Jump to content



UAlbany Athletics- America East-
SOCIAL MEDIA: UAlbany Facebook- UAlbany Instagram- UAlbany Twitter- UAlbany Blog-
MEDIA: Albany Student Press- America East TV- ESPN3- Schenectady Gazette- The Team 104.5 ESPN Radio- The Team 104.5 ESPN Radio Archive interviews- Times Union College Sports- Times Union Sports- WCDB- WOFX 980-
FALL SPORTS LINKS: CAA Football-
WINTER SPORTS LINKS: College Insider- Pomeroy Ratings- Real TimeRPI-
SPRING SPORTS LINKS: Inside Lacrosse- Lax Power Backup Stick-
OTHER FORUMS: America East Forum- Any Given Saturday Forum- Championship Subdivision forum(1-AA Discussion) The Hen House - Siena Forum- Stony Brook Forum- Vermont Forum

Recommended Posts

U Mass Lowell Takes down VT 8 - 4  WHAT??  I have said all year that Vermont is over rated!  Depends on how we play up there next weekend I guess.

Edited by HOF2013
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

U Mass Lowell Takes down VT 8 - 4  WHAT??  I have said all year that Vermont is over rated!  Depends on how we play up there next weekend I guess.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not praising UVM as a superior team, but they played better today. If your opponent keeps shooting itself in the foot you can take advantage or not...and they did take advantag

I hate watching this.  For 7 or 8 years we have watched high quality lax by skilled UA players.  This year is watching junior high players.  Horrible.

7 hours ago, HOF2013 said:

U Mass Lowell Takes down VT 8 - 4  WHAT??  I have said all year that Vermont is over rated!  Depends on how we play up there next weekend I guess.

I watched the game. The Lowell goalie played out of his mind. I want to say he had over twenty saves, a lot of them were really good ones. I agree that since Feifs took over at UVM they have become a media darling as the team that is going to take over the conference. UVM looks really pretty playing, and with the way we slide too much we could wind up creating a lot of offense for them. Their leading scorer took a head shot and had to leave the game.

I wouldn't be surprised if we ran the table and went 3-0 or went 1-2 the rest of the way in conference play. I don't know how the tie breakers works, but right now with UVM losing to UML, and Hartford beating Stony Brook we have the pole position at the moment.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AlbanyFan2018 said:

I watched the game. The Lowell goalie played out of his mind. I want to say he had over twenty saves, a lot of them were really good ones. I agree that since Feifs took over at UVM they have become a media darling as the team that is going to take over the conference. UVM looks really pretty playing, and with the way we slide too much we could wind up creating a lot of offense for them. Their leading scorer took a head shot and had to leave the game.

I wouldn't be surprised if we ran the table and went 3-0 or went 1-2 the rest of the way in conference play. I don't know how the tie breakers works, but right now with UVM losing to UML, and Hartford beating Stony Brook we have the pole position at the moment.

They have been the darling of the media for at least the last two years [must be a couple of Inside Lacrosse guys are buds with the coach!] and they play NOBODY!    We play top 10 teams and top 20 teams.  Teams like Vermont actually HURT our league.  The league competition partly determines national ranking and our league is ranked low because of who the other teams play!  Vermont continues to have a good win-loss record but it is against the bottom 30 ranked teams.  Maybe their coach thinks it will help recruiting.  I have been saying for the last several years that it hurts the league in the over-all picture of things.

UMBC did play Richmond and lost
Hartford did play Harvard and lost 
UMass Lowell did play UMass and lost
Vermont did play Boston U and lost
Stony Brook did play Penn state- lost 
Binghamton did play Army and lost

None of these losses were close at all

Edited by HOF2013
Link to post
Share on other sites

Caught Coach Marr on the radio earlier. He said UA has to play better than it played against Hartford to beat UVM which I agree with. Repeated for the umpteenth time about letting in goals they shouldn't but we still haven't seen any real changes on the defense or if there are any to make??

An interesting stat. With the shot clock no team is averaging single digit turnovers a game, and I think he said the best is 12 per game and we are at 15 per game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had mixed feelings about having a shot clock. Still not convinced? There was an Inside Lacrosse article recently evaluating it to date. The article was pretty poorly written and "seemed" to indicate the clock has NOT been a positive addition; but in its concluding statement said it WAS/IS successful?? I was confused and still am.

What I got out of the article and maybe I just read it wrong:  clock has NOT decreased overall length of the game:  scoring up per possessions (which is a duh if you ask me), but overall scoring is only up slightly: # of possessions is obviously up (another duh):  pace based on some weird formula appears up, but contradicted by overall games are longer than pre-shot clock. 

The article failed to address what I perceive maybe happening:  historically offensive minded teams are scoring LESS and defensive teams and/or teams with poorer offenses are scoring MORE. The net result maybe more points per game overall, but are we getting better games???

My early, IMHO the shot clock seems to have helped the poorer teams and have made them more competitive. I DO NOT really know if all the upsets and close games and inconsistent play throughout lax is related to the clock; but I would bet it is a factor. Or maybe the gap between the power teams/good teams/poor team is just narrowing naturally???  THOUGHTS OPINIONS??

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/1/2019 at 1:21 PM, AlbanyFan2018 said:

Caught Coach Marr on the radio earlier. He said UA has to play better than it played against Hartford to beat UVM which I agree with. Repeated for the umpteenth time about letting in goals they shouldn't but we still haven't seen any real changes on the defense or if there are any to make??

An interesting stat. With the shot clock no team is averaging single digit turnovers a game, and I think he said the best is 12 per game and we are at 15 per game.

THAT is interesting.  Puts us in a different light maybe.  But the Def, bad slides and getting caught flat footed.  My son who at 6'4" played LS Close Def for Albany [Was at Syracuse his freshman year and transferred to U Albany.  His Sr yr was first year D I at U A].  He was at his first game of the season and said that that the small attack man are just really quick and fast and one on one they just can not be stopped all the time [he disagrees with my flat footedness on the one-on-ones].  The issue is more the bad and unnecessary slides. So we are ALL in agreement on that.  The only thing I can say is that unless one of the others is BETTER than the Srs they will not take the spot.  That is actually the way coaching should be.  I've been there.  Had to miss a game because of my grandparents 50th anniversary many years ago.  My sub had two or three interceptions BUT coach Ford put me right back in there the next game.  

Edited by HOF2013
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/1/2019 at 3:00 PM, dslyank said:

I had mixed feelings about having a shot clock. Still not convinced? There was an Inside Lacrosse article recently evaluating it to date. The article was pretty poorly written and "seemed" to indicate the clock has NOT been a positive addition; but in its concluding statement said it WAS/IS successful?? I was confused and still am.

What I got out of the article and maybe I just read it wrong:  clock has NOT decreased overall length of the game:  scoring up per possessions (which is a duh if you ask me), but overall scoring is only up slightly: # of possessions is obviously up (another duh):  pace based on some weird formula appears up, but contradicted by overall games are longer than pre-shot clock. 

The article failed to address what I perceive maybe happening:  historically offensive minded teams are scoring LESS and defensive teams and/or teams with poorer offenses are scoring MORE. The net result maybe more points per game overall, but are we getting better games???

My early, IMHO the shot clock seems to have helped the poorer teams and have made them more competitive. I DO NOT really know if all the upsets and close games and inconsistent play throughout lax is related to the clock; but I would bet it is a factor. Or maybe the gap between the power teams/good teams/poor team is just narrowing naturally???  THOUGHTS OPINIONS??

"The article failed to address what I perceive maybe happening:  historically offensive minded teams are scoring LESS and defensive teams and/or teams with poorer offenses are scoring MORE. The net result maybe more points per game overall, but are we getting better games???

My early, IMHO the shot clock seems to have helped the poorer teams and have made them more competitive. I DO NOT really know if all the upsets and close games and inconsistent play throughout lax is related to the clock; but I would bet it is a factor. Or maybe the gap between the power teams/good teams/poor team is just narrowing naturally???  THOUGHTS OPINIONS??"

Agree 100%.  This is very well stated and exactly what I see happening - MAY be a reason there is so much parity this year in Men's DI Lacrosse!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HOF2013 said:

THAT is interesting.  Puts us in a different light maybe.  But the Def, bad slides and getting caught flat footed.  My son who at 6'4" played LS Close Def for Albany [Was at Syracuse his freshman year and transferred to U Albany.  His Sr yr was first year D I at U A].  He was at his first game of the season and said that that the small attack man are just really quick and fast and one on one they just can not be stopped all the time [he disagrees with my flat footedness on the one-on-ones].  The issue is more the bad and unnecessary slides. So we are ALL in agreement on that.  The only thing I can say is that unless one of the others is BETTER than the Srs they will not take the spot.  That is actually the way coaching should be.  I've been there.  Had to miss a game because of my grandparents 50th anniversary many years ago.  My sub had two or three interceptions BUT coach Ford put me right back in there the next game.  

I have said all year that our close D guys rarely get beat one one one. Dhluy had a rougher outing than usual against Hartford, but you have to tip your hat to the Hartford attackmen. A well executed question mark dodge is just about impossible to stop which is why most coaches coach no checks past GLE and push them wide so they have no angle. You could maybe find fault for letting him get to 5&5, but he wasn't beat to the goal per se.

Our slides have been bad and continue to be bad. That worries me against UVM. They can't beat our guys one on one, but with a lot of Canadians they have really good ball movement and feed well. If we get into our bad sliding and ball watching ways, Nate will have a lot of rubber flying at him. Other than Michling who is a big guy, there really is no reason to early slide to anyone on UVM.

We have 2-3 guys you have to early slide too, so hopefully as they mesh the offensive production will continue to improve.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AlbanyFan2018 said:

I have said all year that our close D guys rarely get beat one one one. Dhluy had a rougher outing than usual against Hartford, but you have to tip your hat to the Hartford attackmen. A well executed question mark dodge is just about impossible to stop which is why most coaches coach no checks past GLE and push them wide so they have no angle. You could maybe find fault for letting him get to 5&5, but he wasn't beat to the goal per se.

Our slides have been bad and continue to be bad. That worries me against UVM. They can't beat our guys one on one, but with a lot of Canadians they have really good ball movement and feed well. If we get into our bad sliding and ball watching ways, Nate will have a lot of rubber flying at him. Other than Michling who is a big guy, there really is no reason to early slide to anyone on UVM.

We have 2-3 guys you have to early slide too, so hopefully as they mesh the offensive production will continue to improve.

Can't disagree at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, AlbanyFan2018 said:

TU reporting Nate is in a cast.  I think either Will or Jason could step in a do a good job. Jason is the more like Nate in terms of style and size, and Will reminds me of JD.

THAT is not good, one bright spot for us all year!!!!  I do not know about the other two except the are backups at this point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...