LaxPower Back-Up Stick

pcowlax wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2019 8:21 pm Spencer is a historically great player. He would be wondering what the hell hit him when he was eviscerated by Brodie Merrill.

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 7:36 am

pcowlax wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2019 8:21 pm Spencer is a historically great player. He would be wondering what the hell hit him when he was eviscerated by Brodie Merrill.

I know both guys. I've stood next to both guys. Pat Spencer is much larger physically and about 4-5 inches taller than Brodie, is my guess.

To date, there has been exactly one defender who sometimes (but not always) got the better of Pat through the years and that was Johnny Surdick of Army, who was one of the few defenders who was taller than Pat but (as important) very athletic.

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 7:36 am

pcowlax wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2019 8:21 pm Spencer is a historically great player. He would be wondering what the hell hit him when he was eviscerated by Brodie Merrill.

I know both guys. I've stood next to both guys. Pat Spencer is much larger physically and about 4-5 inches taller than Brodie, is my guess.

To date, there has been exactly one defender who sometimes (but not always) got the better of Pat through the years and that was Johnny Surdick of Army, who was one of the few defenders who was taller than Pat but (as important) very athletic.

pcowlax wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 8:53 am I wasn’t going to say it but yes, that would make Pat Spencer Zion Williamson. He is a wonderful player. But when you are talking about historically great defenders, there is a lot more to it than just size. Lax isn’t football, you can bully someone down all you want but you still need your hands free and your stick in your hand to shoot. I don’t want it at all to sound like I am disparaging Spencer so I will leave it at this. People who saw him are still talking in amazement about Merrill, I don’t think in 20 years anyone will remember who Johnny Surdick was.

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 1:44 pm This is where the spencer talk is too much. He’s great, cool, but there’s a number of guys over the last 20yrs who separated from their cohort similarly (using this language to include guys who’d never even be considered for the award).

I wouldn’t be surprised if Mike Manley would’ve beat him in submission let alone Merrill. Or anyone ever see Jake Reed or some Diogu play? And I hated playing those dirty umass teams.

I mean in separating from the positional peers, one could argue Josh hawkins was further out the curve from e median than spencer to other attackmen.

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 1:44 pm This is where the spencer talk is too much. He’s great, cool, but there’s a number of guys over the last 20yrs who separated from their cohort similarly (using this language to include guys who’d never even be considered for the award).

I wouldn’t be surprised if Mike Manley would’ve beat him in submission let alone Merrill. Or anyone ever see Jake Reed or some Diogu play? And I hated playing those dirty umass teams.

I mean in separating from the positional peers, one could argue Josh hawkins was further out the curve from e median than spencer to other attackmen.

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 4:32 pm Let me ask you who you think is around today and/or more specifically who Spencer faced that is on Merrill or Reeds level?

And that isn’t even the point, acknowledging the award is basically attack and occasional middle, it was stated that spencer is the second best player in the last twenty years. What I’m saying is those two were so far above their peers and cohort that they’d, particularly merrill, is a better candidate for top two player in college. Though he’s further back than 20yrs. I think Matt Abbott could be discussed in this conversation as well. It’d take a lot of work to even get a decent level of support for spencer as #2, maybe it’s possible but certainly nothing to be declared definiticely

New2lax wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 5:15 pm

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 1:44 pm This is where the spencer talk is too much. He’s great, cool, but there’s a number of guys over the last 20yrs who separated from their cohort similarly (using this language to include guys who’d never even be considered for the award).

I wouldn’t be surprised if Mike Manley would’ve beat him in submission let alone Merrill. Or anyone ever see Jake Reed or some Diogu play? And I hated playing those dirty umass teams.

I mean in separating from the positional peers, one could argue Josh hawkins was further out the curve from e median than spencer to other attackmen.

My statement to you would be, if it’s too much then ignore it or get off the thread! Hate to break it to you, but the kids nowadays are only interested in what is in front of them at the moment. Next year it will be somebody else. I bet if you asked kids playing lacrosse now who Merrill or Manley or Hawkins were, they would look at you like you had 2 heads. Leave it alone and let Spencer enjoy the moment...he has certainly earned it!

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 5:37 pm

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 4:32 pm Let me ask you who you think is around today and/or more specifically who Spencer faced that is on Merrill or Reeds level?

And that isn’t even the point, acknowledging the award is basically attack and occasional middle, it was stated that spencer is the second best player in the last twenty years. What I’m saying is those two were so far above their peers and cohort that they’d, particularly merrill, is a better candidate for top two player in college. Though he’s further back than 20yrs. I think Matt Abbott could be discussed in this conversation as well. It’d take a lot of work to even get a decent level of support for spencer as #2, maybe it’s possible but certainly nothing to be declared definiticely

farfromgeneva, what I generally say to everyone now is how I truly feel about all sports including lacrosse (with one glaring exception, Michael Jordan to basketball): I don't think I could make most college lacrosse teams today if I was the same athlete now as I was 30 years ago. In 3 decades, skill levels evolve to something much much better. Kids everywhere now are simply better than 30 years ago. Skills are better, reactions better, IQ better.

I know we all think certain guys from yesteryear are as good or even better than today's, but that's just not so, 3 decades removed for sure, two decades mostly, one decade perhaps still relatively even but distance already occurring.

Look at the Gaits from the 80's; remarkable generational talent then, changed the nature of shooting (mine did anyway). But if you look at any film, this might be heresy to you especially if you're upstate NY, but honestly, their athleticism doesn't come close to most elite D1 players today. And the same thing will be said of Pat Spencer in 30 years too. Honest brokers in 30 years time will look at film of Pat and see that the game has only gotten faster and better; I bet the University of Florida will dominate the sport then, not Cuse Hopkins Maryland Yale PSU etc.

So is Brodie yet out of that generational equation...not really. He's only 37; he graduated Gtown in 2005, meaning the game has only evolved one decade. But in another decade, as great as he was, Brodie's yesteryear game will be more common. In 3 decades, he'll be remembered as a great, but his game won't be great compared to what the game becomes. btw, would I take him or Surdick rn? I don't think this question is as easy as some have posted here.

Everyone gets better, sports get better, skills get better. It's Darwinism 101. It sucks in some ways for us older guys, but at least our wives listen to our tales of glory....not. I for one applaud continual improvement.

(btw: the girl's game has evolved even faster than us guys...these women throw the ball now like rockets...far different than 3 decades ago...I thought Taylor Cummings was the best player ever, then I saw Kayla Traenor, and now Sam Apuzzo...each one is successively better than the last)