- Joined: 6/5/2003
- Location: Chicago IL USA
Is Michigan a young team?
Friday, May 30, 2014 8:38 PM
In 2011 you had a bunch of fifth-year seniors, in 2012 you had a decent core of seniors, but in 2013 and now in 2014, you're hurting from the attrition that came from the 2009, 2010 and 2011 classes.
Does it make you a "homer" to say Michigan's current football team is young?
If your definition of being a "homer" means you're constantly searching high and low to make excuses and cultivate a favorable narrative surrounding the team you cheer for, then no, I don't think you'd be doing that if you chose to call this team young.
Because it is.
Michigan was a young team in 2013 and it will be again in 2014. It wasn't in 2011, and it took care of business. It wasn't in 2012, and it dropped the ball. And now, here it sits.
Being young and automatically struggling, though, isn't quite an absolute. Auburn had a number of young players -- including offensive linemen -- last season, and it willed itself to a national title game. Michigan State's been featuring underclassmen on defense for the better part of four years, and it does pretty well for itself.
Is the worst part over? I don't know, that remains to be seen. To me, it isn't about how young you are, it's about how quickly you're being developed.
Once guys are on campus for a year and have a chance to get their feet wet and become acclimated to the college game, they have to start turning into players. That hasn't happened quickly enough over the past two years, and that pace needs to heighten.
This has been a hot topic of discussion this week (and for the better part of the last couple of years), so is there any validity to the claim?
At what point do we stop saying, "next year?"
At what point are we no longer a young team?
Nick tells us what he thinks...what do you think?
P.S. yes, it's the off-season so we get lame threads like this to discuss Michigan football. Haha
Ohio St.'s actions are not unlike their lower intestine: stinky and loaded with danger.