IL Terry Foy Top 20

[Bacondoesstuff2]

I'm enjoying the hell out of his weekly write ups. That is all.

[CU77]

Yes, he's a lot more fun to read than QK.

[Matnum PI]

Link: https://www.insidelacrosse.com/article/ ... aces/59185

[JustPassingThrough]

Yes, he's a lot more fun to read than QK.

C'mon, don't you miss the references to Rudy, Bruno, Brutus, We Are, Dragon Breath, Tweety Bird, and We Want More every...single...damn...column...?

[10stone5]

Yes, he's a lot more fun to read than QK.

C'mon, don't you miss the references to Rudy, Bruno, Brutus, We Are, Dragon Breath, Tweety Bird, and We Want More every...single...damn...column...?

You can go to Lax All Stars for those.

[Gobigred]

Yes, he's a lot more fun to read than QK.

None of the arrogance.

[lorin]

Yes, he's a lot more fun to read than QK.

None of the arrogance.

He did his research on my team and was spot on the good and the bad, QK gives us 2 lines, ACC teams ranked below us get 2 paragraphs.

[Henpecked]

The biggest difference between Foy and Q is that Terry actually watches the games and knows the names of the players who aren't Tewaaraton Finalists or first-team All-Americans.

[joewillie78]

Yes, for Cornell, he mentions Kirst, Blake, and Adler, and says nothing about our "perceived" lack of depth that Quint mentions. Cornell has a lack of depth? Really? We have overcome injuries to key players like Lombardi and Long, but we have a lack of depth? Hmmmm.......
GOBIGRED
Joewillie78

[Bacondoesstuff2]

I enjoy Quint's as well. But Terry's actually reads like a college Football Top 25 on sports illustrated or similar. Quint's seems like he is trying to get it over with.

[random observer]

Yes, for Cornell, he mentions Kirst, Blake, and Adler, and says nothing about our "perceived" lack of depth that Quint mentions. Cornell has a lack of depth? Really? We have overcome injuries to key players like Lombardi and Long, but we have a lack of depth? Hmmmm.......
GOBIGRED
Joewillie78

Quint was referring specifically to lack of midfield scoring depth, and I think he makes a valid point. Blake/Kelleher/Coyle is a potent first line. Second line? Not nearly as deep. Licciardi is fine, but after that there's not a single guy with multiple points (save the injured Lombardi, who still only has 2 points in 4 games played); for a top 5 team that's looking to make a championship run, that is a vulnerability to keep an eye on compared to some of the other earlier title favorites:

Double digit points (Princeton and Cornell have played 6 games vs. everyone else's 7):
Maryland: 8
UVA: 5
Princeton: 7
Cornell: 7
Georgetown: 6

Multiple points:
Maryland: 18
UVA: 15
Princeton: 12
Cornell: 9
Georgetown: 15

Any points:
Maryland: 21
UVA: 24
Princeton: 18
Cornell: 13
Georgetown: 22

Cornell has a bunch of high scoring players, but not nearly as many guys providing secondary scoring.

[another fan]

Yes, for Cornell, he mentions Kirst, Blake, and Adler, and says nothing about our "perceived" lack of depth that Quint mentions. Cornell has a lack of depth? Really? We have overcome injuries to key players like Lombardi and Long, but we have a lack of depth? Hmmmm.......
GOBIGRED
Joewillie78

Quint was referring specifically to lack of midfield scoring depth, and I think he makes a valid point. Blake/Kelleher/Coyle is a potent first line. Second line? Not nearly as deep. Licciardi is fine, but after that there's not a single guy with multiple points (save the injured Lombardi, who still only has 2 points in 4 games played); for a top 5 team that's looking to make a championship run, that is a vulnerability to keep an eye on compared to some of the other earlier title favorites:

Double digit points (Princeton and Cornell have played 6 games vs. everyone else's 7):
Maryland: 8
UVA: 5
Princeton: 7
Cornell: 7
Georgetown: 6

Multiple points:
Maryland: 18
UVA: 15
Princeton: 12
Cornell: 9
Georgetown: 15

Any points:
Maryland: 21
UVA: 24
Princeton: 18
Cornell: 13
Georgetown: 22

Cornell has a bunch of high scoring players, but not nearly as many guys providing secondary scoring.

I agree O mid depth is a real issue. Licciardi has been on the first line and a big positive is that he has been much more aggressive looking to score, and with good results. That allows Coyle, who is a threat, to run on the second line with Wolf and Wirtheim. Wirtheim is unproven as a midfielder, but seems to have a good handle and some dodging ability while playing out of his natural attack position. Wolf, to date, just has not been a scorer. A related depth issue besides firepower of a second line is simply who would be the next man up if we suffered another midfield injury. Sheehan is the only guy who I can think of who has even seen the field and that's been for a handful of minutes. X attack Long is not 100% and if he unfortunately had to sit again, Coyle or Wirtheim would move to attack and also deplete the midfield.
The reality is that we may already on occasion be rotating 5 midfielders and would do more of that if another injury struck. I'm not trying to be overly pessimistic here-- we have smart coaches who adapt, and some talent that might yet not have been seen, but the depth issue is not frivolous.

[joewillie78]

Yes, for Cornell, he mentions Kirst, Blake, and Adler, and says nothing about our "perceived" lack of depth that Quint mentions. Cornell has a lack of depth? Really? We have overcome injuries to key players like Lombardi and Long, but we have a lack of depth? Hmmmm.......
GOBIGRED
Joewillie78

Quint was referring specifically to lack of midfield scoring depth, and I think he makes a valid point. Blake/Kelleher/Coyle is a potent first line. Second line? Not nearly as deep. Licciardi is fine, but after that there's not a single guy with multiple points (save the injured Lombardi, who still only has 2 points in 4 games played); for a top 5 team that's looking to make a championship run, that is a vulnerability to keep an eye on compared to some of the other earlier title favorites:

Double digit points (Princeton and Cornell have played 6 games vs. everyone else's 7):
Maryland: 8
UVA: 5
Princeton: 7
Cornell: 7
Georgetown: 6

Multiple points:
Maryland: 18
UVA: 15
Princeton: 12
Cornell: 9
Georgetown: 15

Any points:
Maryland: 21
UVA: 24
Princeton: 18
Cornell: 13
Georgetown: 22

Cornell has a bunch of high scoring players, but not nearly as many guys providing secondary scoring.

I get that, but in the grand scheme of things, does that really matter? Looking back at past recent teams, especially the Pannell, years, him , Donavan, and I think Lintner did most of the scoring and the Teat years were him and, the other Canadian attacks (who's name escapes me now). Sure we have had, Donville, Buczek etc who scored from the mid-field , but for the past 10 years or so, Most Cornell teams scoring were very top heavy in the Attack.
GOBIGRED
Joewillie78

[Typical Lax Dad]

Yes, for Cornell, he mentions Kirst, Blake, and Adler, and says nothing about our "perceived" lack of depth that Quint mentions. Cornell has a lack of depth? Really? We have overcome injuries to key players like Lombardi and Long, but we have a lack of depth? Hmmmm.......
GOBIGRED
Joewillie78

Quint was referring specifically to lack of midfield scoring depth, and I think he makes a valid point. Blake/Kelleher/Coyle is a potent first line. Second line? Not nearly as deep. Licciardi is fine, but after that there's not a single guy with multiple points (save the injured Lombardi, who still only has 2 points in 4 games played); for a top 5 team that's looking to make a championship run, that is a vulnerability to keep an eye on compared to some of the other earlier title favorites:

Double digit points (Princeton and Cornell have played 6 games vs. everyone else's 7):
Maryland: 8
UVA: 5
Princeton: 7
Cornell: 7
Georgetown: 6

Multiple points:
Maryland: 18
UVA: 15
Princeton: 12
Cornell: 9
Georgetown: 15

Any points:
Maryland: 21
UVA: 24
Princeton: 18
Cornell: 13
Georgetown: 22

Cornell has a bunch of high scoring players, but not nearly as many guys providing secondary scoring.

I get that, but in the grand scheme of things, does that really matter? Looking back at past recent teams, especially the Pannell, years, him , Donavan, and I think Lintner did most of the scoring and the Teat years were him and, the other Canadian attacks (who's name escapes me now). Sure we have had, Donville, Buczek etc who scored from the mid-field , but for the past 10 years or so, Most Cornell teams scoring were very top heavy in the Attack.
GOBIGRED
Joewillie78

Threat of scoring is also important. I believe this Cornell team has the best attack unit in the league. I said that a few weeks ago. Midfield is still a bit of a question mark. Even Fletcher was a threat.

[random observer]

Yes, for Cornell, he mentions Kirst, Blake, and Adler, and says nothing about our "perceived" lack of depth that Quint mentions. Cornell has a lack of depth? Really? We have overcome injuries to key players like Lombardi and Long, but we have a lack of depth? Hmmmm.......
GOBIGRED
Joewillie78

Quint was referring specifically to lack of midfield scoring depth, and I think he makes a valid point. Blake/Kelleher/Coyle is a potent first line. Second line? Not nearly as deep. Licciardi is fine, but after that there's not a single guy with multiple points (save the injured Lombardi, who still only has 2 points in 4 games played); for a top 5 team that's looking to make a championship run, that is a vulnerability to keep an eye on compared to some of the other earlier title favorites:

Double digit points (Princeton and Cornell have played 6 games vs. everyone else's 7):
Maryland: 8
UVA: 5
Princeton: 7
Cornell: 7
Georgetown: 6

Multiple points:
Maryland: 18
UVA: 15
Princeton: 12
Cornell: 9
Georgetown: 15

Any points:
Maryland: 21
UVA: 24
Princeton: 18
Cornell: 13
Georgetown: 22

Cornell has a bunch of high scoring players, but not nearly as many guys providing secondary scoring.

I get that, but in the grand scheme of things, does that really matter? Looking back at past recent teams, especially the Pannell, years, him , Donavan, and I think Lintner did most of the scoring and the Teat years were him and, the other Canadian attacks (who's name escapes me now). Sure we have had, Donville, Buczek etc who scored from the mid-field , but for the past 10 years or so, Most Cornell teams scoring were very top heavy in the Attack.
GOBIGRED
Joewillie78

I think you can field a great team without scoring depth, but I think it's much tougher to win two games in three days in late May without it. That Saturday/Monday turnaround can be brutal (the example that comes to mind is Collin Briggs lighting up Maryland in the 2011 title game with fresh legs after being suspended for the semis). But in regards to your point, having an elite attack unit is definitely more crucial IMO. Midfield depth can put you over the top, but it's hard to even get to a Final Four without a strong attack line.