I originally sent this to Tony privately, though I meant to send it to
the list.  Sorry about your having to see it twice, Tony.
 
 
In article <[log in to unmask]>,
Tony Buffa <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>A query for someone who saw this game.  Just saw a posting saying that the
>Colgate goalie made 49 saves, high for the year in ECAC.  Yet the RPI
>people described the game as very similar to that in Princeton.  How can a
>team get "blown out" like RPI appeared to have been against Colgate and
>yet get 49 shots on goal?  Are we talking "shot inflation" like "assist
>inflation" or what?
 
I was the one who described the game as similar to the Princeton game.  I did
this because the nature in which the goals were scored and the general flow
of the game, or lack thereof, from the RPI point of view, were similar.
 
In terms of the goals, in both games horrible defensive breakdowns occurred
directly in front of Brian Masotta, who was left with little to do but watch
the puck fly into the net.  As for flow, the Engineers had none in each
game.
 
Now, Jayson had meant to send a post disagreeing with my statement, but he
forgot.  If I may speak for him, he felt in the Princeton game nobody was
trying, whereas in the Colgate game there were a number of people trying
but just not achieving results.  He is correct.  Against Colgate Jon Pirrong
had a fantastic game, and others played well, whereas versus Princeton the
entire team failed to appear.  Jayson is also almost totally correct when
attributing the poor play to the juggling of the lines by Coach Fridgen, if
not 100% correct.
 
Nonetheless, I will stand by my comparison to the Princeton game for the
reasons I stated above.  As to the shots, they seemed high to me for both
nights (Colgate and Cornell).  Let's just say against Colgate there were
not enough quality shots.
 
I'm sure Jayson will have something to say.
 
Kurt Stutt
[log in to unmask]