Should He Stay or Should He Go 2014

[Dafatone]

I just wanna throw one thing out there that I've been thinking on this topic.

I think it's easy to assume that we're Cornell, we have a long history and a storied rink and whatnot, so we should be good.

That's not true.  We're not special.  There's no (or almost no, the history and rink help recruit but only somewhat, and as noted, the rink isn't what it used to be) inherent reason for us to be better than most teams in the ECAC.

I'm all for high expectations.  My bar for a "successful" season is making the NCAAs, so this one comes up just short.  But it's important to realize that there really isn't all that much keeping us from being bad.  If we can do better than Schafer, cool.  But I think there's a bit of an assumption that our floor is pretty high, season to season, because of how well we've done over the past couple decades, and that assumption isn't necessarily the case.

[billhoward]

This is a joke, right?

[redice]

I'm definitely ok with Mike staying.    But, would welcome a new assistant if Mike would allow him to rev up the offense a bit.     I also know that this is easier said than done.   It is not done in a vacuum.   Whatever a new (or existing assistant) does to improve the offensive side of CU's game has to be within the context of Schafer's defensive style...

It's a tough one.    How much of much of the defensive side of the game can be sacrificed to improve the offense?    That's above my pay grade.   I will say this:  We saw some wide open teams in the 1970's who were a lot of fun to watch.    But, they didn't win a lot of championships.     Do we want to return to that?   My vote:   Nope!!

[MattS]

How much of much of the defensive side of the game can be sacrificed to improve the offense?    That's above my pay grade.   I will say this:  We saw some wide open teams in the 1970's who were a lot of fun to watch.    But, they didn't win a lot of championships.     Do we want to return to that?   My vote:   Nope!!

I understand what you are saying and share your concerns. However, I do not believe that one must automatically sacrifice defense to improve offense. For example, no defensive prowess will be sacrificed by teaching the players on the PP to move the puck quickly and with authority. I firmly believe that a huge part of the PP being bad is because of the poor passing (slow puck movement). Fix this and I think that instantly helps the offense without sacrificing defense.

[Trotsky]

I just wanna throw one thing out there that I've been thinking on this topic.

I think it's easy to assume that we're Cornell, we have a long history and a storied rink and whatnot, so we should be good.

That's not true.  We're not special.  There's no (or almost no, the history and rink help recruit but only somewhat, and as noted, the rink isn't what it used to be) inherent reason for us to be better than most teams in the ECAC.

I'm all for high expectations.  My bar for a "successful" season is making the NCAAs, so this one comes up just short.  But it's important to realize that there really isn't all that much keeping us from being bad.  If we can do better than Schafer, cool.  But I think there's a bit of an assumption that our floor is pretty high, season to season, because of how well we've done over the past couple decades, and that assumption isn't necessarily the case.

Clarkson and Harvard have learned this lesson, painfully.

Schafer's record of championships is impressive, but his record of not having any prolonged downturns during his 19 seasons is even moreso.  Put it this way: Schafer's teams have finished out of the bye 5 times in 19 years.  Clarkson has finished out of the bye 6 times in the last 6 years.

[redice]

How much of much of the defensive side of the game can be sacrificed to improve the offense?    That's above my pay grade.   I will say this:  We saw some wide open teams in the 1970's who were a lot of fun to watch.    But, they didn't win a lot of championships.     Do we want to return to that?   My vote:   Nope!!

I understand what you are saying and share your concerns. However, I do not believe that one must automatically sacrifice defense to improve offense. For example, no defensive prowess will be sacrificed by teaching the players on the PP to move the puck quickly and with authority. I firmly believe that a huge part of the PP being bad is because of the poor passing (slow puck movement). Fix this and I think that instantly helps the offense without sacrificing defense.

Cannot disagree a bit!    The PP is badly broken.   They do not seem to understand the basic concept that passes rarely score goals.   It takes a shot on goal to score one!    And, not all shots are perfect ones.   The PP, of late, has morphed in that of the Brian McCutcheon era (i.e. horrible).     The first & obvious thing that needs to be done is replace Reece Willcox with someone who will actually take a shot at the goal.    Reece is a fine defenseman and a great asset to the team defense.   But, when CU in on the PP, the intent is to SCORE goals.   When Reece gets the puck, everyone in the bldg knows that he will not shoot the puck on goal.  If we know it, you can bet the opposing players know it and will play accordingly by leaning to taking away his non-SOG opportunities.    You simply cannot leave a one-dimensional player on the ice in such important situations.    He has now completed half of his varsity career and not progressed much in the SOG department.    Acknowledge that & keep him off the PP.

We have other young defensive who are good on the D side of things and excellent at jumping up into the play.   They need to be moved up to the first defensive unit on the PP!!

I'm also hopeful that our new goalie, Mitch Gillam or a whomever will be one that is likely to move the puck up to the forwards himself during the PP.    This concept of wasting time, sitting behind the CU goal for every CU player to get in their assigned place is working against the CU PP.    I know most teams do it and it is considered the "right thing to do" but, I would ask why.   If your PP already sucks, think outside the box!!    If your goalie has a demonstrated ability to handle the puck (like Mitch) let him get after it!!!

[Towerroad]

I just wanna throw one thing out there that I've been thinking on this topic.

I think it's easy to assume that we're Cornell, we have a long history and a storied rink and whatnot, so we should be good.

That's not true.  We're not special.  There's no (or almost no, the history and rink help recruit but only somewhat, and as noted, the rink isn't what it used to be) inherent reason for us to be better than most teams in the ECAC.

I'm all for high expectations.  My bar for a "successful" season is making the NCAAs, so this one comes up just short.  But it's important to realize that there really isn't all that much keeping us from being bad.  If we can do better than Schafer, cool.  But I think there's a bit of an assumption that our floor is pretty high, season to season, because of how well we've done over the past couple decades, and that assumption isn't necessarily the case.

Actually I think there is a fair amount of "autoregression" in college sports. Schools that build a consistent record of being good at a particular sport tend to remain good at that. Sucks is good at Football (at least by Ivy Standards). We are good at Lax, Hockey, Wrestling and Polo. The reason why is that success over long periods of time builds a reputation that helps with recruiting and builds a loyal alumni base which helps with $.

[scoop85]

How much of much of the defensive side of the game can be sacrificed to improve the offense?    That's above my pay grade.   I will say this:  We saw some wide open teams in the 1970's who were a lot of fun to watch.    But, they didn't win a lot of championships.     Do we want to return to that?   My vote:   Nope!!

I understand what you are saying and share your concerns. However, I do not believe that one must automatically sacrifice defense to improve offense. For example, no defensive prowess will be sacrificed by teaching the players on the PP to move the puck quickly and with authority. I firmly believe that a huge part of the PP being bad is because of the poor passing (slow puck movement). Fix this and I think that instantly helps the offense without sacrificing defense.

Cannot disagree a bit!    The PP is badly broken.   They do not seem to understand the basic concept that passes rarely score goals.   It takes a shot on goal to score one!    And, not all shots are perfect ones.   The PP, of late, has morphed in that of the Brian McCutcheon era (i.e. horrible).     The first & obvious thing that needs to be done is replace Reece Willcox with someone who will actually take a shot at the goal.    Reece is a fine defenseman and a great asset to the team defense.   But, when CU in on the PP, the intent is to SCORE goals.   When Reece gets the puck, everyone in the bldg knows that he will not shoot the puck on goal.  If we know it, you can bet the opposing players know it and will play accordingly by leaning to taking away his non-SOG opportunities.    You simply cannot leave a one-dimensional player on the ice in such important situations.    He has now completed half of his varsity career and not progressed much in the SOG department.    Acknowledge that & keep him off the PP.

We have other young defensive who are good on the D side of things and excellent at jumping up into the play.   They need to be moved up to the first defensive unit on the PP!!

I'm also hopeful that our new goalie, Mitch Gillam or a whomever will be one that is likely to move the puck up to the forwards himself during the PP.    This concept of wasting time, sitting behind the CU goal for every CU player to get in their assigned place is working against the CU PP.    I know most teams do it and it is considered the "right thing to do" but, I would ask why.   If your PP already sucks, think outside the box!!    If your goalie has a demonstrated ability to handle the puck (like Mitch) let him get after it!!!

What's odd about the PP is that in the two games at UNO we moved the puck beautifully and got at least a couple of great back-door goals.  Now maybe UNO was a bit weak defensively, but it sure looked like our PP was going to be much better this season.  The big disappointment to me is how much the PP seemed to regress to the 2012-13 style after such a promising start.

[MattS]

How much of much of the defensive side of the game can be sacrificed to improve the offense?    That's above my pay grade.   I will say this:  We saw some wide open teams in the 1970's who were a lot of fun to watch.    But, they didn't win a lot of championships.     Do we want to return to that?   My vote:   Nope!!

I understand what you are saying and share your concerns. However, I do not believe that one must automatically sacrifice defense to improve offense. For example, no defensive prowess will be sacrificed by teaching the players on the PP to move the puck quickly and with authority. I firmly believe that a huge part of the PP being bad is because of the poor passing (slow puck movement). Fix this and I think that instantly helps the offense without sacrificing defense.

Cannot disagree a bit!    The PP is badly broken.   They do not seem to understand the basic concept that passes rarely score goals.   It takes a shot on goal to score one!    And, not all shots are perfect ones.   The PP, of late, has morphed in that of the Brian McCutcheon era (i.e. horrible).     The first & obvious thing that needs to be done is replace Reece Willcox with someone who will actually take a shot at the goal.    Reece is a fine defenseman and a great asset to the team defense.   But, when CU in on the PP, the intent is to SCORE goals.   When Reece gets the puck, everyone in the bldg knows that he will not shoot the puck on goal.  If we know it, you can bet the opposing players know it and will play accordingly by leaning to taking away his non-SOG opportunities.    You simply cannot leave a one-dimensional player on the ice in such important situations.    He has now completed half of his varsity career and not progressed much in the SOG department.    Acknowledge that & keep him off the PP.

We have other young defensive who are good on the D side of things and excellent at jumping up into the play.   They need to be moved up to the first defensive unit on the PP!!

I'm also hopeful that our new goalie, Mitch Gillam or a whomever will be one that is likely to move the puck up to the forwards himself during the PP.    This concept of wasting time, sitting behind the CU goal for every CU player to get in their assigned place is working against the CU PP.    I know most teams do it and it is considered the "right thing to do" but, I would ask why.   If your PP already sucks, think outside the box!!    If your goalie has a demonstrated ability to handle the puck (like Mitch) let him get after it!!!

Do you sit next to me in Section M??? Your sentiments are exactly like the guy who sits next to me.

I completely agree with a lot of this. I have often wondered what the cumulative time is throughout a season that is wasted by waiting for the PP unit to get into "perfect" position before starting the rush up ice which usually ends up in dumping the puck anyway.

I am continually baffled by how Schafer can watch the game, then presumably watch the video of the games, and be satisfied with the PP. I can only assume he is satisfied as he has made, and continues to make, very few changes to an anemic PP.

The speed and crispness of the passing is a joke. Go watch the women's PP and they move the puck quicker and better than the men's PP and I'm not accounting for the difference in strength. The women are just plain out better at moving the puck on the PP.

I do not recall that last time CU had any type of real dominance in front of the net looking for the rebounds. And for whatever reason Schafer seems think that every single goalie that CU faces is the next coming of Dryden or Shawchuk or Roy! It is like he thinks and has taught the players to think that the only way a goalie can be beaten on the PP is by a screened shot through tons of opposing player traffic (not CU players), by the back door, or by a tip in. And never off the rebound or by simply a good solid shot. And while I am not a "shoot" yeller, sometimes you do just need to shoot the F'ing puck.

I will spare you all my rant on the dump and chase on the PP. Let's just say I am not a fan.

[RichH]

Clarkson and Harvard have learned this lesson, painfully.

Don't forget about RPI. The two you mentioned have at least won a championship in the past 10 years.  RPI hasn't advanced to championship weekend since the league last moved out of LP.

[pfibiger]

I said "unsure", mainly because that was the closest option of the three to how I actually feel. If it wasn't obvious from the other thread, I think Schafer is doing a (mostly) bang-up job on defense, and a lousy job on offense. I would be satisfied if he brought in a talented assistant to take control of the offense, because the last 10 years have made it abundantly clear that he's got no idea how to coach it himself.

A man's got to know his limitations.

What's interesting about this interpretation of how/why the team performs as it does is that as far as I've understood it Schafer has always coached the offense, letting assistants coach the defense.

[Tom Lento]

Schafer's record of championships is impressive, but his record of not having any prolonged downturns during his 19 seasons is even moreso.  Put it this way: Schafer's teams have finished out of the bye 5 times in 19 years.  Clarkson has finished out of the bye 6 times in the last 6 years.

Someone was talking about Schafer catching lightning in a bottle for the 5 year run from 2002 through 2006 (which, if you ask me, is a pretty long-lived lightning bolt), and pointing out that the last 8 years (2 full recruiting cycles!) haven't been so hot by Cornell's standards. Of course, this conveniently ignores that 2009-2012 was pretty good by any sane and reasonable standard, and was also less than 1 recruiting cycle ago. That 8 year stretch looks bad because it starts with 2007-2008, which were bad by Cornell standards, and because the last 3 years haven't been so hot either. Shift those 2 cycles back by 2 years and you get 5 NCAA appearances and 2 league titles. One more year back and you get into 2004 at the lead, and you're down to 4 NCAA appearances (but still 2 league titles).

To put this another way: this has been the worst 3-year stretch for the program since the 4 year span of 1998-2001 (wherein Cornell went 2 games over .500 and had 2 losing seasons). Think about that for a second - the worst three year stretch in 13 years includes an NCAA appearance and an overall 51-35-15 record.

I'm not saying that Cornell is going great guns right now, particularly not by the standards Schafer has set for the program, but I think anyone even considering removing him as head coach needs to step back from the ledge.

[Rosey]

but I think anyone even considering removing him as head coach needs to step back from the ledge.

This is why even "maybe" isn't a good fit for my response. I don't think Cornell should get rid of Schafer, because no one has identified anyone who would come into the program and do a better job. That said, "Schafer must go" and "Schafer should stay and coach exactly the same way" are not the only two realistic options. "Schafer stays and does something to improve the anemic offense" is a perfectly reasonable point of view.

[KeithK]

"Schafer stays and does something to improve the anemic offense" is a perfectly reasonable point of view.

Yep. I bet Mike schafer himself would agree with that statement.  He just might have a very different idea of what that something ought to be.

[capswon]

I am of the stay camp.  A question was raised as to who would you want running the bench. In a post long long ago, George Gwozdecky was bantered about when the openings at UCONN and Maine were available. Did any one watch Denver?? They didn't exactly light the world on fire offensively. They were goaltending, defense first.Yes they did have success but they also fell trap to lack of offense. In my honest opinion the players need to shoot the puck more often. Wayne Gretzky always said 100% of the shots you don't take don't go in. Watch Ferlin during the Union game. How many times did he circle the net with the puck and not generate anything on offense. A great coach once said, I don't want a kid who can stick handle in a phone booth. The reason is what did he do to get himself in that situation in the first place. Of course I also can't stand the SHOOT! cry during the power play, so take it for what it is worth. I truly believe that the next few years are going to place us right back into the national spotlight....ECAC, and NCAA tournaments.