In article <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask] (Tony Buffa) writes:
|> 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?  Keep in mind this comes from someone who has not seen
|> a live college game in over 30 years!  At least the Ducks and Kings will
|> reappear on the tube in a week or so.  If the rain doesn't let up here, I
|> won't be able to get there in person even if I wanted to!!
|>
|> Tony Buffa
|> RPI '64, Univ of Illinois '66 and '69
|>
|> Go Engineers!!
 
Well, having read all the posts about the Colgate game, I am making my first
post in several years. I sit right on the goal line where RPI shoots the first
and third periods, and where the defensive disaster happened the second period.
 
As far as the RPI offense, I agree with Jayson- RPI looked very out of synch with
the setup of the lines. It seemed like no one knew where their linemates would
be, and this led to lots of bad shot selections. People shot when they should
have passed, and vice versa. Many times, the shooter looked tentative before
taking the shot, waiting a bit before releasing it. This gave the Colgate goalie
time to cover the net. In the first period, RPI also took many shots at very
close range- too close for good scoring chances. However, these shots often
rebounded a short distance. Thus, RPI players often kept hitting the puck into
the goalie, and this may be the source of the large shot total. I felt that the
Engineers had ample chances to score, but Colgate's goalie was up to the task,
and frustrated them early. RPI, I felt, looked decent on offense, especially
early, but just didn't convert.
 
I did not see the Princeton game, so I can't comment on that, but maybe the
comparison comes from the Engineer's defensive let-down in the second period.
Colgate forwards roamed basically wherever they wanted. Masotta made some big
saves, but let a couple rebounds lying in the crease in front of an open corner of the net.  Colgate wingers pounced on these, tipping them in on at least two
or three of their goals. The RPI offense, on the other hand, seemed very flat in
the second period, as Colgate's defense picked it up.
 
In the third, RPI had some good opportunities, as things seemed to gel a bit
better at times. However, credit Colgate for not caving in and playing some
solid defense down the stretch.
 
Today, I talked to briefly with the president of RPI about the name change of
the Rensselaer sports teams. He stated there are a lot of contrasting opinions,
and he encourages everyone to voice their concerns to the Rensselaer Spirit
Committee. My four page letter is going in the mail tomorrow.
 
Rodney Feldman
RPI '94, '95?
 
LET'S GO ENGINEERS!