LaxPower Back-Up Stick

Relax77 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.

LaxDadMax wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 7:31 pm

Relax77 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.

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 categories

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)

Fischer wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 5:47 pm An interesting observation Not one Long Island girl has been listed as committing Besides Yale picking up one Perhaps

Relax77 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 7:41 pm

LaxDadMax wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 7:31 pm

Relax77 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.

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 categories

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.

LaxDadMax wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 9:00 pm

Relax77 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 7:41 pm

LaxDadMax wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 7:31 pm

Relax77 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.

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 categories

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.

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).

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.

Codylax14 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 8:54 am

Kleizaster 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

She is very good. Plenty of girls were missed by IL ....shows clearly by missing her. i was told coaches don't look anyway

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.

LaxDadMax wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 9:00 pm

Relax77 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 7:41 pm

LaxDadMax wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 7:31 pm

Relax77 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.

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 categories

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.

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).

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.

MDstateMan wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2024 8:59 am

LaxDadMax wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 9:00 pm

Relax77 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 7:41 pm

LaxDadMax wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 7:31 pm

Relax77 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.

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 categories

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.

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).

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.

I think you are referring to the Aces player but she may have strongest shot at age.

Not sure the other two you refer to.

LaxDadMax wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2024 9:47 am

MDstateMan wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2024 8:59 am

LaxDadMax wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 9:00 pm

Relax77 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 7:41 pm

LaxDadMax wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 7:31 pm

Relax77 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.

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 categories

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.

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).

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.

I think you are referring to the Aces player but she may have strongest shot at age.

Not sure the other two you refer to.

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.

In terms of overall rankings, i'd put at least 4 goalies from the 27 class top 10 players overall.

MDstateMan wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2024 9:56 am

LaxDadMax wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2024 9:47 am

MDstateMan wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2024 8:59 am

LaxDadMax wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 9:00 pm

Relax77 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 7:41 pm

LaxDadMax wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 7:31 pm

Relax77 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.

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 categories

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.

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).

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.

I think you are referring to the Aces player but she may have strongest shot at age.

Not sure the other two you refer to.

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.

In terms of overall rankings, i'd put at least 4 goalies from the 27 class top 10 players overall.

what clubs are those goalies? I assume Jesters is one of them.

Kleizaster wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2024 6:46 pm Ava Fossatti to BC.

Nice pickup by the eagles. Has an insane shot

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?

Kleizaster wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2024 5:25 pm

NULax2 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2024 5:20 pm

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

Easy, (NU/Stanford Coach) Danielle Spencer was 6'2"

https://nusports.com/sports/womens-lacr ... pencer/957

good find. The idea of a 6ft+ attacker with speed and stick skills is a terrifying prospect