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 Engineers '15-'16

Re: RPI Engineers '15-'16

hab said:
I completely agree with your assessment of the freshman D's, for this game at least. Not sure that I would agree on the basis of just one game that Bombay will be the #3 goalie...need to see more of all three of them. One of the three goals was a rocket to the top corner. I didn't see most of the first period (may watch it on youtube if I get time) but I thought Selander looked good in the second, but as you say Montreal really didn't put a lot of pressure on until the third.
Click to expand...

I agree that you can never tell on the basis of one game. I didn't see the game, but I suspect that Bombay got flustered after giving up a goal. Remember that she a played on a great team (especially two years ago) in the PWHL. OTOH, Selander's team was awful, so she was more used to facing a lot of rubber. Then again, I thought before they came to RPI that Piper would be the #1 goalie -- and she wasn't.
 
Re: RPI Engineers '15-'16

JoJo (#9) is and will be a very solid D, who is also an offensive threat. She has international experience with the Danish National team. A very good get for RPI.
 
Re: RPI Engineers '15-'16

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Smelker '14 to Play For <a href="https://twitter.com/usahockey">@usahockey</a> in 2015 Four Nations Cup <a href="https://t.co/cGE8vLkyuW">https://t.co/cGE8vLkyuW</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/RPIHockey?src=hash">#RPIHockey</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/NWHL_">@NWHL_</a> <a href="https://t.co/e1z8fbK4E4">pic.twitter.com/e1z8fbK4E4</a></p>— RPI Athletics (@RPIAthletics) <a href="https://twitter.com/RPIAthletics/status/649658908143951872">October 1, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Re: RPI Engineers '15-'16

Ralph Baer said:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Smelker '14 to Play For <a href="https://twitter.com/usahockey">@usahockey</a> in 2015 Four Nations Cup <a href="https://t.co/cGE8vLkyuW">https://t.co/cGE8vLkyuW</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/RPIHockey?src=hash">#RPIHockey</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/NWHL_">@NWHL_</a> <a href="https://t.co/e1z8fbK4E4">pic.twitter.com/e1z8fbK4E4</a></p>— RPI Athletics (@RPIAthletics) <a href="https://twitter.com/RPIAthletics/status/649658908143951872">October 1, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Click to expand...

Always felt that she was one of the most underrated players in the ECAC. A forward who does not rack up a ton of goals will often be overlooked, but in so many games she just kept RPI in the game with her work at both ends of the ice.
 
Re: RPI Engineers '15-'16

shelfit said:
The video worked perfectly on my computer. It was nice being able to rewind to watch certain plays over again especially the scoring plays. The game was pretty boring until Montreal went on a scoring spree. It was like they finally woke up. I think we know who the 3rd goalie is going to be. In my argument of the two new D, let's just say 9 looked very comfortable and she kept the puck in the offensive zone which resulted in RPI's goal whereas 13 looked slow and out of shape and was caught out of position quite often. One of those times she ended up way up ice and left her D partner by herself which resulted in the 2 vs 1 game winning goal for Montreal. I think the speed of the real games ahead is going to be a big issue for her until she gets into much better condition.
Click to expand...
I was at the game and you are wrong about the game winning goal. 13's partner got beat on the pinch in the neutral zone and left her to play the 2 on 1 which resulted in the Montreal player putting it bar down. She took the pass away on the 2 on 1 and let the goalie take the shooter which is how defenseman are taught. That was the only goal her and her partner were on for, so know what your talking about before you go running your mouth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ARM
Re: RPI Engineers '15-'16

engineer said:
I was at the game and you are wrong about the game winning goal. 13's partner got beat on the pinch in the neutral zone and left her to play the 2 on 1 which resulted in the Montreal player putting it bar down. She took the pass away on the 2 on 1 and let the goalie take the shooter which is how defenseman are taught. That was the only goal her and her partner were on for, so know what your talking about before you go running your mouth.
Click to expand...

I apologize. I had the wrong goal. The goal I posted about was actually the 3rd goal against and not the game winner so I stand corrected and I thank you for that. However they were on for both the 2nd and 3rd goals against so you're right about the neutral zone pinch by 25 on the game winner by Montreal but wrong about that being the only goal against they were on for. On the 3rd goal against 13 was way out of position as the first player in the offensive zone and RPI didn't have possession of the puck. She shouldn't have been that far up the ice in the first place and she should have dropped back as soon as RPI lost possession and let one of the forwards do their job which was to forecheck. Montreal executed a standard regroup which left her caught way out of position and the result was the 2 vs 1 insurance goal against. To have 2 goals against that were both 2 vs 1 goals against the same D pairing isn't good particularly for a low end team that doesn't score a lot of goals for. The coaches better teach them their jobs or make adjustments to the pairings. Maybe you should also know what you're talking about before you go running your mouth in such a self righteous way. I guess you failed to check the video before you posted. So basically I was right about everything I said except that it was simply the wrong goal. Boy oh boy you sure told me!
 
Last edited:
Re: RPI Engineers '15-'16

shelfit said:
I apologize. I had the wrong goal. The goal I posted about was actually the 3rd goal against and not the game winner so I stand corrected and I thank you for that. However they were on for both the 2nd and 3rd goals against so you're right about the neutral zone pinch by 25 on the game winner by Montreal but wrong about that being the only goal against they were on for. On the 3rd goal against 13 was way out of position as the first player in the offensive zone and RPI didn't have possession of the puck. She shouldn't have been that far up the ice in the first place and she should have dropped back as soon as RPI lost possession and let one of the forwards do their job which was to forecheck. Montreal executed a standard regroup and the result was the 2 vs 1 insurance goal against. To have 2 goals against that were both 2 vs 1 goals against the same D pairing isn't good particularly for a low end team that doesn't score a lot of goals for like we have here. Coach better teach them their jobs or make adjustments. Maybe you should also know what you're talking about before you go running your mouth in such a self righteous way.
Click to expand...
I apologize, I missed the 3rd goal. 25 is a forward filling in as a D, so mistakes will be made. Give them a break it was their first game. Both 13 and 25 are offensive minded and probably shouldn't have been paired together or he should have went with 5 D. 25 is a better forward than she is a defenseman. If the forward seen that she was that far up ice then maybe one of them should have covered. The first period 13 and 25 had generated some good scoring chances and had about 6 or 7 shots between the two.
 
Last edited:
Re: RPI Engineers '15-'16

engineer said:
I apologize, I missed the 3rd goal. 25 is a forward filling in as a D, so mistakes will be made. Give them a break it was their first game. Both 13 and 25 are offensive minded and probably shouldn't have been paired together or he should have went with 5 D. 25 is a better forward than she is a defenseman. If the forward seen that she was that far up ice then maybe one of them should have covered. The first period 13 and 25 had generated some good scoring chances and had about 6 or 7 shots between the two.
Click to expand...

25 filled in as a D last season and then remained on D even though they already had a full complement of D - I guess with this coach it's better to rotate 7D and have uneven lines than run with consistent D pairings so they can create some chemistry! She is most definitely better suited as a Fwd - as you point out she "thinks" like a forward and would be more of an asset as a F than a D. Although they may have been able to regularly "jump in the rush/be offensive minded" on their HS travel teams, they need to be more aware and pick their moments to do so at the collegiate level as well as when to/not to pinch! This team is scoring deprived and needs to put a few strong lines together and find good D pairings to play with each other. This year they actually could use lefties with righties in 2/3 D pairings so that they can play on their strong sides! If #2 comes back then all the pairings could work this way. There is NO REASON to rotate 7D unless 6 & 7 are rotating on 3rd pair. Not sure this HC and his very new, young, and rather inexperienced AC have figured that out yet!
 
Re: RPI Engineers '15-'16

hkypassion said:
25 filled in as a D last season and then remained on D even though they already had a full complement of D - I guess with this coach it's better to rotate 7D and have uneven lines than run with consistent D pairings so they can create some chemistry! She is most definitely better suited as a Fwd - as you point out she "thinks" like a forward and would be more of an asset as a F than a D. Although they may have been able to regularly "jump in the rush/be offensive minded" on their HS travel teams, they need to be more aware and pick their moments to do so at the collegiate level as well as when to/not to pinch! This team is scoring deprived and needs to put a few strong lines together and find good D pairings to play with each other. This year they actually could use lefties with righties in 2/3 D pairings so that they can play on their strong sides! If #2 comes back then all the pairings could work this way. There is NO REASON to rotate 7D unless 6 & 7 are rotating on 3rd pair. Not sure this HC and his very new, young, and rather inexperienced AC have figured that out yet!
Click to expand...

Rumor being moved to F, but wait and see
 
Re: RPI Engineers '15-'16

shelfit said:
I apologize. I had the wrong goal. The goal I posted about was actually the 3rd goal against and not the game winner so I stand corrected and I thank you for that. However they were on for both the 2nd and 3rd goals against so you're right about the neutral zone pinch by 25 on the game winner by Montreal but wrong about that being the only goal against they were on for. On the 3rd goal against 13 was way out of position as the first player in the offensive zone and RPI didn't have possession of the puck. She shouldn't have been that far up the ice in the first place and she should have dropped back as soon as RPI lost possession and let one of the forwards do their job which was to forecheck. Montreal executed a standard regroup which left her caught way out of position and the result was the 2 vs 1 insurance goal against. To have 2 goals against that were both 2 vs 1 goals against the same D pairing isn't good particularly for a low end team that doesn't score a lot of goals for. The coaches better teach them their jobs or make adjustments to the pairings. Maybe you should also know what you're talking about before you go running your mouth in such a self righteous way. I guess you failed to check the video before you posted. So basically I was right about everything I said except that it was simply the wrong goal. Boy oh boy you sure told me!
Click to expand...
the coach encourages the D to get involved in the offensive zone and off the rush. 24 and 9 made some bad plays in the offensive and defensive zone which lead to scoring chances. 9 bombed the puck up the middle and their D picked it off and walked in for a good scoring chance in the second period. 24 tried to skate the puck in from the point and lost it which led to an odd man rush. 25 towards the end of the first period made another terrible pinch which led to an odd man rush. And i just watched the video. The team is scoring deprived and the forwards made some terrible decisions with the puck off the rush and while around the net. Last time I checked, you don't win many games when you score only one goal. The 3rd goalie let in 2 goals she wished she could have had back in my opinion.
 
Re: RPI Engineers '15-'16

engineer said:
the coach encourages the D to get involved in the offensive zone and off the rush. 24 and 9 made some bad plays in the offensive and defensive zone which lead to scoring chances. 9 bombed the puck up the middle and their D picked it off and walked in for a good scoring chance in the second period. 24 tried to skate the puck in from the point and lost it which led to an odd man rush. 25 towards the end of the first period made another terrible pinch which led to an odd man rush. And i just watched the video. The team is scoring deprived and the forwards made some terrible decisions with the puck off the rush and while around the net. Last time I checked, you don't win many games when you score only one goal. The 3rd goalie let in 2 goals she wished she could have had back in my opinion.
Click to expand...

"...a low end team that doesn't score a lot of goals for." - from one of my previous posts...

engineer, I think you and I now agree with each other. Nice! The most basic coaching principle when you have a very low scoring team is to NOT take risks with your D so you don't lose a game via turnovers especially in the neutral zone. That didn't happen against Montreal and Montreal did NOT look as fast as many of the teams RPI will face in the ECAC season. Wouldn't it have been nice if those two 2 vs 1 situations I talked about earlier would have been 2 vs 2 situations because the D had stayed at home together instead of one of them getting caught out of position up the ice somewhere?! If you take away those 2 unnecessary goals against you have a tie game and the empty net situation never happens which means you head to overtime tied 1-1 to see what might happen there. That's the way things should have happened in this game in my opinion. It's not hard to see what a big difference a 1-1 overtime outcome would have been and how it would have FELT to the players compared to a 4-1 loss with all 4 goals coming in the last 8 minutes of the game. That was brutal. Also, if you're the coach why would you pair a sophomore forward that was converted to D at some point last year with a rookie D that is clearly not in shape?! I'm talking common sense here. You can't win many games if you're always playing catch up hockey and you can't catch up in games until you have a team that has proven it can score about 3 or 4 goals a game. He better find another assistant coach soon that has experience and some hockey sense! Maybe you and I will have to take over this team, engineer! :)
 
Last edited:
Re: RPI Engineers '15-'16

A good test for RPI this weekend against a strong UND team. It'll be interesting to see the line combinations and D-pairings. Based on last week's game the expectations aren't too high, but I expect a lot of improvement especially from the upperclassmen. The goalies will also start to seriously compete for the starting goalie position. The UND team is big and fast, I think RPI can respond to the speed but will most likely struggle with the physicality. Hopefully everyone's fully healthy and back in the lineup. Will try to catch some of the game today and hopefully the whole game tomorrow depending on the traffic. Hopefully we'll have a positive weekend and see a lot of improvement from last week!
 
Re: RPI Engineers '15-'16

engineer said:
I apologize, I missed the 3rd goal. 25 is a forward filling in as a D, so mistakes will be made. Give them a break it was their first game. Both 13 and 25 are offensive minded and probably shouldn't have been paired together or he should have went with 5 D. 25 is a better forward than she is a defenseman. If the forward seen that she was that far up ice then maybe one of them should have covered. The first period 13 and 25 had generated some good scoring chances and had about 6 or 7 shots between the two.
Click to expand...

Interesting how in commentary about women's hockey there is all this reference to numbers rather than names :). Whitney Renn (#25) was recruited as a forward, I think, but she had some really solid performances on D last year, so I'm not sure that I would agree that she is better at forward. Nice to have someone who can play both positions. RPI has had a really good first period tonight against UND, we'll see if they can keep it up. Orzechowski (#13) not in the lineup tonight, Selander in net. Always interesting to watch these early season games and try to pick out the players that worked hard during the off-season. Looks like Gruschow might have done that.
 
Re: RPI Engineers '15-'16

Very well played first two periods by RPI and UND tonight. Although UND has a big shot advantage I am quite impressed with the puck movement and overall performance of the Engineers against #6 UND. Selander looks good in net. I have not focussed a lot on Horwood in her first two years, but there have been shifts tonight when I thought that I was watching the great Jordan Smelker! She really works hard, covers a lot of the ice. Not a bad move by Burke to put her on the top PK unit.
 
Re: RPI Engineers '15-'16

Hard not to be impressed with the Engineers performance tonight in a one goal loss to the #6 ranked team. SOGs would suggest that UND was dominant but that was not the case. UND has some great individual stars, and in the end they proved their worth, but RPI had a very solid team effort tonight, ...far better than their performance against l'Universite de Montreal. Selander looks like the real deal in net, Gruschow is showing signs of living up to the promise of her freshman year, Horwood was all over the ice, Hansen impressed. But I really shouldn't be singling out individuals when the real story was a solid TEAM performance. Nobody...NOBODY...looked out of place tonight...this was a solid D1 team that might have the potential to surprise a few in the ECAC this year.
 
Re: RPI Engineers '15-'16

hab said:
Hard not to be impressed with the Engineers performance tonight in a one goal loss to the #6 ranked team. SOGs would suggest that UND was dominant but that was not the case. UND has some great individual stars, and in the end they proved their worth, but RPI had a very solid team effort tonight, ...far better than their performance against l'Universite de Montreal. Selander looks like the real deal in net, Gruschow is showing signs of living up to the promise of her freshman year, Horwood was all over the ice, Hansen impressed. But I really shouldn't be singling out individuals when the real story was a solid TEAM performance. Nobody...NOBODY...looked out of place tonight...this was a solid D1 team that might have the potential to surprise a few in the ECAC this year.
Click to expand...
Solid effort, no doubt. RPI needs to clean out those loose pucks in front of their net though. Selander was OUTSTANDING in goal. That 2 on 0 save.....wow! Hopefully they play just as well tomorrow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top