breaker for the team who had gotten themselves back in the game.  No coincidence that turned out to be the game winner.
[/quote]

The fourth goal soft?  It was a poor angle shot sent wide that was batted out of mid air by a BU forward left open infront of the crease.  What was Scrivens supposed to do?  

Honestly, I can't think of a single goal that was soft.  Ben wasn't fantastic, but this was not his fault.  

The team in front of McKee didn't give up the looks that the team in front of Davenport/Scrivens have. I know it's the nature of the position, but the net minders are just drawing too much flack for losses that have not been there fault.  I really can't think of a game that goaltending has won or lost us over the last two seasons (and that includes Davenport's performance in the home opener which I was so critical of.)

[redhair34]

[quote evilnaturedrobot][quote calgARI '07]

Scrivens couldn't stop a beach ball and that fourth goal was both soft and an absolute back-breaker for the team who had gotten themselves back in the game.  No coincidence that turned out to be the game winner.
[/quote]

The fourth goal soft?  It was a poor angle shot sent wide that was batted out of mid air by a BU forward left open infront of the crease.  What was Scrivens supposed to do?  

Honestly, I can't think of a single goal that was soft.  Ben wasn't fantastic, but this was not his fault.[/quote]

The first and fourth goals were soft.  On the fourth goal, the player just threw the puck on net and it deflected off of a jersey or maybe a stick just above the crease--I'm pretty sure it wasn't batted out of mid air.

[evilnaturedrobot]

I'd like to see a replay, but I recall it going in off a stick.  Regardless, the fact is that the puck deflected off an object (stick, jersey, it really doesn't matter) that was positioned to the right of and behind Scrivens, who had squared to the shooter on his left.  

Now, the spectacular save would have been to have reached out to his rightand deflected that wide shot into a corner, but that's asking a lot considering that the shot was well off goal.  The man standing at the top of the crease behind Scrivens is the defesemen's responsibility, not the goaltender.

Edit:  as Al Deflorio pointed out, Schafer also seems to be of the opinion that the puck was batted out of the air by a stick.

[redhair34]

[quote evilnaturedrobot]I'd like to see a replay, but I recall it going in off a stick.  Regardless, the fact is that the puck deflected off an object (stick, jersey, it really doesn't matter) that was positioned to the right of and behind Scrivens, who had squared to the shooter on his left.  

Now, the spectacular save would have been to have reached out to his rightand deflected that wide shot into a corner, but that's asking a lot considering that the shot was well off goal.  The man standing at the top of the crease behind Scrivens is the defesemen's responsibility, not the goaltender.

Edit:  as Al Defloria pointed out, Schafer also seems to be of the opinion that the puck was batted out of the air by a stick.[/quote]

There is a difference between "deflected off of a stick" and "batted out of air by a stick."  It may have been the former, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't the latter.  We're not talking about a slapshot or a good wrist shot--he just lobbed the puck on net and it bounced off of the BU player into the net.  My point is, he had ample time to recover and put himself in position to make the save.  If it was a hard shot on net that was deflected, or if it was batted into the net I would agree with you. Perhaps I'm splitting hairs but that was my initial impression after watching it once in real time and once in slow motion.