Cornell vs. Clarkson, game 1 postgame

[RichH]

[quote Rich S][quote nr53]shh don't rush him, he's waiting for the recap to be posted on uscho so he can find out what actually happened at the game[/quote]

Nope.

a) I'm a writer and I dont believe in plagarizing.

b) not that devious.  :-D[/quote]

Touche, nr53.  What did you think of the game, Rich?

[redhair34]

(waiting to hear what Rich thought of the game...)

::popcorn::

[nyc94]

[quote redhair34](waiting to hear what Rich thought of the game...)

::popcorn::[/quote]

or maybe more like ::bang::

[Omie]

That's officially my favorite post tonight. :-}

[nr53]

just to help out :-D

http://cornellbigred.collegesports.com/sports/m-hockey/recaps/031106aaa.html

[ebilmes]

I really haven't chimed in on the RichS issue, aside from one brief comment that earned me a "grow up" comment from Rich. But it's just getting ridiculous when we have these threads that are so ensnared by this bickering that it's difficult to sift out the actual hockey chatter. Simply put, this is the Cornell hockey fan forum. We have no obligation to give credit to opponents, portray both sides of an issue, or be gracious winners. Many of us choose to give small compliments to worthy opponents, but we are by no means required to write objectively. Opposing fans are certainly welcome to come and give insight about opponents or about their take on the game. But I don't see where any opposing fan has a right to instigate posting wars. Read what you want, post what you want, and think what you want, but we don't always have to say what you want.

[Rich S]

Jim,

Thanks for your comments, thoughtful as always.  It's so much easier to read them and to try to respond in kind as opposed to reading the sarcastic and mean-spirited junk that is the stock in trade of many of your colleagues.

The backhanded compliment comment pertained to his statement that cornell made him look like the GOTW.  I'm confident that I know what I'm talking about re: goalies, having played the position and now coached quite a few for a number of years.

No goalie makes 50 saves without deserving a lot of credit.  Cornell may have trouble finishing but even the odds say you should get a few on that many shots.  Or that the goalie will allow a softie facing that many.  Am I mistaken or did Leggio not allow any soft goals?  Didn't he keep his team within striking distance allowing them to come back to tie?  Did he not keep it tied in th eOT when cornell outshot Clarkson handily?  Ok, I'm guilty of perhaps applying a writer's standard to the comments of a partisan fan.  I can handle the criticism.

No, I wasn't trying to pick a fight.  It's about discussing hockey.  It seems easy for you guys to conclude that when you read a dissenting opinion.  Me thinks it's often some of you that are ready to leap at any comment that takes a more balanced view.

I've read Bill's comments over already and the comments about the 4th line, the injured D-men returning, etc are great.  But not even a throw away "Clarkson really hung in there?"

Mull it over.  Thanks.

[Beeeej]

[quote calgARI '07]I could be wrong but wasn't Pokuluk the one that got stripped of the puck (reminiscent of Jason Dailey's OT giveaway against Yale that one year) that led to the second Clarkson goal.[/quote]

The only Jason Dailey OT giveaway against Yale that I know of wasn't a stripping at all; he quite literally passed the puck from behind the Cornell net directly to a Yale player in front of it, who scored easily as a result.  Nothing like any of tonight's goals, IMHO.

Beeeej

[Rich S]

Not until I get my beer.  Heck I didnt even eat dinner all night!

Help me out here Rich...who asked first and who asked that question more times since this lunacy started?  You or was it Bill?

[billhoward]

[quote Rich S]We have a dog, no cats allowed here.

Can't make it Sunday in any case.  Aren't you being a bit smug with the "dark rink" comment?  No lessson learned from '04?  :-D

Uh oh...Now I've done it again...here comes the wrath of the almighty ones.[/quote]
Good. You got the hidden meaning, and in just a couple minutes. You're a natural to try the Wonderlic. Pat McInally, watch your backside.

The lesson from 2004 is beat your opponent on the ice, keep your gloves on, don't play down to an oponent's level, and don't give your opponent a psychological edge by winning a battle while neglecting the war. But in all deference to Clarkson -- I'm serious here -- what pixellated images came across to my TV seemed to indicate this was nothing like the 2004 street brawl and its attendant hard feelings.

Clarkson is not No. 12 Brown, but Adam D'Alba's goaltending exploits against St. Lawrence were also amazing, maybe even more so than Legg-- wait, I won't go there -- but it seemed like the best Leggio could do would be to get lucky once. Question is, did David Leggio have his one lucky and good night Friday, has he got more of the same in him Saturday, or will he be just good and not lucky?

Not many nights a team loses in overtime 5-3.

[Rich S]

is that what you're doing while you're waiting?   ::laugh::

[Rich S]

Sure, you dont have to say what vistors want to hear.

But you're wrong to charge vistors with instigating posting wars.  The war starts when one or more of you let a dissenting opinion tick you off.  So you respond with vitriol or trashing my opinion along with snarky remarks.  If you throw trash at me, I'll often fire back.  Fair enough?

You don't have to be a supremely gracious host; that's certainly not my expectation.

But I'd expect that you'd respond with more civility and less arrogance and at least acknowledge that someoen else's view has some validity, as least some of the time.

[DeltaOne81]

But, Rich, seriously. You attacked Bill right out of the gate and insulted him for his opinion. No one attacked you. Bill just didn't compliment Clarkson enough and you insulted him.

It wasn't you disagreeing with the opinion, it was you insulting Bill harshly for his opinion.

[redhair34]

[quote Rich S]Sure, you dont have to say what vistors want to hear.

But you're wrong to charge vistors with instigating posting wars.  The war starts when one or more of you let a dissenting opinion tick you off.  So you respond with vitriol or trashing my opinion along with snarky remarks.  If you throw trash at me, I'll often fire back.  Fair enough?

You don't have to be a supremely gracious host; that's certainly not my expectation.

But I'd expect that you'd respond with more civility and less arrogance and at least acknowledge that someoen else's view has some validity, as least some of the time.[/quote]

...::popcorn::

[Beeeej]

[quote Rich S]I've read Bill's comments over already and the comments about the 4th line, the injured D-men returning, etc are great.  But not even a throw away "Clarkson really hung in there?"[/quote]

I personally took "Leggio deserves credit for making 50 saves" to mean that Bill was impressed with Leggio, despite what he said next.  You apparently didn't.  Maybe it's because I was there, and also feel Leggio deserves credit.  Frankly I think we had a lot more decent chances than usual tonight, rather than hitting Leggio in the chest constantly as we've done much of the season (and as Clarkson did to McKee for most of their shots tonight, aside from the ones we coughed up to them).  Ergo, Leggio good.  You read it a different way, fine.

But to criticize an analysis of the game (that, mind you, wasn't written for publication) because in your opinion it does an improper job of praising everything the defeated team did right is really kind of petty, I think, and it's an absurd expectation.  As much as you know about hockey, 98% of your "contribution" to this board seems to be criticism of the way other people behave on it, while for some reason you are incapable of seeing that your own behavior often leaves a lot to be desired.

Best of luck tomorrow night.  If you wish, come find me in Section C.  I'll be the one with too many pins on his sweatshirt.

Beeeej