LaxPower Back-Up Stick

I just watched the Jerry Schnydman Tribute video - is the $250,000 that Daniels authorized as matches to the Schnydman Foundation to help fund a lacrosse scholarship a piece of the handcuffs of which we speak? If he is taking down the program to DIII he has a funny way of doing it. It wasn't a big thing at all but also a nice thing to let Brody take part in the unveiling of the JS 12 dot.

Also classy of Petro to lend that unmistakable voice to saying "Jerry Schnydman"

51percentcorn wrote: ↑Tue Mar 29, 2022 1:24 pm I get it wg... and it's not often that I even kinda agree with Sag but his point is not out of the realm of reason given that I have certainly seen goal mouth calls not called. In fact, wasn't there a goal against Hopkins this year where virtually everyone agreed it should have been disallowed cause the kid was in the goal mouth? Let me be clear - by rule the correct call - but if you were ever going to let one go that was it - goal had long been scored - unintentional - barely stumbled through the crease goal mouth. Don't mind at all that it was called but have seen more blatant ones not called.

kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Tue Mar 29, 2022 12:26 pm Didn't this new coach do the same thing last year? OR call some kids out (Epstein) publicly? Or was that Petro?

Is this a serious question or trolling? Yes it was Milliman and yes it was Epstein. He did not start the second Michigan game last year and PM's published comments while fairly benign (and true) were controversial to say the least because they specifically mentioned Epstein and wasn't all roses and chocolates. The difference between this year and last was that if you paid attention last year he was inserted into the 2021 Michigan game fairly early in the process and played many of the important second half minutes. This year EMO only.

My other comment is the incident last year - IMO - has clearly influenced Milliman's communication both in quantity and substance. Last year - weekly e-mail updates to a mailing list that while were certainly not divulging game plans or anything but had some info to them. This year bupcus. Last year - providing an honest answer to a direct question - this year - sorry Sag - classic gobble d gook such as "buying into identities". The 2 minute video on jhusports of the Michigan game was all sunshine - classic coach speak "energy/cosistency/effort/alot of guys got to contribute which gave us energy and effort". I would love to hear if he took a question on the line-up changes or Epstein specifically - I would be willing to bet he answered quite differently than in '21

BTW - '06 I don't think they went to Gamestop - they went to an escape room outfit where you get "locked" in a room for an hour and have to figure out how to get out

bobkes, bopkes, bubkes, bubkis, bupkas, bupkass, bupkes, bupkiss, bupkus

Lyne has also seen his role changed. Whether it's because of injury or performance of his or someone else's that's the two captains now not regularly seeing the field. Someone(s) stepping up in those huddles on the field and that's a lot of responsibility especially down the stretch and into conference/tournament play/judgement season.

the rutgers faceoff guy had a very strong game last week and dunn will need to step up as narewski continues to work his way back. I don't think our offense is equipped to go goal for goal with rutgers.

https://www.insidelacrosse.com/article/ ... s%27/57854
To stave off Rutgers' second-half track meet surge this time around — something Hopkins failed to do in the regular season — the Blue Jays relied on their effort between the restraining lines. “It was a little bit of digging in and being tough around the loose balls, running harder in the middle of the field,” Milliman said of Hopkins’ hustle, which helped them out-groundball Rutgers, 34-26. “They were pressing us with their 10-man ride and just challenged us. It’s a position that requires composure and determination to get through it.”
Third time now this staff has seen Rutgers and limiting the knights ability to run and gain possessions worked last spring. Martin/jaronski/rodgers/jennings/smith/mcmanus/dunn/narewski need athletic hungry performances.

One of your better posts '06. I guess the only thing that I would counter with is around Rutgers' personnel turnover on the offensive end of the field - not the same players - not necesarily the same type of players and maybe not the same gameplans/approaches. I don't disagree with your Hopkins needs at all but I would phrase them this way - to have a chance:
- Kirson has certainly looked better as of late - I think we need a performance from him similar to Kirst's because chances are Kirst is going to turn in a decent outing
- If Rutgers presses and uses a 10-man - go to the bible of Zim and the middies/attack need to help - can't have oodles of failed clear turnovers as that often has defenders spaced out and the Knights can explot space and transition
- Make them play 6v6 as much as possible - particularly when they have the ball
- Eliminate the energy goals - no face-off man direct goals or one pass to the attack - that's when the horn blows and announcers start with NASCAR
- in that vein have to get back when Kirst makes a save
- A little redundant but face-offs are important not only to try to gain possession but must eliminate fast break off of them.
- Hang around - don't fall 4/5 goals behind
- Not exactly knowing the state of Grimes' health - his presence re-invents the 3 bigger outside threats - use it

Sagittarius A* wrote: ↑Wed Mar 30, 2022 9:02 am

Ruffled_Feathers wrote: ↑Wed Mar 30, 2022 8:25 am

CrookedJay wrote: ↑Tue Mar 29, 2022 7:59 pm Benching of Epstein does not make sense unless something in practice/film room/classroom/off field took place and, based on what I’ve been told about the young man, he is a model human so that is unlikely.

I agree with the poster that we should have been able to beat Michigan without him so it somewhat defeats the purpose of it all. I’m not too impressed if the coach has to keep making an “example” of the same player (against the same team) rather than getting more/different from the player.

The only thing I can take away from these sort of comments is that some of you don't actually watch the games. For the balance of this season there have been multiple players out there not playing to expectations or the necessary level to get the job done and run things on the offensive end. I generally doubt this is coach "sending a message" by benching specific players, this is the coaching staff re-evaluating their talent and refreshing the lineup card accordingly because the combination they kept trotting out there every week was simply not getting the job done and executing the way they needed to. The offense was/is broken, this is an attempt to try and fix it.

You can't fault the coach for shaking up his lineup when the offense was not clicking. By putting Angelus and Bauer at attack he added a lot more speed and quickness to his attack and it paid off. Between the two of them they had 10 points. The problem with Epstein was ball security. Guys would just walk up to him and take the ball away. When you are struggling to get possessions, that sort of thing kills your offense. Bauer was also a help on clearing and gbs. I note that Dylan Maltz is now playing EMO only for UMD and Bubba Fairman is playing ssdm. Coaches have to sometimes move players around for the benefit of the team.
Bauer Power.

I agree that you cannot fault coaches for making line up changes, but I do question this one. I’m of course assuming that this was an attempt (like last year) to “send a message” as such a drastic change has that effect regardless.

Perhaps he just doesn’t fit the “system” which would be unfortunate but not unheard of. That seems unlikely though given what we’ve been told about him in that you’d think a leader would buy-in to whatever the coach wanted (short of, perhaps, playing only man-up).

Anyway, the long and short of it is that I don’t like to see “benching” be the solution (and I could care less what is going on at Maryland).

jhu06 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 30, 2022 2:09 pm Lyne has also seen his role changed. Whether it's because of injury or performance of his or someone else's that's the two captains now not regularly seeing the field.

Sometimes I genuinely wonder if you actually watch the games or if your comments are based solely on the game notes.

Let's see, what could have possibly happened here...?

Lyne starts the first three games, has 4 GBs and 2 CTs, looks fine. Then he doesn't play against Loyola. The announcers mention multiple times that he's banged up. When he returns the following week, he's wearing a sleeve over his knee.

While he was out against Loyola, someone named Scott Smith emerged, and the general consensus was that he at the very least should see more time and likely shouldn't leave the field ever. So you've got one guy who has missed time and isn't 100% and another who has clearly played his way into a major role and offers something special in transition. Hm. A real Agatha Christie mystery.

Lyne is still contributing at LSM. But the staff correctly — and refreshingly — recognized that Smith is a real talent and should be in the lineup. Stuff like this happens all the time. Well, it's supposed to, anyway. It didn't seem to happen too often during the previous regime.

CrookedJay wrote: ↑Wed Mar 30, 2022 3:55 pm I agree that you cannot fault coaches for making line up changes, but I do question this one. I’m of course assuming that this was an attempt (like last year) to “send a message” as such a drastic change has that effect regardless.

Perhaps he just doesn’t fit the “system” which would be unfortunate but not unheard of. That seems unlikely though given what we’ve been told about him in that you’d think a leader would buy-in to whatever the coach wanted (short of, perhaps, playing only man-up).

Anyway, the long and short of it is that I don’t like to see “benching” be the solution (and I could care less what is going on at Maryland).

I'm one of the biggest Epstein supporters on this board but it wasn't to send a message. In the previous game he was 1/10 shooting with three turnovers. He was averaging 3.5 TOs in the prior four games. Ball security was becoming an issue. He was getting detwigged seemingly every game. I'm not sure why — my theory, and this is total speculation, is that Joey feels like he is (and should be) quicker than he actually is, which leads to a false sense of security when he's carrying the ball against a pole. Obviously, that never used to be an issue for him pre-injury when he had an elite first step — he could get his hands free pretty easily. But things are different now. And maybe it's difficult for the young man to come to terms with that. It certainly would be for me if I were in his shoes. Again, though, speculation on my part. Whatever the reason, the back-breaking TOs were happening.

I think they should work him back through the midfield, get him matched up on some shorties where losing the ball is not as big of a concern, and try to get him into the flow of the offense without the pressure of having to carry the ball against the the other team's top pole. Despite going cold against Delaware he is still a dangerous shooter on the righty wing and it'd be a pity to simply let that go to waste. He's not the player he was but that doesn't mean he can't still contribute.

Hail to the Victors wrote: ↑Sat Mar 26, 2022 11:08 pm

cbrass wrote: ↑Sat Mar 26, 2022 5:43 pm At the first Homecoming game since 2019. There was energy in the stands and an abundance of energy on the field. FO #39 is a warrior! Happy to see the ball movement, the clearing (props to #7) and a team on the field that looked like they enjoyed playing the game!

At one point a MI attack man lost his stick over the midfield line by about five yards trying to throw a check. The official picked it up and gave it back to him. Moments later he is receiving a clearing pass and it leads directly to a goal. My question-shouldn’t the official move the stick off the field and the player leave the field through the box in that situation? I don’t remember ever seeing an official return a stick from anywhere on the field much less over the midfield line. I would appreciate an informed reply.

The ref should either throw the stick off the field, or leave it there. The player cannot go OOB to retrieve the stick. He may leave the field of play thru the box, or even "exchange" sticks with another player on the field. The one thing the ref can not do is inject himself into the game by giving a player an advantage. For the TV watchers, it happened at 1:27 left in Q3. TV failed to pick up the ref's actions, but it was one of the worst pieces of refereeing we've ever seen. Just idiotic.

Quite so. To be specific:
6.6.b. Illegal actions with crosse. A player shall not:
1. Throw the crosse. Exception: Throwing the crosse at the ball, the goal cage, a player or game personnel shall be deemed unsportsmanlike conduct.
2. Participate in play without a crosse until the player regains a crosse, except if exiting the field without a broken crosse.
Should a player lose their crosse or other equipment in any legal way, so that repossession of the crosse would cause the player to go offside or enter the crease, the player shall either substitute off the field or stay out of the play until the player can legally retrieve their equipment.


Now, in all fairness, although I have never been accused of being unbiased in my general assessment of calls against the Jays, there is a general dearth of good referees. I know of one Syracuse-based ref who's assigned to New England, and not only the western parts.

Tristan Jewel, 2023, Mater Dei looks like the top program out of CA this year,

Tristin Jewell
Mater Dei High School
Santa AnaCA
Junior
Graduates in 2023

02/19 W 10-9 Brophy College Prep 2 2
03/04 W 9-5 Palo Verde 3 3 6
03/05 W 9-4 Bishop Gorman 1 1 3
03/09 W 14-5 Los Alamitos 3 1 4 .273
03/12 W 17-0 Loyola 2 2 4 .400
03/19 W 9-8 St. Margaret's 2 2 6

Mater Dei (Santa Ana, CA) Monarchs
Overall
8-0
League
1-0
CA Rank
1
Games Played
6
Goals
13
Goals Per Game
2
Shots On Goal
15
Shot Percentage
.812
Ground Balls
6
Scoring
G Asst Pts TS SOG SHT%
Totals 13 3 16 15 .812

10stone5 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 31, 2022 1:40 am Tristan Jewel, 2023, Mater Dei looks like the top program out of CA this year,

Tristin Jewell
Mater Dei High School
Santa AnaCA
Junior
Graduates in 2023

02/19 W 10-9 Brophy College Prep 2 2
03/04 W 9-5 Palo Verde 3 3 6
03/05 W 9-4 Bishop Gorman 1 1 3
03/09 W 14-5 Los Alamitos 3 1 4 .273
03/12 W 17-0 Loyola 2 2 4 .400
03/19 W 9-8 St. Margaret's 2 2 6

Mater Dei (Santa Ana, CA) Monarchs
Overall
8-0
League
1-0
CA Rank
1
Games Played
6
Goals
13
Goals Per Game
2
Shots On Goal
15
Shot Percentage
.812
Ground Balls
6
Scoring
G Asst Pts TS SOG SHT%
Totals 13 3 16 15 .812

Mater Dei comes east in about 3 weeks to play Spalding, MSJ, and Dematha for those tht would want to see him in person. I only know this because I thought they were playing MSJ this spring and just went to look it up to confirm.

CrookedJay wrote: ↑Wed Mar 30, 2022 3:55 pm
I agree that you cannot fault coaches for making line up changes, but I do question this one. I’m of course assuming that this was an attempt (like last year) to “send a message” as such a drastic change has that effect regardless.

I don't really think there's a message here other than "We're trying to win."
If there is a message, then it's something like: "It doesn't matter whether you were ranked #1 or #86 coming in, if you're an asset, you play, if you're a liability, you sit."

Sagittarius A* wrote: ↑Thu Mar 31, 2022 1:24 pm

CrookedJay wrote: ↑Wed Mar 30, 2022 3:55 pm
I agree that you cannot fault coaches for making line up changes, but I do question this one. I’m of course assuming that this was an attempt (like last year) to “send a message” as such a drastic change has that effect regardless.

I don't really think there's a message here other than "We're trying to win."
If there is a message, then it's something like: "It doesn't matter whether you were ranked #1 or #86 coming in, if you're an asset, you play, if you're a liability, you sit."

Or looked another way, 'you beat a man out and you get minutes on the field'. It's a great message for recruits.

Sagittarius A* wrote: ↑Thu Mar 31, 2022 1:24 pm

CrookedJay wrote: ↑Wed Mar 30, 2022 3:55 pm
I agree that you cannot fault coaches for making line up changes, but I do question this one. I’m of course assuming that this was an attempt (like last year) to “send a message” as such a drastic change has that effect regardless.

I don't really think there's a message here other than "We're trying to win."
If there is a message, then it's something like: "It doesn't matter whether you were ranked #1 or #86 coming in, if you're an asset, you play, if you're a liability, you sit."

Unbelievable
Here is an EXACT quote from a post of April 5, 2021 - just one year ago

"Milliman has one strike against him coming in the door. He's not a Hopkins alumnus.
We've never had a coach work out for us that wasn't. Sorry, but that's the truth.
Now, this nonsense is not acceptable. It's bad look for the University, the Athletic Department, and the program.
NOT NOT ACCEPTABLE on any level. That's a second BIG strike against him.
The team lost because of the bad decisions of the coaching staff. A coach who can't look himself in the eye and admit his own mistakes isn't worth a dime. Don't see a positive future here right now. Sorry if you don't like that."

Now he's a straight shooter looking to just win baby.

I recall the controversy last year centered around public statements more than line-up changes.

And it is a lot easier to be generous after a victory than after a defeat, and the offense did look better after the changes (though maybe the Michigan D had something to do with it).

51percentcorn wrote: ↑Thu Mar 31, 2022 7:26 pm

Sagittarius A* wrote: ↑Thu Mar 31, 2022 1:24 pm

CrookedJay wrote: ↑Wed Mar 30, 2022 3:55 pm
I agree that you cannot fault coaches for making line up changes, but I do question this one. I’m of course assuming that this was an attempt (like last year) to “send a message” as such a drastic change has that effect regardless.

I don't really think there's a message here other than "We're trying to win."
If there is a message, then it's something like: "It doesn't matter whether you were ranked #1 or #86 coming in, if you're an asset, you play, if you're a liability, you sit."

Unbelievable
Here is an EXACT quote from a post of April 5, 2021 - just one year ago

"Milliman has one strike against him coming in the door. He's not a Hopkins alumnus.
We've never had a coach work out for us that wasn't. Sorry, but that's the truth.
Now, this nonsense is not acceptable. It's bad look for the University, the Athletic Department, and the program.
NOT NOT ACCEPTABLE on any level. That's a second BIG strike against him.
The team lost because of the bad decisions of the coaching staff. A coach who can't look himself in the eye and admit his own mistakes isn't worth a dime. Don't see a positive future here right now. Sorry if you don't like that."

Now he's a straight shooter looking to just win baby.

My issue with him was calling out a player in the press. He can bench who he wants, but not call them out in press. That was unacceptable. Everyone else thought so too.

Yes - the comments had something to do with it but the underlying issue was they lost a game at home against a team they had just defeated on the road and said benched player had scored 6 goals. People just happened to ignore the fact that said player played many of the important minutes in that game. If Hopkins had won and Luke Shilling had scored 5 goals would we have ever had the conversation? And again, the comments were as benign as they could be and they were likely 100% accurate. Certainly didn't destroy the team as they went on to play their best at the end of the season. Being a Hopkins alum and making game decisions has nothing to do with this apparent incredibly unacceptable practice of publicly saying "He is not playing well".

Why are we talking about this again?

Big game in a couple of days.

Hearing that Fernandez is nearing a return, though don't know if it will be this week and even if it is, what his role will be given we suddenly have pretty good depth at the LSM position between Jennings, Rodgers, and Smith/Lyne when they're not playing close D.

51percentcorn wrote: ↑Fri Apr 01, 2022 7:00 am Yes - the comments had something to do with it but the underlying issue was they lost a game at home against a team they had just defeated on the road and said benched player had scored 6 goals. People just happened to ignore the fact that said player played many of the important minutes in that game. If Hopkins had won and Luke Shilling had scored 5 goals would we have ever had the conversation? And again, the comments were as benign as they could be and they were likely 100% accurate. Certainly didn't destroy the team as they went on to play their best at the end of the season. Being a Hopkins alum and making game decisions has nothing to do with this apparent incredibly unacceptable practice of publicly saying "He is not playing well".

Well it was a bad look on a number of levels. He's moving the player around and calling him out so it appears like he's blaming him for the loss. Plus a coach should never call a player out in the news media at the college level. He certainly took a lot of flack for it. Field and locker room are one thing. The press is another altogether. Chic would be all over players at practice, but when things went wrong (rarely) he took the blame.

Would I have been happier with a Hopkins Alum coaching? Yes. Marr was easily my first choice and I think the players wanted him as well.
Historically, Tony Seaman didn't work out and John Haus didn't work out, so I'm not holding my breath here tbh.
The jury on PM is still out, but at least he is willing to make changes when things aren't going well, something the prior staff was unwilling to do.
I hope he succeeds and there's still a chance the team could make the post-season this year so I guess we'll see soon enough.

Sagittarius A* wrote: ↑Fri Apr 01, 2022 9:08 am Marr was easily my first choice and I think the players wanted him as well.

a) You should *never* make what is supposed to be a longterm coaching hire based on what some of the current crop of players may or may not prefer. A lot of them were friends with Kyle Marr and know his dad. That's why they wanted him. You don't let that dictate a hire as big as this.

b) How's Albany doing this year? 2-5 and losing by 8 to Binghamton? Your second choice hasn't been doing so hot either

c) Seaman took the Jays to eight straight quarterfinals and four Final Fours. He did ok. We'd kill for that kind of success now. And the only reason Haus didn't "work out" was because he left very quickly. But the team was playing well (two straight Final Fours) in his brief time here. There is absolutely no reason a non-alum can't succeed here. In case you forgot, Milliman left a pretty good situation at Cornell to come here. THIS was his big break. There isn't really anywhere else for him to go. He wants to be here for a long time. It is not anything close to a Haus situation.

HopFan16 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 01, 2022 9:23 am

Sagittarius A* wrote: ↑Fri Apr 01, 2022 9:08 am Marr was easily my first choice and I think the players wanted him as well.

a) You should *never* make what is supposed to be a longterm coaching hire based on what some of the current crop of players may or may not prefer. A lot of them were friends with Kyle Marr and know his dad. That's why they wanted him. You don't let that dictate a hire as big as this.

That’s true. However he probably deserved an interview or at very least a call back. There certainly is a perception that the “fix was in” and Baker got her boy.

Hopkins did not interview three former players i know of and as far as i know none. Marr was not interviewed.

Galloway was interviewed and reportedly would have accepted.