VIRGINIA Lacrosse

[blue angels]

Maybe..... Let's remember that we are getting the 70 variations comment from an anonymous poster and not likely from anyone on the team or staff. All I know is What Lars did at Brown worked at the end of his tenure. Virginia's problems on defense certainly preceded this staff's arrival. Like Murf said, let's give the staff a chance to show us what they can do in their 3rd year as they showed improvement in their 2nd year.

[MDlaxfan76]

At Brown, by his fourth season, he had over 70 defensive variations. They changed slide packages based on ball position AND stick-hand. Sometimes they messed up but it often worked against very good offenses. He can teach as much as the unit can absorb.

I think defensive scheming can eventually get overly complicated, and I suspect that Tiffany may have learned that lesson at Brown, but certainly there's a ton of room for more sophisticated scheming than UVA's D has shown so far, including some 'offensive' situational changes to keep opponents off balance.

I think it's fair to say that there was a "defensive lax IQ" deficit at UVA from the prior regime. Takes time to teach and recruit to change such a deficit.

i've said this dozens of times, no one has picked up the phone to ask me to be the head coach or coordinator of a college program yet, but....
70 defensive variations is insane. if that's what's getting walked toward, or even a fraction of it, i'm sorry but the hesitation, what's witnessed as a "lacking iq", wrong decision making by a guy or 2 out of 6... is going to happen over and over. you don't need guys thinking on defense, they need to be reacting. in half of a beat. or less. i don't care if you had 10 hours a day to give the kind of repetition required for that, and you clearly don't, that's flat out ridiculous. there's no way you can turn that into instinctual play.
learn how to do several things well. maybe it'll turn into great. have options. but keep it simple and then get after offenses or sit back/pack in or rotate both at times.

we could all come up with great game plans and strategies for every single situation on the field if we had enough time and considered ourselves genius enough to concoct them. then the bullets start flying. then we'd look at film and be amazed that our backside wing ssdm didn't slow play the 3 slide because it was a strong lefty wing top side roll back dodger so we were in a.j. rotation and recover with the 2 slide filling. he's only supposed to step hard to the 2nd pass if it's a right hand alley dodge (or dodge and roll), a lefty x dodge from a predominate lefty, or a 2 man from the opposite wing that goes gle side. sheesh.

70!!! no wonder i'm watching what i'm watching. and by the by, if you're putting in dozens of variations of defenses, that means you are extracting lax iq from your players, not teaching it. yeah, i hope they can still score on o.

You and I agree about not over-complicating defense.
But I suspect that the "70" number is someone's calculation of possible permutations, not the reality of what kids are "thinking" about. I suspect it's in reality a smaller set of actual choices on how to "react" in differing situations. Lots of overlap.

But, hey, how many plays and check offs does a QB have in college or pro football? Pretty darn big #. But when the play starts, they are "reacting" to what happens in real time, not "thinking".

I think there was a bit of a learning curve at Brown (I was watching pretty closely as an opposing fan for 4 years, '13-16), and it seemed to me that it's possible the coaches learned themselves how best to teach their players the various permutations that mattered the most. However, I happen to believe they also had some exceptional poles those years who they gave the green light to to be aggressive and they were superb off the ground, and that led to much of their success. Their outstanding FOGO won the lion's share of FO possessions. They also had an outstanding goalie who didn't mind (perhaps even thrived on) the high frequency of shots they gave up because of their total field aggressiveness. (My son had the same attitude with a much less able defense, so I very much appreciated Kelly's play as a big part of giving confidence to his teammates.)

Some coaches communicate in a really complicated way, and that indeed can get pretty confusing.

Funny, old UVA story my dad tells:

1952, my dad's the sophomore goalie.

Coach Pic Fuller had come down from Baltimore (St. Paul's and McDonogh) to be an assistant football coach and head lacrosse coach. Smart guy, excellent coach. Tremendous motivator.

One day, he said, "ok, let's practice two men down". He took two midfielders off the defense and gave the ball to the attack who quickly scored. Same again. Defense bewildered as to what to do. Pic said, "box it up". Score again. Brought the D together, some of whom truly outstanding football athletes, but less experience in lax. He said, "it's a parallelogram boys!" Blank stares. He said, "You are in a box and the edges move". Blank stares. He then asked one of the players who he knew was a smoker to bring him a match box case. He then crushed the box and moved it back and forth. "Ohhh" said the players.

"Parallelogram" ? And that was UVA's first National Championship team.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Maybe..... Let's remember that we are getting the 70 variations comment from an anonymous poster and not likely from anyone on the team or staff. All I know is What Lars did at Brown worked at the end of his tenure. Virginia's problems on defense certainly preceded this staff's arrival. Like Murf said, let's give the staff a chance to show us what they can do in their 3rd year as they showed improvement in their 2nd year.

At the end of his tenure at Brown, Lars had the #1 FOGO and the #1 goalie in the country. Put that on any good team and they will become a great team. Lars and Virginia will be fine. Already showing progress.

[jimmywork]

They also had an outstanding goalie who didn't mind (perhaps even thrived on) the high frequency of shots they gave up because of their total field aggressiveness. (My son had the same attitude with a much less able defense, so I very much appreciated Kelly's play as a big part of giving confidence to his teammates.)

Pretty sure your son's defensive personnel was more than "able" to run a similar package. Bobby Duvnjak was one of the most underrated dmen of the last decade, only person I've ever seen neutralize Molloy without help. Combined with Jahelka, Breit, and Ryan, I'd argue the Crimson had a better set of poles than the Brown ever did, and both groups are better than what UVA trotted out last year.

[MDlaxfan76]

They also had an outstanding goalie who didn't mind (perhaps even thrived on) the high frequency of shots they gave up because of their total field aggressiveness. (My son had the same attitude with a much less able defense, so I very much appreciated Kelly's play as a big part of giving confidence to his teammates.)

Pretty sure your son's defensive personnel was more than "able" to run a similar package. Bobby Duvnjak was one of the most underrated dmen of the last decade, only person I've ever seen neutralize Molloy without help. Combined with Jahelka, Breit, and Ryan, I'd argue the Crimson had a better set of poles than the Brown ever did, and both groups are better than what UVA trotted out last year.

I wouldn't argue with your assessment of HU's poles!
But only when healthy.
By "able" I meant healthy.

In 2015 when my son was the starter for the first Brown game, Jahelka neutralized Molloy for a half and my son made a couple of saves on him, but then Jahelka went down for an injury and was out the second half, and then out the rest of the season. Duvnjak was already out for the season. Two AA caliber D-men out. Breit was on and off with injuries, later on Ryan hurt his shoulder as well. Terrific players but very few games with all of them available.

In 2016 when my son replaced the starter after a very rough first Q, Duvnjak was indeed very effective. That said, Molloy managed 8 shots on my son, 7 on cage from within 10 yards, no goals. Duvy and Molloy really went at it and I think it was Bobby's best career game with 5 CT's and 5 GB's. Bobby was indeed one of the best takeaway on ball defenders I've seen play, but as to defensive schemes and off-ball, those were not really his strong suits and I'm sure he'd smile and admit that too. Drove the 2016 D coach (not my favorite fellow) to distraction who the week before the season had demoted Bobby to 3rd line LSM, but as my son would say, "Just let Bobby be Bobby and we'll deal with it". Once HU had some injuries, they turned back to Duvnjak and he did his thing, AA season. Tremendous player!

However, in the 2nd time they faced Brown, Molloy scored 5 goals 2A, though Duvnjak had 2 CT's and 6GB's. My son was out with his 3rd concussion by then. That was the game Morgan Cheek 'came of age' for the Crimson with 9 G and 1 A.

Loved the way LSM Jack Breit played as well. Tremendous off the ground and pushing pace. Beast of a kid, smart player, and made some big time plays that were real momentum shifters. I especially recall a late game heroic GB out of the snow and feed for a score versus UMass in the season opener in 2015. Comeback win, was my son's first game in relief before getting the starting role after another comeback win in relief two games later. But Jack had a heck of a time with injuries too, though not season enders like Jahelka and Duvnjak. But he played seriously hurt for many of the games. Ryan had some wonderful games as well. I especially recall a tremendous game in a one goal victory over BU in 2015 in which Matt had a slew of takeaways and GB's. Smart player. Better as an LSM than close as he wasn't as physically dominating. He suffered a shoulder injury which he played through, but really had a tough time once injured. Courageous player though.

I also liked what Walker Kirby was able to do when he was moved to close D from SSDM when Duvnjak became unavailable in 2015 and then Jahelka too. Smart player, hard worker. Not easy to need to go to close from SSDM! But that was a big loss to SSDM crew.

And of course, you missed LSM Brian Fischer who IMO in 2015 was HU's best defensive player, graduated in '15. I especially recall his dominating performance in 2015 at HU vs Tewaarton finalist from Cornell, Connor Buczek, who only scored one goal on 14 shots often with Fischer's stick on his hands. Breit also got some successful runs against Buczek that day. Very exciting one goal upset win for HU with Buczek taking the final shot of the game, on cage, with 8 seconds left.

But having enough of these guys healthy all at once?
Rarely happened.

I'd say the biggest difference between those HU and Brown teams when my son was playing was the FOGO differential, and midfield GB's overall. In the 2015 game, Brown went 17 of 27 at X (Gural 16 of 25) and had 48 GB's to HU's 26. HU had 26 TO's to Brown's 18. Resulting in Brown taking 53 shots to HU's 31. My son had 17 saves to Kelly's 9 that day. In the 2016 reg season game, Brown won 15 of 22 FO's and 44-36 in GB's; again Gural. My son only played 3 q's that day with 10 saves, 6GA to Kelly's 9 saves, 8 GA. But unfortunately HU had given up 5 goals in the first Q. Exciting effort against the #1 offense of 2016 and you're right that Duvnjak had an exceptional day.

FOGO play was HU's Achilles heel for most of those years, with a few exception games. String of bad luck injuries, none of their top FOGO's had full healthy seasons. For instance, in that CU 2015 game, Massimilian went 17 of 23 for CU. HU was virtually powerless to stop him, but in the last minutes HU put out a non FOGO, SSDM Grove Stewart who simply forced Massimillian back towards his own goal, harassing him. His pass to CU goalie Knight was intercepted out of nowhere by Devin Dwyer who then pumped, then fired an outside shot in over Knight's shoulder, putting HU ahead by one. Massimilian then promptly won the last FO, setting up the play for Buczek to shoot the last shot.

But yes, HU's defense was way more talented man-for-man, and in aggregate, than UVA's crew these past years, and equal to or I agree actually better than Brown's D unit. But they were rarely healthy as a full crew, thus my " much less able" comment. Both Brown and HU those years played best at a hot pace, but HU rarely had the midfield GB and FOGO performances that Brown did.

[blue angels]

With all due respect, all these Memory lane posts have nada to do with this current Virginia program and probably belong best on an Ivy thread or elsewhere.
Thank You

[MDlaxfan76]

With all due respect, all these Memory lane posts have nada to do with this current Virginia program and probably belong best on an Ivy thread or elsewhere.
Thank You

Happy New Year, BA.
Doldrums time of year.

I think the discussion is really about what's necessary for UVA to get to the sort of high level pace and elite performance that they are aiming to achieve.

The point is just that you need to have the horses, not just the schemes. And you need to train 'em into the cohesive unit that can trust one another. Takes time and horses.

TLD's point was that Brown had outstanding tender and FOGO play. I thought several of their poles were exceptional as well.

Seems to me that the Hoos may now be in good shape in the net, but FOGO and poles will need to continue the upward trajectory.

They certainly have explosive potential on O if the team can get them the ball frequently.

From the commentary, sounds like Lars is pleased with the progress they've been making. I don't think he's a 'happy talk' kind of guy, so hopefully that's a solid read!

[HooDat]

I suspect that the "70" number is someone's calculation of possible permutations, not the reality of what kids are "thinking" about.

I have the same "suspicion". And I "suspect" someone vastly inflated the permutations to generate a headline number that sounds impressive. I wonder how many "schemes" you could claim exist under Tierney's or Byrne's systems when applying the same "logic".....?

Tiffany is a smart guy, and he is also smart enough to not become too clever by a half.

My guess is that all those permutations most likely reflect individual technique within a set of schemes.

[laxmaven]

At Brown, by his fourth season, he had over 70 defensive variations. They changed slide packages based on ball position AND stick-hand. Sometimes they messed up but it often worked against very good offenses. He can teach as much as the unit can absorb.

I think defensive scheming can eventually get overly complicated, and I suspect that Tiffany may have learned that lesson at Brown, but certainly there's a ton of room for more sophisticated scheming than UVA's D has shown so far, including some 'offensive' situational changes to keep opponents off balance.

I think it's fair to say that there was a "defensive lax IQ" deficit at UVA from the prior regime. Takes time to teach and recruit to change such a deficit.

i've said this dozens of times, no one has picked up the phone to ask me to be the head coach or coordinator of a college program yet, but....
70 defensive variations is insane. if that's what's getting walked toward, or even a fraction of it, i'm sorry but the hesitation, what's witnessed as a "lacking iq", wrong decision making by a guy or 2 out of 6... is going to happen over and over. you don't need guys thinking on defense, they need to be reacting. in half of a beat. or less. i don't care if you had 10 hours a day to give the kind of repetition required for that, and you clearly don't, that's flat out ridiculous. there's no way you can turn that into instinctual play.
learn how to do several things well. maybe it'll turn into great. have options. but keep it simple and then get after offenses or sit back/pack in or rotate both at times.

we could all come up with great game plans and strategies for every single situation on the field if we had enough time and considered ourselves genius enough to concoct them. then the bullets start flying. then we'd look at film and be amazed that our backside wing ssdm didn't slow play the 3 slide because it was a strong lefty wing top side roll back dodger so we were in a.j. rotation and recover with the 2 slide filling. he's only supposed to step hard to the 2nd pass if it's a right hand alley dodge (or dodge and roll), a lefty x dodge from a predominate lefty, or a 2 man from the opposite wing that goes gle side. sheesh.

70!!! no wonder i'm watching what i'm watching. and by the by, if you're putting in dozens of variations of defenses, that means you are extracting lax iq from your players, not teaching it. yeah, i hope they can still score on o.

Thank you for your analysis. In terms of facts, 70 is inaccurate - 7 is the factual number. I'd suggest the thing to think about is if the shot clock now makes a big difference and potentially neuters the effect of complex defense. The ball will clear into the box, maybe have a chance at one set-up, then need to go to the net. The time involved in touch-to-shot is going to be 30 seconds at the most (allowing for clearing time and midfield play). The number of passes will be far less and that means the number of defensive packages that can be brought into play are probably going to be way less because of decision making time. Sorting a 7 slide package option scheme to one is possible with lots of old-school perimeter passing (Hopkins, Cuse for example) but my expectation is these teams will move away from that in favor of more direct pace to the crease. Outside shots are going to be tempting but the stats on outside shot success in D1 lacrosse will not change due to a a shot clock change - it is what it is. Good inside passing and physical ball handling will be a more direct way of putting the ball in the net. Close perimeter passing will also narrow down the slide package options - especially if they are tuned to ball-side handling (or off ball slide) as some suggest here.

[MDlaxfan76]

On the 70 versus 7, yes the 70 is undoubtedly closer to accurate in terms of all the various permutations, especially if there's actually a check-off re strong hand of the specific player (I think that's often overkill). But that '70' also includes all sorts of situational defensive sets, such as whether it's lock on on fast breaks, differing triangle slides, or ball in from out of bounds, timer on, etc.

The reality of what a player needs to recognize in real time is much more limited.

On the shot clock, my hunch would be that we'll see defensive schemes be more about possession to possession differences, throwing off an offense's opportunity to adjust within the time frame allotted...meaning a defensive advantage if offenses are slow to recognize.

Switching in and out of various zone versus man packages, adjacent versus crease slide packages etc. Offenses that are slow down, half field oriented could be at a serious disadvantage if the defenses keep switching up their looks and it takes them too many heartbeats to find out what defense they're facing on that particular possession.

Thus, facility at switching in and out of defensive sets, possession to possession, could be at a premium.

On the other hand, fast pace pressure offenses such as what UVA has been hoping to build could be better off as a much bigger % of goals are scored in transition play.

Going to be interesting.

[MDlaxfan76]

I suspect that the "70" number is someone's calculation of possible permutations, not the reality of what kids are "thinking" about.

I have the same "suspicion". And I "suspect" someone vastly inflated the permutations to generate a headline number that sounds impressive. I wonder how many "schemes" you could claim exist under Tierney's or Byrne's systems when applying the same "logic".....?

Tiffany is a smart guy, and he is also smart enough to not become too clever by a half.

My guess is that all those permutations most likely reflect individual technique within a set of schemes.

As one of our fellow posters might say...exactly.
Individual technique adjustments, within a set of schemes and possibilities.

[Trinity]

Forgive me for not being specific. It was 70 possible permutations and my son was complaining. I’m not trolling you, I’m describing what’s possible. Tiffany will teach what the unit can absorb and execute. With a short clock, he’s a huge advantage.

[MDlaxfan76]

Forgive me for not being specific. It was 70 possible permutations and my son was complaining. I’m not trolling you, I’m describing what’s possible. Tiffany will teach what the unit can absorb and execute. With a short clock, he’s a huge advantage.

Right, just the "possible permutations" not what really needs to be thought about in real time. Makes a lot of sense. Harvard had much the same sort of thing and indeed it's a ton to absorb when getting started. Worse is when it changes year to year, with a coaching change! I can understand why your son felt it was a lot.

My own pet gripe, which I've previously expressed, is when the goalie is expected to trigger the different complex schemes in real time with stick hands, etc. My bias is for them to be watching the ball in real time, with minimal direction of the defense in the moment other than Where the ball is, 'check' call, etc, but much more than that and the brain's too occupied with stuff extraneous to job #1, stopping shots. Coaches who have a good goalie coach on their staff, (as Lars does with Kip Turner and my son had with Adam Ghittleman at HU), rarely make that mistake though. They get coached on how to help their D, but not expected to micro manage. In some programs and with some tenders, goalies get all tied up trying to do too much directing in the moments when shooters are actually dangerous. But, obviously between plays and running clears, the goalie should indeed be very involved in directing, encouraging the defense. The best can really challenge and inspire their teammates.

Of course, All the defenders, including tender, need to understand the team concepts of different schemes and their own specific set of responsibilities in a bunch of different situations, so they can 'react' correctly rather than 'think'. "Thinking" is for practice days. Game time everyone needs to just play the game with clear intention and trust in one another.

Which is why it's so important that Lars feels the players are getting more and more proficient in a greater set of schemes through this fall. They can be more confident in switching it up without the players having to 'think too much'.

[admin]

What's going on with Harry Wellford? Not on the UVA Roster...

[dek]

What's going on with Harry Wellford? Not on the UVA Roster...

Didn’t appear to be with the team when I saw them early in fall ball. Saw this on Lacrosse Commits twitter a while back:

Notable D1 players that have hit the transfer market this fall.

Harry Wellford - Virginia
James Forkin - Syracuse
Jesse West - Lehigh
Spencer Knife - Towson
Aidan Johnston - Michigan
Griffin Gelinas - Michigan

I don’t know if Wellford was ever enrolled at UVA.

[wgdsr]

whether you are talking about 70 "variations", or "permutations" , to me you're essentially talking about the same thing. here is what trinity said originally:

At Brown, by his fourth season, he had over 70 defensive variations. They changed slide packages based on ball position AND stick-hand. Sometimes they messed up but it often worked against very good offenses. He can teach as much as the unit can absorb.

hopefully, either i don't understand how simple this all wraps together into one package, but hilighted with trinity's next post:

Forgive me for not being specific. It was 70 possible permutations and my son was complaining. I’m not trolling you, I’m describing what’s possible. Tiffany will teach what the unit can absorb and execute. With a short clock, he’s a huge advantage.

... yeah. i don't blame him. so either his kid is a little/lot more lost out there than all of his peers, or you are playing with fire you don't have to by making rules for every little beat and situation of a team's play.

now, we've all coached a little, and if you add up in any one season how many permutations we may have on shutoffs/taking certain things away from certain teams or players/different slide packages including based on the opponents' sets or where they're dodging from, it very well could add up, reasonably, into a couple dozen. but i'm not taking that into any one game. we're taking a fraction of that number into a game, adjusting to something else that might be familiar if need be.

maybe that's what we're talking about to a degree here. still, 70 sounds crazy. play defense. have rules, but have your guys get after it. here's what you can guess every time you see guys after goals -- at virginia or anywhere with "complicated" d schemes --- that are a little animated with each other, or head down, etc.. --- those guys were in "different" defenses. or hesitated because they weren't sure what they should be doing. or went when they weren't supposed to.

i'd much rather have a team have to beat me 10-12 times a game because they're better athletes and/or lacrosse players, when i know all 6 of my guys are on the same page. especially at uva.

[molo]

All these permutations are too complicated for this Ivy reject. Dumb as I may be, I would have to question the wisdom of 70 packages.

[admin]

Thanks, dek. Now I'm curious about Wellford and Forkin. Had my Steven Schneider curiosity answered, Michigan.

[dek]

whether you are talking about 70 "variations", or "permutations" , to me you're essentially talking about the same thing. here is what trinity said originally:

At Brown, by his fourth season, he had over 70 defensive variations. They changed slide packages based on ball position AND stick-hand. Sometimes they messed up but it often worked against very good offenses. He can teach as much as the unit can absorb.

hopefully, either i don't understand how simple this all wraps together into one package, but hilighted with trinity's next post:

Forgive me for not being specific. It was 70 possible permutations and my son was complaining. I’m not trolling you, I’m describing what’s possible. Tiffany will teach what the unit can absorb and execute. With a short clock, he’s a huge advantage.

... yeah. i don't blame him. so either his kid is a little/lot more lost out there than all of his peers, or you are playing with fire you don't have to by making rules for every little beat and situation of a team's play.

now, we've all coached a little, and if you add up in any one season how many permutations we may have on shutoffs/taking certain things away from certain teams or players/different slide packages including based on the opponents' sets or where they're dodging from, it very well could add up, reasonably, into a couple dozen. but i'm not taking that into any one game. we're taking a fraction of that number into a game, adjusting to something else that might be familiar if need be.

maybe that's what we're talking about to a degree here. still, 70 sounds crazy. play defense. have rules, but have your guys get after it. here's what you can guess every time you see guys after goals -- at virginia or anywhere with "complicated" d schemes --- that are a little animated with each other, or head down, etc.. --- those guys were in "different" defenses. or hesitated because they weren't sure what they should be doing. or went when they weren't supposed to.

i'd much rather have a team have to beat me 10-12 times a game because they're better athletes and/or lacrosse players, when i know all 6 of my guys are on the same page. especially at uva.

Welcome back wgdsr. I was told at the beginning of last season Lars and Kip had simplified the defense a lot. Laxmaven’s seven sounds consistent with what I’d heard - down from over 20 in year 1. In general I thought I saw much less confusion year 2 vs year 1. Hoos had five first years that logged a lot of minutes on d last year - Rode, Rock, Kology, Fox and Merle - and iirc the defense improved somewhat year-over-year. Hopefully that trend continues, and knock wood no injuries like Conrad and Dziama last year.

[MDlaxfan76]

All these permutations are too complicated for this Ivy reject. Dumb as I may be, I would have to question the wisdom of 70 packages.

Don't worry, it's not 70 'packages'.

Just lots of specific assignments, given the situation. What defense you're in (maybe 4 or 5 'packages', a few more?), what offense the opponent is in, where the ball is at any given moment, which hand the man with ball is driving with, and where you are in relation to the ball. So, "permutations." (IMO, the "hand" of the player is an unnecessary addition, unless it's specific to a guy who only goes one way and you are scheming to trap him.)

But when you treat it like a math problem it's indeed a big number. But when you're actually in the moment, there's only a few variations to keep straight.

But it does need to be learned so that there's no hesitation, no "thinking".

Listen, my son a year out of college coached the defense of Gilman School's JV team two years ago, and even at that level, they certainly had a bunch of packages he'd taught them (by end of the season) to great effect. Everything from various straightforward adjacent and crease slide packages to two versions of zone, to special plays against inbound situations, to end of game pressure. The kids loved being able to throw offenses off their intended game plan. They thrived.

It's really not that hard if the concepts are explained well and it's built up.

Surely this is not too complicated for elite level college players.

But I quite agree the attitude of all lax, IMO, should to just play a natural, instinctive game and let it flow. Yes, be intentional, but it's more about knowing your teammates than the x's and O's. That's on both offense and defense.

The great coaches get players to buy into each other more than the specific X's and O's. It's all about 'trust'.
And the great team leaders foster that 'trust' along with the coaches.

But the ability to go into and out of various packages is a great way for guys to, together, actually attack an opponent, take them out of their comfort zone.

I think the UVA coaching crew will get that done over time.