Whither Mike Schafer?

[jtwcornell91]

[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:
The fact is, when the stakes are the highest, the team is playing their hardest competition.[/q]

I think you've hit the nail on the head.  In two of the last three seasons, we've has teams that were by any measure among the top six or eight in the country.  Any game between teams at that level is going to be more or less a tossup.  To win it all, you need to win two or three games in a row against that level of competition, so even if you are an elite program you should expect to win the title maybe once every five trips to the dance.  In 2003 and 2005, we've had three of these toss-up games (BC, UNH, and Minnesota).  All three were decided by one goal: one win and two losses.  If you flip a coin and it comes up tails two out of three times, will you accuse the coin of underachieving?

Last year losing to Clarkson was a disappointment, but last year was a rebuilding year, and really, finishing second in the ECAC was a whole lot better than many of us expected for the regular season.  So I wouldn't put it in the same category of championship-caliber teams.  (As evidenced by the fact that we didn't do well enough overall to get an at-large bid.)

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

I haven't felt this good about Cornell's chances to win consistently since I was a freshman.  And that all comes down to Schafer: his ability to recruit, his ability to get the most from his players, and his game-time coaching skills.  

I think whoever made the basketball coach analogy was spot on.  And I'll add Krzyzewski to the list.  He missed winning the championship several times before they won it all.  Now he's the example of what you want a coach at an academically superior institution to be.  And everybody thinks of him as a man who can win.

Getting close gets you the talent to get closer.  Getting closer gets you over the hump and wins the big one.   But without the coaching skills, you don't get close in the first place.

It takes time.  I still think this year was the unexpected pleasure and that next year will be the year it all comes together.

Not that I'm woofing, mind you.  ;-)

[DeltaOne81]

nyiballs, I'm sorry if you feel attacked. I know you don't show up around eLynah much (unless you were using a different name?), so I don't want your first experience here to be a negative. I read your posts on USCHO and wished you could be around here more often. You have some great stuff to contribute and I hope you continue to come back.

Again, I'm sorry if you feel attacked. I am interested in this debate. It is an interesting and important discussion. Discussing and debating and arguing is half the fun around these boards, and your input is very welcome. I hope you don't take our disagreement as a sign of anything else.

I have to say, watching some of the games this weekend, I know where your feelings are coming from. Perhaps I can rephrase, but I definitely did think once or twice, "maybe this system just can't really compete at the upper levels." Now, its Schafer's system, so I think me thinking the system, and you thinking Schafer, is pretty much the same feeling. Seeing our team get outskated, it wasn't any fun. I don't know if I'd say "outplayed", but I do think they definitely looked outplayed, although that doesn't mean it wasn't an intentional choice to start off.

But then I think back, to UNH in 2002, Mankato, BC, and UNH is 2003. We've played some pretty damn talented teams, and I never remember games looking anything like that. While I'd never whine that it's unfair, I do think the size of the ice made a significant difference in this weekend's games. It sucks that we had to have a very talented team be put at such a disadvantage. But they were.

So when I think back to the previous NCAA years, I know this team, this system, this coach *can* and will compete on the highest levels. Sure, this year we probably *did* get those few bounces, and it was only enough to keep us close. But put us on an even playing field (surface? ) and these teams are equal to any. At least I'm gonna need a long time more to think otherwise.

[adamw]

[Q]nyiballs Wrote:
Well.. I guess it's just a difference in philosophy then.  As a player, you were always judged by your results.  But ultimately, the goal is to win it all.  Granted and conceded that Mike Schafer has put this team in a position to have more chances to do that, and maybe it's just frustration on my part, but notwithstanding the chances we've had, the results have been the same.  As far as I'm concerned, we could lose 2-1 in OT or 5-0.  In the end it's still a loss.[/q]

Sorry, you're still nuts. ... Of course you only get so many chances, but that's just it. You could be among the 4 best teams and you still only have a 25% chance of winning.  Now, how many times is Cornell genuinely going to be among the four best.  Any idea how hard that is for an Ivy League school? An ECAC school?  It only gets harder every year.  It's a monumental achievement just to get to the Frozen Four.  To suggest that somehow it's a sign of failure on the part of the coach that the team didn't win it all, is really kind of absurd, frankly.

If you are going to judge an ECAC coach on winning national championships, then basically the league should just fold.

How much better than Boston College do you really even think Cornell was in 2003?  The margin of error there was monumentally slim.  I feel in my heart that Cornell was *as good* as anyone in the country that year - but even then, you're dealing with teams with much more pure talent. You have to play at your best to win each game - as jtw said.

This year, I think Cornell could have beaten Minnesota on neutral ice - but this team was not as talented and complete as the 2003 team. To get as far as they did is quite an accomplishment - as frustrating as it is to come so close.

I just think you don't really understand how much it took just to get to the final 8, or the final 4.  A slip could have happened anywhere along the way.  It didn't.  Now you're asking to go 2 or 3 more games without a slip.  Very, very difficult.

[atb9]

People are just jumping on the post because the expectations going into 2005 were nothing like the expectations going into 2003.  The expectations placed upon the team this season morphed as "the streak" continued to grow and was significantly higher at the end of the season than at the beginning of the season.  The expectation of winning a QF game against Minnesota on their own ice to get to the FF was unfathomable just a few months ago and Schafer almost pulled it off!

Keep posting, Scott; I want your insights here and not on USCHO!  ;-)  You'll get a lot of flack on this board because the posters are so damn knowledgeable--On eLynah, I'm one of the idiots...on USCHO, I'm hardly an idiot  :-P --but the benefit is your thoughts go a whole heck of a lot further with the true, thoughtful feedback you will get here.

[nyiballs]

I will say this... this year was certainly a pleasant surprise.  It's kinda funny that all these Minnesota fans whoof about how this was a rebuilding year, when truth be told, it was the same for us as well.  

In terms of Schafer's system, I have this to say.  It is GREAT!!... for long term success.  However... it's suspect at best when it comes to the one and done tournament system.  If this was a world series or NHL playoff... FANTASTIC!  But it's not.  And the weakness of it short term was exposed against Minnesota because when you sit back waiting to exploit a team's mistakes, ultimately they still have to make a mistake, and Minnesota only made one while we made two.

However...  given the level of recruiting options we have, I support Schafer's system 100%.

Again... he is a great coach, one of the best in college hockey.  There just seem to be some guys who are snakebitten when it comes to the big dance.  Think Barry Bonds, Dan Marino, Karl Malone, Charles Barkley, etc...  All superior in their arena.... but when it came down to that last game... piff!!  I am just wondering if Mike Schafer is in that category.  Frankly, I don't know.

[atb9]

[Q]nyiballs Wrote:

Again... he is a great coach, one of the best in college hockey.  There just seem to be some guys who are snakebitten when it comes to the big dance.  Think Barry Bonds, Dan Marino, Karl Malone, Charles Barkley, etc...  All superior in their arena.... but when it came down to that last game... piff!!  I am just wondering if Mike Schafer is in that category.  Frankly, I don't know.
[/q]

Maybe the better judge for that is the ECAC tournament and not the NCAA tournament?

[nyiballs]

[Q]atb9 Wrote:

 [Q2]nyiballs Wrote:

Again... he is a great coach, one of the best in college hockey.  There just seem to be some guys who are snakebitten when it comes to the big dance.  Think Barry Bonds, Dan Marino, Karl Malone, Charles Barkley, etc...  All superior in their arena.... but when it came down to that last game... piff!!  I am just wondering if Mike Schafer is in that category.  Frankly, I don't know.
[/Q]
Maybe the better judge for that is the ECAC tournament and not the NCAA tournament?[/q]

Touche'

But really...  I dare you to tell me that Schafer and the team's ultimate goal at the start of the season is to win the ECAC and be happy with just that.

[atb9]

[Q]nyiballs Wrote:
But really...  I dare you to tell me that Schafer and the team's ultimate goal at the start of the season is to win the ECAC and be happy with just that.[/q]

I would say their goal was to make the NCAA tournament and one of the ways you do that is by winning the ECAC, so I would say, yes, that was one of the goals.  But to be happy with just that?  Our season hasn't ended that way in the past four years (last year being the exception)!  Is a team ever happy with just winning the ECAC?  I sure hope not and we didn't!  We won a game in the NCAA's this year which is much better than a lot of other ECAC teams in the past 10 years.  And just think of how talented Harvard has been these past few years...they didn't win a single NCAA game, I believe.  In the past four years, we've won four!  I think we've made the ECAC really proud!

Hockey seasons are like relationships.  Almost every single one ends with a loss and that loss always hurts.

[billhoward]

>>> Hockey seasons are like relationships. Almost every single one ends with a loss and that loss always hurts.

Adam, you are an incurable romantic. Have you ever thought of writing the sentiments that go on greeting cards?

And just like relationships, you get back on the horse and try again after you fall off.

You believe right about Harvard's hockey history: their seniors were models of consistency with four one-and-done NCAA forays. Unlike with Love Story, the pain for them was on not off the ice.

[nyiballs]

[Q]billhoward Wrote:Unlike with Love Story, the pain for them was on not off the ice. [/q]


well... being from Harvard it was probably both.

[Scersk '97]

[Q]nyiballs Wrote:
In terms of Schafer's system, I have this to say.  It is GREAT!!... for long term success.  However... it's suspect at best when it comes to the one and done tournament system.
[/q]

Here I think you're onto something.  The typically small margin for error called for in Schafer's "Our Defense is Awesome" System (SODAS) can backfire.  The team has a bad game, lets in three or more goals, can't compensate with a more unusual display of offense and we tie or lose.  Over the course of a season, the bad game here or there means nothing; in the one and done, a bad game means your season is over.  (I want to make it clear that I thought that neither of the team's games this weekend was bad.  They were a bit off their game for OSU, but I thought the Minnesota game was excellent.)  Obviously, this happened in 2003.  In 2002, they were playing tired against a rested team.  This year, I think the bounces just didn't go our way, in the pairwise or at the rink.

What compensates for this small margin for error is an explosive offense.  This year's offense, though better than last year's and 2002's, was not as explosive as in 2003.  They had moments, but the blowouts came against the expected teams.  In 2003, we shellacked every team on the schedule at least once except for Clarkson, Colgate, and Princeton.  Basically, an offense that can turn it on when it wants to, not just against the bad teams.  Now, ironically, each team showed the opposite behavior in the playoffs--2003 unable to turn on the breakaway offense vs. UNH, 2005 able to turn it on vs. OSU--but that doesn't disprove my hypothesis.  What we need, as so many Minnesota fans have pointed out to us, are snipers.

My whole point above in this topic is that, through dogged work and determination, Schafer has put us in a position where we can finally attract snipers, players with natural scoring sense. These guys next year--Kindret, Barlow, Greening--were sought out by a bunch of teams for offense not just for defense and size.  He also can probably pick and choose a bit to find snipers that will fit in SODAS.  It's the flip side of attracting recruits like Pokulok and Krantz.  Schafer goes in and says, "We have guys to play defense.  We have the best defense in the nation.  I have top defensemen lined up for years.  We have guys to pass the puck, some of the best setup men.  We have grinders and checkers.  Everything is in place, but we're missing one thing.  We're missing snipers with good enough hockey sense to play our defensive scheme.  We're missing you."

Each and every one of us here knows that Moulson is our only sniper.  I mean, come on.  Who else is there?  We had Chartrand, who only turned it on his senior year, and then we had Vesce, who only showed it his junior year.  Sometimes that happens.  Look back through the scoring stats sometime:  you'll find very few significant point scorers with goals higher than assists.  Moulson's been doing that since his freshman year, and we all know that he's not stingy with passing the puck around.  What was the difference between 2003 and 2005?  Snipers.  In 2003 we had two, and sometimes three, at least against Harvard.  (Paolini!)  In 2005, we have one.  In 2006, I hope we have two, or maybe three or four.

Who could develop into a sniper next year?  Barlow comes in with the reputation.  What happened to Hynes this year?  Will he get it back?  Do he and Moulson need to be split up on the power play?  What about the Abbotts?  What about McCutcheon?  Who is going to go home this summer and work like Charlie Cook did?

This year was about sustaining the defensive gains of last year while breaking in two outstanding freshmen.  We're set.  Next year is all about offense.

PS  Can someone send an Iggy replacement too?  How nice it was to have a shorthanded threat.

[Jordan 04]

[Q]Scersk '97 Wrote:



This year was about sustaining the defensive gains of last year.  We're set.  Next year is all about offense.[/q]

Are we?  Losing Cook and Downs from that sustained momentum is nothing to sneeze at.

[q]PS  Can someone send an Iggy replacement too?  How nice it was to have a shorthanded threat.[/q]

Here's hoping it can be developed in one of the current guys, as it seems to have been with Iggy.



Edited 1 times. Last edit at 03/29/05 11:14PM by Scersk '97.[/q]

[pfibiger]

[Q]Scersk '97 Wrote:
Who could develop into a sniper next year?  Barlow comes in with the reputation.  What happened to Hynes this year?  Will he get it back?  Do he and Moulson need to be split up on the power play?  What about the Abbotts?  What about McCutcheon?  Who is going to go home this summer and work like Charlie Cook did?
[/q]

I think that the potential big scorers coming next year are Connors, Barlow and to a lesser degree Kindret. Granted it was at the Nichols School and the Buffalo midget team, but Matt Connors scored a _ton_ of goals. He was injured a bunch during the year with the Apple Core, but from the boxes scored he had some pretty dominant games. All three guys committed so far for 2006-07 are serious goal scorers.

It seems like Cam Abbott was hampered by injury for a bunch of the season, I could see him putting up much better numbers next year. Also, Bitz didn't see any increase in his goal production from last year to this, maybe we'll see him come roaring out of the gate next season.


[Q]Scersk '97 Wrote:
PS  Can someone send an Iggy replacement too?  How nice it was to have a shorthanded threat.
[/Q]

I feel like Carefoot can take over this role. He's shown himself to be a tenacious forechecker on the PK, has scored shorthanded. If he were to work on his speed a little bit, I could definitely see him being a serious shorthanded threat.

[nyiballs]

[Q]adamw Wrote:

 [Q2]nyiballs Wrote:
Well.. I guess it's just a difference in philosophy then.  As a player, you were always judged by your results.  But ultimately, the goal is to win it all.  Granted and conceded that Mike Schafer has put this team in a position to have more chances to do that, and maybe it's just frustration on my part, but notwithstanding the chances we've had, the results have been the same.  As far as I'm concerned, we could lose 2-1 in OT or 5-0.  In the end it's still a loss.

[/Q]
How much better than Boston College do you really even think Cornell was in 2003?  The margin of error there was monumentally slim.  I feel in my heart that Cornell was *as good* as anyone in the country that year - but even then, you're dealing with teams with much more pure talent. You have to play at your best to win each game - as jtw said.[/Q]

I'll flat out tell you... We were head and shoulders above that BC team.


[Q]
I just think you don't really understand how much it took just to get to the final 8, or the final 4.  A slip could have happened anywhere along the way.  It didn't.  Now you're asking to go 2 or 3 more games without a slip.  Very, very difficult.
[/q]

First of all, believe me when I say I absolutely understand how difficult that is.  I've been playing games like that my whole life.  


Again... we need to pay attention to the main points here.  This team getting this far was exceptional.  It was astonishing really.  That doesn't mean you have to be completely satisfied.  Defying people's expectations and then going back and saying "we weren't supposed to get this far" is just an excuse.  Just because people didn't think this year's team was that good, doesn't make it true.

The only point I was trying to make, and it's not even a point really, it's a question.  Is Schafer snakebitten when it comes to sealing the deal?  That's all.  Don't over-read into this thing.