LaxPower Back-Up Stick

Posted: **Sun Sep 08, 2019 11:18 am**

I recall IL had both Ryan Brown and Tucker Durkin ranked somewhere in the 20’s of their respective classes and those two turned into some of your best Players ever at their positions. They also had higher ranked players in both classes who never achieved the same level of play. Wasn’t John Crawley ranked #77 or something? He started as a freshman and was one of our best middies. I’d say the jury is still out on our incoming class. I sure hope they are right about Grimes and McDermott though. But Grimes made the U19 team which really means something in my opinion. Foley was on U19 as I recall but he wasn’t selected for UA AA team. He was definitely flying under IL’s limited radar. I think they’re using an older system from 1940 or something.

Posted: **Sun Sep 08, 2019 11:56 am**

Sagittarius A* wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2019 11:18 am I recall IL had both Ryan Brown and Tucker Durkin ranked somewhere in the 20’s of their respective classes and those two turned into some of your best Players ever at their positions. They also had higher ranked players in both classes who never achieved the same level of play. Wasn’t John Crawley ranked #77 or something? He started as a freshman and was one of our best middies. I’d say the jury is still out on our incoming class. I sure hope they are right about Grimes and McDermott though. But Grimes made the U19 team which really means something in my opinion. Foley was on U19 as I recall but he wasn’t selected for UA AA team. He was definitely flying under IL’s limited radar. I think they’re using an older system from 1940 or something.

It’s called an abacus.

Posted: **Sun Sep 08, 2019 2:44 pm**

Sagittarius A* wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2019 11:18 am I recall IL had both Ryan Brown and Tucker Durkin ranked somewhere in the 20’s of their respective classes and those two turned into some of your best Players ever at their positions. They also had higher ranked players in both classes who never achieved the same level of play. Wasn’t John Crawley ranked #77 or something? He started as a freshman and was one of our best middies.

IL definitely blew it with Durkin.
Durkin was the state player of the year and La Salle had just come off two straight state titles.
That was the year Greeley was #1, so there’s that.

Posted: **Sun Sep 08, 2019 3:34 pm**

Greeley was deservedly a top recruit. Memory may fail but I recall he suffered an injury and was never the same player as I recall. Maybe HS FB ? He had a knees injury ACL? after he arrived

Posted: **Sun Sep 08, 2019 4:47 pm**

Durkin was #16 by IL. That’s just fine. They didn’t miss anything.

Posted: **Sun Sep 08, 2019 5:39 pm**

ohmilax34 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2019 4:47 pm Durkin was #16 by IL. That’s just fine. They didn’t miss anything.

I suppose so on Durkin.

My impression was Pennsylvania players were still getting low rated at that point, in general.

As I recall IL took a lot of grief for that ranking year, which may have influenced them to pay better attention to their recruiting publications.
Out west, Peter Baum and to a lesser extent Pierce Basset were well known commodities, and I thought IL missed on those two.

Overall, that was a real interesting class, and some players I really got to like.

Posted: **Sun Sep 08, 2019 8:38 pm**

10stone5 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2019 2:44 pm That was the year Greeley was #1, so there’s that.

You can't talk about Greeley (especially with respect to his ranking) without mentioning the injuries. He started his career already injured, then was banged up all throughout his sophomore year in 2011 (still finished the year with a respectable 26 points), got hurt about 2/3 through his junior season and missed the remaining games that year and then just wasn't the same for his senior season in 2013. Who knows what could have been with a clean bill of health. He was never playing at even close to 100%.

Posted: **Sun Sep 08, 2019 11:39 pm**

As I recall Murphy was ranked as the #2 attackman in his class at one point. Then his ranking plummeted. But he also made the U19 team If I’m not mistaken. I could see him grabbing a spot on the second midfield. Did we even have a second team midfield last season? Mabbet Murphy and Angelus. Yeah go with that on the second line. Glassmeyer plugs the gaping hole at ssdm and LQ puts on a disguise and mans the nets.

Posted: **Mon Sep 09, 2019 9:02 am**

Sagittarius A* wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2019 11:39 pm As I recall Murphy was ranked as the #2 attackman in his class at one point. Then his ranking plummeted. But he also made the U19 team If I’m not mistaken. I could see him grabbing a spot on the second midfield. Did we even have a second team midfield last season? Mabbet Murphy and Angelus. Yeah go with that on the second line. Glassmeyer plugs the gaping hole at ssdm and LQ puts on a disguise and mans the nets.

Highest ranking I could find for Murphy was #15 overall (#8 attackman) by Xanders in 2015. He's now the #12 attackman. So he dropped a whopping 4 spots at his position in as many years. Hardly a "plummet." The knock on him was always that he was pretty slight—perhaps puberty was more kind to some of his competitors than he—but making the U19 team is a good sign. While you certainly don't want him to be a twig, I'm of the opinion that quickness and stick skills are more important for an attackman than strength, especially someone like Murphy who projects as more of a finisher in our offense with Epstein leading the way. We don't necessarily need him backing down defensemen. We need him to get open, catch the ball, and shoot it into the back of the net.

It will be very interesting to see what they do with the 3rd attack spot—whether they revert Smith, DeSimone, Concannon, Baskin, or Keogh back to their more natural positions or give it to one of the newbies like Murphy or Angelus. I wouldn't rule out a rotation there, at least until one guy separates himself from the pack.

The second midfield last year was mostly Baskin and Keogh and then what you can only call a smorgasbord of players filling that last spot, depending on when in the year you're talking about. It started out looking like Cattoni until he got hurt, then it was briefly a revolving door of the Three Musketeers (Mabbett, Lilly, and Degnon for a split second), then they went to Stagnitta for a bit, then, finally, mercifully, they gave Zinn a shot toward the end of the year. With Zinn's emergence I could perhaps see them putting him on 1st midfield and then moving one of those guys to attack (at least to start the year). But then that leaves you with pretty much the same problem with the 2nd midfield as last year. It goes without saying that midfield depth continues to be an issue and that doesn't appear like it will be remedied this year unless DeSimone really turns things around and this freshman class gives us something somewhat unanticipated there.

I've also been on the record saying this many times: I think the offense is fine. It has the potential to be more than fine, even with the questions at midfield. We've got our best player there in probably multiple decades if he stays healthy. Defense and goaltending are what will decide if steelhop stays lurking in the shadows or re-emerges to call for the staff's heads on platters.

Posted: **Mon Sep 09, 2019 10:36 am**

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/ra ... rce=usn_tw

rough decade on the lacrosse field, but #10 in us news is pretty good. Few years ago we were in the mid teens with the cornells wustls and rices, now middle/top of the non hyps group. I'd take stanford over columbia but that's me.

Posted: **Mon Sep 09, 2019 11:40 am**

jhu06 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 10:36 am https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/ra ... rce=usn_tw

rough decade on the lacrosse field, but #10 in us news is pretty good. Few years ago we were in the mid teens with the cornells wustls and rices, now middle/top of the non hyps group. I'd take stanford over columbia but that's me.

Tied with Duke, and above Dartmouth, Cornell, Brown, Rice, Notre Dame, Caltech, and any public schools. Pretty good. Can’t hurt lacrosse recruiting.

DocBarrister

Posted: **Mon Sep 09, 2019 12:25 pm**

HopFan16 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 9:02 am
Sagittarius A* wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2019 11:39 pm As I recall Murphy was ranked as the #2 attackman in his class at one point. Then his ranking plummeted. But he also made the U19 team If I’m not mistaken. I could see him grabbing a spot on the second midfield. Did we even have a second team midfield last season? Mabbet Murphy and Angelus. Yeah go with that on the second line. Glassmeyer plugs the gaping hole at ssdm and LQ puts on a disguise and mans the nets.
Highest ranking I could find for Murphy was #15 overall (#8 attackman) by Xanders in 2015. He's now the #12 attackman. So he dropped a whopping 4 spots at his position in as many years. Hardly a "plummet." The knock on him was always that he was pretty slight—perhaps puberty was more kind to some of his competitors than he—but making the U19 team is a good sign. While you certainly don't want him to be a twig, I'm of the opinion that quickness and stick skills are more important for an attackman than strength, especially someone like Murphy who projects as more of a finisher in our offense with Epstein leading the way. We don't necessarily need him backing down defensemen. We need him to get open, catch the ball, and shoot it into the back of the net.

It will be very interesting to see what they do with the 3rd attack spot—whether they revert Smith, DeSimone, Concannon, Baskin, or Keogh back to their more natural positions or give it to one of the newbies like Murphy or Angelus. I wouldn't rule out a rotation there, at least until one guy separates himself from the pack.

The second midfield last year was mostly Baskin and Keogh and then what you can only call a smorgasbord of players filling that last spot, depending on when in the year you're talking about. It started out looking like Cattoni until he got hurt, then it was briefly a revolving door of the Three Musketeers (Mabbett, Lilly, and Degnon for a split second), then they went to Stagnitta for a bit, then, finally, mercifully, they gave Zinn a shot toward the end of the year. With Zinn's emergence I could perhaps see them putting him on 1st midfield and then moving one of those guys to attack (at least to start the year). But then that leaves you with pretty much the same problem with the 2nd midfield as last year. It goes without saying that midfield depth continues to be an issue and that doesn't appear like it will be remedied this year unless DeSimone really turns things around and this freshman class gives us something somewhat unanticipated there.

I've also been on the record saying this many times: I think the offense is fine. It has the potential to be more than fine, even with the questions at midfield. We've got our best player there in probably multiple decades if he stays healthy. Defense and goaltending are what will decide if steelhop stays lurking in the shadows or re-emerges to call for the staff's heads on platters.

Can't wait to see that imposing second midfield of Baskin Keogh and Stagnitta.

Posted: **Mon Sep 09, 2019 1:12 pm**

DocBarrister wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 11:40 am
jhu06 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 10:36 am https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/ra ... rce=usn_tw

rough decade on the lacrosse field, but #10 in us news is pretty good. Few years ago we were in the mid teens with the cornells wustls and rices, now middle/top of the non hyps group. I'd take stanford over columbia but that's me.
Tied with Duke, and above Dartmouth, Cornell, Brown, Rice, Notre Dame, Caltech, and any public schools. Pretty good. Can’t hurt lacrosse recruiting.

DocBarrister

all this nonsense from haters on here why kids don't want to play or go to hopkins seems like more trash and we're now a few years out from the riots and it doesn't seem to have dented the schools popularity or prestige.

Posted: **Mon Sep 09, 2019 1:16 pm**

DocBarrister wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 11:40 am
jhu06 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 10:36 am https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/ra ... rce=usn_tw

rough decade on the lacrosse field, but #10 in us news is pretty good. Few years ago we were in the mid teens with the cornells wustls and rices, now middle/top of the non hyps group. I'd take stanford over columbia but that's me.
Tied with Duke, and above Dartmouth, Cornell, Brown, Rice, Notre Dame, Caltech, and any public schools. Pretty good. Can’t hurt lacrosse recruiting.

DocBarrister

recruiting here can't get much worse, so I guess, uhhhh, yeah, yay USNews polls!

(btw, Princeton is #1 solely because USNews/Zuckerman are kissing Bezos' ring to get him to invest a few billion in their operating accounts

)

Posted: **Mon Sep 09, 2019 1:18 pm**

jhu06 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 1:12 pm
DocBarrister wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 11:40 am
jhu06 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 10:36 am https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/ra ... rce=usn_tw

rough decade on the lacrosse field, but #10 in us news is pretty good. Few years ago we were in the mid teens with the cornells wustls and rices, now middle/top of the non hyps group. I'd take stanford over columbia but that's me.
Tied with Duke, and above Dartmouth, Cornell, Brown, Rice, Notre Dame, Caltech, and any public schools. Pretty good. Can’t hurt lacrosse recruiting.

DocBarrister
all this nonsense from haters on here why kids don't want to play or go to hopkins seems like more trash and we're now a few years out from the riots and it doesn't seem to have dented the schools popularity or prestige.

Amazing what a billion fitty from Bloomey does to counter perception!

Posted: **Mon Sep 09, 2019 1:25 pm**

Nice to see PB pitching in to keep Hop's page count going.

Posted: **Mon Sep 09, 2019 1:40 pm**

FannOLax wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 1:25 pm Nice to see PB pitching in to keep Hop's page count going.

By my estimation, Loyola is going to have to be like 50 pages ahead come February, otherwise we'll probably open up an insurmountable lead after the inevitable 11-5 home loss to Towson.

(JK, sorta, I like our chances against Towson this year, but no matter what happens I'm sure it will result in pages and pages of #content)

Posted: **Mon Sep 09, 2019 2:24 pm**

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 1:18 pm
jhu06 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 1:12 pm
DocBarrister wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 11:40 am
jhu06 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 10:36 am https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/ra ... rce=usn_tw

rough decade on the lacrosse field, but #10 in us news is pretty good. Few years ago we were in the mid teens with the cornells wustls and rices, now middle/top of the non hyps group. I'd take stanford over columbia but that's me.
Tied with Duke, and above Dartmouth, Cornell, Brown, Rice, Notre Dame, Caltech, and any public schools. Pretty good. Can’t hurt lacrosse recruiting.

DocBarrister
all this nonsense from haters on here why kids don't want to play or go to hopkins seems like more trash and we're now a few years out from the riots and it doesn't seem to have dented the schools popularity or prestige.

Amazing what a billion fitty from Bloomey does to counter perception!

I didn't have time to scroll...where was Loyola on the list?

Posted: **Mon Sep 09, 2019 2:32 pm**

luvlaxlife wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 2:24 pm
Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 1:18 pm
jhu06 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 1:12 pm
DocBarrister wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 11:40 am
jhu06 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 10:36 am https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/ra ... rce=usn_tw

rough decade on the lacrosse field, but #10 in us news is pretty good. Few years ago we were in the mid teens with the cornells wustls and rices, now middle/top of the non hyps group. I'd take stanford over columbia but that's me.
Tied with Duke, and above Dartmouth, Cornell, Brown, Rice, Notre Dame, Caltech, and any public schools. Pretty good. Can’t hurt lacrosse recruiting.

DocBarrister
all this nonsense from haters on here why kids don't want to play or go to hopkins seems like more trash and we're now a few years out from the riots and it doesn't seem to have dented the schools popularity or prestige.

Amazing what a billion fitty from Bloomey does to counter perception!
I didn't have time to scroll...where was Loyola on the list?

I personally have no problem admitting Hopkins is a great school, much much higher ranked nationally than Loyola.

Whereas Hopkins is ranked 10th according to US news and world report, along with #19 for best value schools, #23 in most innovating schools. Hopkins is a renowned institution producing politicians, doctors, lawyers, to name a few. The JHU name carries significant weight to a degree no matter what the field. Famous alums etc etc to rival those of Stanford, MIT, and the Ivies. Commendable/Exemplary school.

Loyola on the other hand is tied for 4th best in the North Region, along with #6 for Best Undergraduate Teaching, #1 in Best Colleges for Veterans, #40 for Best Value, tied for #12 in Most innovative schools, Undergrad engineering is #52 for colleges without a graduate engineering program, and AACSB accredited #112 in Best Undergrad Business Program. We will never, ever get to a national ranking (and a part of me hurts to admit that as i pride myself on success and name recognition)

Posted: **Mon Sep 09, 2019 2:34 pm**

HopFan16 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 1:40 pm
FannOLax wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 1:25 pm Nice to see PB pitching in to keep Hop's page count going.
By my estimation, Loyola is going to have to be like 50 pages ahead come February, otherwise we'll probably open up an insurmountable lead after the inevitable 11-5 home loss to Towson.

(JK, sorta, I like our chances against Towson this year, but no matter what happens I'm sure it will result in pages and pages of #content)

I think you have the offensive and FO pieces to fare well against Towson, its the defense and Goaltending i have worries on.

But... Towson does have great athletes every single year. Does stick skills and fast shots outweigh athleticism in terms of scoring and production?

LaxPower Back-Up Stick

Johns Hopkins 2020

Re: Johns Hopkins 2020

Re: Johns Hopkins 2020

Re: Johns Hopkins 2020

Re: Johns Hopkins 2020

Re: Johns Hopkins 2020

Re: Johns Hopkins 2020

Re: Johns Hopkins 2020

Re: Johns Hopkins 2020

Re: Johns Hopkins 2020

Re: Johns Hopkins 2020

Re: Johns Hopkins 2020

Re: Johns Hopkins 2020

Re: Johns Hopkins 2020

Re: Johns Hopkins 2020

Re: Johns Hopkins 2020

Re: Johns Hopkins 2020

Re: Johns Hopkins 2020

Re: Johns Hopkins 2020

Re: Johns Hopkins 2020

Re: Johns Hopkins 2020