BU Postgame

[puckstopper2]

Very well said.  

The bad news is, with the current situation of normally benching the goalie after a loss neither Scivens nor Davenport are going to get the amount of ice time they need to develop their games.  It's pretty routine to simply blame the goaltending after each loss.

McKee was blessed to play every night without the feeling that one mistake and it may be his last game.

[KeithK]

I don't have much to add beyond what Tom said.  Sure, McKee (and others) benefited from the defense in front of him.  But from what I have seen and heard the current guys have less ability to "stand on their heads" and steal a game on occasion.

When someone figures out a way to objectively evaluate a goalie that is completely independent of the defense let me know.  Until then we're stuck with the data we have and a lot of subjective interpretation.

[Beeeej]

[quote puckstopper2]Very well said.  

The bad news is, with the current situation of normally benching the goalie after a loss neither Scivens nor Davenport are going to get the amount of ice time they need to develop their games.  It's pretty routine to simply blame the goaltending after each loss.

McKee was blessed to play every night without the feeling that one mistake and it may be his last game.[/quote]

What "current situation"?  Scrivens started at Dartmouth after losing at Hahvahd.  Schafer's comments thus far give a pretty clear indication, to me at least, that Ben is the starter for now unless something really awful happens.  And I certainly don't think his performance in the BU game is anywhere near reason enough to bench him in favor of Davenport against UMass.

As for "blessed," a lot of coaches and fans - Schafer included - seem to feel that rolling a goalie tandem, when it's justified by relatively equivalent skills and performance, helps both goalies elevate their games.  McKee happened to be the clear starter after a certain point, but I've no doubt that if he'd had a horrible couple of games in a row Schafer would've benched him for one.

[ugarte]

[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.[/quote]
I don't know what kind of trouble you think we can get you into, but here are the regular season stats for the Montreal goalies in 1970-71, all of whom, I assume played behind the same defense:

Ken Dryden 6-0-0, 1.65 GAA
Rogatien Vachon 23-12-9, 2.64 GAA
Phil Myre 13-11-4, 3.11 GAA

Then, as you know, he backstopped all 20 playoff games and Montreal won the Stanley Cup.

[oceanst41]

[quote calgARI '07]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.[/quote]

I totally agree. No need to step on the ice when you know it's going to be a penalty. I was more saying that whoever passed the puck to Roeszler also may not having been paying attention enough to see that a change was taking place. That being said I absolutely agree that Roeszler half-assed it to the bench and a goal resulted from it.

[Jim Hyla]

[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]

To add to Beeeej:

Code Select Expand


Goalie     Years    Save% GA   Sav/Game
McKibbon   63-66   .905  2.54   24
Dryden     67-69   .939  1.59   24
LeNeveu    02-03   .938  1.29   20
McKee      04-06   .926  1.71   22  

The two best goalies in the group, Dryden and LeNeveu, and I think we'd all agree. 63-69 all Harkness players, yes the defense probably got better with time, but Dryden hands down better.
The bottom line you need both good defense and goalies, but no one who has seen him more than once would not take Dryden. As an aside, you're in limited company since he only lost 4 games in his career. How to pick your spots.:-)

[Al DeFlorio]

[quote Jim Hyla]
The bottom line you need both good defense and goalies, but no one who has seen him more than once would not take Dryden. As an aside, you're in limited company since he only lost 4 games in his career. How to pick your spots.:-)[/quote]
One can only hope Ralph was being tongue-in-cheek.  Else he missed his Aricept dose.

[ursusminor]

[quote ugarte][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.[/quote]
I don't know what kind of trouble you think we can get you into, but here are the regular season stats for the Montreal goalies in 1970-71, all of whom, I assume played behind the same defense:

Ken Dryden 6-0-0, 1.65 GAA
Rogatien Vachon 23-12-9, 2.64 GAA
Phil Myre 13-11-4, 3.11 GAA

Then, as you know, he backstopped all 20 playoff games and Montreal won the Stanley Cup.[/quote]

Maybe "trouble" was a poor choice of a word. Yes, I remember that he backstopped the Canadiens to the Stanley Cup that year. I remember also the game shown in my avatar. I certainly would have taken him at RPI as would anyone, but I really wonder how he would have fared without Stanowski, Orr, Lodboa, et al. at Cornell, and Lapointe, Robinson, Savard, et al. in Montreal.

We'll never know.

[ninian '72]

[quote ursusminor]
Edit: Games vs. the Caps in their first few years don't count. ::yark::[/quote]

You could probably say that as well today.  I was at the Caps game that preceded Hanlon being fired, and, compared to that fiasco, the Red effort at MSG looked pretty decent.

[Al DeFlorio]

[quote ursusminor]I remember also the game shown in my avatar.[/quote]
I really find it hard to believe that RPI turns out graduates who reach conclusions about anything based on a sample of one.  But I suppose I could be wrong.

And wouldn't you think that with RPI's distinguished hockey history there should be a more significant accomplishment to depict in an avatar than an overtime regular season win?

[ursusminor]

[quote Al DeFlorio]And wouldn't you think that with RPI's distinguished hockey history there should be a more significant accomplishment to depict in an avatar than an overtime regular season win?[/quote] Well, this game is known as "the game that saved RPI hockey". After Harkness left and that carpetbagger Rube Bjorkman left after one year and doing no recruiting, RPI was strongly considering leaving Div-I hockey like they did in lacrosse. That game made RPI decide that it was possible for the school to remain competitive. So, I think it is significant.


In my signature file on USCHO (which I rarely display however) there currently is a picture from the 1954 NCAA championship game. This one, however, seems more appropriate here. :-D


Edit: Pete Chiarelli's father scoring vs. Minnesota in 1954 http://board.uscho.com/showpost.php?p=3435543&postcount=721

[ugarte]

[quote ursusminor][quote ugarte][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.[/quote]
I don't know what kind of trouble you think we can get you into, but here are the regular season stats for the Montreal goalies in 1970-71, all of whom, I assume played behind the same defense:

Ken Dryden 6-0-0, 1.65 GAA
Rogatien Vachon 23-12-9, 2.64 GAA
Phil Myre 13-11-4, 3.11 GAA

Then, as you know, he backstopped all 20 playoff games and Montreal won the Stanley Cup.[/quote]

Maybe "trouble" was a poor choice of a word. Yes, I remember that he backstopped the Canadiens to the Stanley Cup that year. I remember also the game shown in my avatar. I certainly would have taken him at RPI as would anyone, but I really wonder how he would have fared without Stanowski, Orr, Lodboa, et al. at Cornell, and Lapointe, Robinson, Savard, et al. in Montreal.

We'll never know.[/quote]
We do know that the coaches in Montreal felt that he was better, right out of college, than two NHL goalies already on their roster. We know that he lived up to that confidence with six straight regular season wins and a stellar playoff run that was just a preview of a Hall of Fame career. It is  a given that if his defense was worse, the Canadiens would have won fewer games but it is also a fact that, though the Canadiens had the opportunity to try another goalie in front of that stellar D, they didn't.

[Swampy]

[quote ugarte][quote ursusminor][quote ugarte][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.[/quote]
I don't know what kind of trouble you think we can get you into, but here are the regular season stats for the Montreal goalies in 1970-71, all of whom, I assume played behind the same defense:

Ken Dryden 6-0-0, 1.65 GAA
Rogatien Vachon 23-12-9, 2.64 GAA
Phil Myre 13-11-4, 3.11 GAA

Then, as you know, he backstopped all 20 playoff games and Montreal won the Stanley Cup.[/quote]

Maybe "trouble" was a poor choice of a word. Yes, I remember that he backstopped the Canadiens to the Stanley Cup that year. I remember also the game shown in my avatar. I certainly would have taken him at RPI as would anyone, but I really wonder how he would have fared without Stanowski, Orr, Lodboa, et al. at Cornell, and Lapointe, Robinson, Savard, et al. in Montreal.

We'll never know.[/quote]
We do know that the coaches in Montreal felt that he was better, right out of college, than two NHL goalies already on their roster. We know that he lived up to that confidence with six straight regular season wins and a stellar playoff run that was just a preview of a Hall of Fame career. It is  a given that if his defense was worse, the Canadiens would have won fewer games but it is also a fact that, though the Canadiens had the opportunity to try another goalie in front of that stellar D, they didn't.[/quote]

This has been posted elsewhere, but IMHO it makes a very convincing case for Dryden's greatness: http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/sports/story.html?id=7a49efd8-7af4-483c-9f1c-4730e6ad9f6d&k=85587

[Al DeFlorio]

[quote Swampy]This has been posted elsewhere, but IMHO it makes a very convincing case for Dryden's greatness: http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/sports/story.html?id=7a49efd8-7af4-483c-9f1c-4730e6ad9f6d&k=85587[/quote]
It does, but there is no way anyone who wasn't following the NHL in 1970-1971 can really understand how dominant a team those Orr-and-Esposito-led Bruins were and what an incredible upset that was.

[Josh '99]

[quote Swampy]This has been posted elsewhere, but IMHO it makes a very convincing case for Dryden's greatness: http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/sports/story.html?id=7a49efd8-7af4-483c-9f1c-4730e6ad9f6d&k=85587[/quote]Wait, I'm confused:  was Dryden's greatness being disputed by someone?