2028 Girls Lacrosse

[Anonymous]

I will say this, the 28 girls in the Nova area isn’t nearly as strong as some of the other age levels. Hear is what I mean, yes, they have some very talented girls, but on a large scale, the number of talented girls are much lower at the 28 level for whatever reason

Now, the girls that are talented at the 28 level are very talented, but I have also noticed that these talented girls do lack size. So that could hurt them as well

Now, in July when they try out for Cap Blue, they will form a very strong team with some very talented players. But they will lack size and possibly depth

And yes, I am a parent of a 28. I see it very well. But Pride is hanging with the top teams. Replace about ten of them with seven stars girls and a couple of other clubs, and they will be a very small but strong team

Stars has a few new girls that have been playing very well. One from BLC and one from Next Level are doing very well. Stars draw girl has seen a ton of action and their main attacker is playing a more balanced game. The goalie is legit. All in all, they have improved, but are not going to beat Top 25 teams. They were able to hang in tight with Jesters though and CC Lax, but when you get to the Top 15, they just don’t have the depth

Pride in the other hand have some now depth, but just need a few more pieces to really put the hammer down on the top ten teams. This is why I say, it is god for these girls to play separately in middle school to hone in their skills. Because once they get to high school, they will all combine and be a major headache for the top ten teams

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have learned the conventional wisdom on other forums is the 2028 year is exceptionally weak in talent. One poster on another forum went through a (weak) analysis of all the years from high schoolers down to the 2030s still wearing diapers and skipped right over the 2028s like they don't even exist. On the Visi forum they say Visi's larosse implosion does not matter to recruiting because there are no good 2028s to recruit.

Now that we have gotten back together and are not yet fighting, what's the deal with others saying the 2028s suck? Are they really attacking the parents, who are always lurking? Or have the girls rightly earned the reputation? I see plenty of talent on various local 2028 teams plus the girls from the MD teams, and I think as a group they will likely be as successful as any other year. What do you all think?

the 2028 grade has been way underrated. There is definitely talent. With some girls, it's just starting to come out.

The DMV area is always a little slower at getting the talent out. Maryland loves to showcase their teams starting in elementary school. DMV will pull out all the stops when it counts in high school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I will say this, the 28 girls in the Nova area isn’t nearly as strong as some of the other age levels. Hear is what I mean, yes, they have some very talented girls, but on a large scale, the number of talented girls are much lower at the 28 level for whatever reason

Now, the girls that are talented at the 28 level are very talented, but I have also noticed that these talented girls do lack size. So that could hurt them as well

Now, in July when they try out for Cap Blue, they will form a very strong team with some very talented players. But they will lack size and possibly depth

And yes, I am a parent of a 28. I see it very well. But Pride is hanging with the top teams. Replace about ten of them with seven stars girls and a couple of other clubs, and they will be a very small but strong team

Stars has a few new girls that have been playing very well. One from BLC and one from Next Level are doing very well. Stars draw girl has seen a ton of action and their main attacker is playing a more balanced game. The goalie is legit. All in all, they have improved, but are not going to beat Top 25 teams. They were able to hang in tight with Jesters though and CC Lax, but when you get to the Top 15, they just don’t have the depth

Pride in the other hand have some now depth, but just need a few more pieces to really put the hammer down on the top ten teams. This is why I say, it is god for these girls to play separately in middle school to hone in their skills. Because once they get to high school, they will all combine and be a major headache for the top ten teams

Other than the first sentence, which is largely contradicted by the rest of the post, I think this is a reasonable take overall. Give these NOVA/DC/MD area girls another year. They are competing, improving, growing, and putting in the work on their game. The depth is emerging. Will be fun to watch them develop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have learned the conventional wisdom on other forums is the 2028 year is exceptionally weak in talent. One poster on another forum went through a (weak) analysis of all the years from high schoolers down to the 2030s still wearing diapers and skipped right over the 2028s like they don't even exist. On the Visi forum they say Visi's larosse implosion does not matter to recruiting because there are no good 2028s to recruit.

Now that we have gotten back together and are not yet fighting, what's the deal with others saying the 2028s suck? Are they really attacking the parents, who are always lurking? Or have the girls rightly earned the reputation? I see plenty of talent on various local 2028 teams plus the girls from the MD teams, and I think as a group they will likely be as successful as any other year. What do you all think?

What was “weak” about the analysis? Every point accurate and defendable. The *title* of that thread where it was posted stated “25s-30s” so yeah, those 30s “in diapers” were included too. Fact is DMV had a great showing at MidAtlantic - except for the 28s, who were skipped over because there isn’t much to celebrate when BLC goes 0-4 against marginal teams.

[Anonymous]

This is more like the 2028 parents I have come to know and love!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have learned the conventional wisdom on other forums is the 2028 year is exceptionally weak in talent. One poster on another forum went through a (weak) analysis of all the years from high schoolers down to the 2030s still wearing diapers and skipped right over the 2028s like they don't even exist. On the Visi forum they say Visi's larosse implosion does not matter to recruiting because there are no good 2028s to recruit.

Now that we have gotten back together and are not yet fighting, what's the deal with others saying the 2028s suck? Are they really attacking the parents, who are always lurking? Or have the girls rightly earned the reputation? I see plenty of talent on various local 2028 teams plus the girls from the MD teams, and I think as a group they will likely be as successful as any other year. What do you all think?

What was “weak” about the analysis? Every point accurate and defendable. The *title* of that thread where it was posted stated “25s-30s” so yeah, those 30s “in diapers” were included too. Fact is DMV had a great showing at MidAtlantic - except for the 28s, who were skipped over because there isn’t much to celebrate when BLC goes 0-4 against marginal teams.

Here is the "analysis" from the other board that excluded 2028s:

Anonymous wrote:Capital Blue 25s and 27s performed really well last weekend (with even rotations too, rather than favoring starters). Capital 26s didn’t have a winning record but kept games tight with good teams, which is what college coaches want to see. For 29s, between 3d Va, BLC, Pride and Stars, that should be a great class. 30s look good too.

[Anonymous]

And?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And?

1) Excellent job summarizing the weekend results from TourneyMachine.

2) DC-area lacrosse does not revolve around BLC.

3) College coaches do not care about "tight" games. They are looking at players, obviously.

4) The 2028 year in the DC area, which was not mentioned apparently because BLC 20208 does not meet certain standards, is actually very strong. Between the girls playing for Hero's, M&D, etc., and the girls playing for the various local teams, there is serious talent around here. I'd guess that is a top 5 team on a combined basis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And?

1) Excellent job summarizing the weekend results from TourneyMachine.

2) DC-area lacrosse does not revolve around BLC.

3) College coaches do not care about "tight" games. They are looking at players, obviously.

4) The 2028 year in the DC area, which was not mentioned apparently because BLC 20208 does not meet certain standards, is actually very strong. Between the girls playing for Hero's, M&D, etc., and the girls playing for the various local teams, there is serious talent around here. I'd guess that is a top 5 team on a combined basis.

1. You’re welcome.

2. The preceding thread was on MidAtlantic and the post focused on successful DMV area club performance. Pride 28 wasn’t there. Stars 28 played in a B bracket. 3d 28 too. BLC 28 was the only DMV team in an A bracket and they went 0-four. Hence: skipped over.

3. Vast majority of college coaches don’t attend games they know will be lopsided. Most attend games they know will be competitive to spot players who can hang with the top 10-15 teams. You don’t know this yet. “Tight,” obviously, was intended to, obviously, mean “competitive,” but I guess, obviously, I needed to, obviously, spell that out.

4. You’re conflating geographic-based DC players with DC players on MD clubs. Overall, the 28s don’t have the depth found in other years (pre and post). It’s why some DC players left BLC for Hero’s - they likely would have stayed if they were 27s or 29s. There will be enough players to farm a good Capital team, but may not be as strong as other years. Conversely, DMV club 29s look great and those DMV club 30s (the 6th graders you claim who still use “diapers”) look really strong, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have learned the conventional wisdom on other forums is the 2028 year is exceptionally weak in talent. One poster on another forum went through a (weak) analysis of all the years from high schoolers down to the 2030s still wearing diapers and skipped right over the 2028s like they don't even exist. On the Visi forum they say Visi's larosse implosion does not matter to recruiting because there are no good 2028s to recruit.

Now that we have gotten back together and are not yet fighting, what's the deal with others saying the 2028s suck? Are they really attacking the parents, who are always lurking? Or have the girls rightly earned the reputation? I see plenty of talent on various local 2028 teams plus the girls from the MD teams, and I think as a group they will likely be as successful as any other year. What do you all think?

the 2028 grade has been way underrated. There is definitely talent. With some girls, it's just starting to come out.

What does it mean it is just starting to come out? Is this a comment on late bloomers starting to hit their stride?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And?

1) Excellent job summarizing the weekend results from TourneyMachine.

2) DC-area lacrosse does not revolve around BLC.

3) College coaches do not care about "tight" games. They are looking at players, obviously.

4) The 2028 year in the DC area, which was not mentioned apparently because BLC 20208 does not meet certain standards, is actually very strong. Between the girls playing for Hero's, M&D, etc., and the girls playing for the various local teams, there is serious talent around here. I'd guess that is a top 5 team on a combined basis.

1. You’re welcome.

2. The preceding thread was on MidAtlantic and the post focused on successful DMV area club performance. Pride 28 wasn’t there. Stars 28 played in a B bracket. 3d 28 too. BLC 28 was the only DMV team in an A bracket and they went 0-four. Hence: skipped over.

3. Vast majority of college coaches don’t attend games they know will be lopsided. Most attend games they know will be competitive to spot players who can hang with the top 10-15 teams. You don’t know this yet. “Tight,” obviously, was intended to, obviously, mean “competitive,” but I guess, obviously, I needed to, obviously, spell that out.

4. You’re conflating geographic-based DC players with DC players on MD clubs. Overall, the 28s don’t have the depth found in other years (pre and post). It’s why some DC players left BLC for Hero’s - they likely would have stayed if they were 27s or 29s. There will be enough players to farm a good Capital team, but may not be as strong as other years. Conversely, DMV club 29s look great and those DMV club 30s (the 6th graders you claim who still use “diapers”) look really strong, too.

Um, not trying to argue, just providing facts. But the BLC 28 played in the second WEAKEST bracket at Mid Atlantic and went 0-4. If you look, the two highest brackets put two teams into the playoffs. I agree that Stars didn’t play in the A+ bracket, but they were in the B+ bracket.

The rest doesn’t matter as it has nothing to do with the 28s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And?

1) Excellent job summarizing the weekend results from TourneyMachine.

2) DC-area lacrosse does not revolve around BLC.

3) College coaches do not care about "tight" games. They are looking at players, obviously.

4) The 2028 year in the DC area, which was not mentioned apparently because BLC 20208 does not meet certain standards, is actually very strong. Between the girls playing for Hero's, M&D, etc., and the girls playing for the various local teams, there is serious talent around here. I'd guess that is a top 5 team on a combined basis.

1. You’re welcome.

2. The preceding thread was on MidAtlantic and the post focused on successful DMV area club performance. Pride 28 wasn’t there. Stars 28 played in a B bracket. 3d 28 too. BLC 28 was the only DMV team in an A bracket and they went 0-four. Hence: skipped over.

3. Vast majority of college coaches don’t attend games they know will be lopsided. Most attend games they know will be competitive to spot players who can hang with the top 10-15 teams. You don’t know this yet. “Tight,” obviously, was intended to, obviously, mean “competitive,” but I guess, obviously, I needed to, obviously, spell that out.

4. You’re conflating geographic-based DC players with DC players on MD clubs. Overall, the 28s don’t have the depth found in other years (pre and post). It’s why some DC players left BLC for Hero’s - they likely would have stayed if they were 27s or 29s. There will be enough players to farm a good Capital team, but may not be as strong as other years. Conversely, DMV club 29s look great and those DMV club 30s (the 6th graders you claim who still use “diapers”) look really strong, too.

My guess is the ‘28 Capital Blue team will be pretty competitive just assuming DMV girls are the potential pool. I say this based on watching Pride, NL and Stars play over the past 3-4 years. To me, Pride players will take the most spots followed by Stars and possibly 2-3 NL girls. There will also be unknown girls who tryout from places as far away as Richmond. Having said all that, the team just gets stronger if a player defects from a MD team but I would not count on that. I do not think ‘28 is as deep as other years so the Orange team may not be as competitive but this is all based off general observations.

[Anonymous]

There's a lot of growth and development that will occur for all of the 28's in their 8th grade year, but more importantly once they reach high school. For girls who want to play in college, Capital will continue attract the best in the DC area for high school, regardless of the program a girl played for in 8th grade. As a whole, DC which has shown great strides in the past few recruiting classes, is still weaker than other areas including Baltimore, NJ and CT

[Anonymous]

You also have to keep in mind that the capital coaches are looking to field a team that will work together and may not take every best player if it will create problems on the team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You also have to keep in mind that the capital coaches are looking to field a team that will work together and may not take every best player if it will create problems on the team.

That just doesn’t make sense, unless they are digging into the dirt about “problem” kids, how would they even know this stuff?