BOTC - US Lacrosse Community Forum Forums NORTHEAST LACROSSE BOTC MAIN FORUM (LI, CT, WC) Boys High School Lax

What crap did he pull last time? Be a mature adult and describe your gripes? BTW, his son is an excellent player and a good kid, doesn't need his Dad coaching to see the field.

Conflict of interest? Do you have any idea how many HS coaches on LI have coached their son(s)? Are you serious? How about the G.D. school board hiring the best man for the job? Rehire Coach Doller.

It's just like anything else in life; you'll have some that misuse their role like former Manhasset HS coach but then you will have others like Coach Rotanz who was the former Shoreham Wading River HS Coach who had his son on his NY State Championship team.

Syosset change there name anyone want to guess?

"Boxers" as in Boxer Shorts.

Nope!!!! Good guess though!!

"Americans" ?

Here is a hint it's a team name!

igloo?

Winner winner chicken dinner!!

Following up-
2 recent commits from GC
1 2019 to Brown
1 2018 to Utah

So, maybe it was just early to ask the question .

Anyone know what the most recent scores are in the Varsity division of Farmingdale fallball?

yep....7-3, 11-8, 9-7, and in a shocker, 10-6!!.....

Why wouldn't you just go online and look for yourself???! The interwebs are wonderful thing, with access to all things, far and wide!

http://www.tourneymachine.com/Publi...ivision=h20170919201908708c9b8706ac98648

that 10-6 game was the best lax upset i have ever seen. I really hope someone filmed it so future generations can watch that game. that team was something else, like i have never seen before. Cant say enough about that game. WOW.

The guy ask an adult question, and gets a 2 year old response.

There is no game with a 10- 6 score listed in TourneyMachine. For that matter, nether are there any of the other scores cited!

WI Long Pole is committed to Yale so is the Goalie ...Juniors have depth like no other team..most played on 91 for years and some still do.. It should be a good season.. just look at their football team they are 4-0 so far mostly juniors are the driving force..

I am going to have to side with the guy with the smarta$$ reply, If that joke was good enough for George Carlin it is good enough for BOTC.

I only follow my kids team but I am sure every team is in the same boat - many starters not playing because of Soccer and Football, Lots of playing time for Fresh and Soph's most teams playing two or three goalies, seniors are trying to get a work out not win a game. Last Sunday my kid gets home and I ask what the score was, he says "I don't know" then asked who won? again. "I don't know" and I asked how he played and I got "OK" thus concluding the communications for the week.

exactly, the fall is for getting some competitive games in. coaches can bring up kids that may not play in the spring to get a look at them. The wise [lacrosse] comment was to show you these games mean close to nothing. Enjoy the fall my friends, you have earned it.

Send email of support for Coach Doller to the Sayville AD, Superintendent and the school board members. Don't hope the right thing happens, make it happen.

The public and their uninformed opinions helped get him fired in the first place. Let the board, AD, and superintendent do their jobs. You can't MAKE anything happen. Sending 300 emails their way will just waste everyone's time

I'm going to go out on a limb here...

Massapequa in Nassau and Ward Melville in Suffolk.

In each class (A B C) who has tr he best programs in the history of lacrosse. Going back to the 70's until now. Who has been the best..just curious. Any info would be great.

A - Ward Melville
B - Garden City
C - Manhasset

Class C has only existed since 2000, and in that time CSH has won more titles than Manhasset. Yes, Manhasset has moved between B and C, but you can't their B successes as an evaluation of C.

IMHO - hard to breakdown because you can not discount the LIC's when there was only one division ('63 - '85) and also teams that have switched and won in two divisions (SWR - MAN)
here is my all time programs - I give the best program to GC because they had a tougher time getting out of Nassau then WM did in Suffolk untill the past 15 years
#1) GC 15 LIC's
#2) WM 17 LIC's
#3) Man 13 LIC's
#4) WI 8 LIC's
#5) SWR 6 LIC's

I give a lot of credit to WM, especially their coaching. My son plays for Northport and we played them in the 2nd round of the playoffs last year. It was 5-3 at the half and we were right in the game when they came out the 2nd half, made some adjustments and just blew the doors off. We never won another face-off and they just kept coming. Funny is when we played them during the regular season, it was pretty much the same scenario. We were right i the game when they just made some changes and although we only lost 12-8, we still lost regardless. A lot to be said for really smart coaching that knows how to use their players.

I give a lot of credit to WM, especially their coaching. My son plays for Northport and we played them in the 2nd round of the playoffs last year. It was 5-3 at the half and we were right in the game when they came out the 2nd half, made some adjustments and just blew the doors off. We never won another face-off and they just kept coming. Funny is when we played them during the regular season, it was pretty much the same scenario. We were right i the game when they just made some changes and although we only lost 12-8, we still lost regardless. A lot to be said for really smart coaching that knows how to use their players.

[/quote]

I think that you make a valid point about a good program and them making adjustments yet I also believe it has to do with depth of a program. Could it be that your players were playing at their absolute best and 110% of their ability during the first half and in the second didnt have much left in the tank. Great players and teams know when and how to play at 110% when it counts. When a program has more depth they have the ability to run more players at 110% over a longer period of time. As a result as the game moves on they start to separate themselves from the teams that are not as deep. Their star player played 15 min at an average of 90% where your star players played the whole half at 110%. The only reason that this occurs is that they have a few more players at each position they can put in that are not that much of a drop off from the 1st line. As a result they can rest their players just enough that they are fresh in the second half. This not a knock on your program but an observation from watching a lot of lacrosse and seeing teams that looked evenly matched in first half of games then have one of the teams blow the other out in the second half.

[/quote]
I give a lot of credit to WM, especially their coaching. My son plays for Northport and we played them in the 2nd round of the playoffs last year. It was 5-3 at the half and we were right in the game when they came out the 2nd half, made some adjustments and just blew the doors off. We never won another face-off and they just kept coming. Funny is when we played them during the regular season, it was pretty much the same scenario. We were right i the game when they just made some changes and although we only lost 12-8, we still lost regardless. A lot to be said for really smart coaching that knows how to use their players.

[/quote]

I think that you make a valid point about a good program and them making adjustments yet I also believe it has to do with depth of a program. Could it be that your players were playing at their absolute best and 110% of their ability during the first half and in the second didnt have much left in the tank. Great players and teams know when and how to play at 110% when it counts. When a program has more depth they have the ability to run more players at 110% over a longer period of time. As a result as the game moves on they start to separate themselves from the teams that are not as deep. Their star player played 15 min at an average of 90% where your star players played the whole half at 110%. The only reason that this occurs is that they have a few more players at each position they can put in that are not that much of a drop off from the 1st line. As a result they can rest their players just enough that they are fresh in the second half. This not a knock on your program but an observation from watching a lot of lacrosse and seeing teams that looked evenly matched in first half of games then have one of the teams blow the other out in the second half.[/quote]

You make a good point that gets overlooked a lot when people label players from teams as being not as good as other , and it probably translates more in club than HS, especially within the whole A, B, etc thing. At any age, there are top teams that no one argues are the best, and then there are other teams that are dismissed as not being at the same level, and those teams' players are explicitly categorized as such as well, even when such a team plays that top team to a near tie for one half of a game. In reality, many of the top 10 out on the field for the lesser team are right on par with the top team's 10, but it is the depth of the top team that creates the difference.

Back of the endzone? Can you share the link to the main page please. Never heard of it and have 2 in HS playing FB. Thanks

I give a lot of credit to WM, especially their coaching. My son plays for Northport and we played them in the 2nd round of the playoffs last year. It was 5-3 at the half and we were right in the game when they came out the 2nd half, made some adjustments and just blew the doors off. We never won another face-off and they just kept coming. Funny is when we played them during the regular season, it was pretty much the same scenario. We were right i the game when they just made some changes and although we only lost 12-8, we still lost regardless. A lot to be said for really smart coaching that knows how to use their players.

[/quote]

I think that you make a valid point about a good program and them making adjustments yet I also believe it has to do with depth of a program. Could it be that your players were playing at their absolute best and 110% of their ability during the first half and in the second didnt have much left in the tank. Great players and teams know when and how to play at 110% when it counts. When a program has more depth they have the ability to run more players at 110% over a longer period of time. As a result as the game moves on they start to separate themselves from the teams that are not as deep. Their star player played 15 min at an average of 90% where your star players played the whole half at 110%. The only reason that this occurs is that they have a few more players at each position they can put in that are not that much of a drop off from the 1st line. As a result they can rest their players just enough that they are fresh in the second half. This not a knock on your program but an observation from watching a lot of lacrosse and seeing teams that looked evenly matched in first half of games then have one of the teams blow the other out in the second half.[/quote]

You make a good point that gets overlooked a lot when people label players from teams as being not as good as other , and it probably translates more in club than HS, especially within the whole A, B, etc thing. At any age, there are top teams that no one argues are the best, and then there are other teams that are dismissed as not being at the same level, and those teams' players are explicitly categorized as such as well, even when such a team plays that top team to a near tie for one half of a game. In reality, many of the top 10 out on the field for the lesser team are right on par with the top team's 10, but it is the depth of the top team that creates the difference.[/quote]


Really in HS it's the coaching that makes the difference. Can the Coach make the adjustments? Or does he just yell at the kids to play harder and execute on what he wants them to do... So much depends on those adjustments. For example: if a team's defense continues to get beat on man to man? Can the Coach switch to a zone and shut the opposing team's O down? Or will he just scream and have his players continue to chase their man and get beat? Does he have the ability to adjust on offense. Can he go to a match up game when you're motion offense is struggling? Can he use his best players in more creative ways to generate points? Will he run his best guys into the ground? When clearly there are kids on the sideline that can fill specific roles to give the best guys a breather? If he has 15 D1 commits maybe he doesn't have to worry about these things? Most teams do not have such luxuries. So in the end it comes down to how effective/creative the coach can be with the players he's got. We've all heard on here how bad these coaches are at using the talent they have. Team's with 20+ D1 commits that can't beat other teams with far less talent. It's the same stories every year. It always comes back to Coaching, or lack there of.

I think that you make a valid point about a good program and them making adjustments yet I also believe it has to do with depth of a program. Could it be that your players were playing at their absolute best and 110% of their ability during the first half and in the second didnt have much left in the tank. Great players and teams know when and how to play at 110% when it counts. When a program has more depth they have the ability to run more players at 110% over a longer period of time. As a result as the game moves on they start to separate themselves from the teams that are not as deep. Their star player played 15 min at an average of 90% where your star players played the whole half at 110%. The only reason that this occurs is that they have a few more players at each position they can put in that are not that much of a drop off from the 1st line. As a result they can rest their players just enough that they are fresh in the second half. This not a knock on your program but an observation from watching a lot of lacrosse and seeing teams that looked evenly matched in first half of games then have one of the teams blow the other out in the second half.[/quote]

You make a good point that gets overlooked a lot when people label players from teams as being not as good as other , and it probably translates more in club than HS, especially within the whole A, B, etc thing. At any age, there are top teams that no one argues are the best, and then there are other teams that are dismissed as not being at the same level, and those teams' players are explicitly categorized as such as well, even when such a team plays that top team to a near tie for one half of a game. In reality, many of the top 10 out on the field for the lesser team are right on par with the top team's 10, but it is the depth of the top team that creates the difference.[/quote]


Really in HS it's the coaching that makes the difference. Can the Coach make the adjustments? Or does he just yell at the kids to play harder and execute on what he wants them to do... So much depends on those adjustments. For example: if a team's defense continues to get beat on man to man? Can the Coach switch to a zone and shut the opposing team's O down? Or will he just scream and have his players continue to chase their man and get beat? Does he have the ability to adjust on offense. Can he go to a match up game when you're motion offense is struggling? Can he use his best players in more creative ways to generate points? Will he run his best guys into the ground? When clearly there are kids on the sideline that can fill specific roles to give the best guys a breather? If he has 15 D1 commits maybe he doesn't have to worry about these things? Most teams do not have such luxuries. So in the end it comes down to how effective/creative the coach can be with the players he's got. We've all heard on here how bad these coaches are at using the talent they have. Team's with 20+ D1 commits that can't beat other teams with far less talent. It's the same stories every year. It always comes back to Coaching, or lack there of.

[/quote]
Most of those lamenting the skills of the coach are parents who think their child should be a starter and he is not. Team's with 20 D-1 commits who don't play as a team will be a terrible team. Remember all those Redskin Teams loaded with talent who couldn't win more than 7 games? same thing.

I think that you make a valid point about a good program and them making adjustments yet I also believe it has to do with depth of a program. Could it be that your players were playing at their absolute best and 110% of their ability during the first half and in the second didnt have much left in the tank. Great players and teams know when and how to play at 110% when it counts. When a program has more depth they have the ability to run more players at 110% over a longer period of time. As a result as the game moves on they start to separate themselves from the teams that are not as deep. Their star player played 15 min at an average of 90% where your star players played the whole half at 110%. The only reason that this occurs is that they have a few more players at each position they can put in that are not that much of a drop off from the 1st line. As a result they can rest their players just enough that they are fresh in the second half. This not a knock on your program but an observation from watching a lot of lacrosse and seeing teams that looked evenly matched in first half of games then have one of the teams blow the other out in the second half.[/quote]

You make a good point that gets overlooked a lot when people label players from teams as being not as good as other , and it probably translates more in club than HS, especially within the whole A, B, etc thing. At any age, there are top teams that no one argues are the best, and then there are other teams that are dismissed as not being at the same level, and those teams' players are explicitly categorized as such as well, even when such a team plays that top team to a near tie for one half of a game. In reality, many of the top 10 out on the field for the lesser team are right on par with the top team's 10, but it is the depth of the top team that creates the difference.[/quote]


Really in HS it's the coaching that makes the difference. Can the Coach make the adjustments? Or does he just yell at the kids to play harder and execute on what he wants them to do... So much depends on those adjustments. For example: if a team's defense continues to get beat on man to man? Can the Coach switch to a zone and shut the opposing team's O down? Or will he just scream and have his players continue to chase their man and get beat? Does he have the ability to adjust on offense. Can he go to a match up game when you're motion offense is struggling? Can he use his best players in more creative ways to generate points? Will he run his best guys into the ground? When clearly there are kids on the sideline that can fill specific roles to give the best guys a breather? If he has 15 D1 commits maybe he doesn't have to worry about these things? Most teams do not have such luxuries. So in the end it comes down to how effective/creative the coach can be with the players he's got. We've all heard on here how bad these coaches are at using the talent they have. Team's with 20+ D1 commits that can't beat other teams with far less talent. It's the same stories every year. It always comes back to Coaching, or lack there of.

[/quote]

How many high school coaches even know what you are talking about. Lol. Most coaches do not have the experience or abilities to make the changes you mention. There are a few schools that have them and they are lucky. I dont know of many high schools that have the luxury of having teams deep enough to make the adjustments you mention either. There are rare instances where a high school will have the perfect mix of talent and coaching. This is a very rare situation and doesn't happen often.

I think if this were club ball we could talk about zones, slides and offense and defensive sets all day long. Most high school teams have a handful go lacrosse players and the majority of their players just play lacrosse. I hope people understand the difference.

Now if a team has 20 + D1 commits and the can't win a long island championship, then there is a problem with coaching.

You make a good point that gets overlooked a lot when people label players from teams as being not as good as other , and it probably translates more in club than HS, especially within the whole A, B, etc thing. At any age, there are top teams that no one argues are the best, and then there are other teams that are dismissed as not being at the same level, and those teams' players are explicitly categorized as such as well, even when such a team plays that top team to a near tie for one half of a game. In reality, many of the top 10 out on the field for the lesser team are right on par with the top team's 10, but it is the depth of the top team that creates the difference.[/quote]


Really in HS it's the coaching that makes the difference. Can the Coach make the adjustments? Or does he just yell at the kids to play harder and execute on what he wants them to do... So much depends on those adjustments. For example: if a team's defense continues to get beat on man to man? Can the Coach switch to a zone and shut the opposing team's O down? Or will he just scream and have his players continue to chase their man and get beat? Does he have the ability to adjust on offense. Can he go to a match up game when you're motion offense is struggling? Can he use his best players in more creative ways to generate points? Will he run his best guys into the ground? When clearly there are kids on the sideline that can fill specific roles to give the best guys a breather? If he has 15 D1 commits maybe he doesn't have to worry about these things? Most teams do not have such luxuries. So in the end it comes down to how effective/creative the coach can be with the players he's got. We've all heard on here how bad these coaches are at using the talent they have. Team's with 20+ D1 commits that can't beat other teams with far less talent. It's the same stories every year. It always comes back to Coaching, or lack there of.

[/quote]
Most of those lamenting the skills of the coach are parents who think their child should be a starter and he is not. Team's with 20 D-1 commits who don't play as a team will be a terrible team. Remember all those Redskin Teams loaded with talent who couldn't win more than 7 games? same thing.[/quote]
There are a handful of good coaching staffs out there however most are not very good. The good ones will win when the have the talent and depth. Some will not be able to win even when they have the talent and depth. West Islip is a good example, when the had the great players the coaches were able to win. The past 5 years WI has not had the dame depth of talent and they have not won. The top coaching staffs out there:
Ward Melville
Garden City
Cold Spring Harbor
Syosset
Massapequa
Chaminade
St Anthony's
West Islip.

Syosset?

The Syosset Coaching staff is very weak. Just look back to the 2015 Season.... Blew the doors off of Pequa and SE and then stumbled vs an average Nisky Team. That's a pure coaching failure. No proper mental preparation for the game, No adjustments made for the second half. Coaching staff failed. Syosset has never won a state championship despite having many, many talented players through the years.

Similar story in 2016.... Syo got beat by a disciplined and well coached WM Team.

Can go back further but is it really necessary? Easy to see the pattern.

Syosset lacrosse will never win a championship with the current coaching staff.

So the coaching was good enough to beat Pequa/WM maybe its the players, maybe they were hung over?

Sorry but privates like Chaminade and St Anthony's should not be on the list of great coaching staffs. They have programs that players go to specifically play lacrosse. Most public high school programs would die for the pool of talent that these coaches have to pick from. There are D1 and D3 players at these institutions that never see the field.

I would agree about Syosset coaching staff!

I am a big believer in the old adage that the best coaches get off the bus with the best players.....players win games and coaches lose games is a bunch of B.S.

Tom Coughlin was a great coach when he had talent and fired when he did not.

IMHO the coaching at the PAL level is more important then at the HS level. have a great feeder program and have a great HS program, that is how they did it in WI and SWR and how they constantly do it at CSH, GC, Mann and CSH.

I also don't believe the coaching in travel is that much better if at all then at the HS level. A lot of the travel coaches are HS coaches, they might be able to do more strategy coaching but they have hand picked teams. They can build team offense and team defense because they do not worry about skills or the weaker players where as at most HS you are still working on skills almost all the way through (except at the programs with good feeder programs).

Having said all that I will say that the one team that constantly gets the most out of their outstanding players is WM - really good game day coaches.