THE 2019 Hopkins Lacrosse Fallout Shelter (44, we want more!)

[steel_hop]

Respectfully, this is a very limited view, that leaves out two things.

So, for example, did you know that before last year, Yale had precisely one NCAA playoff win in 20 years? Or that O State, North Carolina, and Brown have missed the playoffs entirely in one of those three years?

Which brings me to the second thing: is that ok for Hopkins fans? Nope. It's not. You're leaving out the most important part of this conversation, and that's the expectations of Hopkins fans. And what the Hopkins fans are saying is that the last three years aren't good enough.

I think you're saying two distinct things. One is that Hopkins fans have unrealistic expectations. Is this true? Let's go to the videotape...

However, I think this team is very close to being one that could win another five games and reach the NCAA tournament.

If everyone fulfills their potential, including the coaches? I can see this team running the B1G, and I mean 7-0 and a top-four seed. That’s not likely to happen, but this much maligned team has that much potential.

I will “settle” for another 4 or 5 wins. Blue Jays should be aspiring to much, much more.

DocBarrister

OK.


The second claim is that expectations are unrealistic because there are things about JHU as a school, that no coach can affect, that set Hopkins' ceiling for success lower than that of most of the programs they compete with. Implied is that that ceiling is in fact reasonably close to what the current Hopkins staff is achieving.

Is this true? I'm not telling you definitively it's not. I think at this point it's premature and unproven. And a big reason for that is because the same kinds of thing could've been -- and, often, were -- said about many other programs just before they made changes that led to big improvement.

That doesn't mean the "particulars of Hopkins"-type factors you're talking about aren't real and don't matter. What I'd look to as a model are staffs that have come in with a coherent idea about the "particulars of Loyola" or "particulars of Towson" or "particulars of Yale" or whatever and plan for turning those from weaknesses into strengths. Maybe the current JHU staff is already doing that as well as anybody possibly could, but I think it's getting easier to be skeptical.

Precisely the point. At some point, changes need to be made because the current regime in its current set-up isn't working. This is essentially teaching an old dog new tricks. For the last decade, we've heard countless platitudes from Petro about how things are going to change. And, yet, the results have generally gotten worse. There is only so much one staff can do to change. At some point, all the platitudes are irrelevant and it is the man speaking them that matters.

Of course, the question can be turned around on a fan. If Hopkins has academic, location, tuition, etc. issues that make the program unable to compete at the necessary level* what is Syracuse's excuse. Some of the excuses used for Hopkins, SU doesn't have.

Costs - SU is cheaper
Academics - Not taking away anything from SU but the student body is not the same at each school
Sports - SU is DI just like Duke, UMd.
Recruiting base - I'd imagine the SU can still get "right" jucos in the school if they want.

I do understand your point that parity is something that all programs have to deal with but that doesn't explain why Duke, UMd, ND, Loyola, and Denver seem to be in multiple FF over the last decade. If parity was as prevalent as some on here believe, than it should be impacting other schools or is it that Hopkins is just somehow impact by the parity bug more than other programs. Or, and this is what i think, Hopkins has done a poor job reacting to the changes.

I'm probably the harshest critic out here but even my expectations aren't that Hopkins should compete for national titles every year. My expectations are that Hopkins make 2 out of every 4-5 FFs* and be competitive in those years it doesn't make it. Does that mean it gets blown out in that odd year in the tournament? No, even Duke basketball as a 2 seed has lost to 15 seed. What it does mean is that similar to Duke basketball is that Hopkins should be in the conversation for contenders. That hasn't hadn't happened in over a decade.

* If you asked me that question 5-6 years ago, I would have said make a FF every third year so even now I'm lowering my standards. That's how much damage Petro has done to the program over the last decade.

[viper]

And yet some parents of very talented players say cost is s factor in where there kids went to school.

I agree 100%, cost is indeed a factor, but having said that, it hasn't prevented teams like Yale and Duke from rising to the top of lacrosse world. Even if you are not getting IL's top 10 rated high school recruits their is plenty of talent to go around despite the specific constraints surrounding institutions. In this day and age there it is befuddling when you have a team of converted attackmen playing midfield, etc.

[HopFan16]

I guess I just don't understand why we keep having this same conversation over and over. What's happening seems pretty simple to me.

Back in the day, if you were a star lacrosse player, Hopkins was one of your only options.

That's no longer the case. That will never be the case again. Those hoping to return to the glory days must accept this new reality.

But even if you accept this new reality, it's still reasonable to believe, as many of us do, Hopkins should be doing better than it is.

Hopkins still has some perks, which is why it's still able to draw SOME, but certainly not ALL, of the recruits it wants. The history and tradition of the program is not just going to vanish. It'll always be there. Being in Baltimore, playing on Homewood Field, walking through the Cordish Center, all that stuff does mean something to many recruits and their families. The school is tough but has an excellent academic reputation, and, let's be honest, most lacrosse players are not pre-med or engineers. The alumni network for them is wonderful. Pretty much all of them end up on Wall Street if they want to. As a somewhat recent student I can also tell you that while Hopkins is no Arizona State, the lacrosse players have plenty of fun while they're here. (Athlete culture at Hopkins is very, very different and separated from the majority of the library-dwelling student body) Most players I've talked to were happy with their experience at the school and the choice they made to play for Petro.

And maybe they've gone after some of the wrong kids. Maybe they missed a few of the diamonds in the rough, as other schools have. (Last I checked, Hopkins wasn't the only school that didn't recruit Spencer. I do think it's interesting that Hop's best defender by a mile, an All-American, was a relatively late bloomer, as was Mr. Ryan Brown. Hopkins still has a talented roster. It's not the most talented one. Not by a longshot. But there's plenty of talent here.

Every year Hopkins has a top 5-10 recruiting class. So they're getting kids they want. They're getting kids that other schools want too. Again, not all of them, but enough of them to compete. Every single ACC school (plus Loyola) wanted Cole Williams. Maryland wanted Tinney. He picked Hopkins. Sometimes guys pick Hopkins. Sometimes they don't.

To me, that doesn't mean there is some existential recruiting problem. To me that is more of an issue with personnel management, gameplanning, overall strategy and perhaps some degree of program culture. Hopkins is too small and slow at the midfield and certainly that is causing the team problems. No doubt about it. That was a foreseeable problem that wasn't adequately addressed. But that has nothing to do with kids not wanting to go to Hopkins anymore. I believe there is more talent on this team this year, and the last several years, than how they've performed on the field. Not saying it's championship caliber talent, but better than first-round-blowout-caliber talent. Certainly, if a team with Joey Epstein, Cole Williams, Kyle Marr, Pat Foley, Robert Kuhn, Evan Zinn, Connor DeSimone can't even MAKE THE PLAYOFFS or finish above .500, then something other than recruiting is wrong.

[Cooter]

I think a lot of the problem with Hopkins right now is not the talent, but more the chemistry.

One example is Epstein, who is a top talent. He is an excellent shooter. Unfortunately, Hopkins needed a guy who was an excellent passer to replace Stanwick ( Tinney also had a lot of assists last year), whereas Epstein is mainly a scorer at this point in his career. Epstein's passing will probably improve and make him one of he better attackmen in the game down the road.

[foreverlax]

Since 2013
Hopkins has actually had very few MIAA players that had major roles on the team
Their names:
Wells Stanwick
Ryan Brown
Phil Castronova
Shack Stanwick
Brinton Valis
Tal Bruno
Cole WIlliams

Let's see - 3 of those names are 7,8,9 Top 10 All time in points for Johns Hopkins
Valis did not live up to the hype - was a very good role player his senior year
Bruno and Castro were not Benson E. but OK SSDMs
Williams had 35 goals last year

Please sir may I have some more?

The list of MIAA by HS

BL
Shilling
Moreland
Stanwick
Bruno
Keller
Stanwick

CHC
Brown
Black
Castronova
Lightner

Gilman
Desmit

Loy
Williams
O'Toole

Mcd
Sure
Valis
Faby

Severn
Lilly

St Pauls
diPietro
Pollard
Wood

[PicLax]

Some great discussion throughout the recent threads on the state of JHU lacrosse. I offer the following purely from a fan’s perspective with no tie to JHU or any personnel associated with the school.
Regarding Petro’s future. Few coaches, in any sport, are able to successfully guide the same team through multiple generations. Change is what brings new ideas, new schemes, freshness and adaptation to changes from the competition. Coach Belichick and Coach K are the only recent coaches that come to mind as having successfully been able to lead a team through multiple generational players and multiple generational changes to the highest levels in their sport (and Belichick has had one guy at quarterback through it all, which probably has helped him tremendously). JHU should celebrate what Petro has done and brought to the program, but also recognize that change probably is good at this point for the program. Much the same as Petro should probably recognize that what he can offer to another program is probably much more than he could continue to offer at JHU (think Tierney leaving Princeton for Denver, Phil Jackson leaving the Bulls for the Lakers).
As to the players, a different landscape today. Up until 10 or 15 years ago, if a player wanted to play great lacrosse, JHU was one of a handful of options. At the same time, most of the great players were coming from a handful of high schools, all within about 20 miles of JHU. Was natural for the cream of these great players to matriculate to the top school that just happened to be in their back yard. Contrast to today where the option to play great lacrosse in a great program is wide spread. Equally, if not more important, an abundance of great athletes and great players are coming from areas all across the country, and they don’t necessarily want to move to Baltimore and go to school at JHU. They want to go to some of the other 25 or 30 schools that are playing great lacrosse in great programs that now rival JHU in academic and/or lacrosse success.
Recruiting wise, JHU has hurt itself in the early recruiting process. I remember speaking with a highly successful (national champion) coach a few years ago and how he chuckled at some (most) of the top programs recruiting and filling their roster with 8th, 9th and 10th grade players, leaving him the ability to cherry pick the later-developing, better athletes in their 11th or 12th grade seasons. And these later developing/better athletes are continuing to develop and improve while in college on a steeper slope than many of the great stick skilled, early recruited players. This will obviously self-correct for JHU in the next year of two under the new recruiting rules.
Finally regarding the players, when watching JHU play I don’t see top-level cohesive teamwork, individual skill (outside of one often mentioned attackman), smart lacrosse IQ, intelligent playmaking, or self-discipline.
Bottom line, continued success in any venture requires change, process adaption, a strong culture and growth. JHU might not get back to the point of sustained lacrosse domination from many years ago just based on the number and quality of competing teams. But it can get back to being competitive at the very top by recognizing the need for change at the administrative and coaching side, in player recruitment, in player development, and in team culture.

[WOMBAT, Mod Emeritus]

The 1.25 Centuries Of Dominance is over.

[51percentcorn]

Boy - is there a lot to react to. First off, for any fanlaxers that were not that familiar with laxpower and the Hopkins threads contained therein - I introduce you to the delusions and fantasies that are essential to Docbarrister. The same mind that can come to the conclusion that this Jays team has all the talent it needs and that early recruiting hasn't hurt Hopkins also swore up until the time Hopkins suffered the worst two losses (to date) in its playoff History (to UVA and Duke in 2009/2010) that those teams could and just might win the national championship. It's like saying, well if my high school team hits every three point shot they take they'll beat Golden State.

Forever lax - I am not sure whether your list was meant to refute or support my point. First off didn't Lightner graduate in 2013 - maybe it was '14 - minor point. I think the point is that Keller/Black/DeSmit/Faby/O'Toole/DiPietro and to some degree Wood and Pollard were fairly light recruits. I heard a story that one of them was added after an extra check was struck beyond paying full tuition. Might be complete you know what - but that was what I was told. The recruits from the MIAA that were desired by other programs - were small in number and generally panned out - maybe not to the degree Blue jay fans envisioned (except for Brown) but they were good players.

great post by PicLax - very reasoned and accurate in my opinion. I would add - as I have said before - that huge recruiting classes hurt way more than the initial fan boy reaction of "wow - we have 17 recruits next year - they must be all great because they are coming to Hopkins". And this scattered approach - along with Supinski's injury/departure after a promising start and the decommits of 2 Top 20 recruits - have decimated the mid-fields. Again, just look at the Hopkins roster - aside from freshmen - you have two offensive mid-fielders (that were potentially recruited to be offensive mid-fielders) - DeSimone and Stagnitta (one has scored one goal in his career - the other is inexplicably on pace for 4 goals - which would be down over 70% from his production of freshman year. And its worth pointing out that Westlin and Kuttin are freshmen as well. So 3 - count them - 3 classes of the Johns Hopkins men's lacrosse team is going to go through school and produce basically only whatever DeSimone gives you from recruited mid-fielders. That's alot of pressure on one guy. maybe that's part of his falling off.

The glory years are gone forever - and it will continue to slip away as more schools become involved. Hopkins is just so different from all the other schools it wants to compete against. Still, for the forseeable future - with 12.6 fully funded scholarships (and some benefits to going there) you should be pretty competitive and once in a while - get an Epstein and a decent surrounding cast - make a run. You have to be more disciplined and if not smarter than the others - you have to be really smart. And right now we have certainly not been disciplined in our approach off the field and it shows on the field. I can name 5 Virginia goals that maybe could have been avoided last Saturday - the BTB by Conrad with an inbounds whistle and 4 seconds left on the extra man, the 5-hole goal by Aitken after the offensive middie tried to get off the field way too late leaving the most dangerous shooter perhaps in the land all alone - the BTB goal by the face-off guy - the defensive lapse and panic that ensued leaving Jones and Hubler trying to deal with Kraus just before the half - the poor decision by Darby on the last goal.

[HopFan16]

And this scattered approach - along with Supinski's injury/departure after a promising start and the decommits of 2 Top 20 recruits - have decimated the mid-fields. Again, just look at the Hopkins roster - aside from freshmen - you have two offensive mid-fielders (that were potentially recruited to be offensive mid-fielders) - DeSimone and Stagnitta (one has scored one goal in his career - the other is inexplicably on pace for 4 goals - which would be down over 70% from his production of freshman year. And its worth pointing out that Westlin and Kuttin are freshmen as well. So 3 - count them - 3 classes of the Johns Hopkins men's lacrosse team is going to go through school and produce basically only whatever DeSimone gives you from recruited mid-fielders. That's alot of pressure on one guy. maybe that's part of his falling off.

Good overall post but I want to zero in on this point. How, knowing this midfield conundrum was coming, did they not get a transfer for this season? Look, I know getting transfers in college is not the same as free agency, you can't just choose anyone and offer them a contract. But there had to be at least one experienced offensive midfielder who was looking to transfer and would have considered Hopkins. And then after they didn't get any transfers, knowing all of the above, how do you not put Zinn in the lineup from day one, live with some of the freshman mistakes, and hope by around now he's a solid contributor at the midfield? He was recruited for a reason, wasn't he? This is what I mean when I say personnel management, gameplanning, and strategy have been bigger issues than recruiting. Not saying there aren't any recruiting issues at all but the bigger and more immediate problem is how players are being used. It's crazy town. There is a gaping hole at midfield, you've got this kid who runs like a freaking cheetah and has an absolute rifle of an outside shot—both things this team needs—and instead you give him a couple runs on the wing per game and if he's super lucky he'll get one random shift on the second midfield. And then rather than give him a chance to do something in that one run, he's reduced to bystander as one of the munchkins is given the "dodge to nowhere." Cue turnover or playing catch with the goalie.

How Zinn wasn't immediately put in on the first midfield and EMO after his first goal against Virginia is just totally baffling to me. It seems so obvious but I guess I am not the best defenseman of all time and the winner of championships as both a player and a coach. I realize that half of this forum is just armchair quarterbacking, and that most or probably all of us know much less about the X's and O's of lacrosse than Dave Pietramala, but when virtually everyone is screaming for weeks to put the kid in the game, and the coaches are seemingly the only ones on the planet who don't agree, then maybe there is something to it. It's not like things would have been any worse today had Zinn been starting from day one.

So, yeah, in short: They did a good job recruiting a kid like Zinn who very obviously has the size, athleticism, and shooting ability to play midfield at the division 1 level. Nice work, team! But then you waste that recruiting effort with nonsensical management. Does anyone think Zinn would be getting the treatment he's getting here at a program like Virginia (where he visited, I'm pretty sure)? I just hope to god this time next year he's still wearing columbia blue and black and not those ugly dark blue sleeveless uniforms they've got down in C-Ville. I'm terrified to think of what he'd do in that system, but luckily we may not have to face that anytime soon.

By the way, of the 17 kids in the incoming freshman class (current high school seniors), there are 6 midfielders, and I think that 3 of them (Chambers, Glassmeyer, and Handsor) project more as SSDMs at the next level. So silver lining: maybe they help out that area of deficiency. But I don't see much more offensive-minded midfield scoring on the horizon. The premier attackmen in this class—Murphy, Krampf, and Angelus—do not strike me as guys who could play middie in D1. Krampf is a stocky off-ball scorer, Angelus is more of an X attackman (and not very big, last I checked) while Murphy does have some shooting/dodging ability but would likely need to put on some weight.

[CU77]

My expectations are that Hopkins make 2 out of every 4-5 FFs*

* If you asked me that question 5-6 years ago, I would have said make a FF every third year so even now I'm lowering my standards. That's how much damage Petro has done to the program over the last decade.

I think your ability to do math has also been damaged: 2/5 > 1/3

[MDlaxfan76]

My expectations are that Hopkins make 2 out of every 4-5 FFs*

* If you asked me that question 5-6 years ago, I would have said make a FF every third year so even now I'm lowering my standards. That's how much damage Petro has done to the program over the last decade.

I think your ability to do math has also been damaged: 2/5 > 1/3

Funny. Not every lax alum is a STEM guy.

But Steel Hop's internal sense that expectations are slipping is quite likely correct, regardless of the math.

Perhaps he really meant one FF every 4-5 years, in the hunt otherwise. That indeed would represent quite a lot of slippage from what most Hop fans would have said a decade ago, much less two or three decades ago.

Seems to me that there's a consensus that Petro's approach to ER took a serious toll and that player management/development/utilization etc remains a puzzle. One would think that the ER debacle might eventually get worked through, but the rest is what us armchair QB's get paid the big bucks to do!

[Typical Lax Dad]

I think a lot of the problem with Hopkins right now is not the talent, but more the chemistry.

One example is Epstein, who is a top talent. He is an excellent shooter. Unfortunately, Hopkins needed a guy who was an excellent passer to replace Stanwick ( Tinney also had a lot of assists last year), whereas Epstein is mainly a scorer at this point in his career. Epstein's passing will probably improve and make him one of he better attackmen in the game down the road.

That is a good observation. Joel Tinney was very good at making plays for others. His passing was underrated. JHU has 2 playmakers on the field with Joel and Shack. Chemistry goes a long way and takes time to develop. Evan Zinn is a playmaker. A very good feeder who can make plays for others as well as put pressure on defenses. His time will come.

[DocBarrister]

Look, I very strongly opposed early recruiting, but I did so because of the kids. I think young students should take their time in choosing a college, and early recruiting wasn’t helpful in that regard. I’m glad early recruiting has ended for college lacrosse ... I’m glad for the KIDS.

What I very much disagree with is this nonsensical notion that early recruiting hurt the lacrosse programs that recruited early. It’s complete and utter garbage. For every Pat Spencer, there are nine other kids who were recruited early and fully met expectations four or even five years later.

This article discusses four programs that recruited early: Hopkins, North Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland. https://www.uslaxmagazine.com/high-scho ... recruiting

In the past ten years, three of those programs won national championships (Virginia, North Carolina, and Maryland). The “loser” of the bunch (Hopkins) has made 9 of 10 NCAA tournaments, the quarterfinals multiple times, and the Final Four in 2015, plus won 2 out of 4 B1G championships. The “dark years” for early recruiter Johns Hopkins would be the golden age for the vast majority of other programs.

The early recruiting coaches of those teams (Petro, Tillman, Starsia, and Breschi) are among the most successful and best coaches of their era. Do you think they would have recruited early if it didn’t pay off for them? Pay off it clearly did.

Yes, good riddance to early recruiting ... but for the KIDS. The early recruiting programs did well by recruiting early, and their success is simply a matter of documented fact.

So, stop the nonsensical garbage about the negative impact of early recruiting on winning. The facts do not support you.

Thank you. That is all.

DocBarrister

[Typical Lax Dad]

Look, I very strongly opposed early recruiting, but I did so because of the kids. I think young students should take their time in choosing a college, and early recruiting wasn’t helpful in that regard. I’m glad early recruiting has ended for college lacrosse ... I’m glad for the KIDS.

What I very much disagree with is this nonsensical notion that early recruiting hurt the lacrosse programs that recruited early. It’s complete and utter garbage. For every Pat Spencer, there are nine other kids who were recruited early and fully met expectations four or even five years later.

This article discusses four programs that recruited early: Hopkins, North Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland. https://www.uslaxmagazine.com/high-scho ... recruiting

In the past ten years, three of those programs won national championships (Virginia, North Carolina, and Maryland). The “loser” of the bunch (Hopkins) has made 9 of 10 NCAA tournaments, the quarterfinals multiple times, and the Final Four in 2015, plus won 2 out of 4 B1G championships. The “dark years” for early recruiter Johns Hopkins would be the golden age for the vast majority of other programs.

The early recruiting coaches of those teams (Petro, Tillman, Starsia, and Breschi) are among the most successful and best coaches of their era. Do you think they would have recruited early if it didn’t pay off for them? Pay off it clearly did.

Yes, good riddance to early recruiting ... but for the KIDS. The early recruiting programs did well by recruiting early, and their success is simply a matter of documented fact.

So, stop the nonsensical garbage about the negative impact of early recruiting on winning. The facts do not support you.

Thank you. That is all.

DocBarrister

Maryland was not early until class of 2015 and more so in 2016. The UNC team did win and the kids recruited early (fall sophomores or earlier) weren't really playing. Cloutier was the last in the class by almost a year.

[HopFan16]

UNC went on a magical run in 2016 but outside of that...they've been even worse than us.

On the bright side, tonight Princeton beat Denver, who beat Towson. So that gives us a quality win over Towson, right? Isn't that how it works?

I watched a little bit of Brunswick vs. Boys Latin tonight, hoping to see Brendan Grimes. I don't think he played, must be injured. BL got absolutely manhandled all over the field. Caught some of Brunswick's Glassmeyer—looks like a two-way middie, played a lot on the wings and in transition. Picked up a few GBs. High motor. Definitely an SSDM in college. Who knows if he pans out but this is the kind of kid people have criticized Hopkins for having too few of.

[DocBarrister]

I think a lot of the problem with Hopkins right now is not the talent, but more the chemistry.

One example is Epstein, who is a top talent. He is an excellent shooter. Unfortunately, Hopkins needed a guy who was an excellent passer to replace Stanwick ( Tinney also had a lot of assists last year), whereas Epstein is mainly a scorer at this point in his career. Epstein's passing will probably improve and make him one of he better attackmen in the game down the road.

Epstein is already the best passer and playmaker on the team. It’s not even close. Problem is, he isn’t being used as the quarterback of the offense. He should touch the ball and run the offense on each possession, but that isn’t happening. He’s made some spectacular feeds this season only to watch his teammates muff the shot. More recently, Epstein seems to have decided to take matters in his own hands and score a bunch of unassisted goals. Had he played with Ryan Brown, Joel Tunney, and Pat Fraser, he’d already have 25 assists.

DocBarrister

[DocBarrister]

Look, I very strongly opposed early recruiting, but I did so because of the kids. I think young students should take their time in choosing a college, and early recruiting wasn’t helpful in that regard. I’m glad early recruiting has ended for college lacrosse ... I’m glad for the KIDS.

What I very much disagree with is this nonsensical notion that early recruiting hurt the lacrosse programs that recruited early. It’s complete and utter garbage. For every Pat Spencer, there are nine other kids who were recruited early and fully met expectations four or even five years later.

This article discusses four programs that recruited early: Hopkins, North Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland. https://www.uslaxmagazine.com/high-scho ... recruiting

In the past ten years, three of those programs won national championships (Virginia, North Carolina, and Maryland). The “loser” of the bunch (Hopkins) has made 9 of 10 NCAA tournaments, the quarterfinals multiple times, and the Final Four in 2015, plus won 2 out of 4 B1G championships. The “dark years” for early recruiter Johns Hopkins would be the golden age for the vast majority of other programs.

The early recruiting coaches of those teams (Petro, Tillman, Starsia, and Breschi) are among the most successful and best coaches of their era. Do you think they would have recruited early if it didn’t pay off for them? Pay off it clearly did.

Yes, good riddance to early recruiting ... but for the KIDS. The early recruiting programs did well by recruiting early, and their success is simply a matter of documented fact.

So, stop the nonsensical garbage about the negative impact of early recruiting on winning. The facts do not support you.

Thank you. That is all.

DocBarrister

Maryland was not early until class of 2015 and more so in 2016. The UNC team did win and the kids recruited early (fall sophomores or earlier) weren't really playing. Cloutier was the last in the class by almost a year.

Which means Tillman, who arguably runs the most consistently successful program of this decade, built his glory years on early recruiting.

And it’s simply not true that Breschi’s early recruits “weren’t really playing.” If that were true, Breschi—probably the most notorious early recruiter in the sport—would be sending the water girl out onto the field.

DocBarrister

[Cooter]

I think a lot of the problem with Hopkins right now is not the talent, but more the chemistry.

One example is Epstein, who is a top talent. He is an excellent shooter. Unfortunately, Hopkins needed a guy who was an excellent passer to replace Stanwick ( Tinney also had a lot of assists last year), whereas Epstein is mainly a scorer at this point in his career. Epstein's passing will probably improve and make him one of he better attackmen in the game down the road.

Epstein is already the best passer and playmaker on the team. It’s not even close. Problem is, he isn’t being used as the quarterback of the offense. He should touch the ball and run the offense on each possession, but that isn’t happening. He’s made some spectacular feeds this season only to watch his teammates muff the shot. More recently, Epstein seems to have decided to take matters in his own hands and score a bunch of unassisted goals. Had he played with Ryan Brown, Joel Tunney, and Pat Fraser, he’d already have 25 assists.

DocBarrister

Kyle Marr is a pretty nice target. Stanwick and Tinney both finished last year with 30+ assist. Why isn't he being used as the quarterback?

[Typical Lax Dad]

Look, I very strongly opposed early recruiting, but I did so because of the kids. I think young students should take their time in choosing a college, and early recruiting wasn’t helpful in that regard. I’m glad early recruiting has ended for college lacrosse ... I’m glad for the KIDS.

What I very much disagree with is this nonsensical notion that early recruiting hurt the lacrosse programs that recruited early. It’s complete and utter garbage. For every Pat Spencer, there are nine other kids who were recruited early and fully met expectations four or even five years later.

This article discusses four programs that recruited early: Hopkins, North Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland. https://www.uslaxmagazine.com/high-scho ... recruiting

In the past ten years, three of those programs won national championships (Virginia, North Carolina, and Maryland). The “loser” of the bunch (Hopkins) has made 9 of 10 NCAA tournaments, the quarterfinals multiple times, and the Final Four in 2015, plus won 2 out of 4 B1G championships. The “dark years” for early recruiter Johns Hopkins would be the golden age for the vast majority of other programs.

The early recruiting coaches of those teams (Petro, Tillman, Starsia, and Breschi) are among the most successful and best coaches of their era. Do you think they would have recruited early if it didn’t pay off for them? Pay off it clearly did.

Yes, good riddance to early recruiting ... but for the KIDS. The early recruiting programs did well by recruiting early, and their success is simply a matter of documented fact.

So, stop the nonsensical garbage about the negative impact of early recruiting on winning. The facts do not support you.

Thank you. That is all.

DocBarrister

Maryland was not early until class of 2015 and more so in 2016. The UNC team did win and the kids recruited early (fall sophomores or earlier) weren't really playing. Cloutier was the last in the class by almost a year.

Which means Tillman, who arguably runs the most consistently successful program of this decade, built his glory years on early recruiting.

And it’s simply not true that Breschi’s early recruits “weren’t really playing.” If that were true, Breschi—probably the most notorious early recruiter in the sport—would be sending the water girl out onto the field.

DocBarrister

Tillman has done a very good job. I was just pointing out that "winning" championships was not on the back of kids that committed fall sophomore year or earlier for Maryland and UNC. Yale won last year, none of those kids playing were fall sophomores or earlier commits. Ben Reeves was fall of his senior year.....ER can work but all things being equal, it was a better advantage when those programs had their pick of the best juniors instead of their pick of the best freshmen. Just an opinion.

[DocBarrister]

UNC went on a magical run in 2016 but outside of that...they've been even worse than us.

Yeah, I can imagine Coach Breschi speaking with a recruit and his parents:

Breschi (tearing up): “It’s true ... I confess ... I, I, committed a sin.”

*parents look very concerned*

Breschi (now openly sobbing): “Ya see, I’m guilty ... I did it. What they say about me is all TRUE!!!!”

*Breschi falls to his knees, arms extended upwards, seeking absolution from God.*

*Parents hold their son close, shocked.*

Breschi (now barely whispering): “You see, I, I ... I recruited my players early, when they were just babes barely out of middle school ... and I have reaped the wages of my sin.”

*Breschi points to North Carolina’s 2016 National Championship trophy.*

*Parents smile, and their son shouts, “Hell Yeah!”*

*Breschi stands up, grins, grabs a beer from an inexplicably nearby cooler, and starts doing his weird but glorious celebration dance (the reverse-windmill hesitation dab) https://www.cbssports.com/general/news/ ... nster-dab/ *

Another signee for North Carolina lacrosse.

DocBarrister