BU Postgame

[Doug '08]

[quote 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.[/quote]

Agreed, this is how I saw it too.  The 4th goal was in my mind the softest he had let in all season, and he will definitely want the first one back as well.

[evilnaturedrobot]

Without seeing a replay I will just have to agree to disagree.  But I saw it as a much faster play than others seem to have, but I could easily be wrong.

Either way, I don't see Saturday night as Scriven's fault, nor do I think too many games are going to won or lost in net this year  I guess I'm just more comfortable with Scrivens than others on this board.  While he has some significant flaws, I'm confident that he will give the team a chance to win if the team in front of him gives him a chance to stop the shots he faces.  And there are parts of his game that I really like, mainly his size, agility, and the aggressiveness with which he challenges shooters.

[amerks127]

Not sure why on earth Roezler played over Fontas

I think Fontas was injured at the end of the Dartmouth game.  When he skated through the handshake he was definitely favoring one leg.

[KeithK]

[quote evilnaturedrobot]Either way, I don't see Saturday night as Scriven's fault, nor do I think too many games are going to won or lost in net this year.[/quote]
We've become used to having a goalie who can win a couple of games per year by making the saves that he shouldn't.  Scrivens (and Davenport) may not be bad but we no longer have someone who can frequently pick up the defense when they have a lapse.

[Al DeFlorio]

[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 Deflorio pointed out, Schafer also seems to be of the opinion that the puck was batted out of the air by a stick.[/quote]
I just watched the play again on my DVR in stop action.  MacArthur skated right down the slot, skated to the outside of Mike Devin who was supposed to be marking him, raised his stick off the ice as the BU guy coming down right wing (#10?) fired it cross ice in front of Scrivens, and tipped it down and toward the goal to Scrivens's right.

Think about this from Scrivens's point of view:  The puck is coming at high speed from your direct left and passing about a yard in front of you toward your right, when someone whacks at it with a stick about two feet above ice level and directs it down and to your lower right from less than a yard away.  Are you going to be able to react and reach down to your right to stop it?  Yes?  You've got to be kidding.  

Even the announcers didn't get it right after reruns, mumbling something about it hitting Scrivens's right sleeve and deflecting in.  It was an amazing deflection by the kid.  I'd like to see him try to do it again.  Nothing soft about it.  As Mike said, it "took the wind out of our sails."

[Swampy]

[quote Al DeFlorio][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 Deflorio pointed out, Schafer also seems to be of the opinion that the puck was batted out of the air by a stick.[/quote]
I just watched the play again on my DVR in stop action.  MacArthur skated right down the slot, skated to the outside of Mike Devin who was supposed to be marking him, raised his stick off the ice as the BU guy coming down right wing (#10?) fired it cross ice in front of Scrivens, and tipped it down and toward the goal to Scrivens's right.

Think about this from Scrivens's point of view:  The puck is coming at high speed from your direct left and passing about a yard in front of you toward your right, when someone whacks at it with a stick about two feet above ice level and directs it down and to your lower right from less than a yard away.  Are you going to be able to react and reach down to your right to stop it?  Yes?  You've got to be kidding.  

Even the announcers didn't get it right after reruns, mumbling something about it hitting Scrivens's right sleeve and deflecting in.  It was an amazing deflection by the kid.  I'd like to see him try to do it again.  Nothing soft about it.  As Mike said, it "took the wind out of our sails."[/quote]

I agree with Al. The big problem was that on this and other goals, our defensemen weren't marking closely or clearing people out from in front of the crease. If you let opposing forwards walk in unchallenged on your goalie, they will score goals even against the likes of Ken Dryden.

Also, some of our players seemed asleep. Was it Roeszler who set up their third or fourth goal by not watching for the pass on the breakout, even though he was the off-side wing? When the pass came, it bounced off his stick straight to a back-checking BU forward, who then walked in on Scrivens.

[Al DeFlorio]

[quote Swampy]Also, some of our players seemed asleep. Was it Roeszler who set up their third or fourth goal by not watching for the pass on the breakout, even though he was the off-side wing? When the pass came, it bounced off his stick straight to a back-checking BU forward, who then walked in on Scrivens.[/quote]
I believe this (the third goal) occurred in the midst of a Cornell line change with Roeszler's line leaving(?) the ice, and it may have been a situation where if he had touched the puck it would have resulted in a "too many men" penalty.  The CSTV announcers did mention this as it was happening and that's how it appeared to me as well.  I'll watch the DVR when I have a chance to confirm.

[Drew]

Hey KeithK, I always enjoy your posts and humor, may I ask... are your goalies a symptom or the problem?
Cheers!
Drew

EDIT:  It was always my contention McKee benefitted from an outstanding D-corps.

[ithacat]

[quote Drew]EDIT:  It was always my contention McKee benefitted from an outstanding D-corps.[/quote]

Are there goalies that haven't?

[ursusminor]

[quote ithacat][quote Drew]EDIT:  It was always my contention McKee benefitted from an outstanding D-corps.[/quote]

Are there goalies that haven't?[/quote]

I probably will get in trouble for saying this here, but WTF. I have always thought that if Ken Dryden didn't have the defense that he had while playing for Cornell and Montreal, he would have been no more remembered than his brother Dave. I add that the only time I was at a game in which he played, he lost to RPI in December 1968.

Edit: Games vs. the Caps in their first few years don't count. ::yark::

[Drew]

[quote ithacat][quote Drew]EDIT:  It was always my contention McKee benefitted from an outstanding D-corps.[/quote]

Are there goalies that haven't?[/quote]

Ok let me rephrase, would scrivens and davenport be more successful if they had the same defense that McKee had in front of him?  That is why I asked if the goalies were only a symptom to the problem, the real problem being the defense.

[Swampy]

[quote ursusminor][quote ithacat][quote Drew]EDIT:  It was always my contention McKee benefitted from an outstanding D-corps.[/quote]

Are there goalies that haven't?[/quote]

I probably will get in trouble for saying this here, but WTF. I have always thought that if Ken Dryden didn't have the defense that he had while playing for Cornell and Montreal, he would have been no more remembered than his brother Dave. I add that the only time I was at a game in which he played, he lost to RPI in December 1968.

Edit: Games vs. the Caps in their first few years don't count. ::yark::[/quote]
In his first NHL season, Dryden, and not the defense, won the series against the Bruins for Montreal. He gave new meaning to a goalie "standing on his head." If you can ever view the series, doing so is worthwhile, if for no other reason than to watch his work.

[oceanst41]

I'm pretty sure that Roeszler's replacement had not stepped onto the ice yet, I'm assuming since the bench had a clear view that the puck had been passed to him. Either way this is a pretty poor example of communication, either someone didn't know there was a line change taking place or Roeszler wasn't aware he had been passed to.

[calgARI '07]

[quote oceanst41]I'm pretty sure that Roeszler's replacement had not stepped onto the ice yet, I'm assuming since the bench had a clear view that the puck had been passed to him. Either way this is a pretty poor example of communication, either someone didn't know there was a line change taking place or Roeszler wasn't aware he had been passed to.[/quote]

I'm sure whoever was gong on for him (I think it was Barlow because he was standing up and ready to go on) was well aware that Roeszler was coming off but the puck was going towards him so it would be stupid to go on the ice and draw a Too Many Men penalty.  The reason he didn't come on was because he WAS paying attention.  Roeszler was not only not paying attention, he wasn't going hard to the bench, but rather just gliding there with his stick in the air not paying any attention.  Until you are off the ice, you better be totally engaged in the play.  The turnover was Roeszler's fault without question and Schafer affirmed that by planting him on the bench for the next 30 minutes or so.

[Tom Lento]

[quote Drew][quote ithacat][quote Drew]EDIT:  It was always my contention McKee benefitted from an outstanding D-corps.[/quote]

Are there goalies that haven't?[/quote]

Ok let me rephrase, would scrivens and davenport be more successful if they had the same defense that McKee had in front of him?  That is why I asked if the goalies were only a symptom to the problem, the real problem being the defense.[/quote]

I can't comment about this year, because I haven't seen the team play yet (I got shut out of MSG tickets - that'll teach me to assume they can't possibly sell 18,200 tickets to a college hockey game in Manhattan).

Last year, if McKee had stayed for his senior season, he would not have posted his usual numbers behind that defense. But he would have looked a lot better than Scrivens or Davenport. This isn't totally fair, of course - McKee would have been a senior with 3 years of collegiate experience. Scrivens and Davenport were effectively first-year players (although Davenport had more experience than Scrivens, he didn't see much ice time in the NCAA).

McKee was an excellent collegiate goaltender - I don't want to take anything away from him or what he did here - but if he'd played for Yale or Union I bet his save percentage would have been merely ordinary in the ECAC, if not below average. He was a reflex goaltender who had a tendency to flail at shots well outside of the posts and pull himself out of position. He was big enough, and quick enough, to get away with that in college, and over time he developed into a solid netminder down low who usually made the first save, and the defense in front of him was good enough to limit high-percentage second chance shots (I never felt his rebound control was exceptional - LeNeveu and Underhill were amazing at it - but it didn't matter as much on those Cornell teams). He also had the potential to play out of his mind and steal a game on a reasonably regular basis - see the 2006 regional final at Wisconsin for an extended highlight-reel example, although unfortunately their goaltender played just as well.

Scrivens and Davenport, to date, have impressed me as pretty good young college goaltenders with some upside. Last year they weren't as good as McKee was as a freshman, and I don't think they have as much upside as he did, but they're not bad. They have different strengths and weaknesses, and on the whole I either or both of them should develop into at least competent and possibly solid if unspectacular collegiate netminders. I never got the sense that they were capable of stealing games on a reasonably regular basis, and although I don't think they're *that* far behind where McKee was as a freshman they're nowhere near where he was as a junior.

Having said all that, I think Cornell's problem on the defensive end is equal parts goaltending and defense. Their goaltenders are ok, not great, and that exposes the weaknesses of the defense. The defense, at least last year, was not particularly good, and in fact was downright bad in areas, and that exposed the weaknesses of the goaltenders.