Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:You are correct. They also had fast breaks but then would slow the play down to turn over the ball. Not sure what the strategy is, but it does not work for them. And none of them were aggressive on the goal. GC has 20+ girls that would start on any team. sJC has at most 8. They were no match for GC, but who is in this area??
Why would anyone choose a team that deep? Good for the program but there are other schools with better academic reputations and where talented players would actually play. It’s one thing to choose a college program knowing you might not play but care more about winning a championship but for high school I would think most players would rather just play on a competitive team.
Here we go again with this nonsense…
Not sure why it’s nonsense? The end game is college—with or without lacrosse and even with lacrosse these girls will have careers. So if GC is the best academic fit and the girl is ok not playing as much as at another school then great, but otherwise why wouldn’t girls choose schools where they’d play more and perhaps have stronger academics.
What a stupid, elitist comment.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:You are correct. They also had fast breaks but then would slow the play down to turn over the ball. Not sure what the strategy is, but it does not work for them. And none of them were aggressive on the goal. GC has 20+ girls that would start on any team. sJC has at most 8. They were no match for GC, but who is in this area??
Why would anyone choose a team that deep? Good for the program but there are other schools with better academic reputations and where talented players would actually play. It’s one thing to choose a college program knowing you might not play but care more about winning a championship but for high school I would think most players would rather just play on a competitive team.
Here we go again with this nonsense…
Not sure why it’s nonsense? The end game is college—with or without lacrosse and even with lacrosse these girls will have careers. So if GC is the best academic fit and the girl is ok not playing as much as at another school then great, but otherwise why wouldn’t girls choose schools where they’d play more and perhaps have stronger academics.
What a stupid, elitist comment.
Different strokes for different folks. The end game is life. It is a fallacy to assume a player does not have a meaningful role on a team and/or experience if they do not play in a game. Some reasons why a girl would not pursue a school with perceived stronger academics and a less competitive lacrosse program could include but not be limited to the following: cost, friends, life goals, distance, siblings, community, values/faith, and the desire to improve by practicing with and against better players, not to mention better coaching. You can also certainly attend a more competitive academic school for a similar set of reasons and it is completely valid if a player wants to attend a school that is a more appropriate fit for their athletic ability. Again, different strokes for different folks.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:You are correct. They also had fast breaks but then would slow the play down to turn over the ball. Not sure what the strategy is, but it does not work for them. And none of them were aggressive on the goal. GC has 20+ girls that would start on any team. sJC has at most 8. They were no match for GC, but who is in this area??
Why would anyone choose a team that deep? Good for the program but there are other schools with better academic reputations and where talented players would actually play. It’s one thing to choose a college program knowing you might not play but care more about winning a championship but for high school I would think most players would rather just play on a competitive team.
Here we go again with this nonsense…
Not sure why it’s nonsense? The end game is college—with or without lacrosse and even with lacrosse these girls will have careers. So if GC is the best academic fit and the girl is ok not playing as much as at another school then great, but otherwise why wouldn’t girls choose schools where they’d play more and perhaps have stronger academics.
What a stupid, elitist comment.
really good is not what the SJC wants to be remembered and I don’t believe for a second SJC coach would say stop scoring on 19-8, and 8 is a lot of goals to give up for a really good team. SJC number of club players compared to Seton on paper would not give up 8, 19 is all SJC could get to. The SJC families definitely wanted/and expected closer scores between GC and SR, more like the Visi game, thus the other scores does not indicate not running up the score.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Sadly for SJC those teams r not even in the same ball park as GC. Good for Seton to score 8.Anonymous wrote:GC beat SJC 16-7
Yet SJC beat the following teams
Ireton 18-6
Cicero 19-8
Bullis 19-7
Seton 19-8
Holy Cross 17-6
What are we even talking about here?
I think the OP was trying to make a point on running up the score which didn't land.
Either way, what that post also shows is that SJC is really good, and GC is still playing at a different level.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:You are correct. They also had fast breaks but then would slow the play down to turn over the ball. Not sure what the strategy is, but it does not work for them. And none of them were aggressive on the goal. GC has 20+ girls that would start on any team. sJC has at most 8. They were no match for GC, but who is in this area??
Why would anyone choose a team that deep? Good for the program but there are other schools with better academic reputations and where talented players would actually play. It’s one thing to choose a college program knowing you might not play but care more about winning a championship but for high school I would think most players would rather just play on a competitive team.
Here we go again with this nonsense…
Not sure why it’s nonsense? The end game is college—with or without lacrosse and even with lacrosse these girls will have careers. So if GC is the best academic fit and the girl is ok not playing as much as at another school then great, but otherwise why wouldn’t girls choose schools where they’d play more and perhaps have stronger academics.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:You are correct. They also had fast breaks but then would slow the play down to turn over the ball. Not sure what the strategy is, but it does not work for them. And none of them were aggressive on the goal. GC has 20+ girls that would start on any team. sJC has at most 8. They were no match for GC, but who is in this area??
Why would anyone choose a team that deep? Good for the program but there are other schools with better academic reputations and where talented players would actually play. It’s one thing to choose a college program knowing you might not play but care more about winning a championship but for high school I would think most players would rather just play on a competitive team.
Here we go again with this nonsense…
Not sure why it’s nonsense? The end game is college—with or without lacrosse and even with lacrosse these girls will have careers. So if GC is the best academic fit and the girl is ok not playing as much as at another school then great, but otherwise why wouldn’t girls choose schools where they’d play more and perhaps have stronger academics.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:You are correct. They also had fast breaks but then would slow the play down to turn over the ball. Not sure what the strategy is, but it does not work for them. And none of them were aggressive on the goal. GC has 20+ girls that would start on any team. sJC has at most 8. They were no match for GC, but who is in this area??
Why would anyone choose a team that deep? Good for the program but there are other schools with better academic reputations and where talented players would actually play. It’s one thing to choose a college program knowing you might not play but care more about winning a championship but for high school I would think most players would rather just play on a competitive team.
Here we go again with this nonsense…
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:You are correct. They also had fast breaks but then would slow the play down to turn over the ball. Not sure what the strategy is, but it does not work for them. And none of them were aggressive on the goal. GC has 20+ girls that would start on any team. sJC has at most 8. They were no match for GC, but who is in this area??
Why would anyone choose a team that deep? Good for the program but there are other schools with better academic reputations and where talented players would actually play. It’s one thing to choose a college program knowing you might not play but care more about winning a championship but for high school I would think most players would rather just play on a competitive team.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Sadly for SJC those teams r not even in the same ball park as GC. Good for Seton to score 8.Anonymous wrote:GC beat SJC 16-7
Yet SJC beat the following teams
Ireton 18-6
Cicero 19-8
Bullis 19-7
Seton 19-8
Holy Cross 17-6
What are we even talking about here?
I think the OP was trying to make a point on running up the score which didn't land.
Either way, what that post also shows is that SJC is really good, and GC is still playing at a different level.
SJC will give GC a game in WCAC tournament. Guaranteed. Write it down.
You all spent the whole season whining about your coach and now your going to give GC a game?
I guess you're all back on your meds. [/quote
No whining here. I believe SJC thrives in playoffs. Should be a great game vs GC in finals.
Thrives in the playoffs? Last year in the semi-final SJC lost, at home, to a team you had already beat by 4. Then backed out of the DC championship.