Jayson:
>Is everyone but me watching a different game?
>
>Did everyone not see the intensity and hard work in the first period?
>Did everyone not see the speed coming through the neutral zone?  Did
>everyone not see the good defense on odd man rushes?  Did everyone not
>see guys take their men to the boards and away from the crease?  Did
>everyone not see the opportunities to score?  Did everyone not see
>that RPI is just missing by inches?
>
>What was the difference in the game last night?  Colgate did not miss
>by inches, e.g. Baaki's goal (just an inch past Laing's skate),
>McDonald's first goal (just an inch between Laing's legs), Marostega's
>goal (just an inch above Laing's shoulder).  RPI missed by inches,
>e.g. Healey missing at least four times by inches, Tapper by inches,
>Gardiner by inches, Riva by inches, etc.
>
>That was the difference.
>
>Confidence lacking?  No.  Frustration?  Yes.
 
I seem to have started this over  so it's time
to jump back into the fray. I stated that Colgate outplayed RPI
over the first 2 periods. That was, perhaps, overstating it. RPI did indeed
come out flying, hitting everything in sight and scored quickly.
But they seemed to let up. It seemed that the Colgate defenders
were scooping up rebounds and feeding the breaking wings in center
ice so consistently that the RPI defense (and hence the offense)
had to completely change their style of play to prevent giving up
Colgate  breakaways. Once they did that, (mid-way through period
1) Colgate dominated and continued through period 2.
Finally, RPI came out in period 3 and started playing their own
game and outplayed Colgate in the 3rd period.
 
As far as missing by inches, I agree with your observations but
not your conclusions. This was hardly a game of luck. If they missed
by inches just a few times, ok, luck can be blamed. But, as you pointed
out, it happened time after time. To me that indicates either a lack
of concentration, the inability to adjust to a different playing style
or good defense on the part of the other team. I think it was all 3
although RPI certainly showed no lack of concentration in the 3rd period.
They certainly did not quit.
 
>
>Devoid of creativity?  No way.  Look at some of the plays off the
>faceoff.  RPI tried several times to get the puck in front by pushing
>the faceoff deep and out.  It worked!  But missed by inches.
>
>Creativity leads to speed and passing through the neutral zone for the
>opposition, I saw that last night.  Both teams played a great game.
 
Early in the first and all through the 3rd? I agree. During the
late first and throughout the 2nd, Colgate completely disrupted RPI
moving through the center, And Colgate's transition from defense to offense
was the best and fastest I've seen in a long time.
 
>>  Colgate's McDonald lost himself on the opposite boards and drifted
>>down to the goal to receive the pass from Wildfong, with an ensuing
>>one-time rocket into the goal.
>
>What game were you watching?  What rocket?  This was an amazing pass
>by WIldfong through the crease that eluded at least seven sticks.
>Just to get it through was amazing, to get a piece of it to tip it
>through was even more amazing.  McDonald was totally covered, his
>ability got a stick on it.
 
 I was sitting about 20 feet away from the spot where Wildfong let
his pass go. At the instant the pass got to McDonald, he was free
(RPI defender nearby but not what I call covered). McDonald's
shot from the right side of the crease was no rocket nor was it a
tip. Wildfong had 2 players on his back and several sticks between
him and the slot and still managed to put it right on McDonald's
stick.  McDonald flipped it into the empty side of the net.
Laing never had a chance.
 
>
>What are you kidding me?  The lines are clicking, they're just
>missing.  When the tide turns the lines will be great.  Riva is not a
>wing, he's a playmaker.  Why does St. Hilaire look for Healey?
>Because Garver's speed puts him ahead of the play, so Healey is the
>trailer.  Gardiner is just not scoring, he's skating and hitting
>though.
 
I like the Healey, St. Hillaire, Garver line. They're fast and
they're smart. That's the problem, everyone knows that and they
get targeted by the other teams. Most games so far, Healey has had
one man out there whose only job was to shadow him and harass
him. Unfair? No, good hockey.  The line I love to watch is Brad Tapper,
Battaglia and Riva. They're a pleasure to watch. Brad Tapper has made
several freshman mistakes, but, after all, he IS a freshman. This kid
is a future leader on this team. And with Riva's hockey sense and
Battaglia's work ethic, this line could be RPI's future.
I'm somewhat disappointed in Gardiner's play. Yes, he's checking well
but he seems to be standing around a lot between checks. He seems
to be caught out of position and hasn't displayed that sense of knowing
where his linemates are and where they're going.
Hopefully the line will begin to click.
 
>Are there so many naysayers out there and critics that they can't
>recognize when things are going right?  So RPI lost, yeah they lost,
>but that's not to say the game wasn't good.  It was.
>
 
A naysayer? Not me. I've been sitting in the stands through the
late 60's and 70's.  Those were some dismal years. But I'm
still here and likely to remain here. But I wouldn't go so far
to say things are right. There is lots of room for improvement.
 
Someone said to me last night that RPI did so well last year because
no-one expected much out of them and was unprepared when we showed
so much talent. Maybe the opposite is true this year. The pre-season
polls made us sound so good that everyone is prepared for us and we
can't possibly live up to the hype.
Somewhere along the way we'll achieve equilibrium.
 
 
 
Mark Lewin
RPI - class of 1969
(this signature is year2000 compliant)
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.