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

The madness even clouds their ability to recognize sarcasm.

Where to begin?

1: The poster indicated that the "list / Names" were "by most accounts" some of the top players from Long Island. It was also pointed out that there were "many" good players. The list was not based on the posters opinion.

2. Yes, "All" of the players were identified by Inside Lacrosse as a top player. 22 of the 25 were ranked in the Top 30/40 by Inside Lacrosse and 3 were listed as a "player to watch".

3. All of the class of 2017 players on the list played in the UA Senior Game.
5 of the 7 class of 2016 players played in the UA Senior Game.
2 of the 6 class of 2015 played in the UA Senior Game 3 others were selected to play for Team USA at the U19 World Games. They all would have played in the UA game had there not been a conflict. So 5 of 6.
All 6 of the class of 2018 players played in the UA underclass games and it is a good bet that most if not all will be selected to compete in the UA Senior Game this year.

4. They are all excellent college programs.

Not only are you bitter, you lie as well. I guess the end justifies the means with people like you. Keep hating it becomes you.

Where to begin?

1: The poster indicated that the "list / Names" were "by most accounts" some of the top players from Long Island. It was also pointed out that there were "many" good players. The list was not based on the posters opinion.

2. Yes, "All" of the players were identified by Inside Lacrosse as a top player. 22 of the 25 were ranked in the Top 30/40 by Inside Lacrosse and 3 were listed as a "player to watch".

3. All of the class of 2017 players on the list played in the UA Senior Game.
5 of the 7 class of 2016 players played in the UA Senior Game.
2 of the 6 class of 2015 played in the UA Senior Game 3 others were selected to play for Team USA at the U19 World Games. They all would have played in the UA game had there not been a conflict. So 5 of 6.
All 6 of the class of 2018 players played in the UA underclass games and it is a good bet that most if not all will be selected to compete in the UA Senior Game this year.

4. They are all excellent college programs.

Not only are you bitter, you lie as well. I guess the end justifies the means with people like you. Keep hating it becomes you.

[/quote]

First off I just figured you were slow as you have no concept of what a fact is but now realize you just suffer from Dunning-Kruger effect.
1) You changed the original from "Here are the top players " to now saying some of the top players . Not sure anyone would have a problem with saying some of the top players. Clearly the list was based on the posters opinion as that list exists no where else and was compiled based on the posters opinion ,just so you know thats a fact.
2)Lets just use 2016 as an example to keep it simple for you. A player on your list was not selected as a UA senior game participant,nor was she a top 50 inside lacrosse recruit while 2 other LI players were, yet neither of those players are on the list.
Everyone of the players on the list are excellent players and no one is saying they are not. My problem is essentially with posters like you and the list maker who feel the need to display their "superior" knowledge of the inner workings and thoughts of college coaches by stating "facts" when the only fact is they are clueless.There was zero reason for the original poster to list players names other than they just wanted to list their own kids name and yes that is a list they made up , its not a list of the UA seniors or the Inside lacrosse top recruits, or even just the US lacrosse all americans.
Its really not that difficult to figure out that coaches will take the size of a player into account along with many other attributes and yes there are certain programs that tend to favor certain attributes over others.

Does anyone know why Suffolk never established a power conference ?

First off I just figured you were slow as you have no concept of what a fact is but now realize you just suffer from Dunning-Kruger effect.
1) You changed the original from "Here are the top players " to now saying some of the top players . Not sure anyone would have a problem with saying some of the top players. Clearly the list was based on the posters opinion as that list exists no where else and was compiled based on the posters opinion ,just so you know thats a fact.
2)Lets just use 2016 as an example to keep it simple for you. A player on your list was not selected as a UA senior game participant,nor was she a top 50 inside lacrosse recruit while 2 other LI players were, yet neither of those players are on the list.
Everyone of the players on the list are excellent players and no one is saying they are not. My problem is essentially with posters like you and the list maker who feel the need to display their "superior" knowledge of the inner workings and thoughts of college coaches by stating "facts" when the only fact is they are clueless.There was zero reason for the original poster to list players names other than they just wanted to list their own kids name and yes that is a list they made up , its not a list of the UA seniors or the Inside lacrosse top recruits, or even just the US lacrosse all americans.
Its really not that difficult to figure out that coaches will take the size of a player into account along with many other attributes and yes there are certain programs that tend to favor certain attributes over others. [/quote] Aren't you also displaying your "superior knowledge" of the inner working and thoughts college coaches? or is that just not opinion? Seems a little hypocritical of you don't you think

Aren't you also displaying your "superior knowledge" of the inner working and thoughts college coaches? or is that just not opinion? Seems a little hypocritical of you don't you think[/quote]
Ok so who is missing from the list?

Ok so who is missing from the list?[/quote]
Leave him/her alone, the person obviously has issues and misses the point of the post.

Leave him/her alone, the person obviously has issues and misses the point of the post.
[/quote]
Actually I think you have missed the point of his post and I thought the Dunning Kruger thing was pretty funny.( Yes I had to look it up). I think the point of his post was there was no reason to put that list up, if you are going to make such a list at least say "in my opinion" not " here are the top players". I have a daughter at the 2016 age and actually think the Dunning Kruger poster missed a few who were UA senior all americans , on Inside lacrosse top recruit list (not honorable mention or whatever that is) and not on that posters list, goalie from St.A, two players from GC, and a player from WI. If you are going use names at least be factually correct and full disclaimer I am too lazy to do the research so I could be wrong but I don't think so. I am most familiar with the 2016 group but would imagine the other ages are probably the same.

First off I just figured you were slow as you have no concept of what a fact is but now realize you just suffer from Dunning-Kruger effect.
1) You changed the original from "Here are the top players " to now saying some of the top players . Not sure anyone would have a problem with saying some of the top players. Clearly the list was based on the posters opinion as that list exists no where else and was compiled based on the posters opinion ,just so you know thats a fact.
2)Lets just use 2016 as an example to keep it simple for you. A player on your list was not selected as a UA senior game participant,nor was she a top 50 inside lacrosse recruit while 2 other LI players were, yet neither of those players are on the list.
Everyone of the players on the list are excellent players and no one is saying they are not. My problem is essentially with posters like you and the list maker who feel the need to display their "superior" knowledge of the inner workings and thoughts of college coaches by stating "facts" when the only fact is they are clueless.There was zero reason for the original poster to list players names other than they just wanted to list their own kids name and yes that is a list they made up , its not a list of the UA seniors or the Inside lacrosse top recruits, or even just the US lacrosse all americans.
Its really not that difficult to figure out that coaches will take the size of a player into account along with many other attributes and yes there are certain programs that tend to favor certain attributes over others. [/quote]

Wow, Just post your daughters name already and be done with it.

The original post was to show that height is not a major concern during the recruiting process. So what if not every top player was not listed.

As for the Class of 2016, All 7 players were listed by Inside lacrosse during their senior year (#1, #7, #11, #21 and three were listed as "players to watch"). 5 of the 7 did play in the UA Senior Game. One player was selected to play for USA U19 Team. All were obviously recruited by some of the top programs in the country. That was the basis for "by most accounts".

The post was not about the players it was to point out that "The Profile" did not hinder these players and the person who asked the original question should not be concerned with their daughters height.

You are the only one trying to display superior knowledge.

"There is no problem. Here is the thing... the post was in response to a question. The "list" was not random and it was not put out there as one persons opinion. The names were posted in order to give the parent of a younger player some facts that were based on reality.

It was not the "opinion" of the person who posted the names (it was the "opinion" of the coaches of the best college programs that was being pointed out. Correct me if I am wrong but I believe that all of the girls are or were listed by Inside Lacrosse as "top" high school players/recruits. The very fact that they were all recruited by the top college programs, ranked by Inside lacrosse and played in the Under Armour games or for Team USA would seem to indicate "most accounts"."

Try to follow along. Above is the original post I was addressing. The poster actually says correct me if they were wrong, they were corrected but your hatred of bigger athletes ( I suspect because your little Susie was told by some program they are concerned with her size) clouds all you read. If you too dense to see that the original post was not some list they copied but is in reality the posters opinion then I should have just realized you cant argue with stupid.

You all are a bunch and f******g [ChillLaxin]. Change the topic already.

I tried changing the topic. It didn't work. The only way to get traction with the lunatics is to leave their daughter or their daughters team off a list. If you have not noticed just make a top team list and forget to put a team or two on the list. Sit back and watch the madness .

wow.....all this about short vs tall girls. Juvenile people.....

Not certain but would say because Suffolk uses a power ranking system.

They also employ a system where the better schools play the top schools and the less competitive teams only play a limited amount of competitive schools.kvtu7k

Okay, thanks for posting nothing substantive or even remotely interesting.

Any HS teams on the island wearing helmets this year?

I do happen to have a 2019 going to a top 5 school. She is 5'51/2". She is same height or taller than lots of her YJ teammates, where the team is almost all committed.
She has hustle, speed and IQ. She is an athlete. That was the key for her.

Fear not - dad or mom of non-vertically challenge players.
If this lacrosse and college thing does not work out - there are a lot more opportunities than for the athletic, aggressive and vertically challenged players. The modeling industry does definitely have a "profile" they look for that definitely includes a height minimum. Bundchen is almost 6 foot and she has a QB husband - always look at the positives and have a "Plan B".

Short kids come with a stack of problems they must be able to overcome in order to be highly competitive. Tall kids have a stack of typical issues they must overcome also. Personally I am glad my daughter is not tall or short. Its hard for most of these kids to be on the elite level. Here is the thing about lacrosse, far sub par athletes compared to nearly any other sport are able to go compete at the collegiate level. Most the kids going to school on lacrosse (not all) are merely trained sticks and not very good athletes. Don't be offended of the truth, be thankful that your daughter is in this sport at this time and able to take advantage of that fact.

Manhasset has good HS coaching? please. She is awful - using the HS program to fund her club team, the Liberty. Town is wealthy so the parent pay her and no one questions it, including the HS Administration. The girls on the team AND the alumni don't like her. How good of a coach was she last season? not good at all - check the record. the youth programs in towns like Manhasset and GC are strong .

Stop, you may not like he but she is far from bad, I just checked quickly and she is 102 and 23 since 2011. Manhasset plays in the power conference and they also play several non league games per year Vs strong teams. Nearly 1/3 of her losses over the past 7 years came last season with 7. She has won the county and state championship, You may not like her and she may not be great but you could do a lot worse.

You know who has worse coaching North Port. Don't even think about playing for another club team if you live there or you will never see the field. 20+ years and a single state championship in a weak division is pretty pitiful. If any semi-wealthy community and school district turns a blind eye to a corrupt dictator it's North Port. At least "set has to play Garden City, Who does NP play? there best competition is WI or WM and none of them are near consistent and all lose regularly to Section 3. Lets be honest Class A in Section 11, and North Port specifically is disappointing at best. With a Lacrosse culture as strong as it is in North Port the only reason for the failure is Carol Rose. Without the coaching and players from other districts Yellow Jackets would be a Laughing stock

I have no idea what GC record is during that time but it is veritably better with multiple state titles. Multiple. So What gives? The year Manhasset won, the team he 3-4 all Americans. Good coaching can win when you don’t have talent and your players (and former players) respect you. She hasn’t and they don’t. There are plenty of other coaches that can do a better job and help the students including building a winning culture with accountability. Danielle may have been a good player during her day but she is not a good coach. never mind all the club affiliation nonsense "pay to play" . truly terrible

Let's be honest, all things being equal a coach will take a tall girl over a shorter girl. Period. If you don't agree, you don't watch enough sports. Bigger is better, in EVERY sport.

Oh really. Ask a jockey...they'd beg to differ.

"All things" are rarely if ever equal. Coaches
want the best player they can get and unless the position requires height they want the best athlete. As far as all sports go, when was the last time you saw a 6'5" cornerback in the NFL? How about a 6'4" running back? Those are two of the most athletic positions in all of sport and the best in the world are average height .

Lacrosse is not basketball , there is no position where height is required.

Bigger? Really, bigger is better in every sport? do you see a lot of 6' 250 lb women's professional tennis players. Are there many 6'5" 250 lb shortstops playing MLB?

If your daughter didn't have offers from Maryland, Carolina, Northwestern and the like it was not because of her height.

Bigger is better for certain positions, for Womens lacrosse it helps the draw girl. On a scale of 1 to 10, size is a 2, speed is a 10.

[quote=Anonymous]Let's be honest, all things being equal a coach will take a tall girl over a shorter girl. Period. If you don't agree, you don't watch enough sports. Bigger is better, in EVERY sport.

That stunad Bill Parcells never saw that he actually thought Joe Morris 5'6" on a good day was better than Brandon Jacobs 6'4". All things are never equal.

Wow. You must not watch sports much. You definitely never played any. There is a reason athletes come in different sizes. There are obvious advantages to being big or small. Good coaches recognize that and use the miss match. Lacrosse is no different. JJ Watt can't cover Julian Edelman or Darren sproles and they can't block him. Porzingas,doesn't cover point guards or visa versa. When it comes to recruiting in lacrosse , a good coach will find a mix of kids. Jenn Levy recruited Maggie bill and Allie messenger. Complete opposite body types and playing style. As far as all things being equal, you take the bigger kid, problem is all things are never equal. Shorter kids always have shorter steps which give them more quickness. Bigger kids always have more reach and take up more space.
BTW Joe Morris was a better running back. Jacobs ran too straight up and was an easy target especially in short yardage!

Bringing up womens tennis really goes against your argument , the most dominant womens tennis player in the game and probably the best player in history is big by female athlete standards.

Really just a silly conversation ,its girls lacrosse any size athletic girl can play the sport at a high level. That said I have never heard of a coach who prefers "short" players over tall but I have heard the opposite obviously they want all their players to be athletic ,high lax IQ , with speed and aggression.

Congrats.....you have won the dumbest opinion award....now please tell us the sports that have the best athletes. Since BOTC is all about facts please provide facts.

Height is always better in the supermarket but not always in an athletic forum. Most tall girls are gangly and awkward . Yes they can stand in the 8 meter (and if they have good stick skills, catch a high ball that's over the 5'4 defender's head but she better know how to finish).

Some parents come up with all kinds of excuses. Coaches recruit and make offers to the best players they can get. When they can't get the players they want they move to the next tier players.

Nope. That is spot on. So many high schools from MD and LI have 6-8 girls lacrosse players going D1 each and every graduating year, girls who never even stepped on the field. You ever see that in any other sport? No, that's a fact, it is not even remotely possible in any other sport, yet it happens over and over at multiple schools with girls lacrosse. What sport has the best athletes is not the point. Get over being offended by the reality of exactly what is happening. Yes, every lax parent wants to believe that their kid is such a rare, elite athlete and that has enabled her (or him) the opportunity to be recruited. And yes, for a handful of them that is the case, but certainly not a blanket statement that can be used to cover all. BTW.... Congrats... you have won the most delusional parent award.

Nope. That is spot on. So many high schools from MD and LI have 6-8 girls lacrosse players going D1 each and every graduating year, girls who never even stepped on the field. You ever see that in any other sport? No, that's a fact, it is not even remotely possible in any other sport, yet it happens over and over at multiple schools with girls lacrosse. What sport has the best athletes is not the point. Get over being offended by the reality of exactly what is happening. Yes, every lax parent wants to believe that their kid is such a rare, elite athlete and that has enabled her (or him) the opportunity to be recruited. And yes, for a handful of them that is the case, but certainly not a blanket statement that can be used to cover all. BTW.... Congrats... you have won the most delusional parent award.

Fiction: So many high schools from MD and LI have 6-8 girls lacrosse players going D1 each and every graduating year, girls who never even stepped on the field.

STOP already--my head hurts!!!

I think as a generalization in women's sports if you look at D1, the avg height is little more than D2 who's average height is more than D3

The UNC team looks like an avg of about 5'7" with only 1 5 footer

D3 rosters have a lot more girls that are 5'3" or less

Coaches always say you can't teach Height or Speed

You have waaaayyy too much time on your hands.....

Actually the average height on UNC roster is 5'5 1/2" (roster height's averaged)
Florida 5'5"
Md 5'6"
Stonybrook 5'6"

So looks like 5'5-5'6" is average height of top level D 1 player.