bearlaxfan wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2024 7:48 am
Brown at CU Saturday, after Big Red's wild win yesterday and the upcoming CU game Sunday 4/14 vs ND: TRAP GAME!
Actually, I thought the Syracuse game was the "trap" game, as to me, the most important games are the IVY games and trying to not only get into the ILT but also host. Winning the ILT takes it out of the hands of the CHC, which stands for Cornell Hating Committee.
So in that regards, our next "trap" game is against the #1 team in the country.
They continue to put the ball in one stick. At least they took some chances on pushing transition and got a goal or two. Cornell was sleepwalking in the first half and were throwing it away on missed feeds, but at least they were looking for feeds. When they woke up and made the passes, they made the Bears pay for aggressive D slides. Lots of effort and hustle, but the O is still a dodge and a shot, and they can't finish enough to hang with a team that isn't missing. System isn't working for the players. 10 games in and still no one with 10 or more assists.
Brown coaches don't know how to coach 6 on 6 so they push the ball hard in transition. Unfortunately relying on transition is a recipe to lose and it has a terrible risk vs reward ratio. The Bears looked fresh, fast, and alert in the first half and tired and slow in the 2nd half on both sides of the ball. The freshman #7 is not ready to play at this level and I'm nervous every-time he has the ball in his stick. One thing is certain is that this team will not be able to compete with the current attack unit. 29 and 43 are very fast and 42 is very talented and quick. Peoples goalie had an excellent first half but the D looked tired and mentally checked out in the second half. Don't expect many assists with the system and especially an X attackman that can not feed the ball or move the ball quickly.
It's almost as if the x attack is being told to dodge to gle then pass it off no matter what. If that's all he's trusted to do and no one on the roster can do more that's coaching & recruiting. Not to mention putting the young man in a position where a schmuck like me critiques his play.
As I noted earlier on a question about the team's future: have you seen some of the freshmen in the IL this year? Saw a few in Red & White today.
Laxnation wrote: ↑Sat Apr 06, 2024 2:43 pm
Brown coaches don't know how to coach 6 on 6 so they push the ball hard in transition. Unfortunately relying on transition is a recipe to lose and it has a terrible risk vs reward ratio. The Bears looked fresh, fast, and alert in the first half and tired and slow in the 2nd half on both sides of the ball. The freshman #7 is not ready to play at this level and I'm nervous every-time he has the ball in his stick. One thing is certain is that this team will not be able to compete with the current attack unit. 29 and 43 are very fast and 42 is very talented and quick. Peoples goalie had an excellent first half but the D looked tired and mentally checked out in the second half. Don't expect many assists with the system and especially an X attackman that can not feed the ball or move the ball quickly.
I have been harping on this all year. What the heck is going on with our shooting? Today we had 8 goals on 52 shots. That is a shooting percentage of .153
Do we practice shooting at all during the week? This is not new - our shooting has sucked all year. Really disappointing year and not what Brown State is supposed to be.
Laxnation wrote: ↑Sat Apr 06, 2024 2:43 pm
Brown coaches don't know how to coach 6 on 6 so they push the ball hard in transition. Unfortunately relying on transition is a recipe to lose and it has a terrible risk vs reward ratio. The Bears looked fresh, fast, and alert in the first half and tired and slow in the 2nd half on both sides of the ball. The freshman #7 is not ready to play at this level and I'm nervous every-time he has the ball in his stick. One thing is certain is that this team will not be able to compete with the current attack unit. 29 and 43 are very fast and 42 is very talented and quick. Peoples goalie had an excellent first half but the D looked tired and mentally checked out in the second half. Don't expect many assists with the system and especially an X attackman that can not feed the ball or move the ball quickly.
I have been harping on this all year. What the heck is going on with our shooting? Today we had 8 goals on 52 shots. That is a shooting percentage of .153
Do we practice shooting at all during the week? This is not new - our shooting has sucked all year. Really disappointing year and not what Brown State is supposed to be.
Brown has the worst average number of assists per game at 4 in D1 lacrosse and most of those assists are man up, transition or off turn overs. Out of the top 50 players in the country with the most assists, 44 of them play attack. We don't have a feeder at attack and #43 and the midfielders are forced to try and score unassisted. This results in lower percentage shots and the midfielders are thrown out to the wolves! Don't tell me that one kid on that roster can't do a better job at X then #7, because I won't believe it.
Same sword they knight you they gon' good night you with
Thats' only half if they like you
That ain't even the half what they might do
Don't believe me, ask Michael
See Martin, Malcolm
See Jesus, Judas; Caesar, Brutus
See success is like suicide
bearlaxfan wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2024 9:02 am
"correlation does not imply causation"
Waaayyyyy over the top assumptions.
Hanlon's razor is an adage or rule of thumb that states:[1]
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Some really tough accusations.
I recall feeling the same way at another Ivy a few years ago about PT at attack (no personal dog in hunt) and it very well may have been accurate as the rumor was strong, but other personnel decisions just looked like stubbornness or “stupidity”.
bearlaxfan wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2024 9:02 am
"correlation does not imply causation"
Waaayyyyy over the top assumptions.
Hanlon's razor is an adage or rule of thumb that states:[1]
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Sometimes people put themselves in a position to second guess them. I wouldn't say it's way over the top to think these things because it certainly appears that their is some truth to what brunolax said about following the money. I'm sure these things happen a lot in youth and college lacrosse. I live a mile from campus and I follow multiple sports at Brown. I met Daly in his first year at Brown and he seemed like a good guy. I never liked his coaching style but I supported him over the years. This year, he is doing a terrible job with personal decisions and the most important position on offense is not being played by one of this top 5 players and that is cause for concern.
Doesn't seem fair to coach or players. If this is about one first-year at attack, he was a four-star IL recruit from one of the top HS programs in the country. You can understand a coach sticking with a guy with that resume and hoping that as the season goes on the freshman leap is made, even if you don't agree with it. To continue with the leap analogy, it's a huge leap to assume a lack of integrity by a coach and, I think, pretty unfair. Just common sense -- head coaches get judged on their record, not the donations coming in the door; it would be self-sabotage to play somebody who diminishes the chance at winning because parents are connected or making donations to the university.
I was one of the outside Ivy observers who thought the hiring of the current Brown HC was a cool, visionary hire but I probably underestimated that his success was (a) in Division III; and (b) pre-shot clock era -- once the shot clock was in place, fast-paced playing, poles running through for shots became pretty standard. I don't know enough about the recruiting landscape to know if there's something Brown should be doing that they're not doing, but I think they're up against some formidable hurdles, some of which affect all the Ivies, some of which are in-league challenges: the academic gatekeeping all the Ivies have; the NIL possibility at places like Georgetown and JHU which appear to have active lax collectives; and recruiting within the Ivies against some really successful programs and coaches (historic programs, recent deep runs in the NCAA tournament, young up-and-comer cool HCs like Buczek and Kirwan and successful veteran coaches like Madalon/Murphy/Shay with tenures ranging from 8 to 20 years).
So, it's understandable for Brown fans to want to scrutinize if Bruno has the right leadership running the program. I think that can be done without suggesting that players are in the line-up, or coaches are making line-up decisions, for nefarious reasons. Just my two cents (or, given my tendency to be wordy, maybe a few more than two cents).
The Orfling wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2024 11:42 am
Doesn't seem fair to coach or players. If this is about one first-year at attack, he was a four-star IL recruit from one of the top HS programs in the country. You can understand a coach sticking with a guy with that resume and hoping that as the season goes on the freshman leap is made, even if you don't agree with it. To continue with the leap analogy, it's a huge leap to assume a lack of integrity by a coach and, I think, pretty unfair. Just common sense -- head coaches get judged on their record, not the donations coming in the door; it would be self-sabotage to play somebody who diminishes the chance at winning because parents are connected or making donations to the university.
I was one of the outside Ivy observers who thought the hiring of the current Brown HC was a cool, visionary hire but I probably underestimated that his success was (a) in Division III; and (b) pre-shot clock era -- once the shot clock was in place, fast-paced playing, poles running through for shots became pretty standard. I don't know enough about the recruiting landscape to know if there's something Brown should be doing that they're not doing, but I think they're up against some formidable hurdles, some of which affect all the Ivies, some of which are in-league challenges: the academic gatekeeping all the Ivies have; the NIL possibility at places like Georgetown and JHU which appear to have active lax collectives; and recruiting within the Ivies against some really successful programs and coaches (historic programs, recent deep runs in the NCAA tournament, young up-and-comer cool HCs like Buczek and Kirwan and successful veteran coaches like Madalon/Murphy/Shay with tenures ranging from 8 to 20 years).
So, it's understandable for Brown fans to want to scrutinize if Bruno has the right leadership running the program. I think that can be done without suggesting that players are in the line-up, or coaches are making line-up decisions, for nefarious reasons. Just my two cents (or, given my tendency to be wordy, maybe a few more than two cents).
As an alumnus I am not happy with the current state of affairs. We have a strong, tradition rich program with excellent alumni support.
To make an accusation like this is really over the top. You might not like what’s going on with coaching this year (or prior years), but coaches are paid to win games. They are not playing kids based on money.
Have there been instances in the past (at numerous schools - not just Brown) where you get some head scratcher recruits that are legacy kids - Yes. Those kids don’t see the field if they are not good enough.
Coaches are not doing what they should be right now, but to accuse a coach like this is really unnecessary. Not good!
Someone posted a few weeks ago that Daly is paid by the alumni, so that could have something to do with the "follow the money" comment. I will leave it at this, either Daly is just a terrible coach or something else it up. Possibly a combination of the two. It seems like Daly moves multiple players around on offense but the attack always remains the same. I have never seen a D1 team move the ball this slowly in my life and the lack of assists is insane. With the talent they have, none of this makes any sense!
The Orfling wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2024 11:42 am
Doesn't seem fair to coach or players. If this is about one first-year at attack, he was a four-star IL recruit from one of the top HS programs in the country. You can understand a coach sticking with a guy with that resume and hoping that as the season goes on the freshman leap is made, even if you don't agree with it. To continue with the leap analogy, it's a huge leap to assume a lack of integrity by a coach and, I think, pretty unfair. Just common sense -- head coaches get judged on their record, not the donations coming in the door; it would be self-sabotage to play somebody who diminishes the chance at winning because parents are connected or making donations to the university.
I was one of the outside Ivy observers who thought the hiring of the current Brown HC was a cool, visionary hire but I probably underestimated that his success was (a) in Division III; and (b) pre-shot clock era -- once the shot clock was in place, fast-paced playing, poles running through for shots became pretty standard. I don't know enough about the recruiting landscape to know if there's something Brown should be doing that they're not doing, but I think they're up against some formidable hurdles, some of which affect all the Ivies, some of which are in-league challenges: the academic gatekeeping all the Ivies have; the NIL possibility at places like Georgetown and JHU which appear to have active lax collectives; and recruiting within the Ivies against some really successful programs and coaches (historic programs, recent deep runs in the NCAA tournament, young up-and-comer cool HCs like Buczek and Kirwan and successful veteran coaches like Madalon/Murphy/Shay with tenures ranging from 8 to 20 years).
So, it's understandable for Brown fans to want to scrutinize if Bruno has the right leadership running the program. I think that can be done without suggesting that players are in the line-up, or coaches are making line-up decisions, for nefarious reasons. Just my two cents (or, given my tendency to be wordy, maybe a few more than two cents).
As an alumnus I am not happy with the current state of affairs. We have a strong, tradition rich program with excellent alumni support.
To make an accusation like this is really over the top. You might not like what’s going on with coaching this year (or prior years), but coaches are paid to win games. They are not playing kids based on money.
Have there been instances in the past (at numerous schools - not just Brown) where you get some head scratcher recruits that are legacy kids - Yes. Those kids don’t see the field if they are not good enough.
Coaches are not doing what they should be right now, but to accuse a coach like this is really unnecessary. Not good!
Completely agree. The player in question had an older brother who also played at Brown and only saw limited time. While you may disagree with the coaching decision, the fact pattern doesn't warrant the accusation made.
The coaching position is endowed. That doesn't mean the HC has tenure! Whatever criteria the admin (including of course more than just the athletic dept) judges sports teams on, that's the bottom line. Wins/losses aren't going to be "below the fold" on the list.
Given poor on-field results and lack of lineup changes, we have to assume the best players are seeing the field. That, to me, is a condemnation of recruiting. (Not to mention your best offensive players are transfers is another sign of poor recruiting!) There is apparently no "plan B" with this roster.
For the Nth time I will repeat what was said online: "April 2022 is doing a lot of heavy lifting for this program."
Just for myself as an alum and a fan, I think two more years is due the current crew. Mainly because of the 2 covid years. I'm not comfortable calling for heads- not that I have any pull! I don't think going "North Carolina" and forcing AC changes is the way to go. That's desperation. I honestly don't think the program will get that much better, but the people in charge should get a few more chances. It's college lacrosse, not national security.
bearlaxfan wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2024 12:44 pm
The coaching position is endowed. That doesn't mean the HC has tenure! Whatever criteria the admin (including of course more than just the athletic dept) judges sports teams on, that's the bottom line. Wins/losses aren't going to be "below the fold" on the list.
Given poor on-field results and lack of lineup changes, we have to assume the best players are seeing the field. That, to me, is a condemnation of recruiting. (Not to mention your best offensive players are transfers is another sign of poor recruiting!) There is apparently no "plan B" with this roster.
For the Nth time I will repeat what was said online: "April 2022 is doing a lot of heavy lifting for this program."
Just for myself as an alum and a fan, I think two more years is due the current crew. Mainly because of the 2 covid years. I'm not comfortable calling for heads- not that I have any pull! I don't think going "North Carolina" and forcing AC changes is the way to go. That's desperation. I honestly don't think the program will get that much better, but the people in charge should get a few more chances. It's college lacrosse, not national security.
Current coaching staff is in their 8th year. They have 2 winning seasons. I’m not counting the 1-0 Covid season as a winning season. The 1st season (2017) they had Lars’ recruits and went 10-6. In 2022 they went 10-6.
I just think 10 years is the proper length to either show some eventual success or to say "it's not working and you've had plenty of chance to perform."
And let's realize Brown's real lacrosse success was the Stevenson/Starsia era, more than a generation age (gen. ~ 20 years). There were 3 ncaa visits in Lars' 10 years- his first with Nelson's seniors- including 2 first-round exits- and one hot month in 2022 resulting in another first round exit. Thinking this is "an-ncaa-tourney-miss-is-a-crime" program like it may have been in 1990 isn't accurate. It should be better. But don't set expectations by the one-off of 2016.
bearlaxfan wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2024 2:38 pm
I just think 10 years is the proper length to either show some eventual success or to say "it's not working and you've had plenty of chance to perform."
And let's realize Brown's real lacrosse success was the Stevenson/Starsia era, more than a generation age (gen. ~ 20 years). There were 3 ncaa visits in Lars' 10 years- his first with Nelson's seniors- including 2 first-round exits- and one hot month in 2022 resulting in another first round exit. Thinking this is "an-ncaa-tourney-miss-is-a-crime" program like it may have been in 1990 isn't accurate. It should be better. But don't set expectations by the one-off of 2016.
10 years LMFAO!
Recruiting C-
Coaching D
Interviews F
Nothing will ever change with Daly! He doesn't know how to promote Brown lacrosse, his out dated coaching style will never change and his inability to learn from successful programs is disturbing. Anyone that doesn't understand the value of ball movement and has a know it all mentality will never be successful in this game. The women's lacrosse team has a new coach and they turned things around in one year. If Daly is back next year, I think recruiting will die!
Lets at least have some fun and start talking about who should replace Daly.
