Hobart 2022

[Ketch]

I thought the statement about the “leadership council “not leading was telling, last podcast he was singing their praises.
Good point about all the injuries , I keep reading we upgraded the sports medicine and strength staff , yet we are loaded with injured players.
We used to have a lot of leg / ankle injuries from indoor practice in the field house
But that excuse is gone with the Poole dome.
What’s going on?

Definitely cannot take Wagner lightly after watching them last week.

I read Gary Gait’s comments after their loss to Albany and he was lamenting his team’s losses to injuries and the holes it left in their lineup. Doesn’t Syracuse carry, like, a 75 man roster, lol? So questions of depth are relative.

[Bart]

I thought the statement about the “leadership council “not leading was telling, last podcast he was singing their praises.
Good point about all the injuries , I keep reading we upgraded the sports medicine and strength staff , yet we are loaded with injured players.
We used to have a lot of leg / ankle injuries from indoor practice in the field house
But that excuse is gone with the Poole dome.
What’s going on?

Definitely cannot take Wagner lightly after watching them last week.

I read Gary Gait’s comments after their loss to Albany and he was lamenting his team’s losses to injuries and the holes it left in their lineup. Doesn’t Syracuse carry, like, a 75 man roster, lol? So questions of depth are relative.

As others have said, numbers and depth are not the same.

[joewillie78]

I thought the statement about the “leadership council “not leading was telling, last podcast he was singing their praises.
Good point about all the injuries , I keep reading we upgraded the sports medicine and strength staff , yet we are loaded with injured players.
We used to have a lot of leg / ankle injuries from indoor practice in the field house
But that excuse is gone with the Poole dome.
What’s going on?

Definitely cannot take Wagner lightly after watching them last week.

I read Gary Gait’s comments after their loss to Albany and he was lamenting his team’s losses to injuries and the holes it left in their lineup. Doesn’t Syracuse carry, like, a 75 man roster, lol? So questions of depth are relative.

Here at Cornell, we have lost arguably our 2 top offensive middies in Lombardi and Blake, and although our backups are probably not the quality of those 2, the backups have done a great job in filling those voids, and kept the Big Red very much a top 10 competitive team. Injuries just simply are part of the game. All teams have them so that is why the backups are just as important as the starters, and should never be an excuse. It takes a complete team to compete in an incredibly tough game, especially at this level, so although we hate when our "stars" go down, I actually look forward to see how the guy who busts his butt in practice but sees limited playing time, respond to now being "the guy" if you will, and those guys here at Cornell have done a great job filling in.
GOBIGRED
Joewillie78

[Ketch]

Cornell has always been a next man up kind of team. Not sure the same can be said of Hobart. Just a really thin team when the top guys go down. The coaches need to find a way to develop the talent that’s on the bench. The number of guys actually seeing the field appears to be getting smaller each game. Why?

[SMAIN]

Played in the 50's, we had 19 guys on the team my senior and I don't remember any injuries. Most of the guys never played lacrosse before coming to Hobart but quite a few played football. Back in the 50's there were not that many cars on campus.... we walked every where. I still recall walking from Kappa Sig to Houghton at least once a day. There were no computers or I-phones so we weren't sitting on our butts most of the day being entertained.
Would love to know the nature of all these injuries. The ham string is a difficult injury. Does the team stretch enough? What's the effect of the weigh room? Anyway.... to set the record straight, we were't very good..... 3 and 6. But we only lost to Syracuse by 2 and Cornell by 2 and took Colgate to OT before losing.

[Bart]

Cornell has always been a next man up kind of team. Not sure the same can be said of Hobart. Just a really thin team when the top guys go down. The coaches need to find a way to develop the talent that’s on the bench. The number of guys actually seeing the field appears to be getting smaller each game. Why?

Is this actually true? IF you look at the box score for every single game except Canisius using the box score as a reference they have been playing roughly the same number of people every single game. Not including the starters the low number of bench players was 15 vs the Big Red and a high of 18 bench players vs SHU. You would quibble about the amount of time these players are on the field as you cant get the sense of that from the box but the notion that the "bench" getting shorter just does not seem to be true.

[Ketch]

Cornell has always been a next man up kind of team. Not sure the same can be said of Hobart. Just a really thin team when the top guys go down. The coaches need to find a way to develop the talent that’s on the bench. The number of guys actually seeing the field appears to be getting smaller each game. Why?

Is this actually true? IF you look at the box score for every single game except Canisius using the box score as a reference they have been playing roughly the same number of people every single game. Not including the starters the low number of bench players was 15 vs the Big Red and a high of 18 bench players vs SHU. You would quibble about the amount of time these players are on the field as you cant get the sense of that from the box but the notion that the "bench" getting shorter just does not seem to be true.

Notice I did throw in the qualifier „appears.“ So I stand corrected.

[oldbartman]

Cornell has always been a next man up kind of team. Not sure the same can be said of Hobart. Just a really thin team when the top guys go down. The coaches need to find a way to develop the talent that’s on the bench. The number of guys actually seeing the field appears to be getting smaller each game. Why?

Is this actually true? IF you look at the box score for every single game except Canisius using the box score as a reference they have been playing roughly the same number of people every single game. Not including the starters the low number of bench players was 15 vs the Big Red and a high of 18 bench players vs SHU. You would quibble about the amount of time these players are on the field as you cant get the sense of that from the box but the notion that the "bench" getting shorter just does not seem to be true.

I'll quibble.... They may step on the field, but most never even throw or catch a pass, pick up a gb. I can't say I time each players pt. Though i do keep an eye peeled for non starters. From what I can tell, the D poles seem to get a greater amount of pt overall v the offense. Please try to notice how much non starters play today. If the game is close, we won't see any, if any at all. Doubt we get a blow out allowing pt for a lg part of the roster.

[Laxgunea]

Didn't see the game, but did see the final few minutes. Ted seemed to say that there were quite a few newer guys on the field: Stevenson, Davis, Duby, Firth. Was it like that all game? I'd love to hear about what you all saw. Was the Hobart D really good in the second half, or did Wagner fall apart? Was our offence more dynamic all of the way through? Was it a four quarter game?
Got to love the NED AQ to keep the season interesting!

[FMUBart]

Played in the 50's, we had 19 guys on the team my senior and I don't remember any injuries. Most of the guys never played lacrosse before coming to Hobart but quite a few played football. Back in the 50's there were not that many cars on campus.... we walked every where. I still recall walking from Kappa Sig to Houghton at least once a day. There were no computers or I-phones so we weren't sitting on our butts most of the day being entertained.
Would love to know the nature of all these injuries. The ham string is a difficult injury. Does the team stretch enough? What's the effect of the weigh room? Anyway.... to set the record straight, we were't very good..... 3 and 6. But we only lost to Syracuse by 2 and Cornell by 2 and took Colgate to OT before losing.

With you Smain, the injuries have been an issue years, but don’t recall that happening when I played either. The guys would complain about the surface in the field house—we’d laugh as we would practice on the parking lot! Not sure what the reason(s) for the annual injury bug? But as Ketch has said, we don’t have the depth; he’s also accurate with his SU comments about the absurdity of their “thin bench/roster” given the crazy big size of their roster AND they also redshirt a bunch, too!

Nice win today, 2nd half shutout was impressive…especially the man down unit. Although, 12 total penalties and only one man up goal for both teams? Anemic!

[Bart]

Cornell has always been a next man up kind of team. Not sure the same can be said of Hobart. Just a really thin team when the top guys go down. The coaches need to find a way to develop the talent that’s on the bench. The number of guys actually seeing the field appears to be getting smaller each game. Why?

Is this actually true? IF you look at the box score for every single game except Canisius using the box score as a reference they have been playing roughly the same number of people every single game. Not including the starters the low number of bench players was 15 vs the Big Red and a high of 18 bench players vs SHU. You would quibble about the amount of time these players are on the field as you cant get the sense of that from the box but the notion that the "bench" getting shorter just does not seem to be true.

I'll quibble.... They may step on the field, but most never even throw or catch a pass, pick up a gb. I can't say I time each players pt. Though i do keep an eye peeled for non starters. From what I can tell, the D poles seem to get a greater amount of pt overall v the offense. Please try to notice how much non starters play today. If the game is close, we won't see any, if any at all. Doubt we get a blow out allowing pt for a lg part of the roster.

I did notice. They played considerable time. Several at midfield. 9,77,54,27,21 and 23. All rand on the field and threw and caught passes.....you know played in a game.

[Laxgunea]

Played in the 50's, we had 19 guys on the team my senior and I don't remember any injuries. Most of the guys never played lacrosse before coming to Hobart but quite a few played football. Back in the 50's there were not that many cars on campus.... we walked every where. I still recall walking from Kappa Sig to Houghton at least once a day. There were no computers or I-phones so we weren't sitting on our butts most of the day being entertained.
Would love to know the nature of all these injuries. The ham string is a difficult injury. Does the team stretch enough? What's the effect of the weigh room? Anyway.... to set the record straight, we were't very good..... 3 and 6. But we only lost to Syracuse by 2 and Cornell by 2 and took Colgate to OT before losing.

With you Smain, the injuries have been an issue years, but don’t recall that happening when I played either. The guys would complain about the surface in the field house—we’d laugh as we would practice on the parking lot! Not sure what the reason(s) for the annual injury bug? But as Ketch has said, we don’t have the depth; he’s also accurate with his SU comments about the absurdity of their “thin bench/roster” given the crazy big size of their roster AND they also redshirt a bunch, too!

Nice win today, 2nd half shutout was impressive…especially the man down unit. Although, 12 total penalties and only one man up goal for both teams? Anemic!

Injuries are everywhere, and if you talk to coaches in any sport, they'll tell you that the reason for them is overuse. When you were playing sports, Smain and FMUbart, you were probably also doing lots of different things ... lacrosse, football, maybe a summer off, maybe some basketball in the winter. These kids today, across the board in all sports, are playing one (maybe two) sports, and they have no breaks. Add in the lack of unrestricted playing (i.e., the time we all used to just go out with friends and play whatever people felt like) and you have a bunch of great sports players, but kids who overdevelop certain muscles and underdevelop others. As I said, all coaches complain about the same thing. Smain, a solid walk to Houghton House each day would do these guys good. They also should walk to the fieldhouse for practice. But they are over scheduled, so they drive to work out.
Another reality is that the weight training and conditioning these kids have has lifted their strength well beyond where we were. But if you don't develop muscle strength properly, you again can tax some muscles over others. I've heard that a lot of lower leg injuries, and especially knee injuries, happen because of this. When the quad and hamstring strength exceeds the capacity of the ligaments, knees give out. I imagine it is the same with shoulders and rotator cuffs. Without the strength and conditioning coaches, we'd be in far worse shape because kids would take up the weight training on their own and work to develop beach bodies rather than well-balanced bodies.
This whole thing is a pet peeve of mine. Most coaches lament the specialization. They also say it brings them great specialists, but fewer creative well-rounded athletes. Too much specialization too young leads to boring sports. Just look at US soccer ... train the kids in the best way to play soccer from age 5 and you get a bunch of great but unexciting and uncreative North American players. Give a bunch of kids a bunch of rags rolled into a ball and an empty lot or an open beach to play on, and you get exciting and creative South American, Spanish, Italian, and African players. Ditto baseball ... remember when there were a wide variety of swings in MLB?
Remember also that we have players coming in already with repaired injuries. Lots of high school athletes get knees repaired and continue on at the college level. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Back in the day, not so many college athletes had underlying high school injuries.
None of this will change ... It would take a really ballsy coach these days to bring in an outstanding athlete and teach him how to play lacrosse. But Urich did it regularly in the day. We're just in a different era now.

[catchnshoot]

Definitely too much specialization
Too much pressure from “travel” programs and kids having to always be on the “A” team.
Early recruiting further fostered that trend.
All bad for the kids physically and they end up with a much more limited social set as well since they are always with the lax guys, hockey guys etc…
Hockey and hoops are great for developing lacrosse players
Football and wrestling make tough , physical lacrosse athletes .

Did anyone attend the game today
Was Hobart really good or Wagner really bad?
I didn’t see any of it would love a few quick thoughts?

[Bart]

Definitely too much specialization
Too much pressure from “travel” programs and kids having to always be on the “A” team.
Early recruiting further fostered that trend.
All bad for the kids physically and they end up with a much more limited social set as well since they are always with the lax guys, hockey guys etc…
Hockey and hoops are great for developing lacrosse players
Football and wrestling make tough , physical lacrosse athletes .

Did anyone attend the game today
Was Hobart really good or Wagner really bad?
I didn’t see any of it would love a few quick thoughts?

Hobart was definitely the better team today. Could have been worse but Wagner goalie made some good saves in Q1 and Hobart made some not so good shots. Wagner had trouble with the 10 man ride and Hobart had good pressure up the middle. Wagner has a pretty stale offense that did not make Hobart slide much. Physically Wagner was much bigger and early on the D coach was encouraging his charges to be real physical...did not really work out for them in that regard.

41 went down in Q2 with a knee and 23 in Q4 with what looked like a hip. Looked to me 23 was dealing with it pretty much all game. Not enamored with some of the shots Hobart took but shooters going to shoot. Thought the Bench was into the game real all day and excited and vocal all day long.

Wonderful balmy day in Geneva with a westerly breeze............. When the sun was out it was rather nice. Perfect temperature to play.

[oldbartman]

Cornell has always been a next man up kind of team. Not sure the same can be said of Hobart. Just a really thin team when the top guys go down. The coaches need to find a way to develop the talent that’s on the bench. The number of guys actually seeing the field appears to be getting smaller each game. Why?

Is this actually true? IF you look at the box score for every single game except Canisius using the box score as a reference they have been playing roughly the same number of people every single game. Not including the starters the low number of bench players was 15 vs the Big Red and a high of 18 bench players vs SHU. You would quibble about the amount of time these players are on the field as you cant get the sense of that from the box but the notion that the "bench" getting shorter just does not seem to be true.

I'll quibble.... They may step on the field, but most never even throw or catch a pass, pick up a gb. I can't say I time each players pt. Though i do keep an eye peeled for non starters. From what I can tell, the D poles seem to get a greater amount of pt overall v the offense. Please try to notice how much non starters play today. If the game is close, we won't see any, if any at all. Doubt we get a blow out allowing pt for a lg part of the roster.

I did notice. They played considerable time. Several at midfield. 9,77,54,27,21 and 23. All rand on the field and threw and caught passes.....you know played in a game.

Of the payers you mention, only #54 (Cardinali) was a "new" player. #56, Nathan Greenberg saw some time as well. So, that's just 2 players who saw real time. Delaney (#88) was on the field for 15 seconds, didn't touch the ball. There were a number of defense players who saw time. Just not much on offense. I am happy for the W. Wagner's goalie was impressive. If you think having 2 players who hadn't been on the field for more than 3 minutes total is expanding the bench, you and I have a very different idea of what significant use of the bench is. Grooms (#77) did get some runs. Dickson at SSDM (#3) was good to see at SSDM. Overall, the team played better. The D helped Holtby not see too many shots allowing him to have his best game of the season.. Merrimack is a much better offensive team with a good goalie to boot. Practice hard gentelmen.

[Bart]

Cornell has always been a next man up kind of team. Not sure the same can be said of Hobart. Just a really thin team when the top guys go down. The coaches need to find a way to develop the talent that’s on the bench. The number of guys actually seeing the field appears to be getting smaller each game. Why?

Is this actually true? IF you look at the box score for every single game except Canisius using the box score as a reference they have been playing roughly the same number of people every single game. Not including the starters the low number of bench players was 15 vs the Big Red and a high of 18 bench players vs SHU. You would quibble about the amount of time these players are on the field as you cant get the sense of that from the box but the notion that the "bench" getting shorter just does not seem to be true.

I'll quibble.... They may step on the field, but most never even throw or catch a pass, pick up a gb. I can't say I time each players pt. Though i do keep an eye peeled for non starters. From what I can tell, the D poles seem to get a greater amount of pt overall v the offense. Please try to notice how much non starters play today. If the game is close, we won't see any, if any at all. Doubt we get a blow out allowing pt for a lg part of the roster.

I did notice. They played considerable time. Several at midfield. 9,77,54,27,21 and 23. All rand on the field and threw and caught passes.....you know played in a game.

Of the payers you mention, only #54 (Cardinali) was a "new" player. #56, Nathan Greenberg saw some time as well. So, that's just 2 players who saw real time. Delaney (#88) was on the field for 15 seconds, didn't touch the ball. There were a number of defense players who saw time. Just not much on offense. I am happy for the W. Wagner's goalie was impressive. If you think having 2 players who hadn't been on the field for more than 3 minutes total is expanding the bench, you and I have a very different idea of what significant use of the bench is. Grooms (#77) did get some runs. Dickson at SSDM (#3) was good to see at SSDM. Overall, the team played better. The D helped Holtby not see too many shots allowing him to have his best game of the season.. Merrimack is a much better offensive team with a good goalie to boot. Practice hard gentelmen.

My idea is that he is doing what almost every single college coach is doing. He is playing his first offensive middies the majority of time with spot time from others. Seems like the current dogma in college lacrosse across the board. Also seems like the exact same thing DJU and BJ did with the midfield in the 80"s and 90"s during competitive games.

You will notice that nothing was said in my post about expanding the bench, just that the bench play has not changed. Expanding the bench is obviously your point. My point is that this coach, at this time, after watching this team prepare and play since fall is playing the best players he thinks gets him the win. At this point, it is my opinion, any diamonds in the rough would have fleshed themselves out during practice. Since I am not there at practice, and I highly doubt anyone posting on this board has seem at more better than a handful, I have to believe the players on the field have earned that time.

[Ketch]

Cornell has always been a next man up kind of team. Not sure the same can be said of Hobart. Just a really thin team when the top guys go down. The coaches need to find a way to develop the talent that’s on the bench. The number of guys actually seeing the field appears to be getting smaller each game. Why?

Is this actually true? IF you look at the box score for every single game except Canisius using the box score as a reference they have been playing roughly the same number of people every single game. Not including the starters the low number of bench players was 15 vs the Big Red and a high of 18 bench players vs SHU. You would quibble about the amount of time these players are on the field as you cant get the sense of that from the box but the notion that the "bench" getting shorter just does not seem to be true.

I'll quibble.... They may step on the field, but most never even throw or catch a pass, pick up a gb. I can't say I time each players pt. Though i do keep an eye peeled for non starters. From what I can tell, the D poles seem to get a greater amount of pt overall v the offense. Please try to notice how much non starters play today. If the game is close, we won't see any, if any at all. Doubt we get a blow out allowing pt for a lg part of the roster.

I did notice. They played considerable time. Several at midfield. 9,77,54,27,21 and 23. All rand on the field and threw and caught passes.....you know played in a game.

Of the payers you mention, only #54 (Cardinali) was a "new" player. #56, Nathan Greenberg saw some time as well. So, that's just 2 players who saw real time. Delaney (#88) was on the field for 15 seconds, didn't touch the ball. There were a number of defense players who saw time. Just not much on offense. I am happy for the W. Wagner's goalie was impressive. If you think having 2 players who hadn't been on the field for more than 3 minutes total is expanding the bench, you and I have a very different idea of what significant use of the bench is. Grooms (#77) did get some runs. Dickson at SSDM (#3) was good to see at SSDM. Overall, the team played better. The D helped Holtby not see too many shots allowing him to have his best game of the season.. Merrimack is a much better offensive team with a good goalie to boot. Practice hard gentelmen.

My idea is that he is doing what almost every single college coach is doing. He is playing his first offensive middies the majority of time with spot time from others. Seems like the current dogma in college lacrosse across the board. Also seems like the exact same thing DJU and BJ did with the midfield in the 80"s and 90"s during competitive games.

You will notice that nothing was said in my post about expanding the bench, just that the bench play has not changed. Expanding the bench is obviously your point. My point is that this coach, at this time, after watching this team prepare and play since fall is playing the best players he thinks gets him the win. At this point, it is my opinion, any diamonds in the rough would have fleshed themselves out during practice. Since I am not there at practice, and I highly doubt anyone posting on this board has seem at more better than a handful, I have to believe the players on the field have earned that time.

I just checked the box score since I saw so many players out there yesterday that I didn't realize were even on the roster. The coaches played a lot of guys. I was really, really impressed by #31. What a game he played.

[SMAIN]

Maybe the reason there's specialization now is because the roster are so large today.The coaches are under a lot of pressure to give these kids some playing time.
The same with football.
I'm glad I played back in the 50's because there was no problem multiple sports. You showed up 1st day of practice and played until the end of the season and on every Saturday night the beer kegs would flow and we would dance until it was time to take the ladies back to the dorm (Houghton in my case) by 12: 30.... a great time at Hobart.

[Bart]

Maybe the reason there's specialization now is because the roster are so large today.The coaches are under a lot of pressure to give these kids some playing time.
The same with football.
I'm glad I played back in the 50's because there was no problem multiple sports. You showed up 1st day of practice and played until the end of the season and on every Saturday night the beer kegs would flow and we would dance until it was time to take the ladies back to the dorm (Houghton in my case) by 12: 30.... a great time at Hobart.

12:30? That’s what we called after hours……. Certainly were simpler times than have currently

[Laxgunea]

31 is Horton? He's been having a great year and has played well even in some of the losses. Glad he's a junior. 90 and 91 have also been coming on. Hoping some new midfielders break through.