2028 Girls Lacrosse

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, Folks Guy, let’s agree to stop posting until after the football game! JSG

Ah .. “look” guy

To be fair, FG, it only works if there is a history of starting posts with that. You are really sensitive. Did not mean to upset you. To Be Fair Guy.

Of course you did. That’s why you’re here, JSG, LG, TBFG

Really did not mean to. In all honesty, thus the no ill will post.

Was that the no-ill-will post with the gratuitous “you are really sensitive” shot?

Let’s reset. Fair?

The rise-above move after getting called out. Sure, bro

Of course, this is an anonymous post so what’s the point of being friends.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given the number of girls who tryout for Capital (and from what I’ve read on this thread, the politics involved) is anyone thinking of having their daughter tryout for any MD teams this summer, assuming they are all not scheduled at the same time?

Tryout is a loose term for Capital. If you don’t have a good idea your DD will make the team going into the tryouts then you are not in the know. Tryouts are not for 20-21 spots, maybe 3-5.

I am sorry to be repetitive here, but I think you have it backwards. There are maybe 3-5 locked down spots and the rest are up for grabs.

Nope. Have had two go through the process. Work the room. The team is pretty much know before tryouts.

How do you know this? Is it just Stars and Pride players who have locks on spots at 2028? I was the one who posted about trying out for a MD club and if it is just going to be Pride and Stars then I am inclined to try a MD team.

Trust me, Capital loves to grab girls from all over. They will pick a lot from Stars and Pride, but they are definitely going to be picking girls from a lot of other clubs too

I hope so. Reading this thread and it sounds like Capital has already decided on the girls (which I am sure is true to some extent just want to keep options open with other clubs - and no, I am not trying to start a MD v Capital debate).

They haven’t decided. These comments are from parents pushing this narrative trying to oversell their below average player making Capital

Correct. They have not decided. Show up for the workouts and do your best to get noticed.

They probably know a third of the girls they want for the Blue team. The rest is wide open. That’s is about right players. These will most likely be your Pride and Stars girls, yes because that is who they have been following the most. But trust me, they are picking the best ATHLETES, which sometimes are not always the best lacrosse players right away

Exactly... They are picking the most recruitable lacrosse players, not the best 8th grade lacrosse players.

If you are a field player and don't have elite size or elite speed, it will be difficult to make Capital Blue.

Let's go scour basketball courts and track practices. We now have the formula. They can learn how to hold the stick against Hero's and M&D next year.

[Anonymous]

Heros lost to Coppermine (again) this weekend. Paper tiger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Heros lost to Coppermine (again) this weekend. Paper tiger.

In what league?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Heros lost to Coppermine (again) this weekend. Paper tiger.

Not sure that losing to a team that is clearly best in the country at the 2028 level makes you a "paper tiger". I'm not affiliated with Hero's, nor in the group that argued they were going to overtake Coppermine and Eagle Stix. From the Fall and Spooky Nook results, I do think the competitive gap has narrowed a bit between Coppermine and Eagle Stix and the next group (Hero's, M&D, etc.). Assigning a great deal of weight to a winter league game might not make sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Heros lost to Coppermine (again) this weekend. Paper tiger.

And M&D Black beat them both in the same league... Might want to wait to see what happens on the full field in NGLL.

[Anonymous]

Box is not real lacrosse. Modified winter game at best. Let’s see what happens on the big field. Coppermine, Hero’s and M&D are all awesome. Will be fun to watch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Heros lost to Coppermine (again) this weekend. Paper tiger.

Troll post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My daughter topped out at 5 2” 98 lbs played for Capital Blue and went D1. You can shine without size and strength. Half of it was her heart.

My DD played for a top 20 D1 program. She was a tall strong attacker. After games she looked like she just finished a 12-round boxing match. At that level her size allowed her to catch feeds over smaller players. It was hard for smaller players to defend against her size. I think smaller players will struggle as the sport becomes more physical and players are bigger and better conditioned. I agree you don’t need size at every level of D1, but D1 is not an equal term as talent drops off quickly for the second half of D1 teams. Top DII/DIII teams will beat these teams and I think some top college club teams will give some D1 teams a run for their money.

I would be interested to see the full data rather than a few outliers. Average height by position would be interesting.

Current rosters of last year's top 10 (Northwestern, Boston College, Syracuse, Denver, North Carolina, James Madison, Loyola Maryland, Florida, Maryland, Notre Dame show the following average heights by position:

Attack 5'6"
Defense 5'6"
Midfield 5'6"
Goalie 5'6"
Total 5'6"

Shortest players are 5'2" (6 total). Tallest players are 6'0" (2 total).

Correction - Shortest player is 5'1" (1 total). Tallest players are 6'0" (6 total).

Average height is 5'6". 50th percentile height for 20 year old US women is about two inches shorter than that.

It is not clear to me what "elite" height is after looking at the data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My daughter topped out at 5 2” 98 lbs played for Capital Blue and went D1. You can shine without size and strength. Half of it was her heart.

My DD played for a top 20 D1 program. She was a tall strong attacker. After games she looked like she just finished a 12-round boxing match. At that level her size allowed her to catch feeds over smaller players. It was hard for smaller players to defend against her size. I think smaller players will struggle as the sport becomes more physical and players are bigger and better conditioned. I agree you don’t need size at every level of D1, but D1 is not an equal term as talent drops off quickly for the second half of D1 teams. Top DII/DIII teams will beat these teams and I think some top college club teams will give some D1 teams a run for their money.

I would be interested to see the full data rather than a few outliers. Average height by position would be interesting.

Current rosters of last year's top 10 (Northwestern, Boston College, Syracuse, Denver, North Carolina, James Madison, Loyola Maryland, Florida, Maryland, Notre Dame show the following average heights by position:

Attack 5'6"
Defense 5'6"
Midfield 5'6"
Goalie 5'6"
Total 5'6"

Shortest players are 5'2" (6 total). Tallest players are 6'0" (2 total).

Correction - Shortest player is 5'1" (1 total). Tallest players are 6'0" (6 total).

Average height is 5'6". 50th percentile height for 20 year old US women is about two inches shorter than that.

It is not clear to me what "elite" height is after looking at the data.

This is the distribution of height. Almost 50% of players are listed as 5'5", 5'6", or 5'7".

5'1" 0.3%
5'2" 4.0%
5'3" 6.3%
5'4" 10.5%
5'5" 15.6%
5'6" 17.9%
5'7" 14.5%
5'8" 10.8%
5'9" 8.5%
5'10" 7.1%
5'11" 2.8%
6'0" 1.7%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My daughter topped out at 5 2” 98 lbs played for Capital Blue and went D1. You can shine without size and strength. Half of it was her heart.

My DD played for a top 20 D1 program. She was a tall strong attacker. After games she looked like she just finished a 12-round boxing match. At that level her size allowed her to catch feeds over smaller players. It was hard for smaller players to defend against her size. I think smaller players will struggle as the sport becomes more physical and players are bigger and better conditioned. I agree you don’t need size at every level of D1, but D1 is not an equal term as talent drops off quickly for the second half of D1 teams. Top DII/DIII teams will beat these teams and I think some top college club teams will give some D1 teams a run for their money.

I would be interested to see the full data rather than a few outliers. Average height by position would be interesting.

Current rosters of last year's top 10 (Northwestern, Boston College, Syracuse, Denver, North Carolina, James Madison, Loyola Maryland, Florida, Maryland, Notre Dame show the following average heights by position:

Attack 5'6"
Defense 5'6"
Midfield 5'6"
Goalie 5'6"
Total 5'6"

Shortest players are 5'2" (6 total). Tallest players are 6'0" (2 total).

Correction - Shortest player is 5'1" (1 total). Tallest players are 6'0" (6 total).

Average height is 5'6". 50th percentile height for 20 year old US women is about two inches shorter than that.

It is not clear to me what "elite" height is after looking at the data.

This is the distribution of height. Almost 50% of players are listed as 5'5", 5'6", or 5'7".

5'1" 0.3%
5'2" 4.0%
5'3" 6.3%
5'4" 10.5%
5'5" 15.6%
5'6" 17.9%
5'7" 14.5%
5'8" 10.8%
5'9" 8.5%
5'10" 7.1%
5'11" 2.8%
6'0" 1.7%

It warms my heart that someone built this in Excel and did extra math.

Couple of observations:

(1) 20% are 5'4" and shorter, supporting the more anecdotal conclusions earlier that shorter players get recruited;

(2) 54.6% are 5'6" and under.

(3) Let's say 5'8", for the sake of argument, is "elite" height. Less than a third (30.9%) of D1 players (and hence recruits) are that height or taller.

Take aways:

Looks like top college lacrosse players are being recruited for something more than just elite height, although it probably helps.


Last question, did the super data guy who built this database, add a column for positions? It would be helpful to dig a layer deeper than the position average being 5'6" for everyone. I'm guessing the range is greater for middies and attackers than defenders and goalies, for instance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My daughter topped out at 5 2” 98 lbs played for Capital Blue and went D1. You can shine without size and strength. Half of it was her heart.

My DD played for a top 20 D1 program. She was a tall strong attacker. After games she looked like she just finished a 12-round boxing match. At that level her size allowed her to catch feeds over smaller players. It was hard for smaller players to defend against her size. I think smaller players will struggle as the sport becomes more physical and players are bigger and better conditioned. I agree you don’t need size at every level of D1, but D1 is not an equal term as talent drops off quickly for the second half of D1 teams. Top DII/DIII teams will beat these teams and I think some top college club teams will give some D1 teams a run for their money.

I would be interested to see the full data rather than a few outliers. Average height by position would be interesting.

Current rosters of last year's top 10 (Northwestern, Boston College, Syracuse, Denver, North Carolina, James Madison, Loyola Maryland, Florida, Maryland, Notre Dame show the following average heights by position:

Attack 5'6"
Defense 5'6"
Midfield 5'6"
Goalie 5'6"
Total 5'6"

Shortest players are 5'2" (6 total). Tallest players are 6'0" (2 total).

Correction - Shortest player is 5'1" (1 total). Tallest players are 6'0" (6 total).

Average height is 5'6". 50th percentile height for 20 year old US women is about two inches shorter than that.

It is not clear to me what "elite" height is after looking at the data.

This is the distribution of height. Almost 50% of players are listed as 5'5", 5'6", or 5'7".

5'1" 0.3%
5'2" 4.0%
5'3" 6.3%
5'4" 10.5%
5'5" 15.6%
5'6" 17.9%
5'7" 14.5%
5'8" 10.8%
5'9" 8.5%
5'10" 7.1%
5'11" 2.8%
6'0" 1.7%

Summary, 5'5"-5'9" seems to be the realistic range. Anything taller is bonus

[Anonymous]

There is a Super Data Guy? Oh my.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My daughter topped out at 5 2” 98 lbs played for Capital Blue and went D1. You can shine without size and strength. Half of it was her heart.

My DD played for a top 20 D1 program. She was a tall strong attacker. After games she looked like she just finished a 12-round boxing match. At that level her size allowed her to catch feeds over smaller players. It was hard for smaller players to defend against her size. I think smaller players will struggle as the sport becomes more physical and players are bigger and better conditioned. I agree you don’t need size at every level of D1, but D1 is not an equal term as talent drops off quickly for the second half of D1 teams. Top DII/DIII teams will beat these teams and I think some top college club teams will give some D1 teams a run for their money.

I would be interested to see the full data rather than a few outliers. Average height by position would be interesting.

Current rosters of last year's top 10 (Northwestern, Boston College, Syracuse, Denver, North Carolina, James Madison, Loyola Maryland, Florida, Maryland, Notre Dame show the following average heights by position:

Attack 5'6"
Defense 5'6"
Midfield 5'6"
Goalie 5'6"
Total 5'6"

Shortest players are 5'2" (6 total). Tallest players are 6'0" (2 total).

Correction - Shortest player is 5'1" (1 total). Tallest players are 6'0" (6 total).

Average height is 5'6". 50th percentile height for 20 year old US women is about two inches shorter than that.

It is not clear to me what "elite" height is after looking at the data.

This is the distribution of height. Almost 50% of players are listed as 5'5", 5'6", or 5'7".

5'1" 0.3%
5'2" 4.0%
5'3" 6.3%
5'4" 10.5%
5'5" 15.6%
5'6" 17.9%
5'7" 14.5%
5'8" 10.8%
5'9" 8.5%
5'10" 7.1%
5'11" 2.8%
6'0" 1.7%

Since we are getting into data discussions, remember that most height is measured with cleats on, which adds an 1/2 inch.

That said, most girls in the middle range overstate their height on sportsrecruits by an inch or two

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My daughter topped out at 5 2” 98 lbs played for Capital Blue and went D1. You can shine without size and strength. Half of it was her heart.

My DD played for a top 20 D1 program. She was a tall strong attacker. After games she looked like she just finished a 12-round boxing match. At that level her size allowed her to catch feeds over smaller players. It was hard for smaller players to defend against her size. I think smaller players will struggle as the sport becomes more physical and players are bigger and better conditioned. I agree you don’t need size at every level of D1, but D1 is not an equal term as talent drops off quickly for the second half of D1 teams. Top DII/DIII teams will beat these teams and I think some top college club teams will give some D1 teams a run for their money.

I would be interested to see the full data rather than a few outliers. Average height by position would be interesting.

Current rosters of last year's top 10 (Northwestern, Boston College, Syracuse, Denver, North Carolina, James Madison, Loyola Maryland, Florida, Maryland, Notre Dame show the following average heights by position:

Attack 5'6"
Defense 5'6"
Midfield 5'6"
Goalie 5'6"
Total 5'6"

Shortest players are 5'2" (6 total). Tallest players are 6'0" (2 total).

Correction - Shortest player is 5'1" (1 total). Tallest players are 6'0" (6 total).

Average height is 5'6". 50th percentile height for 20 year old US women is about two inches shorter than that.

It is not clear to me what "elite" height is after looking at the data.

This is the distribution of height. Almost 50% of players are listed as 5'5", 5'6", or 5'7".

5'1" 0.3%
5'2" 4.0%
5'3" 6.3%
5'4" 10.5%
5'5" 15.6%
5'6" 17.9%
5'7" 14.5%
5'8" 10.8%
5'9" 8.5%
5'10" 7.1%
5'11" 2.8%
6'0" 1.7%

Since we are getting into data discussions, remember that most height is measured with cleats on, which adds an 1/2 inch.

That said, most girls in the middle range overstate their height on sportsrecruits by an inch or two

100%. This is rampant on football rosters. Everyone is an inch taller and 10 pounds heavier.