2024-25 Recruiting

[DoctahLexus]

Last week he was a high 4 star. This week he is just an average 4 star and 83rd is just a bit off...got it.

 

[relaxer]

Last week he was a high 4 star. This week he is just an average 4 star and 83rd is just a bit off...got it.

The difference between #35 and #83 is much smaller in reality than it seems on paper. Once you get past those top 20-30 guys, there's a big band of players who all have similar shots at panning out depending on circumstances. It's a much smaller gap than the gap from top 10 to #35 IMO.

I'm sure there are plenty of coaches that would take some of the guys ranked in the 70s and 80s over other players in the 30s and 40s. There's probably not many, if any, that are taking players in the 30s and 40s over a guy in the top 10.

 

[Zack80]

The difference between #35 and #83 is much smaller in reality than it seems on paper. Once you get past those top 20-30 guys, there's a big band of players who all have similar shots at panning out depending on circumstances. It's a much smaller gap than the gap from top 10 to #35 IMO.

I'm sure there are plenty of coaches that would take some of the guys ranked in the 70s and 80s over other players in the 30s and 40s. There's probably not many, if any, that are taking players in the 30s and 40s over a guy in the top 10.

It is true that the recruiting curve tends to flatten out as you go out past 40. Still, I think there is a significant difference between #35 and #83, particularly for attackmen.

 

[DoctahLexus]

The difference between #35 and #83 is much smaller in reality than it seems on paper. Once you get past those top 20-30 guys, there's a big band of players who all have similar shots at panning out depending on circumstances. It's a much smaller gap than the gap from top 10 to #35 IMO.

I'm sure there are plenty of coaches that would take some of the guys ranked in the 70s and 80s over other players in the 30s and 40s. There's probably not many, if any, that are taking players in the 30s and 40s over a guy in the top 10.

I agree with you overall on reclassing, but you are being a little unfair with Peck here. This is not a case of him only being 5th or 6th best on a quality team and only getting serious attention after a reclass like apparently it was with Wyatt Bowman. He came into one of if not the best high school lacrosse teams that is loaded with D1 recruits and immediately produced at a rate that is noteworthy whether you are a sophomore or a junior. This was a team that blew out a totally stacked Brunswick squad in their final game and he was clearly one of their best players. If you put up 80 points at the highest level of high school lacrosse at 15 it is impressive. If you do that at 16 it is impressive. If you do that at 17 it is still pretty much just as impressive. Recruit rating people were not only giving him props because he was classed as a sophomore at the time.

I am confident based on everything I have seen that he will have an impact for us from the jump that far exceeds where IL put him. Also confident that if it was not for the weird timing of his move back to 2025 that IL would have him much higher. Would struggle to find another example of them rating a guy who produced like he did on a top prep school team in the 80s, even if they were held back in 3rd grade three times and went to three different prep schools.

 

[relaxer]

I agree with you overall on reclassing, but you are being a little unfair with Peck here. This is not a case of him only being 5th or 6th best on a quality team and only getting serious attention after a reclass like apparently it was with Wyatt Bowman. He came into one of if not the best high school lacrosse teams that is loaded with D1 recruits and immediately produced at a rate that is noteworthy whether you are a sophomore or a junior. This was a team that blew out a totally stacked Brunswick squad in their final game and he was clearly one of their best players. If you put up 80 points at the highest level of high school lacrosse at 15 it is impressive. If you do that at 16 it is impressive. If you do that at 17 it is still pretty much just as impressive. Recruit rating people were not only giving him props because he was classed as a sophomore at the time.

I am confident based on everything I have seen that he will have an impact for us from the jump that far exceeds where IL put him. Also confident that if it was not for the weird timing of his move back to 2025 that IL would have him much higher. Would struggle to find another example of them rating a guy who produced like he did on a top prep school team in the 80s, even if they were held back in 3rd grade three times and went to three different prep schools.

I was just using Bowman as the most prominent example. I'm a big fan of Peck, and have been for a while -- since his Schuylerville days before he transferred to Lawrenceville.

I think #83 is a bit low, I just think it's closer to the truth than being a top 10 player, especially after a season when he stagnated a bit. The fact that he went from 80 points as a true junior to 60 as a true senior suggests to me that he's better suited as a cog in an elite offense rather than the fulcrum.

For comparisons sake, #65 recruit Adam Udell is a player from my neck of the woods that I've gotten eyes on a few times over the years -- he's gotten better and more productive over time, and exploded when given the keys to the Staples offense. Will he be a better college player than Peck? Maybe not, but I think he's demonstrated a very high ceiling and is worthy of being ranked higher.

Speaking of re-classing inflating reputations, I have my eye on Michael Ortlieb. I noticed a couple years back that he's actually older than Kyle Colsey (a top 10 recruit in the 2024 class), which had me on the look out for regression. And sure enough, his production has stagnated as younger players in the class developed. He's dropped from top 5 to top 20 in these rankings, and frankly I think he probably belongs more towards where Peck is in the rankings.

 

[Zack80]

Of course, #6 Teddy Lally is 5 or 6 months older than Ortlieb.

 

[relaxer]

Of course, #6 Teddy Lally is 5 or 6 months older than Ortlieb.

Yup, that's the other guy on my radar. Lally is crazy old for this class.

 

[ohmilax34]

While I'm very interested in the age of recruits and how a coach looks at recruiting players of varying ages and stages of personal development to project a player's future impact, I think the age difference and the effect it has on players in college is probably a bit overblown.

One reason I think this is because a male's athletic peak is around what age, 27? Why wouldn't a college coach want players as close to that peak as possible? Just a couple anecdotes, which I know don't prove my point. Steven Brooks graduated HS in 2002, presumably at 18 years old, went to Bridgton Academy in 2003, arrived at SU in 2003-04, redshirted in 2006 for injury, finished his SU career in 2008 and presumably 24 years old. He was very close to his athletic peak and had a great season. Similar story with Logan Wisnauskas. He graduated from Boys Latin in 2016, maybe 18 or 19 years old at the time, redshirted in 2017 (SU was flush with lefty offensive players (Evans, Mariano, Rehfuss, Voigt), transferred to UMD, got the COVID redshirt in 2020 and won a national championship and the Tewwaaraton as a senior in 2022 as a 24 or 25 year old.

Also, we kind of assume that all 18 year-olds are at the same stage in their athletic and lacrosse development, when the reality is that they are not. I don't know Lally or Ortlieb's stories, but maybe they were heavily focused on other sports when they were 14 or 15 and didn't focus on lacrosse until they were 17 or 18.

 

[Zack80]

Yup, that's the other guy on my radar. Lally is crazy old for this class.

One advantage of being older is it makes a player more mature, and thus a bit more likely to be able to contribute right away in D1.
Lally went to Thayer (6-9 last year), which seems to be in a 2nd level (NE ISL) private school league in NE. They only played 1 top out-of-conference game against Salisbury School which they lost 17-6. Lally's evaluation from a year ago last summer was 88. He seems to be ranked the 3rd best player in Massachusetts according to Boston Lax. He did do well in the NB All-American game, being named MVP.
Players do become D1 stars from schools like Thayer, but it does seem to be an edge for Peck at Lawrenceville and Ortlieb at Malvern to have played against a lot of the top high school teams.

 

[relaxer]

While I'm very interested in the age of recruits and how a coach looks at recruiting players of varying ages and stages of personal development to project a player's future impact, I think the age difference and the effect it has on players in college is probably a bit overblown.

One reason I think this is because a male's athletic peak is around what age, 27? Why wouldn't a college coach want players as close to that peak as possible? Just a couple anecdotes, which I know don't prove my point. Steven Brooks graduated HS in 2002, presumably at 18 years old, went to Bridgton Academy in 2003, arrived at SU in 2003-04, redshirted in 2006 for injury, finished his SU career in 2008 and presumably 24 years old. He was very close to his athletic peak and had a great season. Similar story with Logan Wisnauskas. He graduated from Boys Latin in 2016, maybe 18 or 19 years old at the time, redshirted in 2017 (SU was flush with lefty offensive players (Evans, Mariano, Rehfuss, Voigt), transferred to UMD, got the COVID redshirt in 2020 and won a national championship and the Tewwaaraton as a senior in 2022 as a 24 or 25 year old.

Also, we kind of assume that all 18 year-olds are at the same stage in their athletic and lacrosse development, when the reality is that they are not. I don't know Lally or Ortlieb's stories, but maybe they were heavily focused on other sports when they were 14 or 15 and didn't focus on lacrosse until they were 17 or 18.

Looking at a male's athletic peak is the wrong way to view things when scouting recruits. Even if a player peaks at 27, it's marginal gains each year once you get into your 20s. The big jumps are during the teen years, so if you're looking at a 16 year old vs. a 15 year old of comparable quality, the 15 year old is going to develop much more athletically from the time you first scouted him to the time he's finishing his senior year, even if the 16 year old is "closer to their athletic peak" at the end of their college career.

There are exceptions to every rule, but in the aggregate, the on-age players absolutely hit more often than the holdbacks.

 

[ohmilax34]

The big jumps are during the teen years, so if you're looking at a 16 year old vs. a 15 year old of comparable quality, the 15 year old is going to develop much more athletically from the time you first scouted him to the time he's finishing his senior year, even if the 16 year old is "closer to their athletic peak" at the end of their college career.

I think if you add the word "average" in front of "16 year old" and "15 year old" you are correct. When it comes to recruiting actual individuals, those rules may not hold true.

There are exceptions to every rule, but in the aggregate, the on-age players absolutely hit more often than the holdbacks.

Is there data on that?