The excuse of Age

Submitted by poseidon7902 on

One of the big things we have heard all year was how age would be a huge problem for this team.  It's roundly said here and pretty much everywhere, and is also roundly decried by opposing fans from their coolers and farm yards.  I was considering doing a breakdown on age and it's true effects, but before I wasted any of my time was curious if anyone had already done something similar.  We saw a very young QB in GA and AL play in the national championship, but are those aberrations, or does age really have little to do with the outcome.  

MGoBoard

JTGoBlue

January 11th, 2018 at 9:46 AM ^

So, Michigan QBs and offense didn't progress and improve throughout the year. Here is the breakdown of games started and finished:
QB1 Speight: 3-0. QB2 Peters: 2-1. QB3 O'Korn: 1-3. Combined start /finish: 2-1.

Joined: 08/31/2009

MGoPoints: 4536

Fezzik

January 11th, 2018 at 10:36 AM ^

I disagree. Young players grow when they have coaches that are good and develop them. Our offense didn't even know what it was all year, no identity. We started with spread passing, then zone running, then power running. If you asked me today what type of offense we run I couldn't tell you. Now there's rumor we'll be a pistol offense. Our coaches failed in a major way on offense this year.

Joined: 09/11/2015

MGoPoints: 5556

Wolfman

January 11th, 2018 at 10:48 AM ^

Yes, you get a hell of a lot more players at this level, but even at the h.s. level I had to install quick fix offenses from week to week when we'd get hit with someone we threw to 70% of the time, ran behind the same pct., ran the ball, threw the ball the same pct., etc. Shit happens that are quickly labeled debacles,but when looked at event by event, make a whole lot more sense. That in no way is a defense of the staff because I agree they made some head scratching decisions, but in hindsight I wouldn't want to fuck up a freshman qb that i might have been too high on when I recruited him. 

Joined: 07/23/2008

MGoPoints: 8259

Fezzik

January 11th, 2018 at 2:13 PM ^

Are you saying we changed the offense so much due to personnel changes? If we tweaked the offense to best suit our players from game to game I'd be ecstatic that we are able to adapt so well. Sadly I think we kept changing offensive schemes due to nothing working as well as we expected it to.

I think our injuries get overstated. Your number 1 QB going down is always huge but it has to be noted how much he was struggling before injury. Black getting hurt sucked before we knew what we had in him. Crawford and maybe Perry were dinged up at one point but neither were doing much anyway. Isaac going down isn't a huge loss as he was likely the 3rd best RB on the team. Walker also had and ankle thing I believe but again he was 3rd or 4th on the depth chart.

Also every team has to expect injuries every season. Maryland was on like their 5th string QB this season. Things could have gone much worse for us on the injury front.

Joined: 09/11/2015

MGoPoints: 5556

FauxMo

January 11th, 2018 at 9:47 AM ^

Dude, no research necessary. Age DEFINITELY matters. When I was 18, I could get it hard just by thinking about shit. Now it takes medication, 45 minutes of concerted effort, and oftentimes, videos featuring a woman with severe daddy issues... 

Joined: 06/17/2010

MGoPoints: 137529

HimJarbaugh

January 11th, 2018 at 9:50 AM ^

Look at it this way: Michigan replaced 9-10 starters on defense (depending on how you classify Chase and Mo) and the defense didn't really look that much worse, except maybe the safeties.

The offense replaced a few guys on the OL and all receivers yet they couldn't find a rhythm all season. 

Joined: 12/23/2014

MGoPoints: 4292

WeimyWoodson

January 11th, 2018 at 3:58 PM ^

Don Brown runs one hell of a college defense.  By throwing multiple blitzes the opposing offense doesn't know where its coming from.  It wouldn't work in the the NFL.

The problem is Harbaugh keeps running complicated NFL offense with college players, many being 1st and 2nd year players.  Its not whats best for them.

Joined: 08/25/2015

MGoPoints: 14722

Wolfman

January 11th, 2018 at 11:00 AM ^

"Look at it this way: Michigan replaced 9-10 starters on defense (depending on how you classify Chase and Mo) and the defense didn't really look that much worse, except maybe the safeties.

The offense replaced a few guys on the OL and all receivers yet they couldn't find a rhythm all season. "

in reading the above, you can add, qb to new wrs = new.  That qb goes down, new qb who is throwing to another new wr because you're no. 1 went down = new again. He's soon replaced as well. = new.  The TEs not mentioned are new. The RB that received the major number of carries last year is gone. There is a rotating door at RT. How in the hell is this supposed to resemble the offense of the year before, no matter how many spoons you try to stir that batter with? Oh yeah, the center......

Joined: 07/23/2008

MGoPoints: 8259

Magnus

January 11th, 2018 at 9:56 AM ^

There's no magic bullet. Being old doesn't guarantee team success. Being an elite recruit doesn't guarantee team success. Georgia, Miami, Notre Dame, Florida, etc. have all struggled at times despite getting elite recruits.

It takes a combination of qualities to win the national championship. There's no single right answer.

Joined: 07/17/2008

MGoPoints: 166007

NelzQ

January 11th, 2018 at 11:36 AM ^

Its a symphony, as Magnus alludes to. The conductor needs to be able to identify who is playing out of tune and correct it (by removal or instruction). The conductor has to have reign over every unit and assure cohesiveness.

It's on the conductor to get the music right.

Joined: 09/17/2012

MGoPoints: 562

Goggles Paisano

January 11th, 2018 at 1:04 PM ^

What also comes with age is physical development.  Many true freshman are not physically ready to compete in D1 football.  You are a few months removed from high school and now you are competing agasinst grown-ass men that are a few months away from playing on Sunday.  

Joined: 07/30/2011

MGoPoints: 41232

Ziff72

January 11th, 2018 at 9:58 AM ^

This board has become a dumpster fire of emo.

Yes,  there have been several studies done and experience matters a lot.  That's why Phil Steele and many other analysts reference it during season previews.  For example South Carolina and Duke were teams that had horrendous seasons in 2016, but had massive amounts of players returning and they did well this year.

Injuries and experience matter a lot.   

Joined: 07/07/2008

MGoPoints: 9823

maizenblue92

January 11th, 2018 at 9:58 AM ^

Bill C. does a pretty good breakdown of this every year and has come to find the same trend. On offense the hardest thing to replace is receiving production, which we had to do. Surprisingly, he found that both the OL and DL are easy to replace relative to WR and the secondary. He found that WR experience actually matters more than QB experience. FWIW he found that LB and RB are the easiest to replace.

Joined: 01/01/2009

MGoPoints: 19710

bacon

January 11th, 2018 at 9:58 AM ^

I suspect you can win with youth at certain positions, but teams that graduate more than half their starters on offense and defense and then are playing their third string qb for half the season are probably in trouble. speight was not that great, but he threw fewer interceptions than JOK. When your qb throws multiple ints per game, you won’t win very often. Btw, why are people so obsessed with how badly we sucked this season and not focused more on how we didn’t achieve the season before. The big ten was clearly much better this year and we lost a lot of players. We weren’t as good as we thought we’d be. I’m sure that will get better. There’s usually a big leap for players between Years one and two as a starter. Most of the team does that next season.

Joined: 01/04/2009

MGoPoints: 18646

Fezzik

January 11th, 2018 at 10:53 AM ^

Regarding your year big leap to year 2. Speight leaped backwards as a 2nd year starter. Crawford, McDoom did not improve at all. Chris Evans did not improve. I think Bredeson improved some but its arguable he didn't. These are the 2016 offensive freshmen who played the most and none of them took a big leap year 1 to year 2. It's about 80% coaching and about 20% youth.

Joined: 09/11/2015

MGoPoints: 5556

JonnyHintz

January 11th, 2018 at 10:01 AM ^

Generally, you can win with limited youth. There are only a handful of guys who can come out of high school and truly be relied upon. In some cases, not even by their second year. If you surround a youthful talent with experience, they tend to thrive much easier. In Michigan’s case, every single remotely good WR was a freshman or true sophomore (with the exception of slot WR Grant Perry) and even the tight ends were young. Add in subpar OL play, your top WR going down (also a true freshman), losing your starting QB, and you have offensive struggles. Now between playcalling, OL play and injuries, there were more factors to the struggles than simply being young. But youth definitely was a factor. You can have a handful of freshmen make an instant impact. That does happen. But when you have a situation where you have to RELY on that youth making an impact at so many key positions like Michigan did, you’re probably going to be in trouble. At the end of the day, Michigan still went 8-5. Only had one loss to a team with less than 10 wins, and they’re returning 18 starters, and numerous others who made multiple starts but aren’t considered “starters.” The team is going to get better with experience. That’s how it works.

Joined: 01/11/2015

MGoPoints: 48317