PDA

View Full Version : RPI Offseason Thread: 7 Months of Drivel



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

Got 6, Want More
03-10-2014, 11:53 AM
Seth was a goalie. Patrick Roy aside, I can't name many ex-goalies that made great coaches. All those years in hockey learning skills and strategies that for the most part do not apply at all to the other 18 skaters on the ice. Forwards with good defensive skills and defensemen usually work out better. How much longer will it be until OVIE frees up Adam Oates for us? Can we all suffer through mediocrity that much longer?

There have been quite a few - Jacques Martin from SLU, Shawn Walsh at U-Maine. It is not as common, but Goalies have a great opportunity to learn if they pay attention.

I have no clue as I never really follow RPI but RPI was pretty close to the promise land a dozen years ago under Fridgen when they had Brad Tapper. They were one of the toughest teams to beat in the league.

As for Dr.D's question, it's a fine line between bringing guys in too early and needing depth. Depth is crucial and I think the biggest damage to RPI's season is the injury to your star goalie at the beginning of the season. I think that had a mental impact on the team. I would say that RPI does tend to have guys that take too many penalties and that is related to coaching.

What I do know for sure is that there is extreme parity in the game today. It is very hard to build a dynasty or a dominant team. You have to do it by finding some diamonds in the rough, some role players that create chemistry and having a few guys turn out better than projected. Even with that, someone leaves early for the pros, or gets injured or in academic trouble and it can fold fast. SLU had a bright future a dozen years ago, then Dietrich and Gustafson left early for the pros and the defending ECAC champs were already down their two best players two months before the season started.

Anyway, whatever you have going on DrDemento, hope it works out and everything is alright.

Final though is you don't want Adam Oates as your coach. He is one weird dude and I don't think he is the guy that could pull in recruits with his charisma. I might take a hard look at someone like PJ Flanagan who was a long time men's assistant, then Women's coach at SLU and now women's coach at Syracuse.

DavidSec17
03-10-2014, 11:55 AM
My prayers to the Doc. May you find comfort in the affection shown for you by all the posters on this forum. God bless.

+1.

Got 6, Want More
03-10-2014, 11:58 AM
By definition, a walk-on is someone who attends RPI and is not recruited - hence, they "walk-on" to the team. It has nothing to do with not receiving scholarship. If Polacek was recruited, he would not be considered a walk-on!

Not true. A walk-on is someone that doesn't receive a full or partial scholarship or the promise of one. Many walk-ons are in fact recruited and the coaches often go and watch them and maybe even bring them in for a visit. SLU has had a lot of great walk-on's such as Kyle Rank or All-American goalie Erik Heffler. SLU staff knew about them, wanted them, the Raley brothers, but couldn't or didn't offer them money. At least, not at first but I know that many were given money at the end of their careers such as Rank.

DavidSec17
03-10-2014, 12:01 PM
It's honestly not that bad, either. To be frank, when it really comes down to it, I am more worried about what is happening on the ice, anyway. I think that the negative Nancies are just coming out of the woodwork now that we've blown another playoff series.

I'd like them back at the end, too, but I know that complaining about it on USCHO isn't going to make it happen.

Im always ecstatic to just see them at the games.

hockeymascot
03-10-2014, 12:03 PM
Not true. A walk-on is someone that doesn't receive a full or partial scholarship or the promise of one. Many walk-ons are in fact recruited and the coaches often go and watch them and maybe even bring them in for a visit. SLU has had a lot of great walk-on's such as Kyle Rank or All-American goalie Erik Heffler. SLU staff knew about them, wanted them, the Raley brothers, but couldn't or didn't offer them money. At least, not at first but I know that many were given money at the end of their careers such as Rank.

So.....you are describing a "recruited" walk-on, and I was describing a non recruited walk-on. Correct? Which means they are both walk-ons!!

johnk
03-10-2014, 12:26 PM
Always enjoy the give and take. I like St. Louis trade (Martin that is not Ryan). See you soon.

Yea, not always going to agree but no biggie. I like the trade. They had no choice. Can't pay Cally that much money. See you soon.

Ralph Baer
03-10-2014, 12:29 PM
Ralph, you got it wrong - the title should have read, "7 YEARS of Drivel"

At the rate we started, it might only be 10 days of drivel on this thread. :)

hockeyplayer1015
03-10-2014, 12:31 PM
So.....you are describing a "recruited" walk-on, and I was describing a non recruited walk-on. Correct? Which means they are both walk-ons!!

So now you say it can be both ways? Below, you specifically said recruited players are not walk-ons.

My opinion is that a walk-on doesn't receive scholarship money (if the school gives scholarships. Obviously Union, RIT, and the Ivies aren't full of "walk-on" players.)

hockeymascot
03-10-2014, 12:45 PM
So now you say it can be both ways? Below, you specifically said recruited players are not walk-ons.

My opinion is that a walk-on doesn't receive scholarship money (if the school gives scholarships. Obviously Union, RIT, and the Ivies aren't full of "walk-on" players.)

Let me try to clarify. I originally stated a walk on to be a non-recruited student athlete and already going to attend X institution....he tries out for the team and makes it.....hence a walk on. Got 6 said a walk on was someone who can be recruited but receives no scholarship money. Why don't you define what I am describing and define what you and he are describing. Are they not both walk ons?

Got 6, Want More
03-10-2014, 12:49 PM
So now you say it can be both ways? Below, you specifically said recruited players are not walk-ons.

My opinion is that a walk-on doesn't receive scholarship money (if the school gives scholarships. Obviously Union, RIT, and the Ivies aren't full of "walk-on" players.)

Yeah, I am not sure what's going on here either. It's different when there are non-scholarship schools but in my years of following D-1 hockey there are really only two types of players those recruited, promised a roster spot and a role on the team and money if money is granted; and those that the coaching staff talks to and is not ready to offer them a roster spot, a role on the team and money. I am not sure how many schools in D1 hockey use Letters of Intent, I think most work with Verbal Commitments. I don't think there has ever been a walk-on in the sense of a player just showing up, meeting the coaches for the first time and making the team. I mean, the coaches even told Chris Wells he should not go to SLU and should go to Middlebury for D-3, but he didn't listen, made the team, was a key guy chemistry wise all 4 years and wore the A as a senior scoring the OT winner in the Garden in 1992 against RPI. Coaches knew he was coming. Coaches roomed him with other hockey players but coaches told him they didn't leave a roster spot open for him. Since his dad was a professor, money wasn't a factor for him. Just sayin' what it really boils down to is whether a player is promised a roster spot or whether it is more of a show up and try out and we aren't promising anything.

Ralph Baer
03-10-2014, 01:00 PM
Isn't semantics wonderful? ;)

IMHO, there are 1. recruited players who get athletic scholarship money, 2. recruited players who don't get athletic scholarship money, 3. unrecruited players who try out with or without previous contact with the coaching staff. The second category is often described as recruited walk-on (skate-on?). As we know Bokenfohr is in category 2.

AspyDad
03-10-2014, 01:04 PM
Isn't semantics wonderful? ;)

IMHO, there are 1. recruited players who get athletic scholarship money, 2. recruited players who don't get athletic scholarship money, 3. unrecruited players who try out with or without previous contact with the coaching staff. The second category is often described as recruited walk-on (skate-on?). As we know Bokenfohr is in category 2.

Hey Ralph, where can I find +/- for the year???

hockeymascot
03-10-2014, 01:06 PM
Isn't semantics wonderful? ;)

IMHO, there are 1. recruited players who get athletic scholarship money, 2. recruited players who don't get athletic scholarship money, 3. unrecruited players who try out with or without previous contact with the coaching staff. The second category is often described as recruited walk-on (skate-on?). As we know Bokenfohr is in category 2.

Exactly....see post #65.

AspyDad
03-10-2014, 01:07 PM
****ING GET OVER IT. WE'RE NOT MOVING BACK. WE DO THE BEST WE CAN WITH WHAT WE HAVE. a

You guys do a great job. I sit in Sec 9 right across from you guys and you sound good as ever. Can you guys work in the James Bond theme next year???

johnk
03-10-2014, 01:12 PM
Hey Ralph, where can I find +/- for the year???

http://www.collegehockeynews.com/stats/team/Rensselaer/48

Ralph Baer
03-10-2014, 01:25 PM
http://www.collegehockeynews.com/stats/team/Rensselaer/48

interesting.

FreshFish
03-10-2014, 01:40 PM
Our emotional reaction to the season ending too soon should not also include an end to the "vote for Brock" campaign, right?

Vote here (http://www.seniorclassaward.com/vote/hockey_2013-14/).

hockeyplayer1015
03-10-2014, 01:45 PM
Isn't semantics wonderful? ;)

IMHO, there are 1. recruited players who get athletic scholarship money, 2. recruited players who don't get athletic scholarship money, 3. unrecruited players who try out with or without previous contact with the coaching staff. The second category is often described as recruited walk-on (skate-on?). As we know Bokenfohr is in category 2.

I would be interested to know just how many players now can successfully simply show up with no previous contact/recruiting efforts and make a D1 team. I guess the only real possibility is if their heart is set on a specific school and they turn down offers elsewhere. Still seems it would be quite rare for that to happen.

lugnut92
03-10-2014, 01:51 PM
Our emotional reaction to the season ending too soon should not also include an end to the "vote for Brock" campaign, right?

Vote here (http://www.seniorclassaward.com/vote/hockey_2013-14/).

Of course not! At least some good could come of this season.

FlagDUDE08
03-10-2014, 01:58 PM
He may be avoiding you. Just sayin

Stu gave a different reason, specifically that the alumni event is clear on the other side of the city.