Nieuwy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by Dingus
Nieuwy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Dingus (---.nyc.rr.com)
Date: April 08, 2004 07:12PM
Leafs go up 1-0 3:15 into the first on Nieuwy's goal...
GO LEAFS GO!!!!!
GO LEAFS GO!!!!!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/08/2004 07:12PM by Dingus.
Re: Nieuwy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Greg Berge (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: April 12, 2004 08:59PM
Leafs up 1-0 in game three on Joe's second playoff goal.
Re: Nieuwy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Al DeFlorio (---.ne.client2.attbi.com)
Date: April 12, 2004 10:19PM
[Q]Greg Berge Wrote:
Leafs up 1-0 in game three on Joe's second playoff goal.[/q]
2-0 final; Leafs up 2-1 in games
Leafs up 1-0 in game three on Joe's second playoff goal.[/q]
2-0 final; Leafs up 2-1 in games
___________________________
Al DeFlorio '65
Al DeFlorio '65
Re: Nieuwy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Greg Berge (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: April 12, 2004 10:36PM
Joe seems to have had a ton of GWG in playoff games. I'd say he has about a dozen in his career.
Re: Nieuwy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Greenberg '97 (---.dyn.optonline.net)
Date: April 12, 2004 11:07PM
[Q]Greg Berge Wrote:
Joe seems to have had a ton of GWG in playoff games. I'd say he has about a dozen in his career.[/q]
[www.nhl.com]
You're absolutely right. 13 counting today's.
Joe seems to have had a ton of GWG in playoff games. I'd say he has about a dozen in his career.[/q]
[www.nhl.com]
You're absolutely right. 13 counting today's.
Re: Nieuwy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Robb (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: April 13, 2004 09:21AM
...maybe that's why he won the '99 Conn Smythe trophy while Hull, Madano, Hatcher, and Belfour applauded from the blue line. Way to go, Joe!
Re: Nieuwy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: ericho_4511 (---.plymouth.edu)
Date: April 13, 2004 12:15PM
That, and his total dominance in the face-off circle against the Sabres (
) in the Finals.
If the Sabres can't even be in it, I'll guess I'll root for Joey even if it means rooting for the Leafs. (Just like rooting for Harvard at the NCAAs).
) in the Finals.
If the Sabres can't even be in it, I'll guess I'll root for Joey even if it means rooting for the Leafs. (Just like rooting for Harvard at the NCAAs).
Re: Nieuwy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.twcny.rr.com)
Date: April 13, 2004 05:48PM
[Q]ericho_4511 Wrote:
That, and his total dominance in the face-off circle against the Sabres ( ) in the Finals.
If the Sabres can't even be in it, I'll guess I'll root for Joey even if it means rooting for the Leafs. (Just like rooting for Harvard at the NCAAs).
[/q]Well not quite like it, "Joey" never played for Harvard
and neither Buffalo nor Toronto are Ivy League 
.
That, and his total dominance in the face-off circle against the Sabres ( ) in the Finals.
If the Sabres can't even be in it, I'll guess I'll root for Joey even if it means rooting for the Leafs. (Just like rooting for Harvard at the NCAAs).
[/q]Well not quite like it, "Joey" never played for Harvard
and neither Buffalo nor Toronto are Ivy League .___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
Re: Nieuwy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Greg Berge (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: April 13, 2004 06:46PM
I hear they offered Buffalo an Ivy League spot but they turned it down...
Re: Nieuwy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Avash (---.twcny.rr.com)
Date: April 14, 2004 02:27AM
[Q]Greg Berge Wrote:
I hear they offered Buffalo an Ivy League spot but they turned it down... [/q]
No, my friend at Colgate says that they were the only ones offered a spot...
I hear they offered Buffalo an Ivy League spot but they turned it down... [/q]
No, my friend at Colgate says that they were the only ones offered a spot...
Re: Nieuwy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: ben03 (198.16.0.---)
Date: April 14, 2004 11:09AM
[Q]Avash '05 Wrote:
Greg Berge Wrote:
I hear they offered Buffalo an Ivy League spot but they turned it down... [/Q]
No, my friend at Colgate says that they were the only ones offered a spot... [/q]
well my friend at clarkson says the same thing ...
___________________________
Let's GO Red!!!
Re: Nieuwy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: dss28 (---.client.comcast.net)
Date: April 14, 2004 11:47AM
And my friend at Tufts... 
Re: Nieuwy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Jeff Hopkins '82 (---.airproducts.com)
Date: April 14, 2004 12:36PM
Then there's Army and Navy....
"The Wayne Gretzky of lacrosse"
Posted by: Al DeFlorio (---.ne.client2.attbi.com)
Date: April 14, 2004 04:03PM
That 1987 lacrosse team might have been even better, if...
[www.thestar.com]
[www.thestar.com]
___________________________
Al DeFlorio '65
Al DeFlorio '65
Re: "The Wayne Gretzky of lacrosse"
Posted by: Roy 82 (---.SRI.COM)
Date: April 14, 2004 04:23PM
The article says:
"....Nieuwendyk, one of the few NHL players who still uses a wooden stick"
I am out of it. I thought that all NHL players were required to use a wooden stick. I never got the memo on the switch. What about college?
"....Nieuwendyk, one of the few NHL players who still uses a wooden stick"
I am out of it. I thought that all NHL players were required to use a wooden stick. I never got the memo on the switch. What about college?
Re: "The Wayne Gretzky of lacrosse"
Posted by: Jeff Hopkins '82 (---.airproducts.com)
Date: April 14, 2004 04:53PM
Sorry, Roy. Most NHLers usse the composite sticks.
I think a lot of college players use them too. A co-worker of mine who coaches high school and midget hockey says you're even seeing them at that level. Why anyone else who doesn't make NHL kind of money would spend a few hundred bucks on a stick that will break so easily is beyond me, but you see them doing it.
JH
I think a lot of college players use them too. A co-worker of mine who coaches high school and midget hockey says you're even seeing them at that level. Why anyone else who doesn't make NHL kind of money would spend a few hundred bucks on a stick that will break so easily is beyond me, but you see them doing it.
JH
Re: "The Wayne Gretzky of lacrosse"
Posted by: Josh '99 (---.ny325.east.verizon.net)
Date: April 14, 2004 05:04PM
[Q]Jeff Hopkins '82 Wrote:
Sorry, Roy. Most NHLers usse the composite sticks.
[/q]In fact, if I'm not mistaken, Nieuwendyk is now the only NHL player who still uses an entirely wooden stick.
Sorry, Roy. Most NHLers usse the composite sticks.
[/q]In fact, if I'm not mistaken, Nieuwendyk is now the only NHL player who still uses an entirely wooden stick.
Re: "The Wayne Gretzky of lacrosse"
Posted by: Dingus (---.nyc.rr.com)
Date: April 14, 2004 07:00PM
I just put on the Leafs/Sens game, and the top story in pregame is that Joe is not with the team tonight... He went to the airport sometime this afternoon, though the announcers aren't 100% sure where he went... They're speculating that his bad back is flaring up and he's returned to Toronto to see the doctors, but nothing official yet from the Toronto side...
Hope he's okay!!!
Hope he's okay!!!
Re: "The Wayne Gretzky of lacrosse"
Posted by: Al DeFlorio (---.ne.client2.attbi.com)
Date: April 14, 2004 10:25PM
[Q]Dingus Wrote:
I just put on the Leafs/Sens game, and the top story in pregame is that Joe is not with the team tonight... He went to the airport sometime this afternoon, though the announcers aren't 100% sure where he went... They're speculating that his bad back is flaring up and he's returned to Toronto to see the doctors, but nothing official yet from the Toronto side...
Hope he's okay!!! [/q]
ESPN box score gives "back injury" as reason for scratch. Leafs lost big tonight.
I just put on the Leafs/Sens game, and the top story in pregame is that Joe is not with the team tonight... He went to the airport sometime this afternoon, though the announcers aren't 100% sure where he went... They're speculating that his bad back is flaring up and he's returned to Toronto to see the doctors, but nothing official yet from the Toronto side...
Hope he's okay!!! [/q]
ESPN box score gives "back injury" as reason for scratch. Leafs lost big tonight.
___________________________
Al DeFlorio '65
Al DeFlorio '65
Re: "The Wayne Gretzky of lacrosse"
Posted by: David Harding (---.client.comcast.net)
Date: April 14, 2004 10:42PM
[Q]Jeff Hopkins '82 Wrote:
Sorry, Roy. Most NHLers usse the composite sticks.
I think a lot of college players use them too. A co-worker of mine who coaches high school and midget hockey says you're even seeing them at that level. Why anyone else who doesn't make NHL kind of money would spend a few hundred bucks on a stick that will break so easily is beyond me, but you see them doing it.
JH
[/q]
I haven't been paying attention. Sounds like it's the opposite of the situation in baseball where the lower levels use aluminium bats and only the pros use wood. Confusing...
Sorry, Roy. Most NHLers usse the composite sticks.
I think a lot of college players use them too. A co-worker of mine who coaches high school and midget hockey says you're even seeing them at that level. Why anyone else who doesn't make NHL kind of money would spend a few hundred bucks on a stick that will break so easily is beyond me, but you see them doing it.
JH
[/q]
I haven't been paying attention. Sounds like it's the opposite of the situation in baseball where the lower levels use aluminium bats and only the pros use wood. Confusing...
Re: Nieuwy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: dss28 (---.client.comcast.net)
Date: April 14, 2004 11:39PM
And some pros use cork
Re: "The Wayne Gretzky of lacrosse"
Posted by: CUlater 89 (64.244.223.---)
Date: April 15, 2004 11:38AM
Although one wonders whether Tim Goldstein would still have transferred to CU (or whether Richie Moran would have seen a need to go after him).
Re: "The Wayne Gretzky of lacrosse"
Posted by: billhoward (---.union01.nj.comcast.net)
Date: April 15, 2004 01:10PM
[Q]David Harding Wrote:
Jeff Hopkins '82 Wrote:
Sorry, Roy. Most NHLers usse the composite sticks.
I think a lot of college players use them too. A co-worker of mine who coaches high school and midget hockey says you're even seeing them at that level. Why anyone else who doesn't make NHL kind of money would spend a few hundred bucks on a stick that will break so easily is beyond me, but you see them doing it.
JH
[/Q]
I haven't been paying attention. Sounds like it's the opposite of the situation in baseball where the lower levels use aluminium bats and only the pros use wood. Confusing...
[/q]
There are kids in my boys' roller hockey league who want composite sticks. Sheesh.
I love technology advances but I wonder if the NASCAR approach isn't better here -- everyone uses a cost-controlled technology (wood) and then everone's equal in terms of equipment.
When I was playing pickup hockey after hours at Lynah while in school, I thought the cost of wood sticks was exhorbitant. Still do. It's just being overshadowed by the cost of ice time and composite sticks. (I'll never gripe about the cost of helmets, though.)
Re: "The Wayne Gretzky of lacrosse"
Posted by: ben03 (198.16.0.---)
Date: April 15, 2004 02:14PM
[Q]billhoward Wrote:
...I'll never gripe about the cost of helmets, though. [/q]
As a lacrosse player, alpine skier, and cyclist I couldn't agree more.
...I'll never gripe about the cost of helmets, though. [/q]
As a lacrosse player, alpine skier, and cyclist I couldn't agree more.
___________________________
Let's GO Red!!!
Let's GO Red!!!
Re: "The Wayne Gretzky of lacrosse"
Posted by: Al DeFlorio (---.ne.client2.attbi.com)
Date: April 15, 2004 05:11PM
[Q]CUlater 89 Wrote:
Although one wonders whether Tim Goldstein would still have transferred to CU (or whether Richie Moran would have seen a need to go after him).[/q]
Goldstein, Wurzburger, and Nieuwendyk at attack. Second coming of French, McEneaney, and Levine, I'd say.
Although one wonders whether Tim Goldstein would still have transferred to CU (or whether Richie Moran would have seen a need to go after him).[/q]
Goldstein, Wurzburger, and Nieuwendyk at attack. Second coming of French, McEneaney, and Levine, I'd say.
___________________________
Al DeFlorio '65
Al DeFlorio '65
Re: Nieuwy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: jkahn (216.146.73.---)
Date: April 15, 2004 05:31PM
I'll be at the Air Canada Centre tomorrow night to root for Joe. I hope he's back, unlike the October Wolves game when I went basically to see Bâby play, and he was a healthy scratch. It'll be strange rooting for the Leafs though. I've always found it easy to root against Tie Domi, and, going back in history, Tiger Williams. Last time I was up there was the same week two years ago, and I was wearing an Islander sweater at a very vicious game 5 vs. the Isles.
Anyway, I won't be wearing Leafs attire, but I'll have on my Cornell hockey hat and pull for Joe to win his fourth Cup.
Anyway, I won't be wearing Leafs attire, but I'll have on my Cornell hockey hat and pull for Joe to win his fourth Cup.
___________________________
Jeff Kahn '70 '72
Jeff Kahn '70 '72
Re: "The Wayne Gretzky of lacrosse"
Posted by: ben03 (---.nyc.rr.com)
Date: April 15, 2004 06:12PM
[Q]Al DeFlorio Wrote:
CUlater 89 Wrote:
Although one wonders whether Tim Goldstein would still have transferred to CU (or whether Richie Moran would have seen a need to go after him).[/Q]
Goldstein, Wurzburger, and Nieuwendyk at attack. Second coming of French, McEneaney, and Levine, I'd say.[/q]
OT a bit ... and I know I'm gonna take sh*t for this (b/c I wasn't wournd when French, McEneaney, and Levine were) but ... Hess - Hubbard - Massey '98 (680 career points in 60 games together; four consecutive ivy league titles, three consecutive national championships and multiple player of the year honors ... are IMHO the best attack line ever to play together (even if they did play for Princeton)
just my $.02
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/15/2004 06:57PM by ben03.
Re: "The Wayne Gretzky of lacrosse"
Posted by: Al DeFlorio (---.ne.client2.attbi.com)
Date: April 15, 2004 07:34PM
[Q]ben03 Wrote:
I know I'm gonna take sh*t for this (and I know I wasn't wournd when French, McEneaney, and Levine were) but ... Hess - Hubbard - Massey '98 (680 career points in 60 games together; four consecutive ivy league titles, three consecutive national championships and multiple player of the year honors ... are IMHO the best attack line ever to play together (even if they did play for Princeton)
just my $.02[/q]
Who can really say?
In the two years French, McEneaney, and Levine played together (1975 and 1976), they combined for 493 points (French alone had 202), and I can't find how many assists Levine had as a junior (probably another 15-20 to add to the 493). Might have hit 1,000 had they played four years together.
With only three years of eligibility back then, the trio combined for 727 career points. Eamon was a year behind the other two, so they didn't get them all while playing together. Both Eamon and French were named Player of the Year as seniors, and between them they were five-time first-team All-Americans, with one third team (French as a sophomore, when he scored only 94 points). Levine was honorable mention and second team A-A, respectively, as a junior and senior.
More taste...less filling.
I know I'm gonna take sh*t for this (and I know I wasn't wournd when French, McEneaney, and Levine were) but ... Hess - Hubbard - Massey '98 (680 career points in 60 games together; four consecutive ivy league titles, three consecutive national championships and multiple player of the year honors ... are IMHO the best attack line ever to play together (even if they did play for Princeton)
just my $.02[/q]
Who can really say?
In the two years French, McEneaney, and Levine played together (1975 and 1976), they combined for 493 points (French alone had 202), and I can't find how many assists Levine had as a junior (probably another 15-20 to add to the 493). Might have hit 1,000 had they played four years together.
With only three years of eligibility back then, the trio combined for 727 career points. Eamon was a year behind the other two, so they didn't get them all while playing together. Both Eamon and French were named Player of the Year as seniors, and between them they were five-time first-team All-Americans, with one third team (French as a sophomore, when he scored only 94 points). Levine was honorable mention and second team A-A, respectively, as a junior and senior.
More taste...less filling.
___________________________
Al DeFlorio '65
Al DeFlorio '65
Re: "The Wayne Gretzky of lacrosse"
Posted by: billhoward (---.union01.nj.comcast.net)
Date: April 15, 2004 10:05PM
[Q]Al DeFlorio Wrote:
ben03 Wrote:
I know I'm gonna take sh*t for this (and I know I wasn't wournd when French, McEneaney, and Levine were) but ... Hess - Hubbard - Massey '98 (680 career points in 60 games together; four consecutive ivy league titles, three consecutive national championships and multiple player of the year honors ... are IMHO the best attack line ever to play together (even if they did play for Princeton)
just my $.02[/Q]
Who can really say?
In the two years French, McEneaney, and Levine played together (1975 and 1976), they combined for 493 points (French alone had 202), and I can't find how many assists Levine had as a junior (probably another 15-20 to add to the 493). Might have hit 1,000 had they played four years together.
With only three years of eligibility back then, the trio combined for 727 career points. Eamon was a year behind the other two, so they didn't get them all while playing together. Both Eamon and French were named Player of the Year as seniors, and between them they were five-time first-team All-Americans, with one third team (French as a sophomore, when he scored only 94 points). Levine was honorable mention and second team A-A, respectively, as a junior and senior.
More taste...less filling.[/q]
It's most useful to place a player's performance in the context of his era. The French, McEneaney, and Levine point totals are incredible now and unheard of then. This was before the Gaits and Powells hit Syracuse and before Princeton's late-1990s attackmen came on the scene. Wood sticks had only just departed the scene, and the plastic / composite sticks that helped shooting accuracy hadn't yet been perfected.
Had those three had four years of eligibility - could 1,000 points have been possible from just three players?
Had McEneaney and the Class of '77 been eligible as a freshman and had that extra year of varsity seasoning, maybe Cornell would have made it three straight, too. They also would have had future All-Americas Chris Kane '78 and Bob Henrickson '78 available in 1975.
If only ...
Re: "The Wayne Gretzky of lacrosse"
Posted by: ben03 (---.nyc.rr.com)
Date: April 15, 2004 10:54PM
Never having seen them play in person I can't really say ... so please allow me to rephrase, "Hess-Hubbard-Massey are the best attack line I have ever seen in person." I'm sure French, McEneaney, and Levine were nothing less than AMAZING ... but I feel like we are comparing apples and oranges here. The eras in which these players played are drastically different, as is the way the game is played and coached. If technology has increased shot accuracy as you say ... I counter that the depth of talent is much-much greater across the board now than it was then. As breath taking as the greats of the 70's were ... as effortless as they made it look ... there is no they would put up number anywhere close to what they did then. It just would not happen.
I do believe they would be exceptional today and they would certainly be the Powell's and Gait's of our time.
I do believe they would be exceptional today and they would certainly be the Powell's and Gait's of our time.
___________________________
Let's GO Red!!!
Let's GO Red!!!
Re: Nieuwy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Josh '99 (---.ny325.east.verizon.net)
Date: April 15, 2004 11:28PM
ESPN has reported that both Nieuwendyk and Sundin (who had an ugly feet-first collision with the boards) are doubtful for tomorrow's game. That said, you should root for the Leafs anyway, because they longer they stay in, the better the chance Joe will get back into the games.
Re: Nieuwy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: jtwcornell91 (---.no.no.cox.net)
Date: April 16, 2004 02:56AM
[Q]jmh30 Wrote:
ESPN has reported that both Nieuwendyk and Sundin (who had an ugly feet-first collision with the boards) are doubtful for tomorrow's game. That said, you should root for the Leafs anyway, because they longer they stay in, the better the chance Joe will get back into the games.[/q]
Not to mention the Dryden Factor.
ESPN has reported that both Nieuwendyk and Sundin (who had an ugly feet-first collision with the boards) are doubtful for tomorrow's game. That said, you should root for the Leafs anyway, because they longer they stay in, the better the chance Joe will get back into the games.[/q]
Not to mention the Dryden Factor.
Re: "The Wayne Gretzky of lacrosse"
Posted by: billhoward (---.union01.nj.comcast.net)
Date: April 16, 2004 10:51AM
[Q]ben03 Wrote:
Never having seen them play in person I can't really say ... so please allow me to rephrase, "Hess-Hubbard-Massey are the best attack line I have ever seen in person." I'm sure French, McEneaney, and Levine were nothing less than AMAZING ... but I feel like we are comparing apples and oranges here. The eras in which these players played are drastically different, as is the way the game is played and coached. If technology has increased shot accuracy as you say ... I counter that the depth of talent is much-much greater across the board now than it was then. As breath taking as the greats of the 70's were ... as effortless as they made it look ... there is no they would put up number anywhere close to what they did then. It just would not happen.
I do believe they would be exceptional today and they would certainly be the Powell's and Gait's of our time.[/q]
Today's players (let's say of the last decade) also had the advantages of more and more intensive practices, possibly longer seasons, better coaching, better tactics, etcetera. Had the 1970s players been born 20 years later, they would have had those advantages, too. Heck, maybe even UnderArmor and PowerAde keeps a player fresher longer into the game.
I haven't factored this in and don't know if it hurts or helps the cause of 1970s Cornell vs 1990s Princeton, but you'd also want to look at an attack trio's scoring vs. the average scoring for D1 lacrosse then, or for the top 20 D1 teams.
Not to knock current and recent past Maine and Cornell goaltending, but isn't it interesting that after a gap of decades when the season GAA average for a goaltender stands inviolate, it's broken twice in two years. I suspect it's a combination of two great goaltenders coming in back to back years, plus coaching styles that teach defense as the way to win games. Unexciting as a 2-1 Cornell win is, it's a lot better than a 6-4 loss.
Never having seen them play in person I can't really say ... so please allow me to rephrase, "Hess-Hubbard-Massey are the best attack line I have ever seen in person." I'm sure French, McEneaney, and Levine were nothing less than AMAZING ... but I feel like we are comparing apples and oranges here. The eras in which these players played are drastically different, as is the way the game is played and coached. If technology has increased shot accuracy as you say ... I counter that the depth of talent is much-much greater across the board now than it was then. As breath taking as the greats of the 70's were ... as effortless as they made it look ... there is no they would put up number anywhere close to what they did then. It just would not happen.
I do believe they would be exceptional today and they would certainly be the Powell's and Gait's of our time.[/q]
Today's players (let's say of the last decade) also had the advantages of more and more intensive practices, possibly longer seasons, better coaching, better tactics, etcetera. Had the 1970s players been born 20 years later, they would have had those advantages, too. Heck, maybe even UnderArmor and PowerAde keeps a player fresher longer into the game.
I haven't factored this in and don't know if it hurts or helps the cause of 1970s Cornell vs 1990s Princeton, but you'd also want to look at an attack trio's scoring vs. the average scoring for D1 lacrosse then, or for the top 20 D1 teams.
Not to knock current and recent past Maine and Cornell goaltending, but isn't it interesting that after a gap of decades when the season GAA average for a goaltender stands inviolate, it's broken twice in two years. I suspect it's a combination of two great goaltenders coming in back to back years, plus coaching styles that teach defense as the way to win games. Unexciting as a 2-1 Cornell win is, it's a lot better than a 6-4 loss.
Re: "The Wayne Gretzky of lacrosse"
Posted by: ben03 (198.16.0.---)
Date: April 16, 2004 11:41AM
[Q]billhoward Wrote:
Today's players (let's say of the last decade) also had the advantages of more and more intensive practices, possibly longer seasons, better coaching, better tactics, etcetera. Had the 1970s players been born 20 years later, they would have had those advantages, too. Heck, maybe even UnderArmor and PowerAde keeps a player fresher longer into the game.
I haven't factored this in and don't know if it hurts or helps the cause of 1970s Cornell vs 1990s Princeton, but you'd also want to look at an attack trio's scoring vs. the average scoring for D1 lacrosse then, or for the top 20 D1 teams. [/q]
On the average scoring note ... I was too lazy to go find those stats but agree that they are relevant in such a comparison.
Anywho, they were both great in their respective eras and will historically be treated as such …
I think we can all agree on that issue.
Today's players (let's say of the last decade) also had the advantages of more and more intensive practices, possibly longer seasons, better coaching, better tactics, etcetera. Had the 1970s players been born 20 years later, they would have had those advantages, too. Heck, maybe even UnderArmor and PowerAde keeps a player fresher longer into the game.
I haven't factored this in and don't know if it hurts or helps the cause of 1970s Cornell vs 1990s Princeton, but you'd also want to look at an attack trio's scoring vs. the average scoring for D1 lacrosse then, or for the top 20 D1 teams. [/q]
On the average scoring note ... I was too lazy to go find those stats but agree that they are relevant in such a comparison.
Anywho, they were both great in their respective eras and will historically be treated as such …
I think we can all agree on that issue.
___________________________
Let's GO Red!!!
Let's GO Red!!!
Re: "The Wayne Gretzky of lacrosse"
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: April 16, 2004 12:31PM
Seems to me the only way to compare players of different eras is to see how good they were in comparison to their peers when they played. Did the player or team from the 70s dominate his era more than the one from the 90s? It's still a very inexact business, if not apples to oranges, then at least two very dfifferent kinds of apple.
I often hear people make comments like "the best team of all time is any team that's playing today" or "the 2003 Devil Rays would destroy the 1927 Yankees". Maybe if you could magically transport the D-Rays back to the 20's they would be unbeatable because of improved training, conditioning, strength (, steroids) and new pitches. But aside from being impossible and unprovable, it's also a unfair. If you took a great team from long ago and gave them all of today's advantages I'd take my chances that they would still be a very good team.
I often hear people make comments like "the best team of all time is any team that's playing today" or "the 2003 Devil Rays would destroy the 1927 Yankees". Maybe if you could magically transport the D-Rays back to the 20's they would be unbeatable because of improved training, conditioning, strength (, steroids) and new pitches. But aside from being impossible and unprovable, it's also a unfair. If you took a great team from long ago and gave them all of today's advantages I'd take my chances that they would still be a very good team.
Re: "The Wayne Gretzky of lacrosse"
Posted by: billhoward (---.ziffdavis.com)
Date: April 16, 2004 01:59PM
[Q]KeithK Wrote:
Seems to me the only way to compare players of different eras is to see how good they were in comparison to their peers when they played. Did the player or team from the 70s dominate his era more than the one from the 90s? It's still a very inexact business, if not apples to oranges, then at least two very dfifferent kinds of apple.
I often hear people make comments like "the best team of all time is any team that's playing today" or "the 2003 Devil Rays would destroy the 1927 Yankees". Maybe if you could magically transport the D-Rays back to the 20's they would be unbeatable because of improved training, conditioning, strength (, steroids) and new pitches. But aside from being impossible and unprovable, it's also a unfair. If you took a great team from long ago and gave them all of today's advantages I'd take my chances that they would still be a very good team.
[/q]
If you transported a championship team of 2003 back 50 years and maybe even 25 years, gave both of them the same equipment -- pads, helmets, playing surfaces, graphite not bamboo vaulting poles, whatever -- today's bigger, more-rehearsed, better-coached, more-time-in-the-weight-room, learned-lessons-from-the-past teams would win.
I don't think Babe Ruth did any powerlifting in the off-season, except shot glasses and skirts.
In sports where you can measure results with a stopwatch or a measuring tape, every record has been broken and broken again. It would be an incredible leap of logic to believe only the measuring tape sports have improved so dramatically over the years.
So I guess that means that if you could teleport the 2002-2003 Big Red hockey team back to 1967, 1969, or 1970, and give both sides carbon fiber sticks, the LeNeveu-Murray-Bâby-Vesce team would beat the Dryden/Cropper-Lodboa team. And they would crucify the Harkness championship RPI team of 1954.
But when you compare teams against their contemporaries, 29-and-0 is magical in any era.
Seems to me the only way to compare players of different eras is to see how good they were in comparison to their peers when they played. Did the player or team from the 70s dominate his era more than the one from the 90s? It's still a very inexact business, if not apples to oranges, then at least two very dfifferent kinds of apple.
I often hear people make comments like "the best team of all time is any team that's playing today" or "the 2003 Devil Rays would destroy the 1927 Yankees". Maybe if you could magically transport the D-Rays back to the 20's they would be unbeatable because of improved training, conditioning, strength (, steroids) and new pitches. But aside from being impossible and unprovable, it's also a unfair. If you took a great team from long ago and gave them all of today's advantages I'd take my chances that they would still be a very good team.
[/q]
If you transported a championship team of 2003 back 50 years and maybe even 25 years, gave both of them the same equipment -- pads, helmets, playing surfaces, graphite not bamboo vaulting poles, whatever -- today's bigger, more-rehearsed, better-coached, more-time-in-the-weight-room, learned-lessons-from-the-past teams would win.
I don't think Babe Ruth did any powerlifting in the off-season, except shot glasses and skirts.
In sports where you can measure results with a stopwatch or a measuring tape, every record has been broken and broken again. It would be an incredible leap of logic to believe only the measuring tape sports have improved so dramatically over the years.
So I guess that means that if you could teleport the 2002-2003 Big Red hockey team back to 1967, 1969, or 1970, and give both sides carbon fiber sticks, the LeNeveu-Murray-Bâby-Vesce team would beat the Dryden/Cropper-Lodboa team. And they would crucify the Harkness championship RPI team of 1954.
But when you compare teams against their contemporaries, 29-and-0 is magical in any era.
Re: "The Wayne Gretzky of lacrosse"
Posted by: jtwcornell91 (---.loyno.edu)
Date: April 16, 2004 03:32PM
What if you took the team from the past, transported them to the future, and let them train intensively with a modern coach to get up to speed on new techniques etc?
Also, I wonder a little bit about transporting teams into the past when there was less equipment. I imagine a modern goalie sent back in time to play without a mask would let in a lot of goals because he'd duck.
Also, I wonder a little bit about transporting teams into the past when there was less equipment. I imagine a modern goalie sent back in time to play without a mask would let in a lot of goals because he'd duck.
Re: Nieuwy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: redice (---.usadatanet.net)
Date: April 16, 2004 05:21PM
The other important and equally unmeasurable point is "the heart" of the players. Ned's teams of the late 1960's were not only talented but played with a fire that we don't often see today. As much as we all admire and respect Mike Shafer's coaching abilities, he's no Ned Harkness when it comes to motivating his players. Ned's teams simply could not stand losing. Does anyone know how many times (if ever) Ned's teams lost successive games? I'll bet it was a very rare occurrance. My recollections of that era is that the next game, after a Cornell hockey loss, was usually a very bad experience for the opposing team. After a loss, those boys were fired up!!
Re: "The Wayne Gretzky of lacrosse"
Posted by: ugarte (65.217.153.---)
Date: April 16, 2004 05:28PM
[Q]KeithK Wrote:Maybe if you could magically transport the D-Rays back to the 20's they would be unbeatable ...[/q]I think we all know that if we transported the D-Rays back to the 20's one of them would inevitably kill a butterfly with disastrous consequences for the future.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2004 05:28PM by ugarte.
Re: Nieuwy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Al DeFlorio (---.ne.client2.attbi.com)
Date: April 16, 2004 05:30PM
[Q]redice Wrote:
My recollections of that era is that the next game, after a Cornell hockey loss, was usually a very bad experience for the opposing team. After a loss, those boys were fired up!![/q]
Sometimes after a close win, too. See Dartmouth series, 1969-70.
My recollections of that era is that the next game, after a Cornell hockey loss, was usually a very bad experience for the opposing team. After a loss, those boys were fired up!![/q]
Sometimes after a close win, too. See Dartmouth series, 1969-70.
___________________________
Al DeFlorio '65
Al DeFlorio '65
Re: "The Wayne Gretzky of lacrosse"
Posted by: billhoward (---.union01.nj.comcast.net)
Date: April 16, 2004 05:48PM
[Q]ugarte Wrote:
KeithK Wrote:Maybe if you could magically transport the D-Rays back to the 20's they would be unbeatable ...[/Q]
I think we all know that if we transported the D-Rays back to the 20's one of them would inevitably kill a butterfly with disastrous consequences for the future.
[/q]
The butterfly would have to be in Tokyo, right, to affect the mythical storm brewing on the Atlantic Coast?
(I'm impressed by literacy of this crowd. Okay, it's an Ivy League sports hangout, but still ... such cunning linguists.)
Re: Nieuwy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: billhoward (---.union01.nj.comcast.net)
Date: April 16, 2004 05:54PM
[Q]redice Wrote:
The other important and equally unmeasurable point is "the heart" of the players. Ned's teams of the late 1960's were not only talented but played with a fire that we don't often see today. As much as we all admire and respect Mike Shafer's coaching abilities, he's no Ned Harkness when it comes to motivating his players. Ned's teams simply could not stand losing. Does anyone know how many times (if ever) Ned's teams lost successive games? I'll bet it was a very rare occurrance. My recollections of that era is that the next game, after a Cornell hockey loss, was usually a very bad experience for the opposing team. After a loss, those boys were fired up!![/q]
How would the Ned Harkness style play out today? He was a man for his time. But did his time come and go? (I'm not saying it did. I'm saying I wonder.) There was a powerful piece in the New York Times Sunday Magazine (what New Yorkers call the Times Magazine, no prefix needed) about a ~56-year-old HS coach in New Orleans being tossed out, despite an incredible winning record and a record of his athletes doing well later in life because he, ah, spoke harshly to some of his players, and his players' parents at this private school were also potential donors.
The other important and equally unmeasurable point is "the heart" of the players. Ned's teams of the late 1960's were not only talented but played with a fire that we don't often see today. As much as we all admire and respect Mike Shafer's coaching abilities, he's no Ned Harkness when it comes to motivating his players. Ned's teams simply could not stand losing. Does anyone know how many times (if ever) Ned's teams lost successive games? I'll bet it was a very rare occurrance. My recollections of that era is that the next game, after a Cornell hockey loss, was usually a very bad experience for the opposing team. After a loss, those boys were fired up!![/q]
How would the Ned Harkness style play out today? He was a man for his time. But did his time come and go? (I'm not saying it did. I'm saying I wonder.) There was a powerful piece in the New York Times Sunday Magazine (what New Yorkers call the Times Magazine, no prefix needed) about a ~56-year-old HS coach in New Orleans being tossed out, despite an incredible winning record and a record of his athletes doing well later in life because he, ah, spoke harshly to some of his players, and his players' parents at this private school were also potential donors.
Re: Nieuwy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Al DeFlorio (---.ne.client2.attbi.com)
Date: April 16, 2004 09:16PM
Beautiful goal by Joe puts Leafs up 2-0 in game five.
___________________________
Al DeFlorio '65
Al DeFlorio '65
Re: Nieuwy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: jkahn (---.tor.metropolitan.com)
Date: April 16, 2004 10:27PM
Just back at a hotel from the Air Canada Centre. Two highlights for me:
1) scratches are announced and Joe isn't one of them
2) Joe scores
Great to see Joe score a Stanley Cup playoff goal live.
They gave out thundersticks. Fortunately most of the fans didn't overuse them.
It wasn't as exciting as the Frozen Four, and we didn't need props there.
I'm now starting to look forward to my next hockey road trip, probably Michigan St. in November.
1) scratches are announced and Joe isn't one of them
2) Joe scores
Great to see Joe score a Stanley Cup playoff goal live.
They gave out thundersticks. Fortunately most of the fans didn't overuse them.
It wasn't as exciting as the Frozen Four, and we didn't need props there.
I'm now starting to look forward to my next hockey road trip, probably Michigan St. in November.
___________________________
Jeff Kahn '70 '72
Jeff Kahn '70 '72
Re: Nieuwy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: redice (---.usadatanet.net)
Date: April 17, 2004 11:55AM
[Q]billhoward Wrote:
How would the Ned Harkness style play out today? He was a man for his time. But did his time come and go? (I'm not saying it did. I'm saying I wonder.) [/q]
That is, no doubt, an interesting (although unanswerable) question. The student-athletes of today are definitely more worldly than those of the 60's. And, as one would expect, more difficult to motivate. I don't know the magic words that Ned used to make his players play as hard as they did. But, he was definitely a master at it. I will add this comment: I've met Ned. And, after just a few minutes with this man, I found him to be the most engaging person that I have ever met. Despite rather limited contact with him, I came away with a new understanding of why his players would seemingly run through brick walls for him. I could easily see how he would command that level of committment from his players. Would that happen with today's student-athletes? We'll never know. If it proves anything, he was able to do it with three different college hockey teams (& other college sports) that spanned 20+ years. Surely, the student-athlete changed during that time. Ned's "magic" worked throughout!
How would the Ned Harkness style play out today? He was a man for his time. But did his time come and go? (I'm not saying it did. I'm saying I wonder.) [/q]
That is, no doubt, an interesting (although unanswerable) question. The student-athletes of today are definitely more worldly than those of the 60's. And, as one would expect, more difficult to motivate. I don't know the magic words that Ned used to make his players play as hard as they did. But, he was definitely a master at it. I will add this comment: I've met Ned. And, after just a few minutes with this man, I found him to be the most engaging person that I have ever met. Despite rather limited contact with him, I came away with a new understanding of why his players would seemingly run through brick walls for him. I could easily see how he would command that level of committment from his players. Would that happen with today's student-athletes? We'll never know. If it proves anything, he was able to do it with three different college hockey teams (& other college sports) that spanned 20+ years. Surely, the student-athlete changed during that time. Ned's "magic" worked throughout!
Uncle Ned
Posted by: jtwcornell91 (---.no.no.cox.net)
Date: April 17, 2004 02:20PM
Isn't the conventional wisdom on why Harkness's phenomenal success at the college level wasn't repeated in the pros that professional players didn't respond to authority figures in the same way?
Re: Uncle Ned
Posted by: redice (---.usadatanet.net)
Date: April 17, 2004 04:28PM
[Q]jtwcornell91 Wrote:
Isn't the conventional wisdom on why Harkness's phenomenal success at the college level wasn't repeated in the pros that professional players didn't respond to authority figures in the same way?[/q]
That certainly is my understanding. Are we comparing our current student-athletes to professional players?
Isn't the conventional wisdom on why Harkness's phenomenal success at the college level wasn't repeated in the pros that professional players didn't respond to authority figures in the same way?[/q]
That certainly is my understanding. Are we comparing our current student-athletes to professional players?
Re: Uncle Ned
Posted by: peterg (---.twcny.rr.com)
Date: April 17, 2004 11:23PM
On the subject ot Ned Harkness, Cornell honored Ned today after the Cornell Dartmouth lacrosse game (CU 12, Dartmuth 11). Ned's record in three seasons (66-68) as lacrosse coach was 35-1, with two Ivy titles.
Re: Nieuwy and Alfredsson
Posted by: RichS (---.dyn.optonline.net)
Date: April 18, 2004 05:18PM
I see Joe and the Ottawa captain have had a little war of words in the media after game 5.
Knock on the Sens has always been that they're soft in the playoffs. This is a big chance for them to prove themselves beginning tonight!
Knock on the Sens has always been that they're soft in the playoffs. This is a big chance for them to prove themselves beginning tonight!
Re: Uncle Ned
Posted by: billhoward (---.union01.nj.comcast.net)
Date: April 18, 2004 05:24PM
[Q]jtwcornell91 Wrote:
Isn't the conventional wisdom on why Harkness's phenomenal success at the college level wasn't repeated in the pros that professional players didn't respond to authority figures in the same way?[/q]
That was the conventional and probably correct wisdom. Also:
- Detroit was floundering at the time. Maybe no one could have succeeded.
- Reports say Harkness tried to change a lot of things immediately and some reports say he was brusque or at least overly blunt and direct and that didn't go over at all well. History may record that to be Harkness' mistake.
I'm trying to recall what if anything Ken Dryden had to say about Harkness' troubles in Detroit. That would be a person who could speak with authority. BTW did you see the video of him sitting in the box at the Leafs-Senators games? He looks, in his suit, so mild-mannered and normal.
Isn't the conventional wisdom on why Harkness's phenomenal success at the college level wasn't repeated in the pros that professional players didn't respond to authority figures in the same way?[/q]
That was the conventional and probably correct wisdom. Also:
- Detroit was floundering at the time. Maybe no one could have succeeded.
- Reports say Harkness tried to change a lot of things immediately and some reports say he was brusque or at least overly blunt and direct and that didn't go over at all well. History may record that to be Harkness' mistake.
I'm trying to recall what if anything Ken Dryden had to say about Harkness' troubles in Detroit. That would be a person who could speak with authority. BTW did you see the video of him sitting in the box at the Leafs-Senators games? He looks, in his suit, so mild-mannered and normal.
Re: Nieuwy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.twcny.rr.com)
Date: April 18, 2004 06:30PM
[Q]billhoward wrote:
He looks, in his suit, so mild-mannered and normal. (about Dryden)[/Q]Meaning he's not any of those?
He looks, in his suit, so mild-mannered and normal. (about Dryden)[/Q]Meaning he's not any of those?
___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
Re: Nieuwy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: billhoward (---.union01.nj.comcast.net)
Date: April 18, 2004 06:42PM
[Q]Jim Hyla Wrote:
billhoward wrote:
He looks, in his suit, so mild-mannered and normal. (about Dryden)[/Q]
Meaning he's not any of those?[/q]
Dryden looks less battle-scarred than, say, Gump Worsley. Although on second thought, a lot of hockey's greats didn't look like hulking tough guys. Bobby Orr, for instance, and he was about the same size as Ryan Vesce. (Imagine how good Orr would have been if he'd had today's knee surgery capabilities.)
Re: Nieuwy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Greg Berge (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: April 18, 2004 08:44PM
Joe in a little scuffle during the early moments of period 2 of game 6, but nothing came of it. He's playing pretty well in this game, which is a defense-fest so far. The Leafs look solid.
Re: Uncle Ned
Posted by: ninian '72 (165.224.215.---)
Date: April 19, 2004 09:24AM
[Q]billhoward Wrote:
I'm trying to recall what if anything Ken Dryden had to say about Harkness' troubles in Detroit. That would be a person who could speak with authority. BTW did you see the video of him sitting in the box at the Leafs-Senators games? He looks, in his suit, so mild-mannered and normal. [/q]
Harkness described Dryden as a remarkable and serious guy when he was at Cornell. Always seemed to have his head in a book when he had the chance. Even in goal, he oozed composure. Had this habit of leaning on his stick or the crossbar, looking supremely bored when play wasn't around him. Must have given opponents fits.
I'm trying to recall what if anything Ken Dryden had to say about Harkness' troubles in Detroit. That would be a person who could speak with authority. BTW did you see the video of him sitting in the box at the Leafs-Senators games? He looks, in his suit, so mild-mannered and normal. [/q]
Harkness described Dryden as a remarkable and serious guy when he was at Cornell. Always seemed to have his head in a book when he had the chance. Even in goal, he oozed composure. Had this habit of leaning on his stick or the crossbar, looking supremely bored when play wasn't around him. Must have given opponents fits.
Re: Nieuwy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: ninian '72 (165.224.215.---)
Date: April 19, 2004 09:58AM
[Q]redice Wrote:
The other important and equally unmeasurable point is "the heart" of the players. Ned's teams of the late 1960's were not only talented but played with a fire that we don't often see today. As much as we all admire and respect Mike Shafer's coaching abilities, he's no Ned Harkness when it comes to motivating his players. Ned's teams simply could not stand losing. Does anyone know how many times (if ever) Ned's teams lost successive games? I'll bet it was a very rare occurrance. My recollections of that era is that the next game, after a Cornell hockey loss, was usually a very bad experience for the opposing team. After a loss, those boys were fired up!![/q]
Agreed. It's hard to imagine frequent sub-par performances by the Harkness teams, if only because Ned was incredibly animated on the bench. I can still hear him yelling, "Skate! Skate!"
There are other differences between the Harkness teams and those of today, though. The main ones are that the nature of the college game has changed, and the career path to the NHL is different. Back in those days, there were only the ECAC and the WCHA, and they played very different games. ECAC play emphasized speed and finesse. The WCHA was more an NHL-style physical game with simpler dump and chase type offenses. Some of you other dinosaurs can chime in if you disagree, but as I recall Ned tended to favor agile, fast kids with good hands who didn't quite have the size to compete in the NHL (e.g., Kevin Pettit and John Hughes). The temptation to leave early also wasn't there, because almost no one from college hockey could expect to make it in the NHL. Ken Dryden was the rare exception at the tiime.
What this boils down to is that players with NHL potential typically went the junior route, while today NCAA hockey is a much more viable alternative. Although this makes for a larger potential talent pool for today's college teams, it also means that a coach can't count on having his most talented players around for a full run and must work harder to reload with blue chip players and can't necessarily reap the rewards of having these kids around after they become more experienced. So it's difficult to say how today's best teams would stack up against the old Harkness teams, since each era has its own set of advantages and constraints for developing quality programs.
The other important and equally unmeasurable point is "the heart" of the players. Ned's teams of the late 1960's were not only talented but played with a fire that we don't often see today. As much as we all admire and respect Mike Shafer's coaching abilities, he's no Ned Harkness when it comes to motivating his players. Ned's teams simply could not stand losing. Does anyone know how many times (if ever) Ned's teams lost successive games? I'll bet it was a very rare occurrance. My recollections of that era is that the next game, after a Cornell hockey loss, was usually a very bad experience for the opposing team. After a loss, those boys were fired up!![/q]
Agreed. It's hard to imagine frequent sub-par performances by the Harkness teams, if only because Ned was incredibly animated on the bench. I can still hear him yelling, "Skate! Skate!"
There are other differences between the Harkness teams and those of today, though. The main ones are that the nature of the college game has changed, and the career path to the NHL is different. Back in those days, there were only the ECAC and the WCHA, and they played very different games. ECAC play emphasized speed and finesse. The WCHA was more an NHL-style physical game with simpler dump and chase type offenses. Some of you other dinosaurs can chime in if you disagree, but as I recall Ned tended to favor agile, fast kids with good hands who didn't quite have the size to compete in the NHL (e.g., Kevin Pettit and John Hughes). The temptation to leave early also wasn't there, because almost no one from college hockey could expect to make it in the NHL. Ken Dryden was the rare exception at the tiime.
What this boils down to is that players with NHL potential typically went the junior route, while today NCAA hockey is a much more viable alternative. Although this makes for a larger potential talent pool for today's college teams, it also means that a coach can't count on having his most talented players around for a full run and must work harder to reload with blue chip players and can't necessarily reap the rewards of having these kids around after they become more experienced. So it's difficult to say how today's best teams would stack up against the old Harkness teams, since each era has its own set of advantages and constraints for developing quality programs.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/19/2004 04:23PM by ninian '72.
Re: Nieuwy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: billhoward (---.ziffdavis.com)
Date: April 19, 2004 01:48PM
[Q]ninian '72 Wrote:
There are other differences between the Harkness teams and those of today, though. The main ones are that the nature of the college game has changed, and the career path to the NHL is different. Back in those days, there was only the ECAC and the WCHA, and they played very different games. ECAC play emphasized speed and finesse. The WCHA was more an NHL-style physical game with simpler dump and chase type offenses. Some of you other dinosaurs can chime in if you disagree, but as I recall Ned tended to favor agile, fast kids with good hands who didn't quite have the size to compete in the NHL (e.g., Kevin Pettit and John Hughes). The temptation to leave early also wasn't there, because almost no one from college hockey could expect to make it in the NHL. Ken Dryden was the rare exception at the tiime.
What this boils down to is that players with NHL potential typically went the junior route, while today NCAA hockey is a much more viable alternative. Although this makes for a larger potential talent pool for today's college teams, it also means that a coach can't count on having his most talented players around for a full run and must work harder to reload with blue chip players and can't necessarily reap the rewards of having these kids around after they become more experienced. So it's difficult to say whether how today's best teams would stack up against the old Harkness teams, since each era has its own set of advantages and constraints for developing quality programs.
[/q]
Agree, and (except?):
- Harkness teams were the epitome of dump and run, weren't they, regardless of what the WCHA teams did?
- A great recruiter would benefit even if his studs only stick around two years, becasue he'll recruit more to replace them. (The North Dakota style?) A great coach and teacher would benefit from four-year players because he could probably raise their skills level more than the recruiter coach could. Also, if they're not so good going in to college, it's less likely they'll get they million dollar offers that make it hard not to bail ofter two years. I think Harkness was great at both.
There are other differences between the Harkness teams and those of today, though. The main ones are that the nature of the college game has changed, and the career path to the NHL is different. Back in those days, there was only the ECAC and the WCHA, and they played very different games. ECAC play emphasized speed and finesse. The WCHA was more an NHL-style physical game with simpler dump and chase type offenses. Some of you other dinosaurs can chime in if you disagree, but as I recall Ned tended to favor agile, fast kids with good hands who didn't quite have the size to compete in the NHL (e.g., Kevin Pettit and John Hughes). The temptation to leave early also wasn't there, because almost no one from college hockey could expect to make it in the NHL. Ken Dryden was the rare exception at the tiime.
What this boils down to is that players with NHL potential typically went the junior route, while today NCAA hockey is a much more viable alternative. Although this makes for a larger potential talent pool for today's college teams, it also means that a coach can't count on having his most talented players around for a full run and must work harder to reload with blue chip players and can't necessarily reap the rewards of having these kids around after they become more experienced. So it's difficult to say whether how today's best teams would stack up against the old Harkness teams, since each era has its own set of advantages and constraints for developing quality programs.
[/q]
Agree, and (except?):
- Harkness teams were the epitome of dump and run, weren't they, regardless of what the WCHA teams did?
- A great recruiter would benefit even if his studs only stick around two years, becasue he'll recruit more to replace them. (The North Dakota style?) A great coach and teacher would benefit from four-year players because he could probably raise their skills level more than the recruiter coach could. Also, if they're not so good going in to college, it's less likely they'll get they million dollar offers that make it hard not to bail ofter two years. I think Harkness was great at both.
Re: Nieuwy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: ninian '72 (165.224.215.---)
Date: April 19, 2004 04:39PM
[Q]billhoward Wrote:
Agree, and (except?):
- Harkness teams were the epitome of dump and run, weren't they, regardless of what the WCHA teams did?
- A great recruiter would benefit even if his studs only stick around two years, becasue he'll recruit more to replace them. (The North Dakota style?) A great coach and teacher would benefit from four-year players because he could probably raise their skills level more than the recruiter coach could. Also, if they're not so good going in to college, it's less likely they'll get they million dollar offers that make it hard not to bail ofter two years. I think Harkness was great at both. [/q]
OK on the dump and run. Harkness offense also emphasized head manning the puck, which made for a more up tempo version than we typically saw in the WCHA.
The main problem with the current practice of early departures, even with a good recruiter, is that players often leave with little warning and leave the coach scrambling to fill holes late in the recruiting process. This has often been a real frustration for Red Berenson at Michigan, and apparently he's not on speaking terms with a few of his former team members who kept him out of the loop until their pro deals were wrapped up. He's not adverse to letting them go early, but wants to be part of the process in helping them decide when they're ready.
Agree, and (except?):
- Harkness teams were the epitome of dump and run, weren't they, regardless of what the WCHA teams did?
- A great recruiter would benefit even if his studs only stick around two years, becasue he'll recruit more to replace them. (The North Dakota style?) A great coach and teacher would benefit from four-year players because he could probably raise their skills level more than the recruiter coach could. Also, if they're not so good going in to college, it's less likely they'll get they million dollar offers that make it hard not to bail ofter two years. I think Harkness was great at both. [/q]
OK on the dump and run. Harkness offense also emphasized head manning the puck, which made for a more up tempo version than we typically saw in the WCHA.
The main problem with the current practice of early departures, even with a good recruiter, is that players often leave with little warning and leave the coach scrambling to fill holes late in the recruiting process. This has often been a real frustration for Red Berenson at Michigan, and apparently he's not on speaking terms with a few of his former team members who kept him out of the loop until their pro deals were wrapped up. He's not adverse to letting them go early, but wants to be part of the process in helping them decide when they're ready.
Re: Nieuwy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Robb (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: April 20, 2004 09:54AM
[Q]billhoward Wrote:
This has often been a real frustration for Red Berenson at Michigan, and apparently he's not on speaking terms with a few of his former team members who kept him out of the loop until their pro deals were wrapped up.
[/Q]
Yeah - must be really frustrating to have only been to 9 out of the last 13 Frozen Fours... I know that you meant personally frustrating to Red, but it just goes to show that even in an environment of early departures (even unexpected ones), it is very possible to maintain a consistently high level of play and keep bringing in the great recruits. Difficult, but possible...
This has often been a real frustration for Red Berenson at Michigan, and apparently he's not on speaking terms with a few of his former team members who kept him out of the loop until their pro deals were wrapped up.
[/Q]
Yeah - must be really frustrating to have only been to 9 out of the last 13 Frozen Fours...
I know that you meant personally frustrating to Red, but it just goes to show that even in an environment of early departures (even unexpected ones), it is very possible to maintain a consistently high level of play and keep bringing in the great recruits. Difficult, but possible...
Re: Nieuwy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Greg Berge (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: April 20, 2004 07:36PM
Gorgeous wrister by Joe puts the Leafs up 2-0 in game seven. And he got control of the puck by wrestling with Todd White (Clarkson).
Re: Nieuwy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Greg Berge (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: April 20, 2004 07:46PM
AND ANOTHER BEAUTIFUL GOAL!!!!! 3-0.
Re: Nieuwy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Avash (---.twcny.rr.com)
Date: April 20, 2004 07:53PM
Good period, to say the least, by Nieuwendyk (BAD period for Lalime. My goodness...)
(BAD period for Lalime. My goodness...)
Re: Nieuwy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: RichS (---.dyn.optonline.net)
Date: April 20, 2004 08:00PM
How about that? The Devils sure missed Joe during the playoffs!
Think anyone here doesn't know Todd is from Clarkson?
Looks like another "one and out" for the Sens!
Think anyone here doesn't know Todd is from Clarkson?
Looks like another "one and out" for the Sens!
Re: Nieuwy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Greg Berge (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: April 20, 2004 08:15PM
All Joe goals are beautiful. 
(Both of his goals tonight have been pretty soft, but Lalime is gone and the Sens just scored, so hopefully we'll see more.)
(Both of his goals tonight have been pretty soft, but Lalime is gone and the Sens just scored, so hopefully we'll see more.)
Re: Nieuwy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: billhoward (---.union01.nj.comcast.net)
Date: April 20, 2004 10:22PM
It was disappointing. Joe should've had a hat trick. <g>
Well, if it's a consolation for the Sens, Ottawa had really nice white jerseys.
Well, if it's a consolation for the Sens, Ottawa had really nice white jerseys.
Re: Nieuwy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Tom Pasniewski 98 (---.bos.east.verizon.net)
Date: April 20, 2004 11:25PM
The B's are gone but Joe remains. Better to follow a player than to follow a team through the years. You have to think - is the Cup following Joe or is Joe following the Cup?
Re: Nieuwy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Greg (---.cust-rtr.swbell.net)
Date: April 22, 2004 03:31PM
Calgary and Minnesota/Dallas won their only Cups with Joe, so he aint following it. Whether the opposite is true is a matter of taste...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/22/2004 03:32PM by Greg.
Re: Nieuwy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Tom Pasniewski 98 (---.bos.east.verizon.net)
Date: April 22, 2004 06:21PM
I taste the Leafs still playing and laughing at the Fleet Center sign some of you saw that says, turning hockey teams into golfing teams one series at a time. Yes, one series to turn the Bruins into golfers.
Re: Nieuwy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: ugarte (65.217.153.---)
Date: April 23, 2004 09:51AM
[Q]Tom Pasniewski 98 Wrote:
I taste the Leafs still playing and laughing at the Fleet Center sign some of you saw that says, turning hockey teams into golfing teams one series at a time. Yes, one series to turn the Bruins into golfers.[/q]What?! Did you run this through a translator and back?
I taste the Leafs still playing and laughing at the Fleet Center sign some of you saw that says, turning hockey teams into golfing teams one series at a time. Yes, one series to turn the Bruins into golfers.[/q]What?! Did you run this through a translator and back?
___________________________
quality tweets | bluesky (twitter 2) | ALAB Series podcast | Other podcasts and writing
quality tweets | bluesky (twitter 2) | ALAB Series podcast | Other podcasts and writing
Re: Nieuwy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Geen Ween (---.loyno.edu)
Date: April 23, 2004 12:24PM
Can u taste the waste?
Re: Nieuwy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Greg Berge (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: April 25, 2004 08:11PM
Joe is a scratch in game 2 vs Philly. Anybody know why?
Re: Nieuwy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Al DeFlorio (---.ne.client2.attbi.com)
Date: April 25, 2004 08:17PM
[Q]Greg Berge Wrote:
Joe is a scratch in game 2 vs Philly. Anybody know why?[/q]
According to ESPN box score, "back injury."
Joe is a scratch in game 2 vs Philly. Anybody know why?[/q]
According to ESPN box score, "back injury."
___________________________
Al DeFlorio '65
Al DeFlorio '65
Re: Nieuwy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Anne 85 (---.ne.client2.attbi.com)
Date: April 25, 2004 08:21PM
According to the Leafs site, Joe was playing hurt in game 1 and eventually took himself out. Seems likely that his back is acting up again (but that's pure speculation).
Re: Nieuwy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: David Harding (---.client.comcast.net)
Date: April 25, 2004 09:29PM
PHILADELPHIA -- Toronto Maple Leafs center Mats Sundin returned to the lineup Sunday night, but Joe Nieuwendyk was inactive because of an undisclosed injury.
Sundin missed four games with a knee injury. Hurt in Game 4 of Toronto's opening-round series against Ottawa, Sundin said Saturday he had made a "huge" improvement.
Nieuwendyk was held scoreless in Game 1 of the second-round series. Toronto coach Pat Quinn said Nieuwendyk should not have played, but "that's the kind of player he is."
The Toronto Star reported Saturday that Nieuwendyk had back spasms, but Quinn would not confirm the injury.
For the Flyers, defenseman Kim Johnsson was scratched for the second straight game with a broken bone in his right hand.
Copyright © 2004, The Associated Press
Sundin missed four games with a knee injury. Hurt in Game 4 of Toronto's opening-round series against Ottawa, Sundin said Saturday he had made a "huge" improvement.
Nieuwendyk was held scoreless in Game 1 of the second-round series. Toronto coach Pat Quinn said Nieuwendyk should not have played, but "that's the kind of player he is."
The Toronto Star reported Saturday that Nieuwendyk had back spasms, but Quinn would not confirm the injury.
For the Flyers, defenseman Kim Johnsson was scratched for the second straight game with a broken bone in his right hand.
Copyright © 2004, The Associated Press
Joe out for game 3 as well
Posted by: CowbellGuy (Moderator)
Date: April 28, 2004 03:35PM
[q]Maple Leafs center Joe Nieuwendyk will sit out Game 3 of Toronto's second-round playoff series with Philadelphia on Wednesday night, the second straight game he'll miss because of back problems.
"I'm getting better every day," Nieuwendyk said. "I think tomorrow I'll get a practice in and step it up a little bit and then go from there."[/q]
[sports.espn.go.com]
"I'm getting better every day," Nieuwendyk said. "I think tomorrow I'll get a practice in and step it up a little bit and then go from there."[/q]
[sports.espn.go.com]
___________________________
"[Hugh] Jessiman turned out to be a huge specimen of something alright." --Puck Daddy
"[Hugh] Jessiman turned out to be a huge specimen of something alright." --Puck Daddy
Re: Nieuwy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: dss28 (---.client.comcast.net)
Date: April 28, 2004 10:27PM
Well, without Nieuwendyk, the Leafs did okay tonight, with a 4-1 win over the Flyers :D ...I hope this isn't a case of the Ewing theory, though...
Re: Nieuwy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: KenP (---.abrfc.noaa.gov)
Date: May 01, 2004 12:08AM
Nieuwy didn't play in game 4 tonight. However...
Leafs C Joe Nieuwendyk missed his third straight game with what is believed to be a back problem. Nieuwendyk haspracticed for the last three days and is hopeful to play in Game 5.
Re: Nieuwy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Greg Berge (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: May 01, 2004 12:48AM
There was a mention in the post-game that by tying the series the Leafs may be able to keep Joe on the bench until Game 6. Sounds like nagging back pain, which if you've had it *really* sucks.
Re: Nieuwy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Greg Berge (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: May 02, 2004 03:55PM
Joe will play this afternoon in Game 5 in Philly.
Re: Nieuwy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Greg Berge (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: May 02, 2004 04:42PM
Nieuwendyk scores his 6th goal of the post-season in the first period but it's 3-1 Philly after one.
Re: Nieuwy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Al DeFlorio (---.ne.client2.attbi.com)
Date: May 02, 2004 04:54PM
[Q]Greg Berge Wrote:
Nieuwendyk scores his 6th goal of the post-season in the first period but it's 3-1 Philly after one.[/q]
And that was the Leafs' only shot on goal in the period.
Nieuwendyk scores his 6th goal of the post-season in the first period but it's 3-1 Philly after one.[/q]
And that was the Leafs' only shot on goal in the period.
___________________________
Al DeFlorio '65
Al DeFlorio '65
Re: Nieuwy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Josh '99 (---.yw.yu.edu)
Date: May 02, 2004 05:14PM
The Leafs are now down 6-1, as of about 7:00 into the second, and Belfour has been pulled after making 12 saves on 18 shots. Here's hoping it goes 7... 
Re: Nieuwy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: billhoward (---.union01.nj.comcast.net)
Date: May 02, 2004 06:45PM
Joe shoulda stood in bed.
Re: Nieuwy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Al DeFlorio (---.ne.client2.attbi.com)
Date: May 02, 2004 06:55PM
[Q]jmh30 Wrote:
Here's hoping it goes 7... [/q]
And an 8.5 on the Richter in South Philly.
Here's hoping it goes 7... [/q]
And an 8.5 on the Richter in South Philly.
___________________________
Al DeFlorio '65
Al DeFlorio '65
Re: Nieuwy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Chris '03 (---.cust.uslec.net)
Date: May 03, 2004 10:51AM
Anyone catch the mention of Joe's days at cornell? They said he grew 5 inches and 30lbs as a freshman? Seems like a bit of hyperbole to me.
They also recounted his fine lacrosse skills.
Re: "The Wayne Gretzky of lacrosse"
Posted by: jeh25 (---.epsy.uconn.edu)
Date: May 03, 2004 11:28AM
[Q]ben03 Wrote:
billhoward Wrote:
...I'll never gripe about the cost of helmets, though. [/Q]
As a lacrosse player, alpine skier, and cyclist I couldn't agree more.[/q]
I know, I'll take a kayaking helmet, drill some holes and bolt a cage to the front. I don't need no steenkin' Bacharach helmet...
Seriously however, it appears that the new style helmets are better when getting blindsided while the traditional helmets provide more protection in a frontal collision.
[www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov]
Re: "The Wayne Gretzky of lacrosse"
Posted by: jeh25 (---.epsy.uconn.edu)
Date: May 03, 2004 11:33AM
[Q]ben03 Wrote:
As breath taking as the greats of the 70's were ... as effortless as they made it look ... there is no they would put up number anywhere close to what they did then. It just would not happen.
[/q]
Especially not against Tierney's channeling, collapsing quagmire-like Defensive scheme.
As breath taking as the greats of the 70's were ... as effortless as they made it look ... there is no they would put up number anywhere close to what they did then. It just would not happen.
[/q]
Especially not against Tierney's channeling, collapsing quagmire-like Defensive scheme.
Re: "The Wayne Gretzky of lacrosse"
Posted by: billhoward (---.union01.nj.comcast.net)
Date: May 03, 2004 12:11PM
[Q]jeh25 Wrote:
ben03 Wrote:
billhoward Wrote:
...I'll never gripe about the cost of helmets, though. [/Q]
As a lacrosse player, alpine skier, and cyclist I couldn't agree more.[/Q]
I know, I'll take a kayaking helmet, drill some holes and bolt a cage to the front. I don't need no steenkin' Bacharach helmet...
Seriously however, it appears that the new style helmets are better when getting blindsided while the traditional helmets provide more protection in a frontal collision.
[www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov]
[/q]
The study is pretty dry (well, it's academic) but I was struck, so to speak, by a couple points, most notably that the helmets tested (two traditional, two new) exhibited reduced impact protection over the course of the test, and that suggested a player who wears one helmet through a four-year career is probably not getting enough protection ... and maybe there could be less protection at the end of a single season.
I wasn't clear if "traditional" helmet meant a design from 5-10 years ago, or a design from say the days of Ned Harkness coaching lacrosse in the sixties or from the early seventies. Because it said in one kind of impact, the traditional helmet did a better job attenuating the impact, and I couldn't see that with a really older design.
And the game is getting more rugged. I for one would like to see a bit less hitting and more artistry (same post I've made elsewhere about pro hockey) but I don't think it's going to happen.
Re: "The Wayne Gretzky of lacrosse"
Posted by: billhoward (---.union01.nj.comcast.net)
Date: May 03, 2004 12:16PM
[Q]jeh25 Wrote:
ben03 Wrote:
As breath taking as the greats of the 70's were ... as effortless as they made it look ... there is no they would put up number anywhere close to what they did then. It just would not happen.
[/Q]
Especially not against Tierney's channeling, collapsing quagmire-like Defensive scheme. [/q]
Indeed. It seems like a great player like Greenhalgh has a shadow at Princeton for all but about 10 three-second gaps, and on only two of them does he get the ball, which is good for one goal a game. .
Re: Nieuwy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: billhoward (---.union01.nj.comcast.net)
Date: May 03, 2004 12:25PM
[Q]Chris '03 Wrote:
Anyone catch the mention of Joe's days at cornell? They said he grew 5 inches and 30lbs as a freshman? Seems like a bit of hyperbole to me.
They also recounted his fine lacrosse skills. [/q]
Usually the announcer then goes on to recount Ken Dryden backstopping the Big Red to that wondrous 29-0 season in 1970. Dryden should ask Cornell to redate his diploma.
And every time I hear about Joe's lacrosse skills I keep thinking - geez, if only Richie Moran could have borrowed him for a couple weeks in the spring, those two NCAA runner-up finishes could have been first-place finishes.
I know Dick Bertrand gave players a lot of grief about hockey players being multi-sport players. Bill Murray '74, probably Cornell's best soccer player his junior year other than Bruce Arena in goal (and remember Arena played two sports), got incredible pressure and finally opted not to play soccer his senior year, which turned out to be the only year Cornell failed to go anywhere in the NCAAs.
Of course, now it's middle-school coaches doing the same thing to our kids, telling them they really should concentrate on soccer or hockey or lacrosse if they want to star in high school. Fortunately our town in NJ has both career-track leagues and also in-town, no-long-drives-to-games leagues.
Anyone catch the mention of Joe's days at cornell? They said he grew 5 inches and 30lbs as a freshman? Seems like a bit of hyperbole to me.
They also recounted his fine lacrosse skills. [/q]
Usually the announcer then goes on to recount Ken Dryden backstopping the Big Red to that wondrous 29-0 season in 1970. Dryden should ask Cornell to redate his diploma.
And every time I hear about Joe's lacrosse skills I keep thinking - geez, if only Richie Moran could have borrowed him for a couple weeks in the spring, those two NCAA runner-up finishes could have been first-place finishes.
I know Dick Bertrand gave players a lot of grief about hockey players being multi-sport players. Bill Murray '74, probably Cornell's best soccer player his junior year other than Bruce Arena in goal (and remember Arena played two sports), got incredible pressure and finally opted not to play soccer his senior year, which turned out to be the only year Cornell failed to go anywhere in the NCAAs.
Of course, now it's middle-school coaches doing the same thing to our kids, telling them they really should concentrate on soccer or hockey or lacrosse if they want to star in high school. Fortunately our town in NJ has both career-track leagues and also in-town, no-long-drives-to-games leagues.
Re: Middle school advice
Posted by: RichS (---.dyn.optonline.net)
Date: May 03, 2004 07:08PM
Bill,
Your comments about middle school advice intrigues me. I'm In NJ also and in my town, where I coach HS hockey, the advice is most assuredly NOT that a kid concentrate on only one sport. Would love to discuss that with you.
In fact, as a hockey coach, I love it when hockey players play lacrosse in the spring...along with spring league hockey, of course.
Your comments about middle school advice intrigues me. I'm In NJ also and in my town, where I coach HS hockey, the advice is most assuredly NOT that a kid concentrate on only one sport. Would love to discuss that with you.
In fact, as a hockey coach, I love it when hockey players play lacrosse in the spring...along with spring league hockey, of course.
Re: Middle school advice
Posted by: billhoward (---.ziffdavis.com)
Date: May 03, 2004 08:50PM
[Q]RichS Wrote:
Bill,
Your comments about middle school advice intrigues me. I'm In NJ also and in my town, where I coach HS hockey, the advice is most assuredly NOT that a kid concentrate on only one sport. Would love to discuss that with you.
In fact, as a hockey coach, I love it when hockey players play lacrosse in the spring...along with spring league hockey, of course. [/q]
We're in Westfield (Parkway Exit 137, as you know one says by way of reference in NJ), one of those classic upscale Republican WASPish commuting towns (and then we moved in). A couple of our boys' friends are doing the all-lax all-the-time bit including the summer camps; others are doing soccer the same way. Westfield feeds a couple kids to Division I and a bunch more to Division II and III lacrosse colleges, and to soccer schools, and maybe already they’re thinking they could start for the Blue Devils or Bucknell or Cornell if only they’re a little bit better. There was a powerful piece in Sports Illustrated last fall (summer?) about the death of the three-sport athlete in all but the smallest high school towns because of the desire to specialize early on.
I’m hoping our kids specialize in being kids. Our older boy just wants to be a goalie in whatever sport is in season plus roller hockey year-round and the younger one wants to play whatever his friends play. So far they haven't felt the need to go a) traveling or b) single sport. The big question is whether to jump from indoor roller hockey (cheap, fun, readily available rink time, a lot more like ice hockey than I ever imagined possible, and did I mention cheap) to ice hockey (ka-ching). I must say I also like roller hockey / hockey because it cuts across all demographics better than lacrosse. Outside the rink, there are rusty pickup trucks and X5's parked side by side; in comparison our four-boy neighborhood lax car pool is Expedition out, Excursion back Mondays; Escalade out, our Odyssey back Thursdays. Their little butts touch nothing but supple leather except when we drive.)
You may have noticed some of my comments in other threads about my preference for artistry not violence in sports. In part it's because our two kids will probably be 5'9" not 6'3" and I really do like seeing skilled players rather than pugilists. The seventh grade lax team had two kids (one from each side) tossed out for fighting this weekend. Sheesh.
The coaches we know do a great job teaching life skills. They say: “You’re responsible for your uniform being ready, having your mouthguard; you have to have your homework done before practice, you need to know when the game is. Don’t tell me your mom forgot what time the game is; *you* forgot.†In lacrosse, everybody plays for three quarters; if the game is close, then the best kids move to midfield and attack in the fourth quarter.
The other thing that's tough around here is finding adult leagues for hockey over 40. So I go to the exercise classes at the Y where it's two old guys like me and twenty dazzling women in spandex. Most of the guys still playing hockey as older adults are hard chargers, based on the couple I know around here. I yearn for my just-past-college days in WMass where you could always find a pickup game of barely capable skaters and nobody cared about the score. And I yearn even more for those midnight pickup games at Lynah ...
Bill,
Your comments about middle school advice intrigues me. I'm In NJ also and in my town, where I coach HS hockey, the advice is most assuredly NOT that a kid concentrate on only one sport. Would love to discuss that with you.
In fact, as a hockey coach, I love it when hockey players play lacrosse in the spring...along with spring league hockey, of course. [/q]
We're in Westfield (Parkway Exit 137, as you know one says by way of reference in NJ), one of those classic upscale Republican WASPish commuting towns (and then we moved in). A couple of our boys' friends are doing the all-lax all-the-time bit including the summer camps; others are doing soccer the same way. Westfield feeds a couple kids to Division I and a bunch more to Division II and III lacrosse colleges, and to soccer schools, and maybe already they’re thinking they could start for the Blue Devils or Bucknell or Cornell if only they’re a little bit better. There was a powerful piece in Sports Illustrated last fall (summer?) about the death of the three-sport athlete in all but the smallest high school towns because of the desire to specialize early on.
I’m hoping our kids specialize in being kids. Our older boy just wants to be a goalie in whatever sport is in season plus roller hockey year-round and the younger one wants to play whatever his friends play. So far they haven't felt the need to go a) traveling or b) single sport. The big question is whether to jump from indoor roller hockey (cheap, fun, readily available rink time, a lot more like ice hockey than I ever imagined possible, and did I mention cheap) to ice hockey (ka-ching). I must say I also like roller hockey / hockey because it cuts across all demographics better than lacrosse. Outside the rink, there are rusty pickup trucks and X5's parked side by side; in comparison our four-boy neighborhood lax car pool is Expedition out, Excursion back Mondays; Escalade out, our Odyssey back Thursdays. Their little butts touch nothing but supple leather except when we drive.)
You may have noticed some of my comments in other threads about my preference for artistry not violence in sports. In part it's because our two kids will probably be 5'9" not 6'3" and I really do like seeing skilled players rather than pugilists. The seventh grade lax team had two kids (one from each side) tossed out for fighting this weekend. Sheesh.
The coaches we know do a great job teaching life skills. They say: “You’re responsible for your uniform being ready, having your mouthguard; you have to have your homework done before practice, you need to know when the game is. Don’t tell me your mom forgot what time the game is; *you* forgot.†In lacrosse, everybody plays for three quarters; if the game is close, then the best kids move to midfield and attack in the fourth quarter.
The other thing that's tough around here is finding adult leagues for hockey over 40. So I go to the exercise classes at the Y where it's two old guys like me and twenty dazzling women in spandex. Most of the guys still playing hockey as older adults are hard chargers, based on the couple I know around here. I yearn for my just-past-college days in WMass where you could always find a pickup game of barely capable skaters and nobody cared about the score. And I yearn even more for those midnight pickup games at Lynah ...
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.