> I must reply to my brother Brian Morris:
 
> RPI's second came off the gasp! power play.  Their first power play goal in some six games.  (They're not ranked second to last in the ECAC on the PP for nothing.) Doug Battaglia scores a typical Battaglia garbage-type goal after Pete Gardiner makes a great pass to set up Battaglia in front.  Watch out for Gardiner next year - he's got all the tools to become the prototype power forward. ---- I have to agree that RPI's PP has been sad for the last ten games or so but they also have been trying a few new wrinkles that may be the difference. Also, Battaglia has been great at potting the 'garbage-type goal' but brother, you gotta have a couple of those lunch bucket types who will do anything to help the team score. Peter Gardiner, on the other hand, is indeed a tall (6'5") fellow but his skills are one of a smaller man. Soft Hands, good puckhandling skills, and good skating ability to complement those God-given long arms. You are right for the wrong reasons, Gardiner will be a !
guy who will be able to play BOTH kinds of game...physical as well as skills.
 
> Coach Dan Fridgen put in a masterful coaching job for the series.  --- Amen, brother. But his coaching didn't do Union in...a couple of breaks for RPI and some very foolish penalties by Chris Ford of Union.
 
>  Laing has a great sense of positioning.   I truly think that he intentionally allows the pucks to fly by the net since he knows that they are off-line.  He also cut down on his rebounds noticeably through the series, although the Dutchman aren't the best at crashing the net (other than Chris Ford :-)  ). ---- I hope Joel, or most Div. I goalies, have a good sense NOT to touch pucks that are off the net unless there is a very good reason to involve oneself in them. And Joel gave up the same AMOUNT of rebounds but he was brilliant in either directing the long pad saves to the corner or finessing a stick or blocker to short distances that either he could control or his defensemen. That was the difference to me in his play. This reminded me vvery much of Dan Murphy's play in Clarkson. Rarely will he give up that long rebound which usually results in a grade-A scoring chance.
 
 
> Fridge is a pretty good big game coach, and he can draw on his success in 1994 at Lake Placid. --- minor quibble; it was 1995. But the point is well taken.
 
Now we really disagee:
 
> Stan Moore in contrast is a rookie.  He got outcoached, even though he deserves to win coach of the year in the ECAC. --- Don't know how you figured this one. Both coaches jockied as best they could to match up but Moore just didn't have the finishers to capitalize on the scoring chances Union had and he can't stop a player from taking a stupid penalty in the heat of the battle. It was very uncharacteristic of Union to take such penalties but the pressure level was NEW to all the Dutchmen (unless the 1994 quarters meant something, pressure wise to the seniors....I doubt it). I thought Moore did an excellent job.
 
> I thought Moore's pulling Koenig after the second RPI goal was a bad move.  --- Why? Union obviously was shaken and its BIG weapon was just beaten twice in the last 1:03. Moore realized he needed his team to refocus and maybe play a bit harder with Shtrom (sp.) instead of Koenig. This move is not that uncommon although I don't know how often it works. At the time, Union needed a lift.
 
> Returning him to the nets in the beginning of the second was even worse. --- Why? Why? You made your message to your team (the first period ended at the 2-0 score) and Koenig's the guy that got you to this game in the first place. So, you let him rot on the bench? Koenig on an 'off' day is still better than Shtrom cold off the bench (and was 0-1-1 against RPI). In my book, I want to get beat with my best on the ice by your best.
 
> Koenig didn't seem to be ready to move on the two on one coming at him.  Granted Healy again makes a great play.  Healy takes the puck down the right wing and slides the puck over to St. Hilaire in the center.  St. Hilaire waits as Healy goes to the corner to take the return pass, and Healey smacks the puck into the open corner. --- Brian, what are you trying to say? First you say that he's not ready for a 2 on one. Koenig hasn't gotton to this position by 'not being ready' and 'granted' Healey made a great play (as did St. Hillaire on the return pass) and Healey buried a wide open net. My seven year old fledgling goalie has been told to 'play the shooter' on that type of play; maybe at Mites thats the rule but I've heard that one many, many times at ALL levels. Union played that poorly, got caught up ice, and RPI made them pay for it. Maybe Koenig on his BEST would have made that save but it's no discredit to him that he didn't.
 
> But I would have left Koenig in the game to keep him in it.  Koenig is going to be the man for Union for the next couple of seasons, and it is paramount that he knows the coach has confidence in him.   Sending Koenig back in to start the second didn't send a message to Koenig, it sent a message to Shtrom that he wasn't the guy to bring Union back. --- Whoa, big fella. Koenig has one more year left ( I thought he was a junior) if he decides to stay, which may be counter productive for him with the loss of the 13 seniors. Shtrom will need some more playing time and he appears to be a very fine goalie in his own right. I really don't think that Shtrom was not capable but that Trevor's the guy and Shtrom certainly knows that by now.
 
> That quick goal, only 32 seconds into the second period, was really the pivotal point of the game.  On Friday Union went down 2-0, but had the ability to come back through the second and third period.  On Saturday going down 3-0 in the second spelled the game.  Union could not be expected to score four goals with the shotmakers and puck carriers they have on their roster.  Union is not adept at creating scoring chances.  They are very good at getting the other team to create Union scoring chances.   But on Saturday the game was over before one minute had expire in the second. --- I agree. The air was rapidly deflating from the Union bubble but to their credit, they never quit.
 
> Finally, I am now willing to sing the praises for the 1996-97 Engineers. They got farther than anyone expected, with the sophomores maturing into talented juniors, the freshman coming up with four gems, including two goaltenders, and a coach whose junior year saw him put his stamp on Engineer hockey.  The question has been answered: RPI can win playing Dan Fridgen's style.  If the Engineers don't win another game, and unless Princeton wins tonight, that isn't unlikely, they have had a supremely successful season.  Next year they should be the preseason favorite, and can now use whatever experience they gain next weekend at Lake Placid to take the program to the next level.
--- Right on ,right on. But the Engineers need to be taught, unlike some
of its earlier teams of the nineties, that games are won and lost ON the
ice, not in the POLLS or in the paper. I hope Fridge is up to it; the
team, at this time, is up to it. Are WE up to it? When bumps hit the
road, hwo many will fall off the wagon and let the sniping begin?
 
Larry Alber, still crazy in section 17 (and posting HOCKEY-L for the
first time this season).
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.