Wisconsin Badgers 2017-2018

[Timothy A]

Re: Wisconsin Badgers 2017-2018

I'll go beyond what you said, and state that Wisconsin's offense just wasn't very good. The two blowouts you mentioned came against Minnesota and UMD teams that were far below their optimum level due to injuries, Olympic qualifying, and a psychological meltdown. Aside from those two games and the WCHA final victory over a UMD team that played double overtime the night before, after Dec 1 they had exactly one game against a team with a winning record in which they scored more than 1 goal: the NCAA quarterfinal against Robert Morris.
They ran up the score against hopelessly overmatched teams. It's odd, because usually the ability to do that correlates with an ability to score against good teams, but not in this case.

No matter what UW's injuries/missing players have been, they have never been embarrassed like the rodents were on the Sunday. The excuse-O=meter just blew up. UMD was a 2 trick pony and that doesn't fly in the face of a deep team and/or when you are missing a pony.

You are missing the obvious answer to the lack of scoring against good teams......good teams have better players and therefore it's harder to score on them. A great team whoops the wimps and beats or even loses to the tough opponents in hard fought games. That's what UW did.

[Eeyore]

Re: Wisconsin Badgers 2017-2018

No matter what UW's injuries/missing players have been, they have never been embarrassed like the rodents were on the Sunday. The excuse-O=meter just blew up. UMD was a 2 trick pony and that doesn't fly in the face of a deep team and/or when you are missing a pony.

You are missing the obvious answer to the lack of scoring against good teams......good teams have better players and therefore it's harder to score on them. A great team whoops the wimps and beats or even loses to the tough opponents in hard fought games. That's what UW did.

UMD was more than a 2-trick pony, but the tricks you are thinking of, plus four other players, were missing when you blew them out, so you don't actually have any idea whether it would work against a good team. As for the Gophers, you misunderstand. I'm not making excuses; they melted down and it took almost two months for them to right the ship. That's on them. But, from the Badgers' perspective, beating them 8-2 wasn't as impressive as it looks, because Minnesota wasn't actually a good team at that point.

Yes, you score less against good teams. But, if you can't ever score more than one goal against them without a significant handicap in your favor, it means that your offense isn't good. Wisconsin's offense wasn't good, unless you think beating up on teams with sub .400 records is the mark of quality.

[ARM]

Re: Wisconsin Badgers 2017-2018

You are missing the obvious answer to the lack of scoring against good teams......good teams have better players and therefore it's harder to score on them. A great team whoops the wimps and beats or even loses to the tough opponents in hard fought games. That's what UW did.

Last year the Badgers had 8 games where they scored less than twice. That's a high total for a great team, especially a great team that features a powerful offense. When the Gophers started their winning streak in 2012, they went the next 99 games scoring two or more goals. As superb as Wisconsin was defensively, it is harder to post Ws if you need to shut the other team out to have a chance to do so. None of Minnesota's NCAA Championship teams had a year where they had more than four games where they scored fewer than two goals.

I disagree with Eeyore, in that I think that Wisconsin had the pieces to be great offensively. Ultimately, the Badgers weren't great in the offensive end, but I'm still not sure why they weren't. At least Nurse was always visible, making things happen -- she just didn't put enough of her prime chances on net to rack up points at the rate that her talent suggested she should. Much lesser players than Nurse have finished with more than 137 points in a career. Pankowski can snipe as well as anyone, but she seems to disappear at times, and I have no idea why that is. The rest of the team put a lot of shots on goal, but I couldn't tell if they were shooting to score or just shooting for the sake of shooting.

Last season wasn't an isolated problem. Wisconsin has had trouble finishing for a number of years. It just stood out more last year because the talent level at forward looked to be higher than it has been in a while, and the Badgers dominated play so much of the time, yet managed to hit so many scoring droughts.

[D2D]

Re: Wisconsin Badgers 2017-2018

The rest of the team put a lot of shots on goal, but I couldn't tell if they were shooting to score or just shooting for the sake of shooting.

A problem shared by one other team I can think of, unfortunately.

[Eeyore]

Re: Wisconsin Badgers 2017-2018

I disagree with Eeyore, in that I think that Wisconsin had the pieces to be great offensively.

I think we're mostly on the same page. I agree that, on paper, they ought to have had a good offense. The Badgers had a goodly number of players who had been quality scorers in previous seasons. In practice, though, it was not a good offense. I have no idea why, and I think we're mostly disagreeing on semantics.

The one part where I disagree is that it didn't surprise me at all that Nurse didn't pick up a lot of goals. From her freshman year, she struck me as one of those players who, if only she could shoot, would have been a Hall of Famer. She does everything else well, including mesmerizing speed. But she never had much of a shot, and that's the kind of player whose numbers we would expect to fall off if her teammates' scoring goes south, because she's a complementary player. A ****ed good one, but a complementary player nonetheless. There's a reason a good shot is a coach's most coveted ability: it's both critically important, and rare.

[Timothy A]

Re: Wisconsin Badgers 2017-2018

Last season wasn't an isolated problem. Wisconsin has had trouble finishing for a number of years. It just stood out more last year because the talent level at forward looked to be higher than it has been in a while, and the Badgers dominated play so much of the time, yet managed to hit so many scoring droughts.

As you all know, I my knowledge is deficient in many ways , including hockey X's & O's, but from that point of view are the systems that MJ runs too offensively conservative? I can recall many times wondering why the 3rd player on the forecheck didn't go create a 3 on 2 in the corner or behind the net to gain possession when it was 2 on 2. I especially recall the 3rd player staying high against the rodents.

[gwhinwi]

Re: Wisconsin Badgers 2017-2018

As you all know, I my knowledge is deficient in many ways , including hockey X's & O's, but from that point of view are the systems that MJ runs too offensively conservative? I can recall many times wondering why the 3rd player on the forecheck didn't go create a 3 on 2 in the corner or behind the net to gain possession when it was 2 on 2. I especially recall the 3rd player staying high against the rodents.

Possibly to prevent the breakout in the event of a defensive change? Gophers are a dangerous team, so maybe they played on the side of caution in those games.

I seem to recall noticing this a few times during the season, but might be just mis-remembering things.

[Eeyore]

Re: Wisconsin Badgers 2017-2018

I don't know that I'd say that he's too offensively conservative. Keeping in mind that the only times I see Wisconsin play are against Minnesota and in the WCHA and NCAA semis and finals, Johnson is definitely more conservative than Frost is, but it's a matter of approach rather than one being necessarily better than the other.

Some of it depends upon the personnel. The Gophers often do send that third forechecker in deep. 4-7 years ago, it was a lethal system, because the forwards were collectively so fast that it was hard to beat them down the rink even if you forced a turnover; the backcheckers would catch you anyway. In the meantime, they could generate mismatches deep in the offensive zone. The last couple of years, without the same collective team speed, they've been giving up a lot of odd man rushes.

Something similar could be happening with the Badgers. They could play a very conservative system, because they had forwards with the specific skill sets to transition quickly and generate scoring. Among other things, this requires having forwards who are both fast and can put the puck in the net. I don't see them enough to be sure, but maybe last year's team had a bunch of forwards who were either fast or could shoot, but not both. Nurse had the speed, but not the shot. Pankowski can shoot, but doesn't seem especially fast. Those are players who either need to have some linemates that can do both, or would be good scorers in a different system.

There aren't many coaches at any level who can be so flexible with their systems that they can succeed with top level talent without regards to specific skill sets. Perhaps is as simple as that, with commitments being made earlier and earlier, even if you are right about who the best players are going to be 3-4 years in advance, you can't be right about exactly how they are going to be good.

[GTOWN]

Re: Wisconsin Badgers 2017-2018

I don't know that I'd say that he's too offensively conservative. Keeping in mind that the only times I see Wisconsin play are against Minnesota and in the WCHA and NCAA semis and finals, Johnson is definitely more conservative than Frost is, but it's a matter of approach rather than one being necessarily better than the other.

Some of it depends upon the personnel. The Gophers often do send that third forechecker in deep. 4-7 years ago, it was a lethal system, because the forwards were collectively so fast that it was hard to beat them down the rink even if you forced a turnover; the backcheckers would catch you anyway. In the meantime, they could generate mismatches deep in the offensive zone. The last couple of years, without the same collective team speed, they've been giving up a lot of odd man rushes.

Something similar could be happening with the Badgers. They could play a very conservative system, because they had forwards with the specific skill sets to transition quickly and generate scoring. Among other things, this requires having forwards who are both fast and can put the puck in the net. I don't see them enough to be sure, but maybe last year's team had a bunch of forwards who were either fast or could shoot, but not both. Nurse had the speed, but not the shot. Pankowski can shoot, but doesn't seem especially fast. Those are players who either need to have some linemates that can do both, or would be good scorers in a different system.

There aren't many coaches at any level who can be so flexible with their systems that they can succeed with top level talent without regards to specific skill sets. Perhaps is as simple as that, with commitments being made earlier and earlier, even if you are right about who the best players are going to be 3-4 years in advance, you can't be right about exactly how they are going to be good.

I think you're on to something. I'm sure every coach has a preferred style of playing but given that they are committing to girls 3-4 years before they actually play it makes it difficult to scout for a particular skill set. The speedy 14 year old may not be the speedy 19 year old. Skill is skill but overall progression isn't always linear.

In my view this will further separate the "ok" coaches from the truly good coaches. The good coaches will be able, as you point out, to adjust their systems to their roster more effectively.

[Leather helmet]

Re: Wisconsin Badgers 2017-2018

I think you're on to something. I'm sure every coach has a preferred style of playing but given that they are committing to girls 3-4 years before they actually play it makes it difficult to scout for a particular skill set. The speedy 14 year old may not be the speedy 19 year old. Skill is skill but overall progression isn't always linear.

In my view this will further separate the "ok" coaches from the truly good coaches. The good coaches will be able, as you point out, to adjust their systems to their roster more effectively.

What seems apparent to me, with the earlier commitments, is that this will lead to a wider dispersion of talent across the entire map.* In the old days, when coaches were recruiting HS juniors, it was pretty apparent who the top players were, and how they would fit into your system.

When you fill out your recruiting class with 14 and 15 year olds, the late-bloomers will be going to schools that would not have had a shot at those players in the past.

*If this theory pans out, it would be the first time.

[Sieve1]

What seems apparent to me, with the earlier commitments, is that this will lead to a wider dispersion of talent across the entire map.* In the old days, when coaches were recruiting HS juniors, it was pretty apparent who the top players were, and how they would fit into your system.

When you fill out your recruiting class with 14 and 15 year olds, the late-bloomers will be going to schools that would not have had a shot at those players in the past.

*If this theory pans out, it would be the first time.

A recent conversation with a D1 head coach indicated that there may be a movement to ban early recruiting in women's hockey, similar to the new ban in men's lacrosse (no contact or commitments at all until 9/1 of junior yr in HS) Time will tell if that is where things are headed.

[Timothy A]

Re: Wisconsin Badgers 2017-2018

A recent conversation with a D1 head coach indicated that there may be a movement to ban early recruiting in women's hockey, similar to the new ban in men's lacrosse (no contact or commitments at all until 9/1 of junior yr in HS) Time will tell if that is where things are headed.

I can't imagine anyone who would be against this. UW and UM would still get the best players due the facilities and coaches, and it would minimize their risk. It would give other teams a shot at great players. There's no way Mankato can expend time and money recruiting 14 yr olds.

[Sieve1]

I can't imagine anyone who would be against this. UW and UM would still get the best players due the facilities and coaches, and it would minimize their risk. It would give other teams a shot at great players. There's no way Mankato can expend time and money recruiting 14 yr olds.

Not to mention getting a look at a few semesters of a high school transcript...
The overall reaction from lacrosse coaches, players & parents after this summer's recruiting season has been positive. Instead of scouting all the rising freshmen, the coaches watched the older kids who have actually played a couple of years in high school. And the 13 year olds can now relax and not stress out if they're not verbally committed by freshman year. I hope women's hockey does adopt some stronger rules but it will likely need support of the influential programs to get it going.

[hockeymakesmebroke]

Re: Wisconsin Badgers 2017-2018

We will get a first hand glimpse at what recruiting mainly seniors may look like when Holy Cross plays their first full season of D1 in 2018-19. They have the perfect opportunity to go get the talent that is left behind because programs chose to commit to 14 and 15 year olds and have no room now for the girls that were late bloomers. We all know they're out there. Wouldn't that really bolster the movement to ban early recruitment if they were able to field a strong, competitive team. I for one am rooting for them.

[KTDC]

Re: Wisconsin Badgers 2017-2018

It seems to me ending early recruiting would be a good thing for the top programs.

A lot of people think the end of early recruiting in LaCrosse will increase the power of the club coaches.

Here's some opinions from LaCrosse people(early opinions from just after the announcement). The views and opinions expressed in the following are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of me:

4 months ago
Any parent that thinks this is a great thing for the kids, probably hasnt been through the successful recruiting process with a high level d1 athlete. I would love to see a poll of committed players parents to see if they think this is a benefit. This rule is a win win for the coaches, their money making camps and clinics, and of course all those companies that put on those player showcases. I see the high dollar lax clubs with their paid recruiters having no problem navigating through the new rule and their players will be committed right after Sept 1st of their junior year. There is no benefit to the average laxer on a small indy club, and recruiting just got tougher for them unless they dont care about playing anything but d3.

4 months ago
You are sooooooooo... correct. Major schools with resources will benefit. The mid majors will suffer. Plus how would like to start a new program under these rules. It will hurt the growth of game. Go find players, player parents (especially those who have to put 2-3+ kids into college) and see how they view this. I would guess these changes are favored by coaches and uslax people who don't have children!

3 months ago
Could not agree more. And the idea that kids will have more free time is a joke. IF their parents can afford the camps and clinics, all holiday breaks will be spent chasing camps. The IWLCA continues to add more tournaments for freshman. So how is that taking any pressure off kids? This legislation takes all of the risk off of the coaches and now the player assumes all risk by chasing tournaments and camps until junior year without any feedback unless they can pay for it by attending camps.

4 months ago
A ray of sanity that will primarily benefit kids. Kudos to all involved.

3 months ago
My son is one of the few early commits. His reaction is that it has taken a lot of pressure off and he can focus on school, enjoy his lacrosse and not worry. I don't think early verbal commitment is for every student-athlete, but the university he made his verbal to at this time is a great fit. He has known what he would like to major in since he was in 4th grade (engineering/building roads or hotels or bridges) and has wanted to play lacrosse in college since 6th grade (he has 4 older brothers - it helps you see yourself doing something similar). Knowing this, he has attended summer lacrosse camp at 3 universities, showcases at half a dozen other and several collegiate games at other campuses. His consistent love of the game and efforts to get better, coupled with athletic ability and support from his older brother that plays helped him make an informed decision.

2 months ago
My son was an early commit as well and his fit was perfect for him too. He will start college this fall. I have had two other sons that have played DI as well and while they did not commit as early, I didn't see any benefit in their later commitments over our other son's early commitment. Now I have a rising freshmen that would also like to play in college and all I see is $$$ with the prospect camps, club team and showcases he will have to attend.