|
Kerwick Named Head at Hobart here, but its a PDF, so I'm not about to type all of that out."> | Good luck Hobart!
by dynomite (#15285) on 6/29/01 @1:51AM | | | | Hell yeah! I went to Hobart's camp when I was younger and was blown away by the amount of skill just from the localsHobart is right in the hotbed of lacrosse. With kids coming from Genny, skaneatelas and yann they should have talent coming out of their ears next year. | | | | | Reply to this |
|
| | | good riddance
by washlax (#5470) on 6/29/01 @10:21AM | | | | good riddance to o'hara. i realize that many people liked him but i'm not one of them. besides, he won't be out of work long. | | | | | Reply to this |
|
| | | | Take a reality check....
by Lacrosse player (#3027) on 6/29/01 @4:45PM | | | | A coaching change won't solve Hobarts sucking problem. It will, however, in Rutgers case (Dirrigl). Let's go Knights! | | | | | Reply to this |
|
| | | | | Keep telling yourself that.
by grendel (#2419) on 6/30/01 @11:51AM | | | | Hobart- two NCAA appearances in the last 4 years. Rutgers- 0. Score of last matchup in '99: Hobart 17- Rutgers 12. Looks like Rutgers has some catching up to do. | | | | | Reply to this |
|
| | | | | | Please stop smoking crack...
by hotshotlax (#85) on 6/30/01 @2:23PM | | | | Its bad for the brain cells. Hobart may have a tradition (though it is dwingling, huh?), but Rutgers has the resources and the staff to establish itself as the power it was in the 80s. Look for the Knights to not only make the tournament next year, but win a few surprises. I'd even go so far as to put them in the top 10 in two years. If the NJ talent goes there, they will be rock solid. Hobarts only reason for making it in the past is winning the Patriot (which it didn't do this past year), and riding on NJ talent of Breslin. Keep an eye on the knights, and "faggettabout" the fading Statesmen. | | | | | Reply to this |
|
| | | | | | | Wrong
by grendel (#2419) on 7/01/01 @8:00AM | | | | Hobart went to the tournament in '98 without an AQ, so you're about as wrong about that as about Rutger's chances to go the NCAA's anytime in the near future. Last time I checked, Rutgers was playing in the ECAC, and here are at least three reasons the S. Knights won't make the field: Georgetown, Navy, UMass. I could even add Penn State, and I don't even doubt that Stony Brook will be better than Rutgers next year. So is Rutgers going as an at-large team? At least you won't have to drive far to watch the other teams play, though. | | | | | Reply to this |
|
| | | | | | | | Hobart Blows!!!!!
by Laxnut1 (#11361) on 7/01/01 @8:06AM | | | | If you are that ignorant that you don't think Rutgers is going to be a power soon then you've lived in a cage. Hobart is going to have to work very hard to get back to where they were when they were a D-III power. No scholarships up in Geneva = hard times!!!! | | | | | Reply to this |
|
| | | | | | | | | whoa there
by skeeracer29 (#15364) on 7/02/01 @2:34AM | | | | hobart has a few things going for them other than the new coach, which is exciting for sure. they also have an AD who really cares and supports the lax program and they also have the strong alumni presence to offer new recruits. hobart has always gotten special young men who are talented lacrosse players that are willing to work, these new recruits will be nothing different, and the new and young kerwick will only add to the "new" hobart...one that will be restored to its former dominance. oh yeah, and who is rutgers? | | | | | Reply to this |
|
| | | | | | | | | Laxnut the eunuch
by laketrout (#7737) on 7/02/01 @10:00AM | | | | Really, Rutgers will continue to look for a lax identity in the same manner their football team has, or hasn't. Like a restaurant, "under new management" doesn't always work, same as the "new look" RU attempts to market on the gridiron every season with a different uniform design.
The university should decide what business they want to be in, academics aside. Stick to basketball.
Bet your futures on another team, not the Scarlet Letters. | | | | | Reply to this |
|
| | | | | | | | | | Armpit...
by panthers13 (#12723) on 7/03/01 @5:50PM | | | | First of all, why the hell are people talking about Rutgers?!?! WHO GIVES A #Ç%&? Where did that come into the Hobart article at all? I mean really people. Kerwick is awesome, he´ll change Hobart lacrosse for sure, give him some time. | | | | | Reply to this |
|
| LI - 17 Bridgeport 16 6/29/01 (nt)
by ewmosk (#12539) on 6/29/01 @9:57PM | | | | (no text) | | | | | Reply to this |
|
| | | (no subject)
by jay88 (#8484) on 6/30/01 @11:38PM | | | | best game this year sick play all around powell and lopez going at it alot of big hits just an awesome game 2 whatch | | | | | Reply to this |
|
| Good Luck Matt
by GoalTime (#2700) on 7/02/01 @3:14PM | | | | There are many knowledgeable people who believe Matt is just the guy to restore Statesmen lacrosse; and none of them visit this Web site.
Others here can post infantile rants for Rutgers and/or poisonous rants against Hobart. I just want to extend to Coach Kerwick best wishes on his return to Geneva. Any decent lax person knows that Matt deserves no less than that as his tenure begins. | | | | | Reply to this |
|
| | | right on
by skeeracer29 (#15364) on 7/03/01 @1:54AM | | | | i am going to be a junior at hobart and not only are informed fans of the sport enthused, so are the players, veterans and rooks alike. the bucknell loss was honestly a fluke, the past years we played them tallies of 16, 18 and 15 goals were posted, bucknell can't keep the bart down for long. | | | | | Reply to this |
|
| | | The Man?
by laketrout (#7737) on 7/03/01 @9:27AM | | | | I don't know if Matt "is just the guy", but, as you pointed out, he does deserve a chance.
The Statesman offense has struggled in recent years, and maybe Kerwick brings enough experience to the side line to change that.
The restoration of Hobart Lacrosse to me isn't about Patriot League titles & AQ's. It's about not losing 5 to 6 consecutive games to top ten teams on a regular basis, or not getting toasted by Syracuse for 16 years straight, or not finishing off teams like Bucknell & Penn State, etc, etc.
| | | | | Reply to this |
|
| | | | Agree, kind of.
by grendel (#2419) on 7/03/01 @11:13AM | | | | One of the hallmarks of the team since '95 has been the ability to lose the 1-goal games (including two of those to Syracuse, a bunch to Notre Dame, PSU, etc.). That would be my biggest gripe. The offensive weapons are there, but the defense has to improve first. You can't win anything anywhere without a solid defense.
Good luck to Matt on getting it going. | | | | | Reply to this |
|
| | | | | close games
by skeeracer29 (#15364) on 7/04/01 @5:23PM | | | | this year was deceiving when it came to the "poor" defense. the defense was playing 80% of the game because the offense couldn't keep a possession for longer than 30 seconds. what resulted were great defensive efforts, but when you play that much defense teams are going to score 15 goals on you. the tools are there on both ends of the field, the need to be used better. | | | | | Reply to this |
|
| Who Cares?
by laxhoss (#3586) on 7/02/01 @6:53PM | | | | A new coach at Hobart isn't going to stop Bucknell from winning the Patriot League, again, and beating Hobart, again. | | | | | Reply to this |
|
| | | Right
by GoalTime (#2700) on 7/02/01 @9:36PM | | | | BJ was canned because of one loss in 2001...to Bucknell. Kerwick was hired to see that it doesn't happen again.
I'm impressed that certain Bucknell fans are drunk with success off of a lone AQ year. | | | | | Reply to this |
|
|
| | | © Lax.com 2000-2010 | |
|
