all tourney?

[laxdad54]

bste_lax did a great job from memory - will there be an offical announcement?

[bste_lax]

Division A

A - Mark Davis, BYU
A - Justin Hier, BYU
A - Clay Knope, Oregon


Like I said, I am not 100% sure but pretty sure on these.

I heard one name during the announcement that is missing from your list:

A - Danny Stevens, CSU

I don't believe Hier was all-tournament (although he played well enough to be). I thought I heard Stevens, Davis and Knope.

I made the changes to the list on the first page. Now that you guys mention it, it is starting to ring a bell.

[jmaxwell2]

I was actually doing stats for 2 Oregon games (Lindenwood I believe & Duluth.

Turtle was 18 of 23 in the first game.... He put the ball where he wanted it, & when he didn't win the draw, he was crafty enough to get it anyway.

Against Duluth, I was very impressed with #8. He won many of the draws before Miller made a move. As I was watching, it seemed like Miller was an inch or 2 off the line & really didn't have a chance on many of those faces. I don't have the stat sheet in front of me, but #8 went on a few runs, as did Miller. It was close to 50%, but #8 did win more draws. #8 was the other face off man of choice in my book.

I did not work the CSU vs. Oregon game, but CSU had a strategy, & it worked. Nearly every face-off had a CSU player playing Turtle's hands, trying to out physical him to the ball. They were more willing to take a technical push or hold rather than have turtle take the ball & start running. At times they'd face with a pole, & keep another one on the wing, just waiting to double team the ball. Other times Miller would push it down the line a few feet, but not be able to get to it as the man played Miller not the ball. I was very impressed with the game plan, & the strategy worked. While Oregon had the majority of the faces against CSU, it wasn't 80%, or 18-23, & CSU was able to get their fair share.

All that said, I was again able to see #8 from Duluth against NU, & I was still impressed. #8 & Turtle were my picks for the best face-off guys I saw at the tournament. The position is more important than many people think, & both of these guys were excellent at it.

#8 from Minnesota-Duluth was very impressive in the tournament and I feel that he was among the best at the tournament. He was also 1st Team All-Conference in the UMLL. However, against Sonoma he won only 7 of 17 facing off and according to the official scorer of that game the Sonoma FOGO received no support from his wings in that game. The Sonoma FOGO also won 11 of 19 face-offs from Grant Kelam of Lindenwood, who was 2nd team All-Conference in the GRLC.

I think that maybe the FOGO from Sonoma has been overlooked all year and his face-off statistics should be take a closer look at.

[NCInDaPlaceTaBe]

Just to give my two cents on the turtle and the CSU game, I'd have to agree with Kyle when he says that CSU was willing to take the infraction at the face-off, with a hold or something else just to ensure that he did not get the ball. This was evident in the 3rd when Lee (#2) was called a few times for those kind of infractions, as well as not called for a few we could see all the way from the press box.

There game plan didn't start out like that. Turtle won every single face-off in the first half. It became clear by the second half that CSU's game plan was to use Lee to disrupt Turtle enough that they could create a fifty fifty ball. Flip's plan was smart. He knew his team's strength and that they would never win one-on-one against turtle. Throughout the game, CSU was better on ground balls and especially at the midfield on the 50-50's Lee created.

In 3rd and 4th turtle still won the majority of the face-offs, like 2 more. His back-up, Tim Bates took one in the 3rd and lost. And of course, turtle won the all-important overtime face-off that "Was everything" according to Flip.

Not to take anything away from Groom, but without Turtle, Oregon never would have played on Saturday, and maybe not on Wednesday after Oregon's not so hot showing against Lindenwood. As for Groom he lost in the second round and his performance, although great, was not nearly as crucial to the success of his team as Turtle's.

[jmaxwell2]

Just to give my two cents on the turtle and the CSU game, I'd have to agree with Kyle when he says that CSU was willing to take the infraction at the face-off, with a hold or something else just to ensure that he did not get the ball. This was evident in the 3rd when Lee (#2) was called a few times for those kind of infractions, as well as not called for a few we could see all the way from the press box.

There game plan didn't start out like that. Turtle won every single face-off in the first half. It became clear by the second half that CSU's game plan was to use Lee to disrupt Turtle enough that they could create a fifty fifty ball. Flip's plan was smart. He knew his team's strength and that they would never win one-on-one against turtle. Throughout the game, CSU was better on ground balls and especially at the midfield on the 50-50's Lee created.

Hey folks, again I am not trying to take away from Turtle, but I do feel that if other face-off specialist on other teams had the exceptional players and coaches that Oregon had and were put into the same do or die situation that the turtle was put in, that they would probably would have been equally up to the task. This should not be about one event in time, but on the whole championship series and the season overall. Statistically, CSU won about 50% of their face-offs all year, and a FOGO specialist of the Turtle's ability should have been expected to win the face-off. However, in the final Championship game, the Turtle only won 50% of the face-offs from a team that had only won approximately 54% of their face-offs all year, which I consider to be slightly better than average. Also, I do understand that the last two games played that these teams probable had plans to counter the Turtle, but I am also sure that methods were utilized by the coaches of Oregon to minimize the strategies of the opposing teams.

I do agree that Turtle is good and effective at what he does, but is he the best that was out there. I still think that can be debated.


In 3rd and 4th turtle still won the majority of the face-offs, like 2 more. His back-up, Tim Bates took one in the 3rd and lost. And of course, turtle won the all-important overtime face-off that "Was everything" according to Flip.

Not to take anything away from Groom, but without Turtle, Oregon never would have played on Saturday, and maybe not on Wednesday after Oregon's not so hot showing against Lindenwood. As for Groom he lost in the second round and his performance, although great, was not nearly as crucial to the success of his team as Turtle's.

[jmaxwell2]

Just to give my two cents on the turtle and the CSU game, I'd have to agree with Kyle when he says that CSU was willing to take the infraction at the face-off, with a hold or something else just to ensure that he did not get the ball. This was evident in the 3rd when Lee (#2) was called a few times for those kind of infractions, as well as not called for a few we could see all the way from the press box.

There game plan didn't start out like that. Turtle won every single face-off in the first half. It became clear by the second half that CSU's game plan was to use Lee to disrupt Turtle enough that they could create a fifty fifty ball. Flip's plan was smart. He knew his team's strength and that they would never win one-on-one against turtle. Throughout the game, CSU was better on ground balls and especially at the midfield on the 50-50's Lee created.

In 3rd and 4th turtle still won the majority of the face-offs, like 2 more. His back-up, Tim Bates took one in the 3rd and lost. And of course, turtle won the all-important overtime face-off that "Was everything" according to Flip.

Not to take anything away from Groom, but without Turtle, Oregon never would have played on Saturday, and maybe not on Wednesday after Oregon's not so hot showing against Lindenwood. As for Groom he lost in the second round and his performance, although great, was not nearly as crucial to the success of his team as Turtle's.

Hey folks, again I am not trying to take away from Turtle, but I do feel that if other face-off specialist on other teams had the exceptional players and coaches that Oregon had and were put into the same do or die situation that the turtle was put in, that they would probably would have been equally up to the task. This should not be about one event in time, but on the whole championship series and the season overall. Statistically, CSU won about 50% of their face-offs all year, and a FOGO specialist of the Turtle's ability should have been expected to win the face-off. However, in the final Championship game, the Turtle only won 50% of the face-offs from a team that had only won approximately 54% of their face-offs all year, which I consider to be slightly better than average. Also, I do understand that the last two games played that these teams probable had plans to counter the Turtle, but I am also sure that methods were utilized by the coaches of Oregon to minimize the strategies of the opposing teams.

I do agree that Turtle is good and effective at what he does, but is he the best that was out there. I still think that can be debated.

[somrandomguy]

Hey folks, again I am not trying to take away from Turtle, but I do feel that if other face-off specialist on other teams had the exceptional players and coaches that Oregon had and were put into the same do or die situation that the turtle was put in, that they would probably would have been equally up to the task. This should not be about one event in time, but on the whole championship series and the season overall. Statistically, CSU won about 50% of their face-offs all year, and a FOGO specialist of the Turtle's ability should have been expected to win the face-off. However, in the final Championship game, the Turtle only won 50% of the face-offs from a team that had only won approximately 54% of their face-offs all year, which I consider to be slightly better than average. Also, I do understand that the last two games played that these teams probable had plans to counter the Turtle, but I am also sure that methods were utilized by the coaches of Oregon to minimize the strategies of the opposing teams.

I do agree that Turtle is good and effective at what he does, but is he the best that was out there. I still think that can be debated.

Not meant to be a personal attack, buy anyone who studies the game knows there's no real counter for an anti-FOGO, as I like to call the big players who are used to neutralize an excellent face-off specialist. In a situation like that, the only real options are
1) Hope the FOGO can clamp or punch and rake it out before he gets crushed or the opposing player uses the jump.
2) The other team's guy is probably not real good at face-offs, so you just pray your wing players can get it.
3) Put a bigger guy in the game to take the face, which isn't a good option when you have a good FOGO.

For an example, look at Alex Smith, one of the greatest FOGOs ever. His lowest percentages are when the other team refuses to go toe-to-toe with him on face-offs and instead uses an anti-FOGO type strategy to neutralize him.

[jmaxwell2]

Hey folks, again I am not trying to take away from Turtle, but I do feel that if other face-off specialist on other teams had the exceptional players and coaches that Oregon had and were put into the same do or die situation that the turtle was put in, that they would probably would have been equally up to the task. This should not be about one event in time, but on the whole championship series and the season overall. Statistically, CSU won about 50% of their face-offs all year, and a FOGO specialist of the Turtle's ability should have been expected to win the face-off. However, in the final Championship game, the Turtle only won 50% of the face-offs from a team that had only won approximately 54% of their face-offs all year, which I consider to be slightly better than average. Also, I do understand that the last two games played that these teams probable had plans to counter the Turtle, but I am also sure that methods were utilized by the coaches of Oregon to minimize the strategies of the opposing teams.

I do agree that Turtle is good and effective at what he does, but is he the best that was out there. I still think that can be debated.

Not meant to be a personal attack, buy anyone who studies the game knows there's no real counter for an anti-FOGO, as I like to call the big players who are used to neutralize an excellent face-off specialist. In a situation like that, the only real options are
1) Hope the FOGO can clamp or punch and rake it out before he gets crushed or the opposing player uses the jump.
2) The other team's guy is probably not real good at face-offs, so you just pray your wing players can get it.
3) Put a bigger guy in the game to take the face, which isn't a good option when you have a good FOGO.

For an example, look at Alex Smith, one of the greatest FOGOs ever. His lowest percentages are when the other team refuses to go toe-to-toe with him on face-offs and instead uses an anti-FOGO type strategy to neutralize him.

Thanks for pointing out my stupidity. God your good!

[somrandomguy]

Hey folks, again I am not trying to take away from Turtle, but I do feel that if other face-off specialist on other teams had the exceptional players and coaches that Oregon had and were put into the same do or die situation that the turtle was put in, that they would probably would have been equally up to the task. This should not be about one event in time, but on the whole championship series and the season overall. Statistically, CSU won about 50% of their face-offs all year, and a FOGO specialist of the Turtle's ability should have been expected to win the face-off. However, in the final Championship game, the Turtle only won 50% of the face-offs from a team that had only won approximately 54% of their face-offs all year, which I consider to be slightly better than average. Also, I do understand that the last two games played that these teams probable had plans to counter the Turtle, but I am also sure that methods were utilized by the coaches of Oregon to minimize the strategies of the opposing teams.

I do agree that Turtle is good and effective at what he does, but is he the best that was out there. I still think that can be debated.

Not meant to be a personal attack, buy anyone who studies the game knows there's no real counter for an anti-FOGO, as I like to call the big players who are used to neutralize an excellent face-off specialist. In a situation like that, the only real options are
1) Hope the FOGO can clamp or punch and rake it out before he gets crushed or the opposing player uses the jump.
2) The other team's guy is probably not real good at face-offs, so you just pray your wing players can get it.
3) Put a bigger guy in the game to take the face, which isn't a good option when you have a good FOGO.

For an example, look at Alex Smith, one of the greatest FOGOs ever. His lowest percentages are when the other team refuses to go toe-to-toe with him on face-offs and instead uses an anti-FOGO type strategy to neutralize him.

Thanks for pointing out my stupidity. God your good!

Hey, I didn't mean it like I was trying to impugn your knowledge. What I meant to say was "has taken face-offs seriously or studied them." I was a face-off specialist for a very brief time, but what crystallized the knowledge more was running into that exact kind of situation in a game fairly recently.

[jmaxwell2]

Hey folks, again I am not trying to take away from Turtle, but I do feel that if other face-off specialist on other teams had the exceptional players and coaches that Oregon had and were put into the same do or die situation that the turtle was put in, that they would probably would have been equally up to the task. This should not be about one event in time, but on the whole championship series and the season overall. Statistically, CSU won about 50% of their face-offs all year, and a FOGO specialist of the Turtle's ability should have been expected to win the face-off. However, in the final Championship game, the Turtle only won 50% of the face-offs from a team that had only won approximately 54% of their face-offs all year, which I consider to be slightly better than average. Also, I do understand that the last two games played that these teams probable had plans to counter the Turtle, but I am also sure that methods were utilized by the coaches of Oregon to minimize the strategies of the opposing teams.

I do agree that Turtle is good and effective at what he does, but is he the best that was out there. I still think that can be debated.

Not meant to be a personal attack, buy anyone who studies the game knows there's no real counter for an anti-FOGO, as I like to call the big players who are used to neutralize an excellent face-off specialist. In a situation like that, the only real options are
1) Hope the FOGO can clamp or punch and rake it out before he gets crushed or the opposing player uses the jump.
2) The other team's guy is probably not real good at face-offs, so you just pray your wing players can get it.
3) Put a bigger guy in the game to take the face, which isn't a good option when you have a good FOGO.

For an example, look at Alex Smith, one of the greatest FOGOs ever. His lowest percentages are when the other team refuses to go toe-to-toe with him on face-offs and instead uses an anti-FOGO type strategy to neutralize him.

Thanks for pointing out my stupidity. God your good!

Hey, I didn't mean it like I was trying to impugn your knowledge. What I meant to say was "has taken face-offs seriously or studied them." I was a face-off specialist for a very brief time, but what crystallized the knowledge more was running into that exact kind of situation in a game fairly recently.

Hey, I'm sorry for taking it so personally. Although I started playing lacrosse 45 years ago and have followed lacrosse to varying degrees since I stopped playing for military service during the Vietnam War, I am not an expert on face-offs and do not pretend to be an expert in other aspects of lacrosse Hope you will accept my apologies for getting so defensive. Thanks.

[Kyle Berggren]

I'm with Randomguy on this one. I've used a larger face-off man to wear down opponents before, but I'd never seen tight holds used as effectively as the last 2 games for Oregon. Miller takes the Oregon face-offs, it was hold Miller & push him off the ball by committee on Friday & Saturday for both CSU & BYU. At the Half or the quarter the Oregon coach would speak with the officials & the next few would be clean. I was very impressed with the strategy & believe really payed off for both teams throughout that game. I don't even believe Miller won the face-off draw in OT, but he did win the ground ball. I still liked #8 from Duluth, & I didn't get to see much of the Michigan guy, but a 1 man show against a team of strong, athletic, physical middies out there to play your body will make it difficult for anyone.

The Montana face-off man was also good in this light. He didn't win every draw, but Tucker did want that groud ball. It doesn't hurt he's huge, strong, & athletic, but he fought for those ground balls. A few face-offs against SJU & Westminster had him fast broke just from a lack of experience, but he was good at adjusting & was excellent after that. I think he scored 2 after face-off wins just driving hard to cage leaning on his man.

Was there anyone else in B that was a pure fogo or someone I missed? Ashenfelter from BC had a tougher time getting going in the game I did. He started off getting crushed about 4-1, but woke up in the second half to make it even or even pull ahead a bit.

[DG]

I'm with Randomguy on this one. I've used a larger face-off man to wear down opponents before, but I'd never seen tight holds used as effectively as the last 2 games for Oregon. Miller takes the Oregon face-offs, it was hold Miller & push him off the ball by committee on Friday & Saturday for both CSU & BYU. At the Half or the quarter the Oregon coach would speak with the officials & the next few would be clean. I was very impressed with the strategy & believe really payed off for both teams throughout that game.

I disagree that the "hold Miller and push him off the ball by committee" was a strategy used by BYU. They did bring up a long pole on a lot of the faceoffs, but Watterson also won any number of the draws cleanly.

[jmaxwell2]

I'm with Randomguy on this one. I've used a larger face-off man to wear down opponents before, but I'd never seen tight holds used as effectively as the last 2 games for Oregon. Miller takes the Oregon face-offs, it was hold Miller & push him off the ball by committee on Friday & Saturday for both CSU & BYU. At the Half or the quarter the Oregon coach would speak with the officials & the next few would be clean. I was very impressed with the strategy & believe really payed off for both teams throughout that game.

I disagree that the "hold Miller and push him off the ball by committee" was a strategy used by BYU. They did bring up a long pole on a lot of the faceoffs, but Watterson also won any number of the draws cleanly.

Thank you. I was beginning that I was the only one seeing that and I just thought I must have been watching a different game.

[Kyle Berggren]

Maybe I have too much of the CSU game on my mind, but I seem to remember it in both games. Who knows now, I'm already trying to purge it from my memory & get back to real life. It was a long week.

[laxdefenseman4]

That was definatly NOT BYU's strategy. If you look at the stats there were 5 guys that took face offs. But neil watterson took nearly 80% of the faceoffs and he tried to win the faceoff using his own moves (not just hold and push him). And he did a very nice job winning 58% (holding Turtle to a mere 42%) Anyways, Preston Foulger took 2 face offs (on man down) and his strategy may or may not have been to hold and push. I'm not sure. but thats 2 out of 28. Tyler Monteath took 2 on man-up and he tried to win it clean. And Josh Austin took 1 and he beat Turtle cleaner than anyone else i saw all week.