What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

RPI 2023-24: In Our 200th Year, We're Getting It Right

Status
Not open for further replies.
I thought we were outplayed by a bad Yale team and I agree, the strategy to use 2 defenseman baffled me. Our foot speed is painfully slow, it is very evident in the 3 on 3 format. I was at a good hockey east game last night and it was a stark reminder how much our team speed needs to improve. That is not all about foot speed, but game speed entails being in the right position, catching passes, and making fast decisions. Lot of room to improve
 
CMcGarvey said:
I thought we were outplayed by a bad Yale team and I agree, the strategy to use 2 defenseman baffled me. Our foot speed is painfully slow, it is very evident in the 3 on 3 format. I was at a good hockey east game last night and it was a stark reminder how much our team speed needs to improve. That is not all about foot speed, but game speed entails being in the right position, catching passes, and making fast decisions. Lot of room to improve
Click to expand...

I thought they played well in the first period, dominating play for the first 10 minutes. 2nd period was so-so, and third/OT, Yale dominated with a 15-7 advantage in shots, including 4-1 in the OT (not including an OT shot that hit the post). Given this, the 2-D, 1-F strategy in 3x3 is even more puzzling.

They were lucky to escape Ingalls with a point.
 
vicious said:
I thought they played well in the first period, dominating play for the first 10 minutes. 2nd period was so-so, and third/OT, Yale dominated with a 15-7 advantage in shots, including 4-1 in the OT (not including an OT shot that hit the post). Given this, the 2-D, 1-F strategy in 3x3 is even more puzzling.

They were lucky to escape Ingalls with a point.
Click to expand...

Even the announcer questioned 2D1F. Goffredo was used heavily in the 3x3. Also on the PP during the game.
 
vicious said:
I thought they played well in the first period, dominating play for the first 10 minutes. 2nd period was so-so, and third/OT, Yale dominated with a 15-7 advantage in shots, including 4-1 in the OT (not including an OT shot that hit the post). Given this, the 2-D, 1-F strategy in 3x3 is even more puzzling.

They were lucky to escape Ingalls with a point.
Click to expand...

I thought RPI played well overall and skated with the type of energy and effort they need to every game. Missed some huge chances in the first period and could have been up 3-0. I think the game kind of turned on that 5 minute power play (harsh call against Yale) at the end of the second period when RPI failed to generate anything. The Yale tying goal in the 3rd came after a poor penalty call against RPI--but that is what happens when you don't capitalize on your own chances. Looked like RPI ran out of gas in the 3rd--effort was good, but never looked like scoring after that Yale disallowed goal. Smith tried to get the top lines on more in the second half of that period, but that was not effective.

The power play is just such a big negative for this team right now, and it is becoming a mental thing--so tentative and plodding, no confidence. As others observed, RPI played overtime conservatively; I am not sure why. The shootout was generally poor from both teams. Muzzatti tried some sort of trick shot to try and catch the goalie off guard through the five-hole; looked silly when it didn't come off. Brushett had the right idea on his attempt to extend the shootout, but the Yale goalie made a great save.

One thing I liked last night was when Smolinski lost the puck at the blue line on the power play and Yale was in on a breakway--Gagnon busted a lung to skate back and was able to stick check the Yale player as he was about to tuck it into the goal. Senior captain effort--hopefully it is indicative of some resolve in the team as a whole.
 
Last edited:
The continued Barr debate is boring. I don't think anyone on here at the time argued Smith was a better hire. I've just said that I understood why Barr didn't get the job considering the context of the situation, although that may have been the wrong decision.

--When Appert was hired, he had no head coaching experience and his resume was just recruiting and vibes. When Appert was fired, it's only human nature to realize that Barr's resume at that time (also recruiting, vibes, no HC experience) was going to be hard to break free from being viewed as Appert v2.0, considering who was making the decisions. Sometimes, job offers come down to matters of timing and context that are beyond someone's control--that might be unfair and unwise in this case, but you can at least understand why decision-makers would act in this way.

--The prior RPI administration has come in for some fair criticism over their lack of support for hockey, but if Barr was hired, those are the same people he was going to have to work for. Would the resources have been the same? Would he have done any better in that environment? We will never know.
 
Last edited:
Any suggestions for a title for Part II, or should we continue this thread until the off season?

To date I would go with "RPI 2023-24 (Part II): The Search for Special Teams Excellence" suggested by ehf.
 
DavidNardolillo said:
I thought RPI played well overall and skated with the type of energy and effort they need to every game. Missed some huge chances in the first period and could have been up 3-0. I think the game kind of turned on that 5 minute power play (harsh call against Yale) at the end of the second period when RPI failed to generate anything. The Yale tying goal in the 3rd came after a poor penalty call against RPI--but that is what happens when you don't capitalize on your own chances. Looked like RPI ran out of gas in the 3rd--effort was good, but never looked like scoring after that Yale disallowed goal. Smith tried to get the top lines on more in the second half of that period, but that was not effective.

The power play is just such a big negative for this team right now, and it is becoming a mental thing--so tentative and plodding, no confidence. As others observed, RPI played overtime conservatively; I am not sure why. The shootout was generally poor from both teams. Muzzatti tried some sort of trick shot to try and catch the goalie off guard through the five-hole; looked silly when it didn't come off. Brushett had the right idea on his attempt to extend the shootout, but the Yale goalie made a great save.

One thing I liked last night was when Smolinski lost the puck at the blue line on the power play and Yale was in on a breakway--Gagnon busted a lung to skate back and was able to stick check the Yale player as he was about to tuck it into the goal. Senior captain effort--hopefully it is indicative of some resolve in the team as a whole.
Click to expand...

Excellent summary - certainly seemed like a game where we had ample opportunities to score and win but just did not. But at least this was a game where created chances, unlike some other times when we did so much less. Still have no idea why we played OT the way we did and the shootout exposed our poor finishing ability. Not sure if it would have changed anything but would think Heidemann might have been a good choice as one of the shooters. Overall a game we could have won and didn't and that is still better than many of the games where we seemed to have no chance.
 
Last edited:
CMcGarvey said:
Couple things for the purpose of some pregame debate: I would find it odd that Barr would go through the interview process at his alma mater to turn them down, so I would lean that we did not offer him, but that whole search was not regarded well by most people so who knows. But you're going to have to drop a source for me to believe that definitive of a statement. But nonetheless, it seems as if McElroy and co. wanted the anti-Seth, an older coach with HC experience as opposed to the younger assistant. Which brings me to my next point in the BB space, everyone on here clamors for Kirk to undo the Barr decision since they are both alums. Talk of recruiting skills, etc. Isn't Joe Dumais a WAY more qualified candidate? He has won two national championships and has recruiting ties from 15 years of NCAA coaching, 12 or so in the ECAC. I would say that Kirk has the alum connection like Barr, but Dumais is the budding star assistant the same way Benny was 7 years ago. I also think Joel Beal is a name that would get thrown around if we have a search anytime soon, he used to coach Albany Academy and Union. To me, Dumais is a slam dunk candidate for anyone, that will be a top head coach in the next 5-10 years.
Click to expand...

Dumais, beal, Kirk would all be fine choices.
I think Dumais is long overdue for a hc job. The worst thing that could happen to RPI was McElroy and co doing the hiring. That’s all behind us now so let’s hope next hire is someone like I mentioned.
 
Former RPI recruit Gunnarwolfe Fontaine scored for NU in 3x3 OT against Harvard in the Beanpot. We could have used that on Saturday.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top