At 8:56 AM -0400 3/24/97, David Morgenstern wrote:
> DU came out and was all over BU.  I think there were a few reasons for
> this.  First, I think they wanted to get it over with as fast as possible
> as they had to know a long OT would work against them.  Also, I think BUs
> inexperience (they played their freshmen a lot, even in OT) was starting to
> show.  I felt that up until Parker called time that they were playing not
> to lose and because of that they were making a lot of mistakes.
 
This is exactly what Parker said in the postgame, that they were playing
not to lose.  BU looked totally discombobulated for the first eight minutes
or so of the overtime - making bad passes when they were not pressured,
etc.  And Denver certainly got a lift from their tying goal with 52.8
seconds left in regulation and carried the play the last minute of the
third and into the OT.  So it may have been a combination of things...DU
having the momentum and trying to win it soon, and BU being back on their
heels and playing not to lose.
 
(overtime)
> First he called matching penalties that were deserved I thought.
> That made it 4 on 4.  Then, Bates was hauled down on another breakaway
> after splitting the D for the umpteenth time.  He had no choice but to call
> this one.  It was actually developing into a 2 on 0 as the other forward, I
> forgot who, had gotten past the D as well, and picked up the puck after
> Bates was hauled down, but he couldn't get a good shot off.  Now 4-3 he
> made another call as the puck was in the DU corner, Bates (who else) tried
> to beat his man to the puck and he grabbed the D's shoulder in an effort to
> get past him.  The ref called him for holding.  I would like to see this
> one on tv because I had a bad view of it.  At the time I of course felt it
> was a lousy call, but I would be curious to hear what anyone on tv thought.
> I got the feeling that it was the ref trying to even it up so the PP
> wouldn't end a great game.
 
There was that feeling, but replay showed it to be a good call.  Bates
hooked his man down and took the puck from him - not a scoring chance but
still a penalty.
 
> So now we were at 3 on 3.  Drury was out there
> with I think Coleman and Kelleher.  Probably the best threesome BU could
> put out there.  Coleman made a nice play to keep the puck in, and get the
> shot on net.  Somehow, Drury was all alone in front and had all day to pull
> the puck to his forehand and beat the goalie.  How he could be so alone is
> beyond me.
 
I found one comment from Denver coach George Gwozdecky in the postgame in
particular to be most interesting.  He said he felt that they matched up
better with BU at 5x5 and were trying to get the game back to that
situation.  BU wound up scoring just four seconds after it went from 3x3 to
4x4, so the players who came out of the box had no chance to be involved in
the play.  So it could be that after Denver had completely dominated the
period at 5x5 and BU was playing "not to lose", in the 3x3 it was DU
playing with that frame of mind instead.  Not to lose during the 3x3/4x4
and get it back to 5x5.
 
The odd thing was that DU had so many chances when it was 5x5 and could not
get the winner, while BU scored on its only 3x3 chance.  That was the way
the puck bounced that night.  And Drury's goal was a terrific one...Jim
Mullin commented how he had made the save and tried to contain the rebound,
and nearly did but in a flash, Drury had moved it to his forehand and put
it past him.  Jim did not even know who it was - it had happened so fast.
But it was a great goal scorer's move and that's what it took to beat him
that night.
 
Bates really played a terrific game for BU.  Dave Hendrickson leaned over
to me once and asked if this was the same Shawn Bates we had been watching
all year. :-)  I had to agree...he was hitting everything in sight and
creating scoring chances out of nothing, and he wound up with three
legitimate points on a goal and two assists.  I wondered how Keith Tkachuk
had stolen Bates' jersey and what he had done with the real Shawn Bates. :-)
 
Parker talked about Bates in the postgame...he noted how Bates seems to
come up big in big games (HE championship too).  Bates has not had as good
of a year as he probably thought he would have...Parker mentioned how he
had had breakfast with Bates recently and told him that the reason he was
so valuable to the team was all of the little things he did.  I.e. not
necessarily whether he got the points or not.  Against DU he did all those
little things well and the points followed.  A perfect example of where
hard work can get you.  Along the lines of the discussion about coaches, I
have to wonder if the things that Parker said to Bates did play a role in
the way he stepped up.  It certainly sounded like it.
 
If Bates continues to play this way, he could be a big factor Thursday
night against Michigan.  BU will be the underdog, but if they are to pull
off the upset, I think Bates will play a key role.
 
---                                                                   ---
Mike Machnik                [log in to unmask]               *HMM* 11/13/93
*****   (Part-Time) Color Voice of Merrimack Hockey  WCAP 980 AM    *****
*****       Unofficial Merrimack Hockey home page located at:       *****
*****   http://www.tiac.net/users/machnik/MChockey/MChockey.html    *****
>>>    U.S. College Hockey Online http://www.uscollegehockey.com/     <<<
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.