Recruiting
Re: Recruiting
I love how people here say what coaches are looking for. I for one am willing to say o thought I could teach a class on recruiting after going through one. But after last year, seeing the recruiting process a second time (not a covid one) and witnessing mid colleges pass on certain kids and top colleges take other projects, I unlike some here am ok with saying, I have no f’ing clue what these coaches are evaluating kids on.
Re: Recruiting
For what it's worth, for schools that recruited my 25 and 23 daughters, but didn't offer, their feedback pretty much fell into one of 3 categoriesRelax77 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 7:17 pm I love how people here say what coaches are looking for. I for one am willing to say o thought I could teach a class on recruiting after going through one. But after last year, seeing the recruiting process a second time (not a covid one) and witnessing mid colleges pass on certain kids and top colleges take other projects, I unlike some here am ok with saying, I have no f’ing clue what these coaches are evaluating kids on.
1) Not consistent enough. We thought she was great in a couple events, but didn't sustain that level of play since the fall. (My 23 daughter got injured in first game of Fall Draw and missed LFTC and Presidents cup her sophomore year)
2) Didn't have the measureables we were looking for. This made sense. A couple schools tended to recruit big, not thin defenders. My daughers didn't fit that mold.
3) Not enough upside. We think she is great now, but since she has played at a top club, we aren't sure how much more upside there is. In both of these examples, the spots went to girls from non-traditional lacrosse locations (Illinois, Texas)
Re: Recruiting
LaxDadMax wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 7:31 pmFor what it's worth, for schools that recruited my 25 and 23 daughters, but didn't offer, their feedback pretty much fell into one of 3 categoriesRelax77 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 7:17 pm I love how people here say what coaches are looking for. I for one am willing to say o thought I could teach a class on recruiting after going through one. But after last year, seeing the recruiting process a second time (not a covid one) and witnessing mid colleges pass on certain kids and top colleges take other projects, I unlike some here am ok with saying, I have no f’ing clue what these coaches are evaluating kids on.
1) Not consistent enough. We thought she was great in a couple events, but didn't sustain that level of play since the fall. (My 23 daughter got injured in first game of Fall Draw and missed LFTC and Presidents cup her sophomore year)
2) Didn't have the measureables we were looking for. This made sense. A couple schools tended to recruit big, not thin defenders. My daughers didn't fit that mold.
3) Not enough upside. We think she is great now, but since she has played at a top club, we aren't sure how much more upside there is. In both of these examples, the spots went to girls from non-traditional lacrosse locations (Illinois, Texas)
Yeah but Max you illustrate my point. For instance, I know a really small player. For every team that said you’re too small, there was another team that offered and could care less she was 5’1”. She ended up in a top 15 team with offers from multiple top 25s. She got about four or five, “too small”. So what I’m saying is every single team and coach look at things differently. It’s not a one size fits all so you can’t say “hey this is what coaches are looking for.” Because they all see things and do things differently.
I can see size being an issue for some teams. I get that. I don’t get the head scratchers “how the hell did Team X take her?” And I think the answer may be one of three things. Project, legacy or Favor. Will be interesting if down the line they actually do go to roster caps. Those three categories will all be obsolete.
Re: Recruiting
Syracuse just picked up two very good players.
Cummings from Prime Time
Kaplan from HHH
Cummings from Prime Time
Kaplan from HHH
Re: Recruiting
From what I've seen, every small (less than 5-4) field player who goes to a top 40 school either has the elite or very very good speed. The ones who struggle are the smaller, great lax IQ girls who can't beat their defender with a first step (either on attack or on the clear).Relax77 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 7:41 pmLaxDadMax wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 7:31 pmFor what it's worth, for schools that recruited my 25 and 23 daughters, but didn't offer, their feedback pretty much fell into one of 3 categoriesRelax77 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 7:17 pm I love how people here say what coaches are looking for. I for one am willing to say o thought I could teach a class on recruiting after going through one. But after last year, seeing the recruiting process a second time (not a covid one) and witnessing mid colleges pass on certain kids and top colleges take other projects, I unlike some here am ok with saying, I have no f’ing clue what these coaches are evaluating kids on.
1) Not consistent enough. We thought she was great in a couple events, but didn't sustain that level of play since the fall. (My 23 daughter got injured in first game of Fall Draw and missed LFTC and Presidents cup her sophomore year)
2) Didn't have the measureables we were looking for. This made sense. A couple schools tended to recruit big, not thin defenders. My daughers didn't fit that mold.
3) Not enough upside. We think she is great now, but since she has played at a top club, we aren't sure how much more upside there is. In both of these examples, the spots went to girls from non-traditional lacrosse locations (Illinois, Texas)
Yeah but Max you illustrate my point. For instance, I know a really small player. For every team that said you’re too small, there was another team that offered and could care less she was 5’1”. She ended up in a top 15 team with offers from multiple top 25s. She got about four or five, “too small”. So what I’m saying is every single team and coach look at things differently. It’s not a one size fits all so you can’t say “hey this is what coaches are looking for.” Because they all see things and do things differently.
I can see size being an issue for some teams. I get that. I don’t get the head scratchers “how the hell did Team X take her?” And I think the answer may be one of three things. Project, legacy or Favor. Will be interesting if down the line they actually do go to roster caps. Those three categories will all be obsolete.
Will be real interesting to see how size plays out in 27 class. Three of the top girls (and in my opnion -- the top 3 girls) are all 5-3 or under.
Re: Recruiting
This girl is the later of your examples in my opinion. So we’ll see. Missy used to take all big kids, then Maria Auth went to PSU and lit it up at 5’2. There’s more to just size. Schools that say they are just going big will do so at their own peril (someone used that line here and I love it ). Imagine someone passing on Sam Apuzzo because she wasn’t 5’11?LaxDadMax wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 9:00 pmFrom what I've seen, every small (less than 5-4) field player who goes to a top 40 school either has the elite or very very good speed. The ones who struggle are the smaller, great lax IQ girls who can't beat their defender with a first step (either on attack or on the clear).Relax77 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 7:41 pmLaxDadMax wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 7:31 pmFor what it's worth, for schools that recruited my 25 and 23 daughters, but didn't offer, their feedback pretty much fell into one of 3 categoriesRelax77 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 7:17 pm I love how people here say what coaches are looking for. I for one am willing to say o thought I could teach a class on recruiting after going through one. But after last year, seeing the recruiting process a second time (not a covid one) and witnessing mid colleges pass on certain kids and top colleges take other projects, I unlike some here am ok with saying, I have no f’ing clue what these coaches are evaluating kids on.
1) Not consistent enough. We thought she was great in a couple events, but didn't sustain that level of play since the fall. (My 23 daughter got injured in first game of Fall Draw and missed LFTC and Presidents cup her sophomore year)
2) Didn't have the measureables we were looking for. This made sense. A couple schools tended to recruit big, not thin defenders. My daughers didn't fit that mold.
3) Not enough upside. We think she is great now, but since she has played at a top club, we aren't sure how much more upside there is. In both of these examples, the spots went to girls from non-traditional lacrosse locations (Illinois, Texas)
Yeah but Max you illustrate my point. For instance, I know a really small player. For every team that said you’re too small, there was another team that offered and could care less she was 5’1”. She ended up in a top 15 team with offers from multiple top 25s. She got about four or five, “too small”. So what I’m saying is every single team and coach look at things differently. It’s not a one size fits all so you can’t say “hey this is what coaches are looking for.” Because they all see things and do things differently.
I can see size being an issue for some teams. I get that. I don’t get the head scratchers “how the hell did Team X take her?” And I think the answer may be one of three things. Project, legacy or Favor. Will be interesting if down the line they actually do go to roster caps. Those three categories will all be obsolete.
Will be real interesting to see how size plays out in 27 class. Three of the top girls (and in my opnion -- the top 3 girls) are all 5-3 or under.
Re: Recruiting
Pretty sure IL like all the individual rankings I am familiar with are pay to play but I could be wrong.Codylax14 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 8:54 amShe is very good. Plenty of girls were missed by IL ....shows clearly by missing her. i was told coaches don't look anywayKleizaster wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 5:30 pm Rassas to ND
Regan Backer to UVA.
Backer is very good. Surprised she wasn't ranked. Good pick up by the cavaliers
-
- Posts: 221
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2023 1:02 pm
Re: Recruiting
The class rankings are not pay to play. You can pay to get an evaluation and also for their special
Lists - under the radar, etc. The girls
List is way behind the IL boys lists both in quality and respect for.
Lists - under the radar, etc. The girls
List is way behind the IL boys lists both in quality and respect for.
Re: Recruiting
The rankings are not pay to play. However, there is lots of influence based on 1) which high school/club you play for. 2) which events you attend which IL is at.laxfan9999 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2024 7:06 am The class rankings are not pay to play. You can pay to get an evaluation and also for their special
Lists - under the radar, etc. The girls
List is way behind the IL boys lists both in quality and respect for.
Regarding Backer, I think if she went to Mt. Sinai, Northport, BBP or St. Anthonys, i'm pretty sure she would be ranking. That said, she is going to an up and coming ACC team and will likely make an impact very early so I doubt she cares.
-
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2024 8:04 am
Re: Recruiting
I think you are referring to the Aces player but she may have strongest shot at age.LaxDadMax wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 9:00 pmFrom what I've seen, every small (less than 5-4) field player who goes to a top 40 school either has the elite or very very good speed. The ones who struggle are the smaller, great lax IQ girls who can't beat their defender with a first step (either on attack or on the clear).Relax77 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 7:41 pmLaxDadMax wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 7:31 pmFor what it's worth, for schools that recruited my 25 and 23 daughters, but didn't offer, their feedback pretty much fell into one of 3 categoriesRelax77 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 7:17 pm I love how people here say what coaches are looking for. I for one am willing to say o thought I could teach a class on recruiting after going through one. But after last year, seeing the recruiting process a second time (not a covid one) and witnessing mid colleges pass on certain kids and top colleges take other projects, I unlike some here am ok with saying, I have no f’ing clue what these coaches are evaluating kids on.
1) Not consistent enough. We thought she was great in a couple events, but didn't sustain that level of play since the fall. (My 23 daughter got injured in first game of Fall Draw and missed LFTC and Presidents cup her sophomore year)
2) Didn't have the measureables we were looking for. This made sense. A couple schools tended to recruit big, not thin defenders. My daughers didn't fit that mold.
3) Not enough upside. We think she is great now, but since she has played at a top club, we aren't sure how much more upside there is. In both of these examples, the spots went to girls from non-traditional lacrosse locations (Illinois, Texas)
Yeah but Max you illustrate my point. For instance, I know a really small player. For every team that said you’re too small, there was another team that offered and could care less she was 5’1”. She ended up in a top 15 team with offers from multiple top 25s. She got about four or five, “too small”. So what I’m saying is every single team and coach look at things differently. It’s not a one size fits all so you can’t say “hey this is what coaches are looking for.” Because they all see things and do things differently.
I can see size being an issue for some teams. I get that. I don’t get the head scratchers “how the hell did Team X take her?” And I think the answer may be one of three things. Project, legacy or Favor. Will be interesting if down the line they actually do go to roster caps. Those three categories will all be obsolete.
Will be real interesting to see how size plays out in 27 class. Three of the top girls (and in my opnion -- the top 3 girls) are all 5-3 or under.
Not sure the other two you refer to.
Re: Recruiting
Rankings also become influenced by where players commit. Multiple girls in my daughter's class were strong players for top clubs but once they committed to schools like BC, ND, VA their rankings shot up yet many of those same players have not yet panned out in college.
Re: Recruiting
From what i've seen the top 4 attacking players in the class play for Eagle Stix, Aces, Alliance, and Mass Elite. The first three are all 5-4 or less.MDstateMan wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2024 8:59 amI think you are referring to the Aces player but she may have strongest shot at age.LaxDadMax wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 9:00 pmFrom what I've seen, every small (less than 5-4) field player who goes to a top 40 school either has the elite or very very good speed. The ones who struggle are the smaller, great lax IQ girls who can't beat their defender with a first step (either on attack or on the clear).Relax77 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 7:41 pmLaxDadMax wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 7:31 pmFor what it's worth, for schools that recruited my 25 and 23 daughters, but didn't offer, their feedback pretty much fell into one of 3 categoriesRelax77 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 7:17 pm I love how people here say what coaches are looking for. I for one am willing to say o thought I could teach a class on recruiting after going through one. But after last year, seeing the recruiting process a second time (not a covid one) and witnessing mid colleges pass on certain kids and top colleges take other projects, I unlike some here am ok with saying, I have no f’ing clue what these coaches are evaluating kids on.
1) Not consistent enough. We thought she was great in a couple events, but didn't sustain that level of play since the fall. (My 23 daughter got injured in first game of Fall Draw and missed LFTC and Presidents cup her sophomore year)
2) Didn't have the measureables we were looking for. This made sense. A couple schools tended to recruit big, not thin defenders. My daughers didn't fit that mold.
3) Not enough upside. We think she is great now, but since she has played at a top club, we aren't sure how much more upside there is. In both of these examples, the spots went to girls from non-traditional lacrosse locations (Illinois, Texas)
Yeah but Max you illustrate my point. For instance, I know a really small player. For every team that said you’re too small, there was another team that offered and could care less she was 5’1”. She ended up in a top 15 team with offers from multiple top 25s. She got about four or five, “too small”. So what I’m saying is every single team and coach look at things differently. It’s not a one size fits all so you can’t say “hey this is what coaches are looking for.” Because they all see things and do things differently.
I can see size being an issue for some teams. I get that. I don’t get the head scratchers “how the hell did Team X take her?” And I think the answer may be one of three things. Project, legacy or Favor. Will be interesting if down the line they actually do go to roster caps. Those three categories will all be obsolete.
Will be real interesting to see how size plays out in 27 class. Three of the top girls (and in my opnion -- the top 3 girls) are all 5-3 or under.
Not sure the other two you refer to.
In terms of overall rankings, i'd put at least 4 goalies from the 27 class top 10 players overall.
-
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2024 8:04 am
Re: Recruiting
what clubs are those goalies? I assume Jesters is one of them.LaxDadMax wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2024 9:47 amFrom what i've seen the top 4 attacking players in the class play for Eagle Stix, Aces, Alliance, and Mass Elite. The first three are all 5-4 or less.MDstateMan wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2024 8:59 amI think you are referring to the Aces player but she may have strongest shot at age.LaxDadMax wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 9:00 pmFrom what I've seen, every small (less than 5-4) field player who goes to a top 40 school either has the elite or very very good speed. The ones who struggle are the smaller, great lax IQ girls who can't beat their defender with a first step (either on attack or on the clear).Relax77 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 7:41 pmLaxDadMax wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 7:31 pmFor what it's worth, for schools that recruited my 25 and 23 daughters, but didn't offer, their feedback pretty much fell into one of 3 categoriesRelax77 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 7:17 pm I love how people here say what coaches are looking for. I for one am willing to say o thought I could teach a class on recruiting after going through one. But after last year, seeing the recruiting process a second time (not a covid one) and witnessing mid colleges pass on certain kids and top colleges take other projects, I unlike some here am ok with saying, I have no f’ing clue what these coaches are evaluating kids on.
1) Not consistent enough. We thought she was great in a couple events, but didn't sustain that level of play since the fall. (My 23 daughter got injured in first game of Fall Draw and missed LFTC and Presidents cup her sophomore year)
2) Didn't have the measureables we were looking for. This made sense. A couple schools tended to recruit big, not thin defenders. My daughers didn't fit that mold.
3) Not enough upside. We think she is great now, but since she has played at a top club, we aren't sure how much more upside there is. In both of these examples, the spots went to girls from non-traditional lacrosse locations (Illinois, Texas)
Yeah but Max you illustrate my point. For instance, I know a really small player. For every team that said you’re too small, there was another team that offered and could care less she was 5’1”. She ended up in a top 15 team with offers from multiple top 25s. She got about four or five, “too small”. So what I’m saying is every single team and coach look at things differently. It’s not a one size fits all so you can’t say “hey this is what coaches are looking for.” Because they all see things and do things differently.
I can see size being an issue for some teams. I get that. I don’t get the head scratchers “how the hell did Team X take her?” And I think the answer may be one of three things. Project, legacy or Favor. Will be interesting if down the line they actually do go to roster caps. Those three categories will all be obsolete.
Will be real interesting to see how size plays out in 27 class. Three of the top girls (and in my opnion -- the top 3 girls) are all 5-3 or under.
Not sure the other two you refer to.
In terms of overall rankings, i'd put at least 4 goalies from the 27 class top 10 players overall.
Re: Recruiting
YJ, Heros, Jesters, Triple Threat. M&D, Eagle Stix, Liberty, Top Guns also have outstanding keepers who should be top 40-50.MDstateMan wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2024 9:56 amwhat clubs are those goalies? I assume Jesters is one of them.LaxDadMax wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2024 9:47 amFrom what i've seen the top 4 attacking players in the class play for Eagle Stix, Aces, Alliance, and Mass Elite. The first three are all 5-4 or less.MDstateMan wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2024 8:59 amI think you are referring to the Aces player but she may have strongest shot at age.LaxDadMax wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 9:00 pmFrom what I've seen, every small (less than 5-4) field player who goes to a top 40 school either has the elite or very very good speed. The ones who struggle are the smaller, great lax IQ girls who can't beat their defender with a first step (either on attack or on the clear).Relax77 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 7:41 pmLaxDadMax wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 7:31 pmFor what it's worth, for schools that recruited my 25 and 23 daughters, but didn't offer, their feedback pretty much fell into one of 3 categoriesRelax77 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 7:17 pm I love how people here say what coaches are looking for. I for one am willing to say o thought I could teach a class on recruiting after going through one. But after last year, seeing the recruiting process a second time (not a covid one) and witnessing mid colleges pass on certain kids and top colleges take other projects, I unlike some here am ok with saying, I have no f’ing clue what these coaches are evaluating kids on.
1) Not consistent enough. We thought she was great in a couple events, but didn't sustain that level of play since the fall. (My 23 daughter got injured in first game of Fall Draw and missed LFTC and Presidents cup her sophomore year)
2) Didn't have the measureables we were looking for. This made sense. A couple schools tended to recruit big, not thin defenders. My daughers didn't fit that mold.
3) Not enough upside. We think she is great now, but since she has played at a top club, we aren't sure how much more upside there is. In both of these examples, the spots went to girls from non-traditional lacrosse locations (Illinois, Texas)
Yeah but Max you illustrate my point. For instance, I know a really small player. For every team that said you’re too small, there was another team that offered and could care less she was 5’1”. She ended up in a top 15 team with offers from multiple top 25s. She got about four or five, “too small”. So what I’m saying is every single team and coach look at things differently. It’s not a one size fits all so you can’t say “hey this is what coaches are looking for.” Because they all see things and do things differently.
I can see size being an issue for some teams. I get that. I don’t get the head scratchers “how the hell did Team X take her?” And I think the answer may be one of three things. Project, legacy or Favor. Will be interesting if down the line they actually do go to roster caps. Those three categories will all be obsolete.
Will be real interesting to see how size plays out in 27 class. Three of the top girls (and in my opnion -- the top 3 girls) are all 5-3 or under.
Not sure the other two you refer to.
In terms of overall rankings, i'd put at least 4 goalies from the 27 class top 10 players overall.
-
- Posts: 648
- Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2020 9:54 pm
Re: Recruiting
Ava Fossatti to BC.
Nice pickup by the eagles. Has an insane shot
Nice pickup by the eagles. Has an insane shot
Re: Recruiting
What a coincidence. She just happened to be playing for them in the committed games.Kleizaster wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2024 6:46 pm Ava Fossatti to BC.
Nice pickup by the eagles. Has an insane shot
Re: Recruiting
Hi, this is my first post but I’ve been reading through all the forums for the past weeks. How important is Best in Class summer for a 27. I’ve noticed with the commitments a lot of players going to top schools played at it. Is it really important even if you’re on a top club team?
Re: Recruiting
It is a nice event but not necessary to be recruited. If your daughter plays for a top club like Yellow Jackets, M&D, or Florida Select and Eagle Stix in the south they will get plenty of exposure.laxfanrs wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2024 9:06 pm Hi, this is my first post but I’ve been reading through all the forums for the past weeks. How important is Best in Class summer for a 27. I’ve noticed with the commitments a lot of players going to top schools played at it. Is it really important even if you’re on a top club team?
Re: Recruiting
Kate Kenney (mad dog west elite) just committed to Harvard. She’s a 6 foot attacker.Kleizaster wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2024 5:25 pmgood find. The idea of a 6ft+ attacker with speed and stick skills is a terrifying prospectNULax2 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2024 5:20 pmEasy, (NU/Stanford Coach) Danielle Spencer was 6'2"Kleizaster wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2024 2:50 pm Penn State got a commit from a giant, 6ft tall attacker from Georgia. Has there ever been an attacker that tall in women's lacrosse? can't recall. Will almost certainly convert to a draw specialist/middie in college
https://nusports.com/sports/womens-lacr ... pencer/957