ADVERTISEMENT

Rutgers Men's Lacrosse Returns Home to Host Stony Brook Saturday

MS-RU said:
Anyone still defending Brecht is a moron.
Click to expand...

Well not necessarily.

We out shot and out saved them we just can't win a faceoff.

Sb graded out to 86 and ru to 75.

The issue is we need possessions to take advantage of our shooting percentage (31) but we can't win faceoffs.

We saved 51 percent which is decent.

But we only won 33 percent of faceoffs.

Sb shot 27.4 (which is just where they needed to be to win ).

They saved 38 percent (which is bad)

But they won 66 percent of faceoffs.
 
koleszar said:
After this latest debacle now begs the question where o' where do the wins come from? Lafayette, Hofstra and Michigan seem like the only realistic chances.
Click to expand...

We’re not beating Michigan (my guess is). They will likely surpass us as a program this year.
 
RUtrumpet92 said:
At some point, pee or get off the pot. I don't want to hear about it's tough to make the NCAAs and the B1G is the best (top two at worst) conference. If the program isn't dancing, at some point you need to make a change at the top. Seat should be getting hotter.
Click to expand...

The program is currently regressing...that is NOT a good sign.
 
  • Like
Reactions: knight82
tough loss, had to win this one and it seemed like we were winning face offs then all of a sudden it stopped.
 
I’m just glad it’s over early this season. Next week should be fun
 
Never expect to lose to SB ... in anything ... ever.

Looks like this sport will be adding itself as another RU team to finish in the B1G basement.
 
This had to be a win for us to have any chance at .500 record. It really looks like it will be worse than I thought with maybe only 4-5 wins. We will beat Lafayette but UM and Hofstra are both on the road.
 
AreYouNUTS said:
We’re not beating Michigan (my guess is). They will likely surpass us as a program this year.
Click to expand...

They play St John's today. Lost to Merrimack at home last week. Watch the score and I think you might change your mind.
 
gef21 said:
Well not necessarily.

We out shot and out saved them we just can't win a faceoff.

Sb graded out to 86 and ru to 75.

The issue is we need possessions to take advantage of our shooting percentage (31) but we can't win faceoffs.

We saved 51 percent which is decent.

But we only won 33 percent of faceoffs.

Sb shot 27.4 (which is just where they needed to be to win ).

They saved 38 percent (which is bad)

But they won 66 percent of faceoffs.
Click to expand...

All of analytics mean jack sh*t if you can't win a faceoff and posses the damn ball. Can't score even if you have the best offensive talent in the universe if you can't win a faceoff. It's been the same story year after year after year. It's absolutely pathetic.

The coaches once again, for at least the 4th year in a row, didn't sure up the faceoff position and essentially pissed away another season. It's literally the most important aspect of the game if you want to have more possessions. For a myriad of reasons including flips, injuries, etc they haven't gotten it done and it's embarrassing. If you cant identify and close talent, you have no business being a HC at this level. Brecht obviously can't recognize quality talent at the position and the one time he almost did, he couldn't close the kid for a myriad of reasons I'm sure. Next season will be no different. What's that definition of insanity once again?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 78CollegeAve, knight82 and biazza38
It’s so freaking stupid. I remember going to a game last year and thinking “what the hell am I watching?” Just so much worse than the teams that just missed the tournament. And it comes down to recruiting. Suboptimal recruiting
 
  • Like
Reactions: knight82
MS-RU said:
All of analytics mean jack sh*t if you can't win a faceoff and posses the damn ball. Can't score even if you have the best offensive talent in the universe if you can't win a faceoff. It's been the same story year after year after year. It's absolutely pathetic.

The coaches once again, for at least the 4th year in a row, didn't sure up the faceoff position and essentially pissed away another season. It's literally the most important aspect of the game if you want to have more possessions. For a myriad of reasons including flips, injuries, etc they haven't gotten it done and it's embarrassing. If you cant identify and close talent, you have no business being a HC at this level. Brecht obviously can't recognize quality talent at the position and the one time he almost did, he couldn't close the kid for a myriad of reasons I'm sure. Next season will be no different. What's that definition of insanity once again?
Click to expand...

Well we have gotten away with it because of superior shooting and superior goalie play. Now that neither are at elite levels the fogo spot is really hurting us.

And data means everything in sports. It has been one of the most important pieces I have ever had as a coach (for football or lax). It all depends on how you use the data though as a coach.
 
biazza38 said:
It’s so freaking stupid. I remember going to a game last year and thinking “what the hell am I watching?” Just so much worse than the teams that just missed the tournament. And it comes down to recruiting. Suboptimal recruiting
Click to expand...

It's recruiting at one spot mixed with bad luck in recruiting.
 
mdk01 said:
They play St John's today. Lost to Merrimack at home last week. Watch the score and I think you might change your mind.
Click to expand...

Listen, I hope you’re right and I’m wrong, but this program is regressing and it’s not just about FOGO’s. Let’s be honest.
 
MS-RU said:
gef21 said:

↑



Well not necessarily.

We out shot and out saved them we just can't win a faceoff.

Sb graded out to 86 and ru to 75.

The issue is we need possessions to take advantage of our shooting percentage (31) but we can't win faceoffs.

We saved 51 percent which is decent.

But we only won 33 percent of faceoffs.

Sb shot 27.4 (which is just where they needed to be to win ).

They saved 38 percent (which is bad)

But they won 66 percent of faceoffs.
Click to expand...

All of analytics mean jack sh*t if you can't win a faceoff and posses the damn ball. Can't score even if you have the best offensive talent in the universe if you can't win a faceoff. It's been the same story year after year after year. It's absolutely pathetic.

The coaches once again, for at least the 4th year in a row, didn't sure up the faceoff position and essentially pissed away another season. It's literally the most important aspect of the game if you want to have more possessions. For a myriad of reasons including flips, injuries, etc they haven't gotten it done and it's embarrassing. If you cant identify and close talent, you have no business being a HC at this level. Brecht obviously can't recognize quality talent at the position and the one time he almost did, he couldn't close the kid for a myriad of reasons I'm sure. Next season will be no different. What's that definition of insanity once again?
[/quote]
No less that 5 of the top 20 fogo’s by stats are from NJ. NJ also has the #1 defenseman on Hopkins, UVA, Maryland, Villanova and Syracuse. Yep there is not talent in NJ. Maybe kids do not want to come to Rutgers for reasons other than the school?
 
  • Like
Reactions: biazza38 and AreYouNUTS
asgot said:
All of analytics mean jack sh*t if you can't win a faceoff and posses the damn ball. Can't score even if you have the best offensive talent in the universe if you can't win a faceoff. It's been the same story year after year after year. It's absolutely pathetic.

The coaches once again, for at least the 4th year in a row, didn't sure up the faceoff position and essentially pissed away another season. It's literally the most important aspect of the game if you want to have more possessions. For a myriad of reasons including flips, injuries, etc they haven't gotten it done and it's embarrassing. If you cant identify and close talent, you have no business being a HC at this level. Brecht obviously can't recognize quality talent at the position and the one time he almost did, he couldn't close the kid for a myriad of reasons I'm sure. Next season will be no different. What's that definition of insanity once again?
Click to expand...
No less that 5 of the top 20 fogo’s by stats are from NJ. NJ also has the #1 defenseman on Hopkins, UVA, Maryland, Villanova and Syracuse. Yep there is not talent in NJ. Maybe kids do not want to come to Rutgers for reasons other than the school?[/QUOTE]

Yup, it's embarrassing and 100% on the HC. Can't close on talent in NJ, need to look elsewhere because he nor anyone else on the staff can develop the talent. Can't just ignore it and pray it all works out which seems to be out strategy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 78CollegeAve, biazza38 and AreYouNUTS
MS-RU said:
No less that 5 of the top 20 fogo’s by stats are from NJ. NJ also has the #1 defenseman on Hopkins, UVA, Maryland, Villanova and Syracuse. Yep there is not talent in NJ. Maybe kids do not want to come to Rutgers for reasons other than the school?
Click to expand...

Yup, it's embarrassing and 100% on the HC. Can't close on talent in NJ, need to look elsewhere because he nor anyone else on the staff can develop the talent. Can't just ignore it and pray it all works out which seems to be out strategy.[/QUOTE]
I don’t know what HS these guys are from in NJ and not trying to make any excuses but for some of them and their families “Rutgers” (quotes intentional) isn’t even a consideration.

We’d have to WIN over an extended period of time for that to change. One of those “it is what it is” types of things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 78CollegeAve and knight82
e5fdny said:
Yup, it's embarrassing and 100% on the HC. Can't close on talent in NJ, need to look elsewhere because he nor anyone else on the staff can develop the talent. Can't just ignore it and pray it all works out which seems to be out strategy.
Click to expand...
I don’t know what HS these guys are from in NJ and not trying to make any excuses but for some of them and their families “Rutgers” (quotes intentional) isn’t even a consideration.

We’d have to WIN over an extended period of time for that to change. One of those “it is what it is” types of things.[/QUOTE]

There is plenty of lax talent all across the country, so if the NJ elites don't want to come here, we need to look elsewhere. It's not a difficult concept. Stony Brook doesn't have a player from NJ on their roster and they were able to absolutely embarrass us in terms of faceoffs, ground balls, shots on goal.

Army doesn't have players from Mountain Lakes, Delbarton, Ridgewood, Ridge, etc and yet they were able to embarrass us as well. It seems like everyone else in the area doesn't have any issues finding local/regional/national talent in terms of faceoff guys except for Brecht & co.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim_from_RU
MS-RU said:
I don’t know what HS these guys are from in NJ and not trying to make any excuses but for some of them and their families “Rutgers” (quotes intentional) isn’t even a consideration.

We’d have to WIN over an extended period of time for that to change. One of those “it is what it is” types of things.
Click to expand...

There is plenty of lax talent all across the country, so if the NJ elites don't want to come here, we need to look elsewhere. It's not a difficult concept. Stony Brook doesn't have a player from NJ on their roster and they were able to absolutely embarrass us in terms of faceoffs, ground balls, shots on goal.

Army doesn't have players from Mountain Lakes, Delbarton, Ridgewood, Ridge, etc and yet they were able to embarrass us as well. It seems like everyone else in the area doesn't have any issues finding local/regional/national talent in terms of faceoff guys except for Brecht & co.[/QUOTE]
Agree.

Just saying that for those schools you mentioned we’re not “in the mix” on many levels.

As for the ground balls, that’s on the individual...you either want it or you don’t.
 
You are missing the point about recruiting, of the kids I was looking at several of them would have come to Rutgers but there were not recruited by us. I am. It talking about kids who would not come but kids who would come but they chose to recruit a kid from Utah or Texas instead
 
  • Like
Reactions: RUnTeX
asgot said:
You are missing the point about recruiting, of the kids I was looking at several of them would have come to Rutgers but there were not recruited by us. I am. It talking about kids who would not come but kids who would come but they chose to recruit a kid from Utah or Texas instead
Click to expand...
Recruiting is fine except for one position. Supposedly there is a legit fogo coming in next year but until he is proven our recruiting at position is poor. With an average fogo we beat little and SBU going away. Easily more talented than both but if you don’t possess the back you can’t win period. Army wiped out asses because they plain out hustled us. That is My biggest issue with this team, they are very talented but they are not scrappy and it’s killing us. No excuse for that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Loyal-Son
rbled said:
asgot said:

↑



You are missing the point about recruiting, of the kids I was looking at several of them would have come to Rutgers but there were not recruited by us. I am. It talking about kids who would not come but kids who would come but they chose to recruit a kid from Utah or Texas instead
Click to expand...

Recruiting is fine except for one position. Supposedly there is a legit fogo coming in next year but until he is proven our recruiting at position is poor. With an average fogo we beat little and SBU going away. Easily more talented than both but if you don’t possess the back you can’t win period. Army wiped out asses because they plain out hustled us. That is My biggest issue with this team, they are very talented but they are not scrappy and it’s killing us. No excuse for that.
[/quote]
You really think so? I do. It put much stock in recruiting g tanks but we have been rated last in the Big Ten in recruiting for the last two years. Our top three goalies are transfers and we can’t recruit a fogo
 
  • Like
Reactions: 78CollegeAve
mdk01 said:
Why? RU won 17-10

BTW Any shot Ott sés the field this year?
Click to expand...

Michigan won, correct? Granted we won by two goals more than they won, but with our face off issues, what do you think it’s gonna happen in that game? Honestly?
 
Michigan won 14 of 31 face offs against St John’s. As a reminder we won 6 of 31
 
rbled said:
Recruiting is fine except for one position. Supposedly there is a legit fogo coming in next year but until he is proven our recruiting at position is poor. With an average fogo we beat little and SBU going away. Easily more talented than both but if you don’t possess the back you can’t win period. Army wiped out asses because they plain out hustled us. That is My biggest issue with this team, they are very talented but they are not scrappy and it’s killing us. No excuse for that.
Click to expand...
+1

It’s why I always look for the ground ball numbers in the box score.

And you’re right, @rbled there is no excuse for that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Tango Two

Men’s Lacrosse Returned Home to Host Loyola on Saturday

Replies
80
Views
2K
Rutgers Lacrosse Forum
Caliknight
Caliknight
C

Rutgers men's lacrosse resists late Stony Brook run to pick up road victory

Replies
7
Views
660
Rutgers Lacrosse Forum
Caliknight
Caliknight
Tango Two

No. 9/10 Rutgers Men’s Lacrosse Returned to SHI Stadium Saturday to Host Stony Brook

Replies
33
Views
1K
Rutgers Lacrosse Forum
Caliknight
Caliknight
Richie O

Lacrosse RECAP: Rutgers Men's Lacrosse defeats Stony Brook, 11-7

Replies
7
Views
624
The Round Table
AreYouNUTS
A
Tango Two

Top-10 Road Matchup for No. 9 Rutgers Men's Lacrosse Saturday at No. 7 Johns Hopkins

Replies
2
Views
405
Rutgers Lacrosse Forum
Tango Two
Tango Two
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back