Loyola University Lacrosse 2020

[Peter Brown]

I see and hear it all the time that Toomey and staff does a great job with Player Development with the guys they get.

What exactly does this term mean??

Houndace1: there's a long-winded answer to this one. Not sure I have the energy or the board had the patience to read and put up with me. But I'll give it a crack because you are a great poster.

Okay, three angles:

1. The star freshman. He arrives and maybe feels a bit more important than he should be, especially to the seniors who have put in the time and have the war stories to share with the team. Having ears as a freshman is more important than having a mouth. So, player development for the star freshman is more about emotional and character development. Coaches and senior leaders need to be on top of any outsize ego on and off the field. Drop the hammer on this kid occasionally; call him out in team meetings if he isn't leading an exemplary life. Beat him down then build him back up. Make him earn his role, don't just give it to him.

2. The really good but not good enough to start freshman: here's the kid who will be a star as a junior or senior, but maybe doesn't step onto the field Day 1 as a starter. Make sure he gets real game reps, don't sit him a la Pietremalla/Hopkins and let him rot on a bench; don't let his mind wonder about where he could have played. Put him in games that are tight, give him some real minutes. Get his game confidence up. Encourage him in Fall ball and summer ball to work on whatever you as coach feels he needs to work on. By all means, do not put him on a bench for two years and never let him see the field (like Hopkins...). Adjust his minutes.,..occasionally throw him out with the star on your team. Tell him what he did wrong, but also tell him what he did right.

3. The bench: reality is some guys will literally almost never see time. Their feet got slower as they came into college, something. But that's okay. If they have heart and team spirit, keep them motivated. Talk with them. Let them know they are as important as Pat Spencer, because when you play a game at Lafayette in a woebegone town in front of a small crowd in really cold weather, let me tell you something: those kids on the bench are as important for the starters to see and hear as anything in the universe. And who knows, there is almost always some gem on the bench that for some reason was never discovered, so keep at the bench players, help them develop as much as your starters...they will make your starters better, so it's important that the bench and 'practice' squad always improve.

That's some of player development. (I'll let others describe the stars...how do you develop a Pat Spencer as a senior...harder answer for sure)

[houndace1]

I see and hear it all the time that Toomey and staff does a great job with Player Development with the guys they get.

What exactly does this term mean??

Houndace1: there's a long-winded answer to this one. Not sure I have the energy or the board had the patience to read and put up with me. But I'll give it a crack because you are a great poster.

Okay, three angles:

1. The star freshman. He arrives and maybe feels a bit more important than he should be, especially to the seniors who have put in the time and have the war stories to share with the team. Having ears as a freshman is more important than having a mouth. So, player development for the star freshman is more about emotional and character development. Coaches and senior leaders need to be on top of any outsize ego on and off the field. Drop the hammer on this kid occasionally; call him out in team meetings if he isn't leading an exemplary life. Beat him down then build him back up. Make him earn his role, don't just give it to him.

2. The really good but not good enough to start freshman: here's the kid who will be a star as a junior or senior, but maybe doesn't step onto the field Day 1 as a starter. Make sure he gets real game reps, don't sit him a la Pietremalla/Hopkins and let him rot on a bench; don't let his mind wonder about where he could have played. Put him in games that are tight, give him some real minutes. Get his game confidence up. Encourage him in Fall ball and summer ball to work on whatever you as coach feels he needs to work on. By all means, do not put him on a bench for two years and never let him see the field (like Hopkins...). Adjust his minutes.,..occasionally throw him out with the star on your team. Tell him what he did wrong, but also tell him what he did right.

3. The bench: reality is some guys will literally almost never see time. Their feet got slower as they came into college, something. But that's okay. If they have heart and team spirit, keep them motivated. Talk with them. Let them know they are as important as Pat Spencer, because when you play a game at Lafayette in a woebegone town in front of a small crowd in really cold weather, let me tell you something: those kids on the bench are as important for the starters to see and hear as anything in the universe. And who knows, there is almost always some gem on the bench that for some reason was never discovered, so keep at the bench players, help them develop as much as your starters...they will make your starters better, so it's important that the bench and 'practice' squad always improve.

That's some of player development. (I'll let others describe the stars...how do you develop a Pat Spencer as a senior...harder answer for sure)

Thanks for the compliment PB, much appreciated. Re your 2nd and 3rd points, if these top programs get good kids ranging from UA AA to All state, then why is it that they can't start or play nearly everyone who gets these accolades? Teams that go junior/senior heavy with a sprinkle of sophomores and the occasional freshman make it so that the other players on the bench would possibly have the mindset that they'd have to wait two years (maybe more, maybe less) to even see the field for playing time, or even man up/man down playing time.

Take Loyola for example. Junior senior heavy from 2015-2019 with the occasional soph and freshman getting playing time. Foster Huggins saw Limited playing time as only a man down defenseman my freshman year. Obviously Spencer is the outlier in 16-19 given the transcendent talent he was. I get that there's a term called "Playing like a freshman" which can be described as making some questionable plays. But look at other programs like Maryland, and especially Duke. Tillman and Dino aren't afraid to make a couple freshman play significant minutes, heck even a handful of sophs and both coaches have achieved incredible success with this formula. Look at Virginia with Tiffany. 2017 they started a good amount of freshman. Interspersed the new freshman in 18 with the game developed sophomores. 19, put it all together with the senior leadership to win the whole thing.

My point is, in this long possibly confusing post, is that- coaches are paid to win, they put their best players on the field to start. But what if some of there better players are just sitting on the bench, waiting to get some PT and prove their worth? Maybe thats a secret formula, no one has cracked yet. Maybe experience growing pains by starting a lot of young guys with a touch of juniors for leadership, to then reap the benefits after a full year of game time player development

[houndace1]

I see and hear it all the time that Toomey and staff does a great job with Player Development with the guys they get.

What exactly does this term mean??

Houndace1: there's a long-winded answer to this one. Not sure I have the energy or the board had the patience to read and put up with me. But I'll give it a crack because you are a great poster.

Okay, three angles:

1. The star freshman. He arrives and maybe feels a bit more important than he should be, especially to the seniors who have put in the time and have the war stories to share with the team. Having ears as a freshman is more important than having a mouth. So, player development for the star freshman is more about emotional and character development. Coaches and senior leaders need to be on top of any outsize ego on and off the field. Drop the hammer on this kid occasionally; call him out in team meetings if he isn't leading an exemplary life. Beat him down then build him back up. Make him earn his role, don't just give it to him.

2. The really good but not good enough to start freshman: here's the kid who will be a star as a junior or senior, but maybe doesn't step onto the field Day 1 as a starter. Make sure he gets real game reps, don't sit him a la Pietremalla/Hopkins and let him rot on a bench; don't let his mind wonder about where he could have played. Put him in games that are tight, give him some real minutes. Get his game confidence up. Encourage him in Fall ball and summer ball to work on whatever you as coach feels he needs to work on. By all means, do not put him on a bench for two years and never let him see the field (like Hopkins...). Adjust his minutes.,..occasionally throw him out with the star on your team. Tell him what he did wrong, but also tell him what he did right.

3. The bench: reality is some guys will literally almost never see time. Their feet got slower as they came into college, something. But that's okay. If they have heart and team spirit, keep them motivated. Talk with them. Let them know they are as important as Pat Spencer, because when you play a game at Lafayette in a woebegone town in front of a small crowd in really cold weather, let me tell you something: those kids on the bench are as important for the starters to see and hear as anything in the universe. And who knows, there is almost always some gem on the bench that for some reason was never discovered, so keep at the bench players, help them develop as much as your starters...they will make your starters better, so it's important that the bench and 'practice' squad always improve.

That's some of player development. (I'll let others describe the stars...how do you develop a Pat Spencer as a senior...harder answer for sure)

Thanks for the compliment PB, much appreciated. Re your 2nd and 3rd points, if these top programs get good kids ranging from UA AA to All state, then why is it that they can't start or play nearly everyone who gets these accolades? Teams that go junior/senior heavy with a sprinkle of sophomores and the occasional freshman make it so that the other players on the bench would possibly have the mindset that they'd have to wait two years (maybe more, maybe less) to even see the field for playing time, or even man up/man down playing time.

Take Loyola for example. Junior senior heavy from 2015-2019 with the occasional soph and freshman getting playing time. Foster Huggins saw Limited playing time as only a man down defenseman my freshman year. Obviously Spencer is the outlier in 16-19 given the transcendent talent he was. I get that there's a term called "Playing like a freshman" which can be described as making some questionable plays. But look at other programs like Maryland, and especially Duke. Tillman and Dino aren't afraid to make a couple freshman play significant minutes, heck even a handful of sophs and both coaches have achieved incredible success with this formula. Look at Virginia with Tiffany. 2017 they started a good amount of freshman. Interspersed the new freshman in 18 with the game developed sophomores. 19, put it all together with the senior leadership to win the whole thing.

My point is, in this long possibly confusing post, is that- coaches are paid to win, they put their best players on the field to start. But what if some of there better players are just sitting on the bench, waiting to get some PT and prove their worth? Maybe thats a secret formula, no one has cracked yet. Maybe experience growing pains by starting a lot of young guys with a touch of juniors for leadership, to then reap the benefits after a full year of game time player development

Is there even an answer for Physical Player development? Obviously there's the conditioning and strength/conditioning aspect, but what about lacrosse skills stand points? How to dissect defenses, how to cradle in new ways, new dodges, new ways of shooting? I remember the commentators in 16-17 seasons saying that the staff kept trying to work on Romar Dennis's shooting stroke for overhand shots and such. Clearly something clicked because just a couple weeks ago the manz ripped an 18 yard corner shot SIDEARM. Thats something he NEVER did at Loyola

[youthathletics]

The addition of MVA helped RD a ton. He could barely hit the broad side of a barn in HS, but had moves like Jagger.

[Peter Brown]

Is there even an answer for Physical Player development? Obviously there's the conditioning and strength/conditioning aspect, but what about lacrosse skills stand points? How to dissect defenses, how to cradle in new ways, new dodges, new ways of shooting? I remember the commentators in 16-17 seasons saying that the staff kept trying to work on Romar Dennis's shooting stroke for overhand shots and such. Clearly something clicked because just a couple weeks ago the manz ripped an 18 yard corner shot SIDEARM. Thats something he NEVER did at Loyola

Lacrosse imo is one of those sports where the best athletes generally peak right at 22 years old, give or take a year or two. Which is why college lax is the best. Some young kids, and we've all known them, peak in 8th grade or even as HS juniors, but there seems to be a tailing off right after their junior year and into the senior year, where college coaches begin to regret their decisions to offer the kid a scholly (he looked great in 10th, but in 12th this kid doesn't dominate). It's a relative thing, not so much a tailing off in skills, but your competition is overtaking you, making you look slower, less athletic. You can't coach a kid to be faster or have better hand-eye.

Hard skills: Lax again imo, and this does not include the specialty positions like FOGO and goalie, is a game where self taught skills like wall-ball and shooting reps help you more than anything.

Soft skills: The other skill which is as important as anything and that is impossible to teach is field awareness. You can yell at a kid all day long to try to be in the right position at the right time, but unless that kid actually can sense where to be, he'll never improve to the extent you need him to improve. That's basic athleticism. A soft skill like field awareness is simply god-given, And we at Loyola have about the smartest field aware kid in the country in Kevin Lindley; most coaches would give their eye tooth to have Kevin, because he knows when to break and when not to break. (ironically, an area where I have banged on the inability of the Hounds somewhat is their FOGO wing unit; we often bunch up on the wrong side of the clamp which drives every head coach nuts...that position is a position where you need to find fast players who sense where a ball will pop out; we could improve on that a ton, but in the heat of a game, it's easy to forget lessons and revert to basic athleticism or lack thereof)

[houndace1]

PB, so then would you say player development is contingent upon the players Lax IQ of not only to be where they should be on the field, but to also understand the coaches advice on how to break down a game and compartmentalize it- as well as the actual will to work on their hard skill flaws to get better? Because imo to get to this level, they HAD to have already excelled at the basic fundamentals, like shooting, passing etc. So many times i read on the hop board that Petro doesn't develop the players but i always associated that with tendencies and shooting habits. Whereas in the navy practice videos i've seen, the coaches in the Sowell regime literally have the entire midfield and attack players of the team just do dry shooting strokes with no ball and break down the technique to build it back up again.

[Peter Brown]

PB, so then would you say player development is contingent upon the players Lax IQ of not only to be where they should be on the field, but to also understand the coaches advice on how to break down a game and compartmentalize it- as well as the actual will to work on their hard skill flaws to get better? Because imo to get to this level, they HAD to have already excelled at the basic fundamentals, like shooting, passing etc. So many times i read on the hop board that Petro doesn't develop the players but i always associated that with tendencies and shooting habits. Whereas in the navy practice videos i've seen, the coaches in the Sowell regime literally have the entire midfield and attack players of the team just do dry shooting strokes with no ball and break down the technique to build it back up again.

It's a longer discussion and I'm tied up today, but the reason Hopkins fans say Petro doesn't develop his kids is because he doesn't. But, it has nothing to do with tendencies and shooting habits, rather Petro has this awful habit of sitting great players and never playing them until maybe their junior or senior years. I don't think any coach in D1 underutilizes his underclassmen more than Petro; the only time he starts a freshman, it seems it's not because of their relative excellence, but rather some other reason having less to do with field success. I won't belabor the point; let's just say a ton of parents of Hopkins graduates and the graduates themselves really resent Petro for his field player selections.

You can point to a ton of Hopkins recruits, I mean REALLY good college-ready players, who don't see the field even in blowouts their first two years; he would keep his starters in no matter the score. It's the damnedest thing ever. And if you have a freshman or sophomore who is good enough to play, yet rarely if ever sees the field until his junior season, guess what? He's going to take that much more time as a junior to get used to actual game play. All you've done is waste two years of his eligibility.

Coaches need to get freshmen and sophs real playing time in real games so they can taste the energy and tension, so they are ready by their junior and senior years. Practice is not a substitute.

[houndace1]

I have some very good news.... Just found this out now but We have another FO guy coming in the 2020 class. Name is Max Mcgillcuddy. Was the main F) guy for Fairfield Prep.

ALSO PB. you'll love this. Looks like IL forgot to update the 2020 recruits coming in but we have a 4.5 Star rated guy. Apparently an LSM stud from Ontario. Hes a 91 overall rated recruit ( i think thats the highest rated recruit we've ever had). Name is Josh Fairey. Check him out!

Their recruit class rankings for 2020 is also off. They only have 16 stars total for the class which is 21st overall.
If you look at each individual recruit and add up the total stars they were assigned.... The total goes up from 16 to around 28! With 28 stars, the overall recruiting class ranking jumps from 17 to 8th tied with Princeton.

If this class holds up, with zero decommits between now and NLI signing day.... i expect this to be an extremely impactful group of guys. Plus theres only 11 recruits right now, i'm sure toomey is getting another 3-4 star guy for the last spot.

[wgdsr]

PB, so then would you say player development is contingent upon the players Lax IQ of not only to be where they should be on the field, but to also understand the coaches advice on how to break down a game and compartmentalize it- as well as the actual will to work on their hard skill flaws to get better? Because imo to get to this level, they HAD to have already excelled at the basic fundamentals, like shooting, passing etc. So many times i read on the hop board that Petro doesn't develop the players but i always associated that with tendencies and shooting habits. Whereas in the navy practice videos i've seen, the coaches in the Sowell regime literally have the entire midfield and attack players of the team just do dry shooting strokes with no ball and break down the technique to build it back up again.

It's a longer discussion and I'm tied up today, but the reason Hopkins fans say Petro doesn't develop his kids is because he doesn't. But, it has nothing to do with tendencies and shooting habits, rather Petro has this awful habit of sitting great players and never playing them until maybe their junior or senior years. I don't think any coach in D1 underutilizes his underclassmen more than Petro; the only time he starts a freshman, it seems it's not because of their relative excellence, but rather some other reason having less to do with field success. I won't belabor the point; let's just say a ton of parents of Hopkins graduates and the graduates themselves really resent Petro for his field player selections.

You can point to a ton of Hopkins recruits, I mean REALLY good college-ready players, who don't see the field even in blowouts their first two years; he would keep his starters in no matter the score. It's the damnedest thing ever. And if you have a freshman or sophomore who is good enough to play, yet rarely if ever sees the field until his junior season, guess what? He's going to take that much more time as a junior to get used to actual game play. All you've done is waste two years of his eligibility.

Coaches need to get freshmen and sophs real playing time in real games so they can taste the energy and tension, so they are ready by their junior and senior years. Practice is not a substitute.

which juniors and seniors that picked up time didn't play/rarely if ever saw the field as freshmen/sophomores?

[Peter Brown]

PB, so then would you say player development is contingent upon the players Lax IQ of not only to be where they should be on the field, but to also understand the coaches advice on how to break down a game and compartmentalize it- as well as the actual will to work on their hard skill flaws to get better? Because imo to get to this level, they HAD to have already excelled at the basic fundamentals, like shooting, passing etc. So many times i read on the hop board that Petro doesn't develop the players but i always associated that with tendencies and shooting habits. Whereas in the navy practice videos i've seen, the coaches in the Sowell regime literally have the entire midfield and attack players of the team just do dry shooting strokes with no ball and break down the technique to build it back up again.

It's a longer discussion and I'm tied up today, but the reason Hopkins fans say Petro doesn't develop his kids is because he doesn't. But, it has nothing to do with tendencies and shooting habits, rather Petro has this awful habit of sitting great players and never playing them until maybe their junior or senior years. I don't think any coach in D1 underutilizes his underclassmen more than Petro; the only time he starts a freshman, it seems it's not because of their relative excellence, but rather some other reason having less to do with field success. I won't belabor the point; let's just say a ton of parents of Hopkins graduates and the graduates themselves really resent Petro for his field player selections.

You can point to a ton of Hopkins recruits, I mean REALLY good college-ready players, who don't see the field even in blowouts their first two years; he would keep his starters in no matter the score. It's the damnedest thing ever. And if you have a freshman or sophomore who is good enough to play, yet rarely if ever sees the field until his junior season, guess what? He's going to take that much more time as a junior to get used to actual game play. All you've done is waste two years of his eligibility.

Coaches need to get freshmen and sophs real playing time in real games so they can taste the energy and tension, so they are ready by their junior and senior years. Practice is not a substitute.

which juniors and seniors that picked up time didn't play/rarely if ever saw the field as freshmen/sophomores?

I'm not a Hopkins expert (and I don't want to become one). I also don't have the time to do any deep dives into history, but wgsdr, there are more than just a few at HOP who did not develop properly. I know several. I can't think of any other program with so many dissatisfied parents...but maybe that's not Petro's fault.

Let me say that without knowing the full story about either of these players, and I absolutely do not know the parents of either so this is speculation and you are better seated to discuss (one wasn't even around after year 1 or 2), look at the cases of Jack Olson and Brinton Valis.

Olson so far as I know never even saw the field his freshmen year. This was a kid who should have been a college star. I do not know what happened. Could have been his own fault. What I can say is, he might be the one player I have seen play in high school whom I knew would be an absolute beast in college. A rumor was that he got the better of the other Hopkins FOGO's in practice, but still did not play. I do not know the story there, but what a waste for that talent to be wasted. He transferred to UMichigan, played one year, then as I understand, quit the sport. Saw him at Gtown Prep many times. No bigger competitor, no better talent on some talented teams.

Valis for sure was not developed properly. His junior year., he almost regressed in skill. It took a full junior year to wring out confidence and problems; by his senior year, HOP finally took advantage of the kid's speed. You'd need to quiz him, but my impression of the game against Loyola in 2017, he looked unsure of himself (HOP won that game 14-13). The following year, when we beat HOP 12-5, ironically he looked confident and you could see his speed and skill. He was also a sure-thing D1 player, with speed to kill for. Saw him at McDonogh several times; he could single handedly win games for McD against top-flight competition.

And let me add this too. I don't think Shack by his senior year was really all that good, but still he played nearly every second of every game. I'm sure you can say that he scored 50+ points etc..., but my eyes and many others thought he was very slow relative to competition, and I am not sure he actually caused any wins.

Uh oh...incoming...

[HopFan16]

Uh oh...incoming...

This is the only part of your post that is correct. Everything else is off the mark, though it seems as though you may have known that already.

I do not know the story there, but what a waste for that talent to be wasted. He transferred to UMichigan, played one year, then as I understand, quit the sport.

Ok, so you admit to not knowing the story. That's a start, I suppose. If a kid transfers to Michigan, hardly gets any playing time there either, and then leaves the team...yeah, there's probably something else going on.

Valis for sure was not developed properly. His junior year., he almost regressed in skill. It took a full junior year to wring out confidence and problems; by his senior year, HOP finally took advantage of the kid's speed. You'd need to quiz him, but my impression of the game against Loyola in 2017, he looked unsure of himself (HOP won that game 14-13). The following year, when we beat HOP 12-5, ironically he looked confident and you could see his speed and skill. He was also a sure-thing D1 player, with speed to kill for. Saw him at McDonogh several times; he could single handedly win games for McD against top-flight competition.

Valis played in 34 games his first three years—he was given opportunity. He had five goals and 8 total points over that span, shooting below 25%. Sometimes guys don't live up to their high school pedigrees. And the majority of his 15 goals senior year were of the off-ball/finishing variety, not off speed dodges. So I'm not really sure what games you were watching.

And let me add this too. I don't think Shack by his senior year was really all that good, but still he played nearly every second of every game. I'm sure you can say that he scored 50+ points etc..., but my eyes and many others thought he was very slow relative to competition, and I am not sure he actually caused any wins.

Shack was dealing with a debilitating back injury sustained early in his career and still put up 50 points every season, as you mentioned. On 42% shooting. The "slowness" you're referring to very likely had something to do with injury. Saying that a player who has over 200 career points did not "cause any wins" is completely laughable. In fact I seem to recall him having a pretty good game against Loyola in 2017 when Hopkins wound up winning by 1. He had 4 times as many goals as Pat Spencer that day. Seems like it had something of an impact on the win.

[youthathletics]

Defenseman Steel could be on that list from Hop. #15 ranked pole entering JHU and seldom sees the feel long enough to log a stat.....kid played great at Bullis and in UAAA games.

[wgdsr]

hop16 writing my post for me.

there's a couple youtube and hudl vids up on valis in hs. looks like he's pretty developed in size already. the guys he's going against vs episcopal and st mary's are.... cute in their little uniforms.

things change in college, and some guys rise. sometimes injuries and other stuff (like competition for spots) gets in the way. not for nothing, but valis stepped on the field 13 out of 15 games his sophomore year. 8 in freshman year (ok, maybe all garbage time in those 8). maybe the total production is indicative of the less-than-1st-line-pt in year 1. + year 2? who was he supposed to be on the field instead of in 2015 and 2016? -- because you can't have 11 guys out there. ALL of the guys that played "in front of" him in those 2 years played quite a bit to substantially from their freshman year on, save for eissler... who played some.

i looked at last year's roster, and without checking, just about every high-playing junior or senior played quite a bit to a lot their 1st 2 years. again, you can only have 10 guys on the field at a time. btb, maybe you're not surprised, but you're not the only guy on here that says hopkins doesn't play freshmen. i think it's kind of silly and put-the-backup-qb-ish-in every time i read it, but you're in company. should hopkins play more guys? probably, if they were good enough to be recruited there, i'm assuming they don't miss entirely on 60+% of their guys. but they are certainly not alone in keeping the rotation short. many places love their 1st midfield now. not so much their 2nd. or 4th defenseman/attack. i guess they must know something. they're college coaches and wouldn't participate in groupthink.

[HopFan16]

And let me add this too. I don't think Shack by his senior year was really all that good, but still he played nearly every second of every game. I'm sure you can say that he scored 50+ points etc..., but my eyes and many others thought he was very slow relative to competition, and I am not sure he actually caused any wins.

This part in particular gets worse the more you look at it. Speaking of Spencer, he's the only player in the Greyhounds' 36-year history as a D1 lacrosse team with more career points than Stanwick. Shack's measly 209 "not all that good," "not causing any wins" points would be good for SECOND ALL-TIME in Loyola's history. Third if you count Hanley, who played in the late 70s when the team was D2.

Clown show. Nearly rivals your "Loyola is going to be better without Pat Spencer" take but I honestly don't think anything can ever top that one.

[Homer]

[Shack] was very slow relative to competition

Entirely true.

and I am not sure he actually caused any wins.

Utterly and grotesquely false.

[wgdsr]

And let me add this too. I don't think Shack by his senior year was really all that good, but still he played nearly every second of every game. I'm sure you can say that he scored 50+ points etc..., but my eyes and many others thought he was very slow relative to competition, and I am not sure he actually caused any wins.

This part in particular gets worse the more you look at it. Speaking of Spencer, he's the only player in the Greyhounds' 36-year history as a D1 lacrosse team with more career points than Stanwick. Shack's measly 209 "not all that good," "not causing any wins" points would be good for SECOND ALL-TIME in Loyola's history. Third if you count Hanley, who played in the late 70s when the team was D2.

Clown show. Nearly rivals your "Loyola is going to be better without Pat Spencer" take but I honestly don't think anything can ever top that one.

you have to count hanley. gary's the man.
so shack is 3rd behind hanley.

[OCanada]

PB Shack battled injuries. In his senior year, maybe junior, he had three cracked ribs. He also had a back injury that could have benefitted from more medical treatment than he permitted. So if your observation is he was better earlier you are right in the sense his play was restricted later. Of course there are those on the Hopkins thread who don’t care about things like that

[blue angels]

And let me add this too. I don't think Shack by his senior year was really all that good, but still he played nearly every second of every game. I'm sure you can say that he scored 50+ points etc..., but my eyes and many others thought he was very slow relative to competition, and I am not sure he actually caused any wins.

This part in particular gets worse the more you look at it. Speaking of Spencer, he's the only player in the Greyhounds' 36-year history as a D1 lacrosse team with more career points than Stanwick. Shack's measly 209 "not all that good," "not causing any wins" points would be good for SECOND ALL-TIME in Loyola's history. Third if you count Hanley, who played in the late 70s when the team was D2.

Clown show. Nearly rivals your "Loyola is going to be better without Pat Spencer" take but I honestly don't think anything can ever top that one.

Well.....Look out for Ross Pridemore who is going to break all of Spencer’s records. He’s a great attack man

[Peter Brown]

And let me add this too. I don't think Shack by his senior year was really all that good, but still he played nearly every second of every game. I'm sure you can say that he scored 50+ points etc..., but my eyes and many others thought he was very slow relative to competition, and I am not sure he actually caused any wins.

This part in particular gets worse the more you look at it. Speaking of Spencer, he's the only player in the Greyhounds' 36-year history as a D1 lacrosse team with more career points than Stanwick. Shack's measly 209 "not all that good," "not causing any wins" points would be good for SECOND ALL-TIME in Loyola's history. Third if you count Hanley, who played in the late 70s when the team was D2.

Clown show. Nearly rivals your "Loyola is going to be better without Pat Spencer" take but I honestly don't think anything can ever top that one.

Hop fans sure are testy on the internet...which happens when the last time you win an NC in the only sport you compete in is 12 years back.

I'll bookmark your post though hopfan16, to see if my prediction of Loyola '20 exceeding Loyola '19 is correct (hint: it is). There's this odd phenomenon in certain sports (like, say, lacrosse) where the whole can surpass the sum of the parts, a concept that Bloomberg's charter school a mile south on Charles Street seems to miss every year in Physics...or is that chemistry.

[houndace1]

Other transfer news...

Riley Seay from Bellarmine is transferring to loyola after a 39 point season (30 goals, 9 assists).

Also, 6’1 midfielder, Jack Decker from Marist is transferring from Marist to loyola as well.

Perhaps these two additions will help organically replace the production from the loss of Scanlan