How do we evaluate teams? One way is based on who they have, and the other is based on how they do. Since there are so few good teams and so few tournaments (compared to past years and other sports), it is difficult to compare teams year to year. People look at the Cojones team from fall 1994, and on the surface they fall short on both accounts. They were missing many of the big guns from the NY teams of yore, and they failed to win Nationals for the first time since Reagan was still in office. Probing deeper, though, shows that perhaps they were as good or almost as good as past years.
Who did I miss? Let me know.
Let's start with the additions. Chris Jones and Phil Vlahakis were possibly the two best offensive players from Graffiti, which had decent teams for many years. Rich Robinson was arguably the fastest player in Boston before he moved to the NY area last year. I've heard Nat was the best player from the national collegiate champion. And the other guys are all quality players and athletes, probably good enough to be the best player on some teams. I think the players they picked up could be the nucleus of next year's National champions (if DoG falters).
Still there: still an impressive list. Any team that has Kenny and Cribber can't be all that bad. Walter is still as solid as ever. Benji was one of four guys who would regularly touch the disc on NY's offense in 1993, Blair is one of the best handler defenders around, and I could go on and on. The players who were left were clearly integral parts of the dynasty.
Missing: Here is what people look at when they say that Cojones wasn't as good as NY. Any team missing players as good as the ones mentioned above will surely suffer. Jon was the epitome of their defense, and Pat, Dave and Bob were all mainstays of the offense for years. On the other hand, they've suffered retirements before (all but Jon failed to play in the Nationals series last fall). Dan Weiss has been gone for a couple years now. Pat and Skip have sat out years recently. A lot of names I don't even know are no longer around, but still they won almost everything for five years. While they no longer won every tournament beginning in 1992, they still won all of the important ones and most of the other ones. And a lot of people would agree that the reason Boston began beating them was that Boston was better than in past years. I maintain that this is the case for 1994 as well.
Let's look at the second way of evaluation. What was Cojones' record for the year? How does that compare to previous years? At Nationals, they beat Ring of Fire 19-7, Miami Refugees 19-10, Cornell Buds 19-8, and Big River 19-7, while losing to Double Happiness 17-13. In the semis, they lost to Death or Glory 19-17. In 1993, they also went 4-1 in pool play, losing to Double by 7 or 8, then beat Boston in the semis and Double in the finals each by 7 or 8. Similar except for the semis results. And we all remember what DoG did to Double in the finals. I think Cojones would also have beaten Double but not by as much. They had the largest average margin of victory. Their offensive stats were in many ways better than the vaunted Death or Glory offense's, and their defense was pretty good, too. If I had to pick a stat winner at Nationals, it would have been Cojones (as much as it pains me to say so).
Other tournaments: Regionals.
We'll call that a wash.
Other tournaments: Few chances to really see. They played at Philly and lost to DoG 17-14 in the semis after beating National semifinalist Chesapeake 15-8 in pool play. At Sectionals they crushed Noreaster 15-8. Noreaster was a Boston/NY conglomerate that formed to try for the #3 spot in the NE, but failed. All their games all season they held opponents to single digits except for 3 losses to DoG, 1 loss to Double, and a 19-10 victory over Miami at Nationals. In fall 1993, NY lost to Boston at Regionals and Philly (16-9?), to DC at Philly, and to Double at Nationals in pool play. They beat Boston in the finals of the Cuervo tournament.
How about the spring? We Smoke Weed was a predecessor of sorts. They lost a game to Canadian National champs Ottawa at Easterns, lost 4 times to DoG, and beat everyone else.
So our answer is? We'll let you decide. If you want my perception, I'll tell you. At first glance I didn't think they were as good in 1994 as in prior years. On offense, Kenny and Cribber were still their big play men, but they had to do more of the worker duties, limiting how much they could go downfield. They seemed short on handlers, but theirs was never really a handler-based offense anyway (most teams are, DoG isn't either). But they could score. The difference in the NY/Boston games in 1994 was that Boston was able to score consistently from anywhere, and I want to believe that is because our offense was on a whole new level. Maybe you could show me some stats saying otherwise. Till then, dat's what I think.