Tim Whitehead coaches a defensive-first system.  That's not going to change
no matter who is in goal.

I would argue that the pyschology of having an All-American goalie in net
would be MORE condusive to scoring goals than a freshman goalie.  I would
think a team would want to play MORE defensive and try harder to protect the
freshman.

I hardly doubt the team sits around the lockerroom and says, "Let's go out
and get Jimmy a shutout".

With all due respect, Maine has played for the NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP in 2 of
the last 3 years.  I don't think BC is an example of anything except how to
have great natural talent that tends to underachieve.

-Deron


----- Original Message -----
From: "james acheson" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 10:12 AM
Subject: Re: Maine-BC


>I AM NOT POINTING A FINGER AT JIMMY!!! I am pointing a finger at how the
>team plays in front of him.  I do not know what the problem is, but the
>result is a consistent lack of offense in front of him.  2 years in a row
>now, our boys cannot score more than 2 goals a game with Jimmy in net... as
>I said, I would rather see a 6-5 win than a a garunteed shutout by one
>goalie... but a crapshoot as to which goalie gets the shutout.
> Jimmy was involved in 10 shutouts last season in what 21 games?  6 were on
> his side. FRANK won games, best in the country, but Jimmy had the goalie
> stats.
>
> with a great offensive team, it is never a problem when a goalie coughs up
> a goal (or 2)...Clemmenson and Kalieinen have been proving that point for
> 7 years.
>
> and I know that one goal was an empty netter, but our boys scored 2 goals
> with Lundin "in net" and one with Jimmy.  (and before you say that the
> sample size is too small to consider... that this was Lundin's only empty
> net opportunity of the season, realized that Maine has no empty net goals
> with Jimmy getting pulled stringing back to the Denver game.   I think
> that there is no offensive intensity when Jimmy plays.   (this is
> analogous to how Pedro often gets no run support, the sox just assume that
> tehy can win 2-1 with pedro in.)
> Snow and Dunham were the same, you wanted offense (and a win) Snow had to
> play. you wanted stifling defense and not so much offense, Dunham.
>
> Wayne T Smith <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Come on. Implying the goalie lost the BC game is like worrying about
> nosebleed when the patient has an artery gushing blood. Yes, the 3rd
> goal was a gift (Howard gets the puck out in the corner and does a
> corner-to-corner pass, interrupted by the back of his goal; BC scoops up
> the loose puck and tucks it in the open net), but one goal was
> deflected right in front of him, and the other goal was nice snap shot
> between the faceoff dots. Howard was going down in the butterfly, but
> the puck was perfectly in the five hole and just quick enough to get
> through.
>
> Now, where is the offense going to come from? It hasn't been there
> against the better teams, IMHO.
>
> Having your goalie & defense to hold the opposition to 0 or 1 goals may
> be a "goal", but it's going to be tough to have a winning record that way.
>
> I don't know how you add scoring to the mix, but Maine seems to have
> some good new players, so maybe it will be possible?
>
> cheers, wayne
>
> james acheson wrote:
>
>> so... you stick Lundin in net, the boys play offense in front of him
>> and stop worrying about the gaa and save percentage and win 6-5. I
>> mean, jeez the d was only responsible for 1 goal in this game, and
>> Jimmy gave away 2. It is clear to me, and I know a few others that
>> tandem goalies is the way to go... make them conpete against each
>> other and they both get better. at the very least Lundin would not
>> have done any better in a league points-wise analysis against BC and
>> BU, and I am sure against Merrimack. Lundin could have lost those 2
>> games too, but at least we would have 2 goalies competing against one
>> another.
>>
>>
>>
>> */Bob Woodbury /* wrote:
>>
>> BC wins 3-1. Maine not showing enough to beat UNH tomorrow, either.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Do you Yahoo!?
>> Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com