LaxPower Back-Up Stick

wgdsr wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 5:57 pm

DocBarrister wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 5:53 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 5:36 pm

DocBarrister wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 5:21 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 4:26 pm

DocBarrister wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 3:57 pm

CU77 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 2:48 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 1:59 am So tell me...which of these coaches isn't up to snuff, and isn't getting the best out of their players?

To make one comparison: IMO, Breschi is not as good at getting the best out of his players as Danowski. Over the past 10 years, Duke has been more successful overall than UNC, by a variety of measures. Switch Breschi and Danowski, and I think that reverses.

Another point: very few of the current top 20 coaches (and maybe none) could do what Tierney did: go to a total lax backwater (Princeton at the time), and, using players with notably less talent than much of the competition, win a national championship. (After that win, the talent level improved of course.)

Did it twice. After Princeton, took a rising but still second-tier Denver program and won a national championship in 2015.

Best coach of his era (which is still ongoing), and no one is really even close.

DocBarrister

hmmm.... 2 overtime games doesn't make it close? what would make it close?

You seem to think winning close games, especially in OT, does not support greatness, but those close wins are arguably the greatest evidence of a great coach.

And the bottom line is … they were wins.

DocBarrister

actually never said that. you said it wasn't close between coaches. but the margin was 2 ot wins between him and starsia.

and then there's desko, with 5 champs in a lot less time as a head coach. and 6 more in his time as an asst. (tierney got 2 in 3 years at jhu?). anyone that knows anything about su lacrosse then knows desko was a if not the driving force for those wins as well.

i was just wondering what would be close.

I admire both Starsia and Desko, but neither can compare with Tierney.

Longevity and continued success do count for something, and Tierney has outlasted them both.

DocBarrister

tierney has won one title in the last 20 years. sounds like you have your own criteria. we'll call it the doc criteria.

DocBarrister wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 6:08 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 5:57 pm

DocBarrister wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 5:53 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 5:36 pm

DocBarrister wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 5:21 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 4:26 pm

DocBarrister wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 3:57 pm

CU77 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 2:48 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 1:59 am So tell me...which of these coaches isn't up to snuff, and isn't getting the best out of their players?

To make one comparison: IMO, Breschi is not as good at getting the best out of his players as Danowski. Over the past 10 years, Duke has been more successful overall than UNC, by a variety of measures. Switch Breschi and Danowski, and I think that reverses.

Another point: very few of the current top 20 coaches (and maybe none) could do what Tierney did: go to a total lax backwater (Princeton at the time), and, using players with notably less talent than much of the competition, win a national championship. (After that win, the talent level improved of course.)

Did it twice. After Princeton, took a rising but still second-tier Denver program and won a national championship in 2015.

Best coach of his era (which is still ongoing), and no one is really even close.

DocBarrister

hmmm.... 2 overtime games doesn't make it close? what would make it close?

You seem to think winning close games, especially in OT, does not support greatness, but those close wins are arguably the greatest evidence of a great coach.

And the bottom line is … they were wins.

DocBarrister

actually never said that. you said it wasn't close between coaches. but the margin was 2 ot wins between him and starsia.

and then there's desko, with 5 champs in a lot less time as a head coach. and 6 more in his time as an asst. (tierney got 2 in 3 years at jhu?). anyone that knows anything about su lacrosse then knows desko was a if not the driving force for those wins as well.

i was just wondering what would be close.

I admire both Starsia and Desko, but neither can compare with Tierney.

Longevity and continued success do count for something, and Tierney has outlasted them both.

DocBarrister

tierney has won one title in the last 20 years. sounds like you have your own criteria. we'll call it the doc criteria.

Yep.

One lousy national championship since 2001.

By the way, how many other Division I lacrosse head coaches have won Division I NCAA championships at two different schools?

Oh, and how many Division I lacrosse head coaches have won a Division I NCAA title with a team west of the Mississippi?

What other Division I lacrosse head coach has won SEVEN Division I NCAA titles?

That one lousy title since 2001 is kinda important, don’t you think?

DocBarrister

a fan wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 5:48 pm

jrn19 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 5:12 pm Because his offense isn’t as effective with the shot clock, a massive rules change that didn’t exist at all before the last 3 years

A few posts up, you told me that no one was claiming that Tierney can't coach. Told me I was concocting a straw man.

Now you've changed your mind, and you're back telling me that Tierney can't coach offense in the post shot clock era, and that's why he's dropping 1st round games. Like it's really hard to score with a shot clock, or something...and forgetting that DU had a first round exit in 2016, before the shot clock.

Is scoring up, or down across D1? But sure, Tierney just can't crack the shot clock.

Agree to disagree.

tech37 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 6:08 pm Again, his '92 team was very talented. They were the #3 seed, seeded right behind #2 UNC, the defending NC, whom they beat (obviously) in the semis before shocking SU in finals. And it was shocking. Outside of the Ivy League, his talented players were not well known.

I think Tierney is a very fine coach, but he's had tons of talent to work with, including the'92 NC. Talent and coaching go hand in hand, no?

jrn19 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 6:17 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 5:48 pm

jrn19 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 5:12 pm Because his offense isn’t as effective with the shot clock, a massive rules change that didn’t exist at all before the last 3 years

A few posts up, you told me that no one was claiming that Tierney can't coach. Told me I was concocting a straw man.

Now you've changed your mind, and you're back telling me that Tierney can't coach offense in the post shot clock era, and that's why he's dropping 1st round games. Like it's really hard to score with a shot clock, or something...and forgetting that DU had a first round exit in 2016, before the shot clock.

Is scoring up, or down across D1? But sure, Tierney just can't crack the shot clock.

Agree to disagree.

Where did I say Tierney couldn’t coach anywhere in my post? Strawman once again

wgdsr wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 6:16 pm

DocBarrister wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 6:08 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 5:57 pm

DocBarrister wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 5:53 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 5:36 pm

DocBarrister wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 5:21 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 4:26 pm

DocBarrister wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 3:57 pm

CU77 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 2:48 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 1:59 am So tell me...which of these coaches isn't up to snuff, and isn't getting the best out of their players?

To make one comparison: IMO, Breschi is not as good at getting the best out of his players as Danowski. Over the past 10 years, Duke has been more successful overall than UNC, by a variety of measures. Switch Breschi and Danowski, and I think that reverses.

Another point: very few of the current top 20 coaches (and maybe none) could do what Tierney did: go to a total lax backwater (Princeton at the time), and, using players with notably less talent than much of the competition, win a national championship. (After that win, the talent level improved of course.)

Did it twice. After Princeton, took a rising but still second-tier Denver program and won a national championship in 2015.

Best coach of his era (which is still ongoing), and no one is really even close.

DocBarrister

hmmm.... 2 overtime games doesn't make it close? what would make it close?

You seem to think winning close games, especially in OT, does not support greatness, but those close wins are arguably the greatest evidence of a great coach.

And the bottom line is … they were wins.

DocBarrister

actually never said that. you said it wasn't close between coaches. but the margin was 2 ot wins between him and starsia.

and then there's desko, with 5 champs in a lot less time as a head coach. and 6 more in his time as an asst. (tierney got 2 in 3 years at jhu?). anyone that knows anything about su lacrosse then knows desko was a if not the driving force for those wins as well.

i was just wondering what would be close.

I admire both Starsia and Desko, but neither can compare with Tierney.

Longevity and continued success do count for something, and Tierney has outlasted them both.

DocBarrister

tierney has won one title in the last 20 years. sounds like you have your own criteria. we'll call it the doc criteria.

Yep.

One lousy national championship since 2001.

By the way, how many other Division I lacrosse head coaches have won Division I NCAA championships at two different schools?

Oh, and how many Division I lacrosse head coaches have won a Division I NCAA title with a team west of the Mississippi?

What other Division I lacrosse head coach has won SEVEN Division I NCAA titles?

That one lousy title since 2001 is kinda important, don’t you think?

DocBarrister

so maybe starsia or desko will go west so they can make the doc criteria. so they can be close.

tech37 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 6:08 pm Again, his '92 team was very talented. They were the #3 seed, seeded right behind #2 UNC, the defending NC, whom they beat (obviously) in the semis before shocking SU in finals. And it was shocking. Outside of the Ivy League, his talented players were not well known.

I think Tierney is a very fine coach, but he's had tons of talent to work with, including the'92 NC. Talent and coaching go hand in hand, no?

a fan wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 4:56 pm

CU77 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 2:48 pm To make one comparison: IMO, Breschi is not as good at getting the best out of his players as Danowski. Over the past 10 years, Duke has been more successful overall than UNC, by a variety of measures. Switch Breschi and Danowski, and I think that reverses.

Well, I disagree. Doubly so when you look at how Danowski did at Hofstra. And I don't think Breschi has pulled as much talent as Dano...particularly so on the D side of the field. You have a different opinion, and I respect that.

But with all the talent showing up at Duke, I have a hard time believing that Dano does more with less....Dano has had more than one 1st round exit. That doesn't happen if he's getting "more" out of his players....because by any measure, he's killing it on the recruiting trail at Duke.

And what happened this year? Maryland blew their doors off...and Dano how how much firepower on attack?

It's events like Duke getting blown out that tells me that coaching just isn't all that important.

I get, and respect, that you (and most posters, probably) disagree.

CU77 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 11:02 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 6:08 pm Again, his '92 team was very talented. They were the #3 seed, seeded right behind #2 UNC, the defending NC, whom they beat (obviously) in the semis before shocking SU in finals. And it was shocking. Outside of the Ivy League, his talented players were not well known.

I think Tierney is a very fine coach, but he's had tons of talent to work with, including the'92 NC. Talent and coaching go hand in hand, no?

First, his 92 team was talented because he coached them up. His 92 seniors were not especially well regarded when they came in as freshman.

Second, Tierney was clearly still a top-20 coach when he left. His last team (2009) was seeded #4 in the NCAAs (but, I'm happy to say, lost to #5 Cornell). After he left, Princeton collapsed pretty much immediately. If only incoming talent matters, why couldn't the new coaches keep the team in the top 20 with its glorious record of success?

laxjuris wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 2:04 pm

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 7:59 am
Millikan and Buczek remain to be seen. I think Millikan underperformed w Cornell’s roster personally.

Well in fairness to Milliman (not Millikan) Cornell was 5-0 and ranked #2 when 2020 was shut down.

44WeWantMore wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 5:27 am

CU77 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 11:02 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 6:08 pm Again, his '92 team was very talented. They were the #3 seed, seeded right behind #2 UNC, the defending NC, whom they beat (obviously) in the semis before shocking SU in finals. And it was shocking. Outside of the Ivy League, his talented players were not well known.

I think Tierney is a very fine coach, but he's had tons of talent to work with, including the'92 NC. Talent and coaching go hand in hand, no?

First, his 92 team was talented because he coached them up. His 92 seniors were not especially well regarded when they came in as freshman.

Second, Tierney was clearly still a top-20 coach when he left. His last team (2009) was seeded #4 in the NCAAs (but, I'm happy to say, lost to #5 Cornell). After he left, Princeton collapsed pretty much immediately. If only incoming talent matters, why couldn't the new coaches keep the team in the top 20 with its glorious record of success?

Rumor was that Princeton denied him the AI leniency he previously enjoyed.

CU77 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 11:02 pm Second, Tierney was clearly still a top-20 coach when he left. His last team (2009) was seeded #4 in the NCAAs (but, I'm happy to say, lost to #5 Cornell). After he left, Princeton collapsed pretty much immediately. If only incoming talent matters, why couldn't the new coaches keep the team in the top 20 with its glorious record of success?

a fan wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 11:33 am

CU77 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 11:02 pm Second, Tierney was clearly still a top-20 coach when he left. His last team (2009) was seeded #4 in the NCAAs (but, I'm happy to say, lost to #5 Cornell). After he left, Princeton collapsed pretty much immediately. If only incoming talent matters, why couldn't the new coaches keep the team in the top 20 with its glorious record of success?

You forgot that Tierney was 5-7 in 2005 (Ryan Boyle graduated the year before). And was 7-6 in 2008. And in 2009? Yale blew Tierney's doors off in the QuarterFinals. The decline started before Tierney left.....

Agree to disagree.

a fan wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 11:33 am

CU77 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 11:02 pm Second, Tierney was clearly still a top-20 coach when he left. His last team (2009) was seeded #4 in the NCAAs (but, I'm happy to say, lost to #5 Cornell). After he left, Princeton collapsed pretty much immediately. If only incoming talent matters, why couldn't the new coaches keep the team in the top 20 with its glorious record of success?

You forgot that Tierney was 5-7 in 2005 (Ryan Boyle graduated the year before). And was 7-6 in 2008. And in 2009? Yale blew Tierney's doors off in the QuarterFinals. The decline started before Tierney left.....

Agree to disagree.

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 11:45 am

a fan wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 11:33 am

CU77 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 11:02 pm Second, Tierney was clearly still a top-20 coach when he left. His last team (2009) was seeded #4 in the NCAAs (but, I'm happy to say, lost to #5 Cornell). After he left, Princeton collapsed pretty much immediately. If only incoming talent matters, why couldn't the new coaches keep the team in the top 20 with its glorious record of success?

You forgot that Tierney was 5-7 in 2005 (Ryan Boyle graduated the year before). And was 7-6 in 2008. And in 2009? Yale blew Tierney's doors off in the QuarterFinals. The decline started before Tierney left.....

Agree to disagree.

Yes. Tierney didn’t forget how to coach at the end of his Princeton tenure. Administrative support makes a huge difference…. Ask the guys at Yale or the guys at Cornell in the early to mid 1990’s.

wgdsr wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 12:19 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 11:45 am

a fan wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 11:33 am

CU77 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 11:02 pm Second, Tierney was clearly still a top-20 coach when he left. His last team (2009) was seeded #4 in the NCAAs (but, I'm happy to say, lost to #5 Cornell). After he left, Princeton collapsed pretty much immediately. If only incoming talent matters, why couldn't the new coaches keep the team in the top 20 with its glorious record of success?

You forgot that Tierney was 5-7 in 2005 (Ryan Boyle graduated the year before). And was 7-6 in 2008. And in 2009? Yale blew Tierney's doors off in the QuarterFinals. The decline started before Tierney left.....

Agree to disagree.

Yes. Tierney didn’t forget how to coach at the end of his Princeton tenure. Administrative support makes a huge difference…. Ask the guys at Yale or the guys at Cornell in the early to mid 1990’s.

he was the best at getting ivy administrative support in the 90's. and no one was really even close.

wgdsr wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 12:19 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 11:45 am

a fan wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 11:33 am

CU77 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 11:02 pm Second, Tierney was clearly still a top-20 coach when he left. His last team (2009) was seeded #4 in the NCAAs (but, I'm happy to say, lost to #5 Cornell). After he left, Princeton collapsed pretty much immediately. If only incoming talent matters, why couldn't the new coaches keep the team in the top 20 with its glorious record of success?

You forgot that Tierney was 5-7 in 2005 (Ryan Boyle graduated the year before). And was 7-6 in 2008. And in 2009? Yale blew Tierney's doors off in the QuarterFinals. The decline started before Tierney left.....

Agree to disagree.

Yes. Tierney didn’t forget how to coach at the end of his Princeton tenure. Administrative support makes a huge difference…. Ask the guys at Yale or the guys at Cornell in the early to mid 1990’s.

he was the best at getting ivy administrative support in the 90's. and no one was really even close.

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 11:45 am

a fan wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 11:33 am

CU77 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 11:02 pm Second, Tierney was clearly still a top-20 coach when he left. His last team (2009) was seeded #4 in the NCAAs (but, I'm happy to say, lost to #5 Cornell). After he left, Princeton collapsed pretty much immediately. If only incoming talent matters, why couldn't the new coaches keep the team in the top 20 with its glorious record of success?

You forgot that Tierney was 5-7 in 2005 (Ryan Boyle graduated the year before). And was 7-6 in 2008. And in 2009? Yale blew Tierney's doors off in the QuarterFinals. The decline started before Tierney left.....

Agree to disagree.

Yes. Tierney didn’t forget how to coach at the end of his Princeton tenure. Administrative support makes a huge difference…. Ask the guys at Yale or the guys at Cornell in the early to mid 1990’s.