Polls 2/28

[billhoward]

It seems that the publicity surrounding LeNeveu was more intense in David's sophomore year than in David II's sophomore year. Maybe because we were (weren't we?) ranked higher sooner in the 2002-03 season ... maybe because the offensive output was a bit lower and so more eyes fell on the defense in '03 ...

[ugarte]

[Q]billhoward Wrote:

 It seems that the publicity surrounding LeNeveu was more intense in David's sophomore year than in David II's sophomore year. Maybe because we were (weren't we?) ranked higher sooner in the 2002-03 season ... maybe because the offensive output was a bit lower and so more eyes fell on the defense in '03 ...[/q]Probably also because he was coming off a freshman season as the top goalie in the country for a team that made the NCAAs and one of the goalies for Team Canada in the WJC.

[Trotsky]

Let's hope that Lenny So = McKee Jr.  McKee could very well be First Team All-American and Hobey Final 10 this year.  With those creds and a great junior year, he ought to be near the top of the Hobey hunt next Spring.

[billhoward]

My bad. I forgot the Canadian junior team part. That helped LeNeveu a lot. And secondarily alternating as a freshman with the goalie who won All-America honors in 2001-2002, that helped, too.

I always wonder, thinking of the multi-OT game we lost to Harvard for the ECAC title, if Underhill was really the better goalie then in spring 2002. Odds are Schafer had a better handle on the situation than someone sitting in the stands ... and still you wonder. And OTOOH if Schafer had gone exclusively with LeNeveu, or alternated the two and LeNeveu had lost the game that was our exit from the playoff scene, we'd be second-guessing also.

[ugarte]

[Q]billhoward Wrote:I always wonder, thinking of the multi-OT game we lost to Harvard for the ECAC title, if Underhill was really the better goalie then in spring 2002. Odds are Schafer had a better handle on the situation than someone sitting in the stands ... and still you wonder. And OTOOH if Schafer had gone exclusively with LeNeveu, or alternated the two and LeNeveu had lost the game that was our exit from the playoff scene, we'd be second-guessing also. [/q]I've thought a lot about this also. I wanted Schafer to play LeNeveu, but I also don't think it had any impact on the result. Harvard skated circles around us the whole game. We were only in it because Hyphen played a mediocre game (natch).

I don't think there would have been much second guessing if Lenny had been in net - unless he looked like he was crumbling under the pressure. He had such a stellar first year that I would guess more people were disappointed than pleased when the starting lineup was announced.

[DeltaOne81]

Although Lenny didn't do a great job on the Canadian Jr. Team, but yeah, it raised his visibility.

The other thing is that you have to pick a goaltender and stick with them for the playoffs. There's no rotation in the playoffs - you need to have your go to guy who knows he'll play every night. In 2002 Schafer picked Underhill and I can't say I disagree. He was good, he was the senior, he earned it.

I don't think Harvard skated circles around us all night, and we had a number of chances to win, but by the 2nd OT, we were tired and showing it, and couldn't keep up, especially on the big ice.

[DisplacedCornellian]

[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:

 Although Lenny didn't do a great job on the Canadian Jr. Team, but yeah, it raised his visibility.

The other thing is that you have to pick a goaltender and stick with them for the playoffs. There's no rotation in the playoffs - you need to have your go to guy who knows he'll play every night. In 2002 Schafer picked Underhill and I can't say I disagree. He was good, he was the senior, he earned it.

I don't think Harvard skated circles around us all night, and we had a number of chances to win, but by the 2nd OT, we were tired and showing it, and couldn't keep up, especially on the big ice.[/q]

I agree.  Need to have a go to guy for the playoffs, and since Underhill was playing great hockey, and was the senior, Schafer had to go with him if for nothing more than his experience.

I remember watching the latter part of the game with a feeling of impending doom, as our players were all dog tired, and Harvard seemed a bit fresher.  With the exception of Hornby.  He was flying around and clobbering people every shift.

[Josh '99]

[Q]DisplacedCornellian Wrote:
I remember watching the latter part of the game with a feeling of impending doom, as our players were all dog tired, and Harvard seemed a bit fresher.  With the exception of Hornby.  He was flying around and clobbering people every shift.[/q]Our guys may have looked tired late in that game, but I continue to believe that we could very well have won had it not been for Dominic Moore winning what seemed like EVERY faceoff late in the third period and in both overtimes.

[cbuckser]

I am not convinced that a team with two great goaltenders needs to pick one guy to play in the playoffs.  I don't think Maine was huirt by the Doyle/Howard rotation in recent years.   Harvard did well in 1994 with the Israel//Tracy roation.  As Greg alluded to, Harvard won it all in 1989 with a Roy/Hughes rotation.

Moving onto the other subtopic, one amazing thing about the 2002 ECAC Championship Game is that Harvard appeared fresher than Cornell although Harvard's fourth line played only a dozen seconds all game long while Cornell rolled four lines (though Matt McRae did not play during the 2nd ot, which caused Cornell to rotate only three centers while kleeping the pairs of wings intact).  Also, Harvard's semifinal win over Clarkson went into overtime, while Cornell won its semifinal against RPI handily.

[billhoward]

The big sheet of ice in Lake Placid isn't an excuse for Cornell not beating Harvard but it may have been the reason.

Remember that the UMass/Amherst rink is near-Olympic, 200x95, and that's one of four NCAA regional sites this year.

[ugarte]

[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:
I don't think Harvard skated circles around us all night, and we had a number of chances to win, but by the 2nd OT, we were tired and showing it, and couldn't keep up, especially on the big ice.[/q]Sure, we had chances to win. It certainly wouldn't be the first time that a team got outplayed but still won. But that was an off night for us and they played their asses off (except for Dov, who was helped a lot by the post, IIRC.)

[LarryW]

I've always wondered about that, too, but more wrt the UNH game in the tourney.  I thought Underhill was less than spectacular in that game and that the GWG was a savable shot.  He was screened, yes, but who knows.

Of course, I will note that in the 3rd period of that game UNH hit a gear it was pretty clear we didn't have, but we might have managed to win anyway...

or not.

[Give My Regards]

[Q]cbuckser Wrote:
 I am not convinced that a team with two great goaltenders needs to pick one guy to play in the playoffs.  I don't think Maine was huirt by the Doyle/Howard rotation in recent years.[/q]

I'm not convinced either, and in fact I wonder a bit about the wisdom of using a goaltender who's become used to playing once a weekend in a rotation and having him suddenly take all the minutes come playoff time.  Maine started Howard exclusively in the post-season last year after he rotated with Doyle the whole regular season, and Howard wound up playing in a triple-OT game for the Hockey East championship, then followed that up with the infamous first-round NCAA game against Harvard, in which he stunk up the joint.  After he was pulled from that one, and Harvard obligingly choked away the lead, he was fine in Maine's remaining NCAA games, but I've wondered whether fatigue from not being used to playing back-to-back games (let alone a triple-OT) was a factor in his awful performance against the Crimson.

[jtwcornell91]

[Q]jmh30 Wrote:

 [Q2]DisplacedCornellian Wrote:
I remember watching the latter part of the game with a feeling of impending doom, as our players were all dog tired, and Harvard seemed a bit fresher.  With the exception of Hornby.  He was flying around and clobbering people every shift.[/Q]
Our guys may have looked tired late in that game, but I continue to believe that we could very well have won had it not been for Dominic Moore winning what seemed like EVERY faceoff late in the third period and in both overtimes.[/q]

Of course, in almost every case, Harvard promptly iced the puck to set up another defensive zone faceoff.  I remember thinking, eventually we're going to win one of those and then we've got a shot.  That has to be the worst game (and not just from a Cornell perspective) to be hailed as a "great game" in recent memory.

[adamw]

[Q]cbuckser Wrote:
Moving onto the other subtopic, one amazing thing about the 2002 ECAC Championship Game is that Harvard appeared fresher than Cornell although Harvard's fourth line played only a dozen seconds all game long while Cornell rolled four lines (though Matt McRae did not play during the 2nd ot, which caused Cornell to rotate only three centers while kleeping the pairs of wings intact).[/q]

TV Timeouts.  Mazzoleni said as much that they were a big factor that year.