PDA

View Full Version : RPI 2011-12 Part III: Our Goal is to be Offensive



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

Jasma
11-18-2011, 01:18 PM
We didn't have a top recruiting class last year at least according to InCH, although Koudys received individual honors. We did the three years previous. However, of those three, the first has graduated (Helfrich, Brutlag, ...), the second is missing York but still has Bergin, and the most recent is missing Pirri and D'Amigo). So, only this year's freshmen are intact, and of the two players singled out for individual honors, one (Diebold) doesn't play regularly.

You're right about last year, my bad, though last year was pretty good with Higgs, Koudys and LeBoeuf. Also, Dolan and Rogic have contributed. Not a top 15, but pretty good. My point is, most observers believe the coaches are getting the kind of players to be successfull. Everyboday loses good kids to graduation every year and the best programs lose kids early sometimes. I tend to believe that Coach Appert was right when he said that Polacek made JDA and Pirri look good. Polacek was just that good of a college player. The graduation of Polacek and Helfrich is a much bigger loss than the other two. Maybe everything just fell right last year and the program arrived a year or two early. I think much of what is going on here is pure frustration and disappointment after such a good year. A 2-10 start, another loss to Unon and disapointing play from the upperclass forwards is not what we all expected. I didn't think we would win the ECAC and waltz into the post-season, but I expected this team to be a factor in the league. So far, they have not shown that to be the case. Let's hope this next six weeks away from HFH gets them going in a positive direction. Go Red.

DavidSec17
11-18-2011, 01:20 PM
Wouldn't be the first time scouts looked at a guy because of his bloodlines. If his name is enough to get some attention, that's good for him, but presumably he's still got to perform in order to get more than that.

Schroeder is interesting to me because he's shown a lot of potential out on the ice but it's obvious that he's still very raw. Needs time to adjust his style and his tempo.

I agree with this. Each game, he always seems to do something that makes me say "wow that was a nice play". Backchecks well. Looks like he and others need time to adjust to the tempo, i.e lots of fanned on shots in the slot vs. Union.

Senna
11-18-2011, 01:27 PM
latest article on possible move to Hockey East. Nothing really new except the mention of Qpac.
http://www.hockeyjournal.com/news/2011/11/17_from_nehj_addition_of_notre.php

....and there it is in black and white. THIS is what I have been most worried about with our performance and record to date.

"It's a tough league to compete in," Bertagna said. "We want schools that are going to bring value to us, and you don't do anybody a favor if you bring them into the league and they can't cut it.".

I don't think anyone has raised the point thus far, although in the back of each of our minds, about the impact of our season in helping to justify us as the right choice. Said differently, what if we had won more than 1/2 the games against the ranked opponents ? I think it would have significantly helped our position.

jmhusker
11-18-2011, 01:41 PM
I don't agree with the second half of this rule proposal. You should have to work the puck out of the zone in order to clear it. The other team should not be punished in time run off the clock if you decided to shoot the puck all the way down the ice and take a knee (minus the penalty kill, of course). That having been said, though, I agree with getting rid of the red line, as you still have to work the puck out of the zone. I would count "on the blue line" as icing, as it's still technically in the zone.

I think you misunderstood the 2nd half. If the other team doesn't contest then there is no need to work it out of your end because there is no one there.

Ralph Baer
11-18-2011, 01:42 PM
....and there it is in black and white. THIS is what I have been most worried about with our performance and record to date.

"It's a tough league to compete in," Bertagna said. "We want schools that are going to bring value to us, and you don't do anybody a favor if you bring them into the league and they can't cut it.".

I don't think anyone has raised the point thus far, although in the back of each of our minds, about the impact of our season in helping to justify us as the right choice. Said differently, what if we had won more than 1/2 the games against the ranked opponents ? I think it would have significantly helped our position. That has crossed my mind also, but I still belive that SA can sell iceboxes to eskimos which should greatly help our case.

FlagDUDE08
11-18-2011, 01:46 PM
I think you misunderstood the 2nd half. If the other team doesn't contest then there is no need to work it out of your end because there is no one there.

Then doesn't hybrid icing already take care of that? We aren't playing no touch anymore. Please use "Team A" and "Team B" in your explanation of the 2nd half of the rule so I can have a better grasp of what you are attempting to convey.

AspyDad
11-18-2011, 02:07 PM
That has crossed my mind also, but I still belive that SA can sell iceboxes to eskimos which should greatly help our case.

Ralph, what was our record in 93 (I believe it is) when that TU article appeared about us possibly going to HE? It had the quotes from Buddy Powers. I don't think this start will have an effect on admittance to the promised land of HE. I think Ken Ralph was right when he said resources being spent is the big issue. BTW - where does our hockey budget compare to the rest of the other 57 teams in D-1? Last question Ralph... was I shorter in person than you thought I'd be?

Ralph Baer
11-18-2011, 02:20 PM
Ralph, what was our record in 93 (I believe it is) when that TU article appeared about us possibly going to HE? It had the quotes from Buddy Powers. I don't think this start will have an effect on admittance to the promised land of HE. I think Ken Ralph was right when he said resources being spent is the big issue. BTW - where does our hockey budget compare to the rest of the other 57 teams in D-1? Last question Ralph... was I shorter in person than you thought I'd be?

RPi's record by season http://www.augenblick.org/rpi/h_ryy.html.

No idea how our budget comapres to others. I could guess, but I won't.

I can't say that I ever thought about how tall you were. I do have an immense dislike for anyone taller than me, which is mostly everyone (at least the males over ten years old). :p

By the way, there are currently 58 other D-I hockey programs this season, unless you ahve already zeroed UAH's budget. :D

AspyDad
11-18-2011, 02:22 PM
By the way, there are currently 58 other D-I hockey programs this season, unless you ahve already zeroed UAH's budget. :D

I did :rolleyes:

burgie12
11-18-2011, 02:25 PM
Then doesn't hybrid icing already take care of that? We aren't playing no touch anymore. Please use "Team A" and "Team B" in your explanation of the 2nd half of the rule so I can have a better grasp of what you are attempting to convey.
Team A has the puck in their defensive zone and is trying to move it into their attacking zone (Team B's defensive zone). If Team B's forwards do not attack the puck (ie they stay in the neutral zone and do not enter Team A's defensive zone), then Team A may ice the puck at will.

FreshFish
11-18-2011, 02:41 PM
Team A has the puck in their defensive zone and is trying to move it into their attacking zone (Team B's defensive zone). If Team B's forwards do not attack the puck (ie they stay in the neutral zone and do not enter Team A's defensive zone), then Team A may ice the puck at will.

If icing is only called on Team A from Team A's blueline back, then doesn't this additional rule become redundant?

GRussinko
11-18-2011, 02:42 PM
Team A has the puck in their defensive zone and is trying to move it into their attacking zone (Team B's defensive zone). If Team B's forwards do not attack the puck (ie they stay in the neutral zone and do not enter Team A's defensive zone), then Team A may ice the puck at will.

Wouldn't this set up a situation where anytime Team B needs to clear the zone to prevent an offside call, Team A can ice the puck at the moment all Team B's players cross the blue line into the neutral zone?

burgie12
11-18-2011, 02:59 PM
Wouldn't this set up a situation where anytime Team B needs to clear the zone to prevent an offside call, Team A can ice the puck at the moment all Team B's players cross the blue line into the neutral zone?
I think jmhusker was trying to negate the Tampa Bay / Philly standoff where the Lightning were placing five players in the neutral zone and continuously not attacking the puck. FlagDUDE suggested a warning on the first offense and then a penalty on the second. Something similar could be applied here where the coaches are warned if the linesmen / referees determine that the coaches are "not being aggressive enough" and then the rule could be applied.

And, no, I don't think that the situation described would fit the spirit of my description. It fits the letter of it. Primarily because I was just putting down a rough interpretation of somebody else's idea. I'm sure if it's worded properly and expressed plainly enough, then it could potentially be applied (not that I think it's the best idea, but it's not my place to judge).

I actually see it as a situation fairly similar to the first time that delayed offsides was implemented (since you brought it up). It was a rule change that required the linesmen to judge a player's actions and intentions to decide if they were attempting to follow the rules. This new anti-trap rule could potentially require another similar judgment call by the officials.

If icing is only called on Team A from Team A's blueline back, then doesn't this additional rule become redundant?
If I'm a defenseman for Team A holding onto the puck at the faceoff dot directly in front of / next to my goalie, then I am behind my blue line and could be charged with icing if I shoot it all the way down, yes? But, if this potential rule is put in place and the opposing team's forwards aren't chasing after the puck, then I could do whatever I wanted with the puck (other than shooting it directly over the glass, which would be a penalty / faceoff depending on the ruleset) and icing would not be called.

FlagDUDE08
11-18-2011, 03:02 PM
If icing is only called on Team A from Team A's blueline back, then doesn't this additional rule become redundant?

No, because from what I can understand by the point of their rule, if both teams are in Team A's zone, and Team A ices the puck to Team B's zone, it would be called icing.

burgie12
11-18-2011, 03:04 PM
OK then. He was born on 9/7/92 and is in his third and last year of eligibility.
Oops. Yea, of course the eligibility dates for the draft would be getting bigger, not smaller. Of course this is Schroeder's last year of eligiblity. To me, that increases the likelihood that he's getting a cursory glance, but he'll be looked at in more of an undrafted free agent type of role.

FlagDUDE08
11-18-2011, 03:06 PM
I think jmhusker was trying to negate the Tampa Bay / Philly standoff where the Lightning were placing five players in the neutral zone and continuously not attacking the puck. FlagDUDE suggested a warning on the first offense and then a penalty on the second. Something similar could be applied here where the coaches are warned if the linesmen / referees determine that the coaches are "not being aggressive enough" and then the rule could be applied.

And, no, I don't think that the situation described would fit the spirit of my description. It fits the letter of it. Primarily because I was just putting down a rough interpretation of somebody else's idea. I'm sure if it's worded properly and expressed plainly enough, then it could potentially be applied (not that I think it's the best idea, but it's not my place to judge).

I actually see it as a situation fairly similar to the first time that delayed offsides was implemented (since you brought it up). It was a rule change that required the linesmen to judge a player's actions and intentions to decide if they were attempting to follow the rules. This new anti-trap rule could potentially require another similar judgment call by the officials.


The warning/minor situation I described is if a certain type of defense is played (i.e. zone vs. man-to-man). If a team is "not being aggressive enough", then isn't not scoring any goals punishment enough? I didn't see the Tampa/Philly game so I don't know your context...

Ralph Baer
11-18-2011, 03:12 PM
Oops. Yea, of course the eligibility dates for the draft would be getting bigger, not smaller. Of course this is Schroeder's last year of eligiblity. To me, that increases the likelihood that he's getting a cursory glance, but he'll be looked at in more of an undrafted free agent type of role. Not many players are selected in their third year of eligibility.

burgie12
11-18-2011, 03:21 PM
The warning/minor situation I described is if a certain type of defense is played (i.e. zone vs. man-to-man). If a team is "not being aggressive enough", then isn't not scoring any goals punishment enough? I didn't see the Tampa/Philly game so I don't know your context...
I'm going to reference you to this post in the NHL thread.

NHL.com has it on their front page. Multiple times.

Here's the first (and most blatant) just seconds into the game:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mvqpa0k4X1M

Another late in the first period:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z377hc_LPdc

What the fans saw during the game:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QXxr5pg7Vo


Is the system that each team has acceptable? Sure. But when you get two stubborn a**holes who want to make their point, this is what happens. The Flyers had plenty of chances to move the puck up ice (thanks to the abolishment of the two line pass) where the Flyers camped at the TB blue line were fairly open for a direct pass. The Lightning forward had PLENTY of room to wander up to sorta forecheck and force the Flyers to either pass it to one another, or turn over the puck.

But no.

Obviously teams can defeat the 1-3-1 (Boston did), and teams can beat the 2-2-1 (Blackhawks did). Thank GOD we didn't see a 0-5-0 or 1-4-0. Although that may have been entertaining.

For the record, the Lightning won that game 2-1.

In response to your question, all you need is one goal. Gum up the neutral zone, force a turnover, get a breakaway goal, lather, rinse, and repeat. That's why some people see this as "ZOMG THE WURST THING TO HAPPEN TO HOCKKKKKEY EVAR!!!!11!!"

My thinking is more along the lines of, find the flaws, exploit them, and beat them!

FlagDUDE08
11-18-2011, 03:30 PM
In response to your question, all you need is one goal. Gum up the neutral zone, force a turnover, get a breakaway goal, lather, rinse, and repeat. That's why some people see this as "ZOMG THE WURST THING TO HAPPEN TO HOCKKKKKEY EVAR!!!!11!!"

My thinking is more along the lines of, find the flaws, exploit them, and beat them!

Isn't that how Cornell plays? ;)

FlagDUDE08
11-18-2011, 03:32 PM
Now all we need to see is a 2-3 zone and that team to have a long-time coach that picks his nose on camera. :D