Gophers lead Big Ten in fewest true freshmen playing

Donate To GopherHole
S

swingman

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
3,143
Reaction score
2,022
Points
113
Illinois has now played 21 true freshmen.

Michigan has played at least 16 true frosh this year.

Ohio State had played 14 true frosh through six games.

Sparty had played 13 true frosh as of October 9.

Rutgers had used 13 true frosh as of October 13.

Northwestern has burned 12 redshirts.

Indiana had played 10 true freshmen as of October 12.

Iowa has played at least ten true frosh.

Maryland was at 9 true frosh played as of Oct. 18.

Wisconsin had played 5 true frosh as of October 5.

Purdue played five true frosh out of the chute.

Huskers have played 4 true frosh.

Penn State used only 3 true frosh as of Oct. 11.

Gophers used Harris Saturday...HandyHolly and Umlor earlier. Douglas earlier, but not enough so he will get medical redshirt.
 

Can you include a link?

I have a hard time believing that Michigan and Ohio St have played 16 and 14 true freshmen, respectively.
 

John Galt said:
Can you include a link?

I have a hard time believing that Michigan and Ohio St have played 16 and 14 true freshmen, respectively.
Click to expand...

It may be true. I think the difference is Michigan & Ohio State's true freshmen are a little more ready to play, physically, than Minnesota's. They "look a little better coming off the bus" as Mase used to say....

Plus, a lot of their fans aren't really worried about not having some of their's around for a 5th year, as often times, some of them are gone after their 3rd....
 




This means that the players playing are super experienced and talented right?
 


Sounds like many people were wrong. They'll probably own up to that huh? :D
 




Wait. What? We aren't the youngest team in the B1G and one of the youngest in the Nation? I'm stunned. Absolutely stunned.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 


Sheesh...think of how that 2022 B1G Championship is going to feel!!!! We are going to have so much more valued experience than everyone else!
:rolleyes:
 

As we move to a younger team next year we move from year zero to year -1. Credit to whomever posted year -1 first!
 



John Galt said:
Can you include a link?

I have a hard time believing that Michigan and Ohio St have played 16 and 14 true freshmen, respectively.
Click to expand...

Great programs lose a fair amount of juniors to the draft and get more developed HS players that expect to play as freshmen. Believe it.
 

It's all about recruiting. When you have a great recruiter on staff redshirts are not a consideration. If Fleck can recruit then going forward look for better players that are ready to play.
 

A lot depends on where they’re playing. A true freshman starting is much different than a true freshman covering kicks
 





If Minnesota is going to build up its program, it has to rely on player development. In many cases, that means keeping kids in the program for a 5th year. The Ohio States of the college football world are going to get the guys who are physically ready to go from day 1. Minnesota needs to take guys with the potential for growth, and get them physically stronger and faster so that they can out-tough OSU's 18 year olds when they are 22.

Elite ain't built in a day.
 

Pedantic said:
If Minnesota is going to build up its program, it has to rely on player development. In many cases, that means keeping kids in the program for a 5th year. The Ohio States of the college football world are going to get the guys who are physically ready to go from day 1. Minnesota needs to take guys with the potential for growth, and get them physically stronger and faster so that they can out-tough OSU's 18 year olds when they are 22.

Elite ain't built in a day.
Click to expand...

A lot of the top-tier teams have guys leaving after three years, so that will likely result in more true freshmen contributing on those teams. It often depends on position. Don't have the stats in front of me, but it's my guess that there aren't a ton of true freshmen O-line guys starting throughout the country (although I could easily be wrong about that). But it's different from RBs and WRs on offense and the back seven (or eight) on defense. While there are things to learn at those positions, they aren't as technique-based as lineplay.

I think another aspect is that the more talented teams can cycle in inexperienced guys a bit more easily as they won't have to rely on them as heavily and won't put too much on their shoulders.
 

Sure, there are logical reasons why this is, but that wasn't the point of the thread. The point was to expose more jibberish from the coach - more things that aren't a huge deal, but could be easily filed under the "why say anything then" category. Of course, some have and will continue to argue ways this doesn't disprove what PJ said - but hell, some did that with the "pay cut" statement so I suspect it is unavoidable. #RTB


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Talent and Experience are two different things.

Meyer has said that he wants players that are only going to be there for 3-4 years. He gets the best of the best. It's also why it's best to play them early in the season as their experience usually catches up to the talent by mid-season.

2021 will be a great opportunity to knock them off in game #1.
 


Spoofin said:
Sure, there are logical reasons why this is, but that wasn't the point of the thread. The point was to expose more jibberish from the coach - more things that aren't a huge deal, but could be easily filed under the "why say anything then" category. Of course, some have and will continue to argue ways this doesn't disprove what PJ said - but hell, some did that with the "pay cut" statement so I suspect it is unavoidable. #RTB


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Sure, but the counterpoint to this thread is that the original poster is throwing out potentially skewed stats showing the number of true freshman that have played regardless of minutes or contribution. The original post cherry picks data. A more valid argument would provide a list of true freshmen by team that have significant playing time (e.g. starters) as someone else already mentioned on this thread. Without better data, there are no grounds to criticize the coach’s comments other than…well, just looking for a reason to criticize.
 

Panthadad2 said:
Sure, but the counterpoint to this thread is that the original poster is throwing out potentially skewed stats showing the number of true freshman that have played regardless of minutes or contribution. The original post cherry picks data. A more valid argument would provide a list of true freshmen by team that have significant playing time (e.g. starters) as someone else already mentioned on this thread. Without better data, there are no grounds to criticize the coach’s comments other than…well, just looking for a reason to criticize.
Click to expand...

Just a thought, but unless you made the same objection and demanded that "better data" on all the threads whining about how the Gophers were the youngest team in the Big Ten, or maybe even in the history of football :)cool:), you have no grounds to criticize a simple statement of facts now.
 

Iceland12 said:
Just a thought, but unless you made the same objection and demanded that "better data" on all the threads whining about how the Gophers were the youngest team in the Big Ten, or maybe even in the history of football :)cool:), you have no grounds to criticize a simple statement of facts now.
Click to expand...

1) Who said the Gophers are the "youngest" team? Not the coach (as far as I know). He said they are young this year and will be younger next year. It's all relative.
2) The original post throws out the hard numbers of freshmen that "participated" which doesn't necessarily translate to "young" as the post title implies. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not. The data presented doesn't prove it. Someone else posted in another thread the number of true freshman in the 2-deeps. That's getting closer to the "young" description.
3) I haven't "whined" about this subject nor argued about it until now. I just don't like misleading stats being used to prove a point...especially a negative trolling point about my (admittedly) favorite team. I fully understand and support Fleck's goal of having a team heavily comprised of 21-22 year-old redshirt players beating up on younger 18-20 year-old players (I believe Kill/Claeys had the same goal). It's a good plan.
 

Spoofin said:
Sure, there are logical reasons why this is, but that wasn't the point of the thread. The point was to expose more jibberish from the coach - more things that aren't a huge deal, but could be easily filed under the "why say anything then" category. Of course, some have and will continue to argue ways this doesn't disprove what PJ said - but hell, some did that with the "pay cut" statement so I suspect it is unavoidable. #RTB


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Just like the last time something like this was posted, this doesn't prove anything other than we aren't playing a lot of true freshman. What constitutes a team being young? Playing a lot of true freshman? Playing a lot of underclassmen? Do you include just starters or all players no matter if they see the field for one play or 50+?

Are we young? I don't know or really care. No one here knows how he came to that conclusion or if he just made it up. It's just weird to me how some people care so much what a coach says to the media.
 

The youth statement can be viewed from several different angles depending on what you want to prove. On Saturday, we started 1 senior on offense (Garrison Wright, a JUCO no less) and 3 on defense (Richardson, Celestin, Ayinde). 4 seniors out of 22 doesn't ring tons of experience in my book....
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom