Dartmouth Men's Lacrosse

[DCIII]

The goalie is a freshman.
The starting close D is 2 freshmen and 1 sophomore
The LSMs are 1 sophomore and 1 freshmen.
The freshman FOGO, who was doing very well, got injured and is likely out for the season.
The starting attack is 2 sophomores and 1 junior.
The first offensive middle line is a freshman and two juniors.
The first defensive middle line is a freshman and a junior.
There are 2 FOGOS in next year’s class including a To-10 rated one.
This team is big and athletic. The flaws have been obvious, but they are young and improving.

Agree with this. Big Green had chances on Saturday. Up by 1 in the 4th, let Harvard score a couple of quick ones and couldn't equalize. After posting m thoughts on needs, I am going to hang my hat on the lack of depth as the main issue. Starting F/O guy goes out with injury, who is the next guy up, thee kid that is still in High School. Injuries on D, next guy up? This is a good sign that youngsters are fighting and gaining experience, next group of recruits looks good, all good news. But, finding a way to manufacture 1 Ivy win would go so far with this group. They play hard, but they play young at times. Coach them up, build their confidence, and let them run!

I see things differently. The age lineup is less an issue of depth and more an issue of the Coaches fulfilling promises made to the more recent commits (and injuries). That's the coaches call (and not an unusual one) and I'm not saying that the "new recruits" aren't going to be ultimately more talented than their older teammates, but rather that they are in many cases just not ready (often mentally) for the spotlight and this is reflected heavily in things like turnovers, offsides and shot selection. What concerns me most is that the younger kids know this themselves and they (and their parents) will tell you that although they are thrilled to get the PT they are wanting of more on field leadership from the upper classes. This is doable.

[sguy9]

Interesting take. If this is the case I am not sure what to say...

Gaining valuable experience is great for the future.
Coaches not going to the veterans because they are trying to give youngsters trial by fire or because they were told in recruiting process they would play?
Promising recruits pt never ends well.
Huh, I'm stumped.

[DCIII]

I've offered my take, but that's less important. Whatever the reason, those close to the program (including the players) feel that the balance has swung too far towards the "new guys" and that we do indeed have the depth to (selectively) add more experience, size and strength. Remember, two years ago we were talking very similarly on this forum about all the starting freshmen and sophomores.

[wahoomurf]

I've offered my take, but that's less important. Whatever the reason, those close to the program (including the players) feel that the balance has swung too far towards the "new guys" and that we do indeed have the depth to (selectively) add more experience, size and strength. Remember, two years ago we were talking very similarly on this forum about all the starting freshmen and sophomores.

I heard the same thing from a guy on the roster.

[check sticks]

Remember, two years ago we were talking very similarly on this forum about all the starting freshmen and sophomores.

Too bad the LP archives cannot be accessed.
You would actually see this SAME train of conversation dating back more than 2 years. The great roster "purge" that happened in the 2016 season left the team severely depleted on the veteran side, and talk of "rebuilding" commenced.
Seems we're still in that chatter, now 2019, especially as the on-field results continue to be underwhelming.

Don't want to be guilty of 'presentism' but here I go with presentism: despite the dominating results of the last few years, Dart>Brown in Hanover this year.

I think the word "dominating" is being polite. Running up the score was more descriptive of the past 3 years encounter with Brown. It would be especially gratifying if a Dartmouth win against Brown occurred.

[MDlaxfan76]

I've offered my take, but that's less important. Whatever the reason, those close to the program (including the players) feel that the balance has swung too far towards the "new guys" and that we do indeed have the depth to (selectively) add more experience, size and strength. Remember, two years ago we were talking very similarly on this forum about all the starting freshmen and sophomores.

I heard the same thing from a guy on the roster.

It is certainly possible, but I'd be surprised if, other than the radical 'purge' referenced by Check Sticks, there's been any sort of intentional sacrificing of upper class players to make room for 'promises made' to the rookies. But I've seen that done in other programs, so I couldn't rule it out. But I'm pretty darn sure they want to win, now.

For instance, seems to me that if they have a guy who could win 50% of the FO's against Harvard, he'd have been on the field. Heck, 30%. Wouldn't have mattered what class!

I don't want to get too far into the weeds, but my understanding is that some upper class injuries have one or more players who'd be starters sidelined.

If senior D Austin Meacham was available, he'd be on the field, right? Captain, All-Ivy, CLASS AWARD nominee. Is there another senior who might have been expected to see significant time?

Perhaps someone is thinking of a junior or two? We do see juniors A Ben Martin, M Harlan Smart, and D Jack Richardson contributing significantly. Only one goalie can play, but certainly it would be difficult to argue that freshman Hincks isn't proving to be a great choice, though it's terrific to have strong depth at the position!

On the regional recruiting bias charge made by a poster or two, who have not yet established that they aren't just trolling, I don't think any such actually exists. I do think there may have been a bit of such in the prior regime (around PG's), the adjustment away from which may have left some feeling less 'love' than prior, but I'm pretty sure the current staff simply want the best group they can attract, from wherever, who will be successful on and off the field at Dartmouth. If you're a stud player with strong academics and a great work ethic, and really want Dartmouth and the coaches know that you do, and have the same assessment of your assets, then it matters not at all where you're from.

It'd be pretty dumb of them to do otherwise.

[Ghost]

Friends and Alumni - have been effectively upgrading DU’s program needs to meet today’s D1 standards...

That said,
Are there additional opportunities to reassess DU’s players strength and conditioning program (on and off season training)? ....Dartmouth seems to have more than its fair share of injuries,

lack of depth leaves little room for error.

[MDlaxfan76]

2-2 at end of Q1, 4-2 Cornell at half.

Hincks with 10 saves.
Unfortunately, Ierlan with 7 so having a very big game as well, though CU is getting better quality takes.

Up 18-17 on GB's. Fighting hard.

The brutal?
18 TO's by Dartmouth in just the first half.
Just 8 of 16 in clearing.

[MDlaxfan76]

2-2 at end of Q1, 4-2 Cornell at half.

Hincks with 10 saves.
Unfortunately, Ierlan with 7 so having a very big game as well, though CU is getting better quality takes.

Up 18-17 on GB's. Fighting hard.

The brutal?
18 TO's by Dartmouth in just the first half.
Just 8 of 16 in clearing.

9-3 at end of 3rd, 7 more TO's.
And CU's tender having a terrific game.

Time of possession wearing out Big Green D.

[Ghost]

Dartmouth can not figure out how to improve TOs = 28
10 TO’s on Clears only 17/27...

[CU77]

The game felt much more competitive that the score indicates. To me it seemed like the Big Green has improved a lot over last year.

[faircornell]

The game felt much more competitive that the score indicates. To me it seemed like the Big Green has improved a lot over last year.

+1

[MDlaxfan76]

The game felt much more competitive that the score indicates. To me it seemed like the Big Green has improved a lot over last year.

+1

I think that's correct, but we obviously have a long way to go.
Thank you both for your sportsmanship.

[check sticks]

Not sure we, as fans/posters, are really exhibiting "sportsmanship", so much as politely avoiding outright profanity laden streams of thought to describe the latest exhibition of Dartmouth lacrosse.
Lifted from the Cornell thread >

W or not, much of the game was pretty ugly lacrosse. And in all due respect to Dartmouth, who is definitely improving, they are still a bad D1 team.

Bad, yes. But, disappointing a more visceral description.

Looking to next week, care to predict the over/under for TD Ierlan's winning FO %. Let's start at 89% (winning 17 of 19)

[RumorMill]

I say TD goes 100%. 16 for 16 then Yale puts Neuman in.

[MDlaxfan76]

Not sure we, as fans/posters, are really exhibiting "sportsmanship", so much as politely avoiding outright profanity laden streams of thought to describe the latest exhibition of Dartmouth lacrosse.
Lifted from the Cornell thread >

W or not, much of the game was pretty ugly lacrosse. And in all due respect to Dartmouth, who is definitely improving, they are still a bad D1 team.

Bad, yes. But, disappointing a more visceral description.

Looking to next week, care to predict the over/under for TD Ierlan's winning FO %. Let's start at 89% (winning 17 of 19)

I was referring to Faircornell and CU77 on the Dartmouth thread.

VeryRustyRed's description over on the CU thread is also fair, not gratuitously insulting.

But I agree with you CS, we'd had some hope over the last couple of outings that TO's were going down, clearing % was improving.

Hard to understand what went so wrong against the Big Red in that dept. Indeed "disappointing".
That's a good, not yet great CU team. More horses and they ride very well. Teat is special. But beatable.

My sense is that while we certainly don't have enough high quality 'sticks', more importantly too many guys are trying to do too much rather than making the smart play. A lot of that is experience, ie making the back pass instead of making a 'hero' run attempt, forced interior pass, etc. Part of that is teammates providing an easy outlet, right away, rather than in desperation.

The difference between 'good' teams and 'bad' teams is about the rate of reliability of those decisions, made swiftly.

It's not as if we don't see some of this same sort of poor decision making with better teams than Dartmouth, but it's usually sporadic, not chronic. And the very best teams tend to be be very reliable.

I continue to believe that as these guys mature over the next two years and there are some key additions eg FOGO, the time of possession challenge will get better. And that'll allow some quality wins.

We do battle.
But we run out of gas largely due to our own foibles.

[RumorMill]

MDlaxfan 76 wrote:

My sense is that while we certainly don't have enough high quality 'sticks', more importantly too many guys are trying to do too much rather than making the smart play. A lot of that is experience, ie making the back pass instead of making a 'hero' run attempt, forced interior pass, etc. Part of that is teammates providing an easy outlet, right away, rather than in desperation.

The difference between 'good' teams and 'bad' teams is about the rate of reliability of those decisions, made swiftly.

Agree with this! My question, is where does "this" come from, or maybe more aptly, develop from so that it gets executed on the field during games? I know what my answer is.

Additionally, right now using Cornell, Yale or Penn games to try and base where the Big Green are as a lacrosse team is a little unrealistic. My frustration stems from the fact we're/they're 5 years into this and can't put a win together vs Harvard at home. Now, if they scratch out a W vs any of the Ivy opponents they have left, I'll revisit this post. (Hind sight) If this Dartmouth team could have put a win together vs Harvard then the first half against Cornell could be evaluated as another step towards improvement... but... Just like last years 9-10 double OT loss to Penn was probably viewed as "improvement".

I'm confident all the boys on the field can play ball! As you state above "The difference between 'good' teams and 'bad' teams is about the rate of reliability of those decisions, made swiftly."...so what's the difference between good (and great) coaches vs 'other' coaches? My take on this, is 'good' coaches are able to step back and utilize what they have at their disposal to work with. Maximize their strengths and minimize their weaknesses... and at the end of the day get results. Someone posted earlier about injuries taking a toll on the lineup. This is going to be a factor with just about every team in every competitive sport. Part of being the coach is making sure you have contingencies in place for "all" of these factors.

I'm an armchair quarterback at this point, hence my postings on this forum. But I would still like to see Dartmouth more (much more) competitive with their men's lax program. Yale's up next... and hey, then Hartford!

[Dartjd76]

Most of the time I tell myself to be patient and stay supportive of D.C. lax, that the Ivies are top level competition in men's lax more than any other sport, etc. But then, I look at the top 20 D1 rankings and I see teams like Lehigh, BU, etc. pop up. What did those schools, who's programs are not well-known or have a long winning tradition do to improve to this point? More specifically, what are they doing, did they do, that Dartmouth isn't/hasn't done to get better?
On a broader scale, as lax moves into new areas of the country, new programs continue to sprout up that get on the national radar before too long. Granted, some of them are a bigger schools, some have different admission standards, scholarships, etc. but all that aside, they are putting together winning programs literally from scratch.
What is missing in Hanover where we have not found a consistent winning recipe in decades?

[tb toad]

Don't have any definite info but it may have to do with the campus culture. Is Dartmouth a male athlete friendly campus? If so, which male sports team programs have had recent success? Could be a function of High School boys perceptions.

[RumorMill]

Soccer has been extremely successful in the past decade (especially within the Ivy League). Football the last two seasons. To address your question directly... I don't think that is the factor here. But just my opinion.