Re: Johns Hopkins 2020
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 7:26 am
Do you think it will be easier for a brand-new OC to gameplan getting the ball to Sowers or for a DC/HC to gameplan covering him without Foley.
I'm kind of in awe every time I see highlights of Petro as a player. He was pretty incredible. I know this has been pointed out before—and I am making no judgments other than to say I think it's interesting—that the team's defensive identity/philosophy under him as a coach is so different from how he was as a player. Again, not saying coaches have to coach the exact same way they played as players 30 years ago...just find it interesting.51percentcorn wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 1:46 pm I guess IL is having some invitational tournament attended by a bunch of college coaches - I spied what must be a new school in attendance from the IL on-line article that I have never heard of before:
John's Hopkins University
No words
Also - there was a twitter posting I saw with about 2 minutes of Petro highlights in the '89 semis against North Carolina - God he seemed to be everywhere
The rationale that is commonly put forth - stick technology made high pressure defense not worth the risk - certainly makes some sense. And the slide and recover help defense to try to get offenses to take shots they find less than optimal and ask your goalie to save his fair share worked extremely well for the first half of his tenure. Now it is incontrovertible that the defensive statistics have slid in the second half of the Petro era and it is also true - I believe - that scoring defense is trending down across the sport. Only 9 programs last year were under 10 GAA - a residence Hopkins lived in virtually the entirety of Petro's first 9 or so seasons. Hopkins was tied for 58th out of the 73 programs with a GAA of 13 even and the 15 programs behind Hopkins were not exactly the lacrosse incarnation of the Yankees. Whether it's players, coaching not keeping up with the trends in the game or whatever, the team scoring rankings have been on a precipitous slope down since 2014HopFan16 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 3:05 pm I know this has been pointed out before—and I am making no judgments other than to say I think it's interesting—that the team's defensive identity/philosophy under him as a coach is so different from how he was as a player. Again, not saying coaches have to coach the exact same way they played as players 30 years ago...just find it interesting.
I don't doubt this was the case initially—the ball is certainly harder to dislodge today than back in Petro's day. But he should know better than anyone that playing aggressive defense and pressing out more is not solely about taking the ball away. While risky, it's got other benefits too. You've got to at least try to make the offense uncomfortable and throw them out of rhythm. Sitting back on your heels and packing it in these days feels like an equally risky strategy to me.51percentcorn wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 4:28 pm The rationale that is commonly put forth - stick technology made high pressure defense not worth the risk - certainly makes some sense. And the slide and recover help defense to try to get offenses to take shots they find less than optimal and ask your goalie to save his fair share worked extremely well for the first half of his tenure.
I'd be pretty darn confident in saying that those shots aren't as safe to give up today as they were some years back. It's just another thing that stick technology has drastically changed, the velocity of shots from way out front is a whole lot greater than it was in the past. Lacrosse is beginning to look like hoops with guys shooting from way out and I must say I don't much like it.HopFan16 wrote
I'm not sure that those shots he defense is "designed" to give up are as safe today as they were only a few years ago, though a lot of that still depends on the goaltender.
The 2019 defense was a surprise to me. I thought it would be the strength of the team since virtually the entire unit was returning except for the goalie. Instead the D turned out to be the team’s Achilles heel.51percentcorn wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 4:28 pmThe rationale that is commonly put forth - stick technology made high pressure defense not worth the risk - certainly makes some sense. And the slide and recover help defense to try to get offenses to take shots they find less than optimal and ask your goalie to save his fair share worked extremely well for the first half of his tenure. Now it is incontrovertible that the defensive statistics have slid in the second half of the Petro era and it is also true - I believe - that scoring defense is trending down across the sport. Only 9 programs last year were under 10 GAA - a residence Hopkins lived in virtually the entirety of Petro's first 9 or so seasons. Hopkins was tied for 58th out of the 73 programs with a GAA of 13 even and the 15 programs behind Hopkins were not exactly the lacrosse incarnation of the Yankees. Whether it's players, coaching not keeping up with the trends in the game or whatever, the team scoring rankings have been on a precipitous slope down since 2014HopFan16 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 3:05 pm I know this has been pointed out before—and I am making no judgments other than to say I think it's interesting—that the team's defensive identity/philosophy under him as a coach is so different from how he was as a player. Again, not saying coaches have to coach the exact same way they played as players 30 years ago...just find it interesting.
17th in GAA
39th in GAA
58th in GAA
54th in GAA
26th in GAA
58th in GAA
Whereas before that - except for 2009 and 2010 (40th and 22nd respectively) Hopkins was typically in the TOP 10 for scoring defense - even in the lost year of 2013 they were third in the country - Hopkins ranking since '02? - 13/3/9/2/17/11/19/blip in 2009-10/6/7/3
That's a pretty stark difference no matter what.
With my bold, it sounds as if your point reinforces DALaxDad'sHopFan16 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 5:21 pmI don't doubt this was the case initially—the ball is certainly harder to dislodge today than back in Petro's day. But he should know better than anyone that playing aggressive defense and pressing out more is not solely about taking the ball away. While risky, it's got other benefits too. You've got to at least try to make the offense uncomfortable and throw them out of rhythm. Sitting back on your heels and packing it in these days feels like an equally risky strategy to me.51percentcorn wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 4:28 pm The rationale that is commonly put forth - stick technology made high pressure defense not worth the risk - certainly makes some sense. And the slide and recover help defense to try to get offenses to take shots they find less than optimal and ask your goalie to save his fair share worked extremely well for the first half of his tenure.
Would be interested to look at how shooting percentage (and goalie save percentage) have changed since the 80s. Stick technology may have made it harder to cause turnovers but it's also made it a lot easier for far more players to shoot the ball accurately, from all angles and distances, with high velocity. I'm not sure that those shots the defense is "designed" to give up are as safe today as they were only a few years ago, though a lot of that still depends on the goaltender.
Anyway, interesting discussion. Not necessarily advocating for a wholesale defensive philosophy change, though those numbers 51 posted speak for themselves. SOMETHING has to change.
Back in the day, every good team needed to have at least one outside shooter; now, with time and room, everybody is a threat.I think the stick technology, growth of the game and improved atheticism of players has contributed to a decrease in save percentage. The depth has improved the number of shooters on the field at any time. You can't rotate your defense to the strong guy(s). How big is hard to say without a lot of number crunching. Looking quickly at Brown's starting goaltender save percentages from 1973 to 1982, they slide from .650 into the high .500s. None of those goaltenders were All Ivy. Stallfort was .661 in 1994 and Jack Kelly was .606 in 2016 and they were both All American. Obviously small data points, but something of a trend.
just be aggressive.jhu06 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 1:30 pm Margraff the football coach who passed away was a great guy and coach. Not easy to put together a successful d3 athletics program with the admissions/coursework/financials and win like he and many other hop coaches have. This forum, at least since I've been a part of it has always had a cycle (hope about an IL rated top 5 class in the fall, endless speculation about new guys and transformed veterans in the fall, predictions of a return to glory around nfl playoffs after the whipping of auto bid schools, despair after the gauntlet, prayers about the bubble around late April and total forum commenter warfare after a season ending blowout) and the conversation we're having now about the defensive scheme usually takes flight in earnest with a nervous breakdown after the North Carolina game and or the old acc/princeton gauntlet. I think I started reading doc b's defensive scheme take and the destruction of it by other commenters around the time that sankey/bitter first got rolling at unc.
I think the program gets a huge mulligan this year. Not only is the team dealing with the sudden passing of Margraff which certainly puts the entire program into perspective. Chimera will need to build his own identity and learn to be the head coach from being only the OC last year. He only needed to focus on one aspect of the game and now he has the entire team to think about. That isn't something that you just have it takes some time.
After watching many of the 2019 games, my hunch is that given the new shot clock rules that Hopkins went to an even more passive style with the believe that teams only had 75 seconds figuring more times than not a team wouldn't be able to get a good shot off. I think the results speak for themselves that wasn't a good idea. We will see if they adjust this year.HopFan16 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 5:21 pmI don't doubt this was the case initially—the ball is certainly harder to dislodge today than back in Petro's day. But he should know better than anyone that playing aggressive defense and pressing out more is not solely about taking the ball away. While risky, it's got other benefits too. You've got to at least try to make the offense uncomfortable and throw them out of rhythm. Sitting back on your heels and packing it in these days feels like an equally risky strategy to me.51percentcorn wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 4:28 pm The rationale that is commonly put forth - stick technology made high pressure defense not worth the risk - certainly makes some sense. And the slide and recover help defense to try to get offenses to take shots they find less than optimal and ask your goalie to save his fair share worked extremely well for the first half of his tenure.
Anyway, interesting discussion. Not necessarily advocating for a wholesale defensive philosophy change, though those numbers 51 posted speak for themselves. SOMETHING has to change.
After watching many of the 2019 games, my hunch is that given the new shot clock rules that Hopkins went to an even more passive style with the believe that teams only had 75 seconds figuring more times than not a team wouldn't be able to get a good shot off. I think the results speak for themselves that wasn't a good idea. We will see if they adjust this year.HopFan16 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 5:21 pmI don't doubt this was the case initially—the ball is certainly harder to dislodge today than back in Petro's day. But he should know better than anyone that playing aggressive defense and pressing out more is not solely about taking the ball away. While risky, it's got other benefits too. You've got to at least try to make the offense uncomfortable and throw them out of rhythm. Sitting back on your heels and packing it in these days feels like an equally risky strategy to me.51percentcorn wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 4:28 pm The rationale that is commonly put forth - stick technology made high pressure defense not worth the risk - certainly makes some sense. And the slide and recover help defense to try to get offenses to take shots they find less than optimal and ask your goalie to save his fair share worked extremely well for the first half of his tenure.
Anyway, interesting discussion. Not necessarily advocating for a wholesale defensive philosophy change, though those numbers 51 posted speak for themselves. SOMETHING has to change.
That’s pretty much what I advocate for Hopkins.wgdsr wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 2:25 pmjust be aggressive.jhu06 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 1:30 pm Margraff the football coach who passed away was a great guy and coach. Not easy to put together a successful d3 athletics program with the admissions/coursework/financials and win like he and many other hop coaches have. This forum, at least since I've been a part of it has always had a cycle (hope about an IL rated top 5 class in the fall, endless speculation about new guys and transformed veterans in the fall, predictions of a return to glory around nfl playoffs after the whipping of auto bid schools, despair after the gauntlet, prayers about the bubble around late April and total forum commenter warfare after a season ending blowout) and the conversation we're having now about the defensive scheme usually takes flight in earnest with a nervous breakdown after the North Carolina game and or the old acc/princeton gauntlet. I think I started reading doc b's defensive scheme take and the destruction of it by other commenters around the time that sankey/bitter first got rolling at unc.