Fleck: 71 percent of our team is underclassmen; finally have depth

BleedGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
60,579
Reaction score
15,658
Points
113
per Sid:

Young roster

Fleck said the eight preferred walk-ons the team announced earlier in February will be a huge help.

“This year we’re going to have, I think, 71 percent of our team is underclassmen,” he said. “We’re going to have to have a lot of young guys step up and help us. We finally have what we call depth. Next year it will be very competitive depth, because we’ll have a lot more of it. But we’re finally getting to a point right now where we at least have the numbers, and that helps us.

“We still need one or two recruiting classes to come in here and fix some of the things we have, but it’s a great start.”

http://www.startribune.com/gophers-...-campus-quickly-could-help-program/474910863/

Go Gophers!!
 

Keeping fingers crossed that the net sum is all positive in the next four years:

Minimize career ending injuries,
Minimize attrition of key position depth players,
Recruiting fervor continues,
The QB and offense finally clicks together,
The defense becomes stronger,
That the Gophers have more Ws than Ls,
PJ Fleck does not decide to do a comb over like Gene Keady.

Pretty please Lord. This is all that I humbly ask for.
 

Keeping fingers crossed that the net sum is all positive in the next four years:

Minimize career ending injuries,
Minimize attrition of key position depth players,
Recruiting fervor continues,
The QB and offense finally clicks together,
The defense becomes stronger,
That the Gophers have more Ws than Ls,
PJ Fleck does not decide to do a comb over like Gene Keady.

Pretty please Lord. This is all that I humbly ask for.

Fleck needs to win, period. That's why he got the big salary.
 

I think depth takes a bit more time to develop, but we probabbly have more depth than recently ... if only because we had so many injuries.
 

I think he probably is one more class away from really having numbers that he needs. Next year (19) we should hopefully see some fruits of their labor. We will also see if he and his staff can coach in the BiG. Gosh I hope so...we are so due!
 


I wonder what percentage of the team is underclassmen, typically. Does anybody know?
 

I wonder what percentage of the team is underclassmen, typically. Does anybody know?

How is he defining upperclassmen? Are RS Sophomores underclassmen or upperclassmen? If you think in terms of 5 classes (the 4 currently playing and the one redshirting), then logic dictates in a perfect world that 3 of the classes (60%) are underclassmen and 2 (40%) are upperclassmen. However, we know that all teams suffer some level of attrition, meaning that having 17 (or so) in each of those five classes is very rare, and that there may only be 12-15 in each of those upper 2 classes. Those are factors pushing the underclassmen % higher on any typical squad. And, we haven't even gotten into - is he talking about scholarship players only or the full roster? Most of the non-scholarship players are young because they either get put on scholarship, find someplace else to play on scholarship, or quit football - very few guys actually play 4-5 years while paying to do so the whole time.

Based on all of these factors, 71% seems pretty average if not even a little low. The crying about youth on a roster gets old (I know most college coaches do it - Kill did it every year). These are college teams - every team is young. Over 99% of the guys playing are 22 or younger. It's insulting to our intelligence when the coaches even bring it up - it goes without saying.
 

I would say the breakdown that really matters would be the ages of players on the two-deeps - the top 22 on offense and defense. Of those 44 players, what is the breakdown by class?

Of that group, in a perfect world, you would like to have a majority of redshirt seniors, true seniors, redshirt juniors and true juniors, with the occasional Sophomore.

OK - for last game of '17 season - the breakdown: RSr 8 - Sr 6 - RJr 4 - Jr 3 - RSo 5 - So 4 - RFr 7 - Fr 4. That comes to 41 because some players were double-listed as backups at more than one position. 21 of 41 were upperclassmen - or 51%.

I think you'd like that number to be higher - at least 60% - but I suppose it could be worse. Of course, that was last year. Will be interesting to see what the 2-deeps look like for the 2018 season opener.
 

This is from 2012 but I would guess the numbers would be similar today. Turns out it appears 71% would have ranked as one of the highest % of underclassmen in 2012. The average was also in the 57% range, so 71% would be a fairly substantial delta from the average as well.

http://plus.philsteele.com/Blogs/2012/July12/DBJuly2.html
 



I count 25 scholarship jr/sr., so he's looking at scholarship players only. It doesn't seem too extraordinary after attrition. There is an upper bound. Probably the better question to ask is whether the roster is any good, and/or the development/coaching/scheme.

There's always next year. /s
 

"We still need one <b>or two </b>recruiting classes to come in here and fix some of the things we have, but it’s a great start.”

Not fixed till maybe 2020 now?
Comin' in 2021?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

I really don't care that much what age they are; what experience they have is most relevant to me. A lot of these guys saw the field last year and many non-starters saw significant minutes.
 

How is he defining upperclassmen? Are RS Sophomores underclassmen or upperclassmen? If you think in terms of 5 classes (the 4 currently playing and the one redshirting), then logic dictates in a perfect world that 3 of the classes (60%) are underclassmen and 2 (40%) are upperclassmen. However, we know that all teams suffer some level of attrition, meaning that having 17 (or so) in each of those five classes is very rare, and that there may only be 12-15 in each of those upper 2 classes. Those are factors pushing the underclassmen % higher on any typical squad. And, we haven't even gotten into - is he talking about scholarship players only or the full roster? Most of the non-scholarship players are young because they either get put on scholarship, find someplace else to play on scholarship, or quit football - very few guys actually play 4-5 years while paying to do so the whole time.

Based on all of these factors, 71% seems pretty average if not even a little low. The crying about youth on a roster gets old (I know most college coaches do it - Kill did it every year). These are college teams - every team is young. Over 99% of the guys playing are 22 or younger. It's insulting to our intelligence when the coaches even bring it up - it goes without saying.

There are a couple factors you didn't include could push the typical percentage lower. First is what percentage of players don't redshirt (or don't before their Junior year), so they would be upperclassmen in year 3. The other question is how to count a career walk-on that never plays - do you call them a RS Sophomore or a Junior, when the reality is that they won't be around a 5th year either way (usually they are not allowed back after year 4 is my understanding). Obviously we probably don't know a lot of them today that could eventually see the field, but we know there are ones that won't.

I did a cursory look to see if the stats were out there and I'm sure they are, but I didn't find them.

My gut would say 71% is higher than average, but probably not by much (probably within a standard deviation). Even with counting walk-ons and first year starters as upper classmen in year 3, I'd be shocked if average was less than 60% with attrition.

I think the crying about youth is a euphemism for saying "we don't have much talent" without trashing the players.
 




You should fix your signature line if you think that.

I'll have to confirm with PJ. I want my signature line to be accurate with things he has said.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 


Can't fix a depth issue at certain positions in a year.

You could, but it would be with Jucos. PJ obviously doesn't want to do that. Not saying it's right or wrong, but it's a choice he made.
 

You could, but it would be with Jucos. PJ obviously doesn't want to do that. Not saying it's right or wrong, but it's a choice he made.

If they're good... the JuCo ranks are pretty up and down and outside a few dudes, not that much up.

It's not like PJs preference shuts down a huge talent pool or anything.
 

If they're good... the JuCo ranks are pretty up and down and outside a few dudes, not that much up.

It's not like PJs preference shuts down a huge talent pool or anything.

I don't disagree with you - just saying there is a different way to fill depth needs. Jucos can be high risk high reward.
 

I would say the breakdown that really matters would be the ages of players on the two-deeps - the top 22 on offense and defense. Of those 44 players, what is the breakdown by class?

Of that group, in a perfect world, you would like to have a majority of redshirt seniors, true seniors, redshirt juniors and true juniors, with the occasional Sophomore.

OK - for last game of '17 season - the breakdown: RSr 8 - Sr 6 - RJr 4 - Jr 3 - RSo 5 - So 4 - RFr 7 - Fr 4. That comes to 41 because some players were double-listed as backups at more than one position. 21 of 41 were upperclassmen - or 51%.

I think you'd like that number to be higher - at least 60% - but I suppose it could be worse. Of course, that was last year. Will be interesting to see what the 2-deeps look like for the 2018 season opener.

I looked up Alabama and what they listed in the NC game. Here is their breakdown: 3-RSr 7-Sr 7-RJr 12-JR 4-RSo 11-So 3-RFr and 10-Fr They had some positions where they listed 3 players.
If you put the RSo with the upperclassman That would be 56% are upperclassman. We aren't that different in terms of depth chart make up.
 

I don't disagree with you - just saying there is a different way to fill depth needs. Jucos can be high risk high reward.

He took two JUCOs this class - Vic and Jason Dickson. Two guys that will hopefully be difference makers and start.

In his first class he also took 2 Jucos - Ben Davis and Royal Silver. As well as 2 transfers - OJ Smith and Chris Williamson.
 

He took two JUCOs this class - Vic and Jason Dickson. Two guys that will hopefully be difference makers and start.

In his first class he also took 2 Jucos - Ben Davis and Royal Silver. As well as 2 transfers - OJ Smith and Chris Williamson.

All true, but remember, they took Silver to red-shirt him & not to add depth right away.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Such nonsense. All of this. Alabama just won a national championship with like 2-3 seniors/RS seniors starting on offense. Their QB depth chart consisted of a sophomore and freshman....the freshman came in and won them the championship. They didn't have an offensive tackle on the depth chart I looked at over RS Sophmore. Their #2 RB was a true freshman. Pretty important positions there.

They were up to an astonishing 5 seniors/RS senior starters on defense.

I get that the narrative that Fleck drug this program from the depths of despair is important. Thus, the bare cupboard that takes years to replenish has to be the company line. But, the team isn't bad because there is some arbitrary percentage of upperclassman you need on your roster to be successful.
 

Such nonsense. All of this. Alabama just won a national championship with like 2-3 seniors/RS seniors starting on offense. Their QB depth chart consisted of a sophomore and freshman....the freshman came in and won them the championship. They didn't have an offensive tackle on the depth chart I looked at over RS Sophmore. Their #2 RB was a true freshman. Pretty important positions there.

They were up to an astonishing 5 seniors/RS senior starters on defense.

I get that the narrative that Fleck drug this program from the depths of despair is important. Thus, the bare cupboard that takes years to replenish has to be the company line. But, the team isn't bad because there is some arbitrary percentage of upperclassman you need on your roster to be successful.

Lol yeah we should totally compare Minnesota to Alabama, who's roster is 90% 4* and 5* players. 2* and 3* players are clearly just as ready to play out of high school as 4* and 5* players.
 

Lol yeah we should totally compare Minnesota to Alabama, who's roster is 90% 4* and 5* players. 2* and 3* players are clearly just as ready to play out of high school as 4* and 5* players.

It's actually 79.6% for the years 14-17, but still rather high.
Using Alabama as a comparison, wasn't comparing the star ratings, it was comparing that even at Alabama, they have similar numbers to us in underclassman that contribute, yet you don't hear much coming from them that they are so young and can't compete because of it.
 

It's actually 79.6% for the years 14-17, but still rather high.
Using Alabama as a comparison, wasn't comparing the star ratings, it was comparing that even at Alabama, they have similar numbers to us in underclassman that contribute, yet you don't hear much coming from them that they are so young and can't compete because of it.

Because they're getting a lot more players that are not only more talented but also more physically ready to play right away.
 

Keeping fingers crossed that the net sum is all positive in the next four years:

Minimize career ending injuries,
Minimize attrition of key position depth players,
Recruiting fervor continues,
The QB and offense finally clicks together,
The defense becomes stronger,
That the Gophers have more Ws than Ls,
PJ Fleck does not decide to do a comb over like Gene Keady.

Pretty please Lord. This is all that I humbly ask for.

Ha, give me an average of 9 wins a year and I'll accept a Gene Keady combover.... 10 wins? I'll accept, but not like, a "man bun".....
 

The fact that we have a similar number of young guys playing as Alabama pretty much proves the overall point Coach Fleck is trying to make. The advantage that middle of the road programs like Minnesota need to exploit versus the blue bloods is to have a bunch of mature guys that are 22/23 years old that know their system like the back of their hand - and maybe they can hang with more talented guys that are 18-20 years old. Teams like Alabama will always be young because their top talent plays their senior (or red-shirt junior) year in the NFL. We can't compete with teams like that on a level playing field (in terms of experience/maturity).

I'm very much more on the fence with Fleck than I was a year ago, but I really feel like he is making legitimate points about our roster construction. My statement is not a slam at the previous staff, because a lot of that was bad luck and natural attrition during a coaching change. It has been a long time since the Gophers were not being forced to play guys that were too young to see the field.

Imagine how fun it would have been if Maye and Wolitarski had their breakout years as redshirt juniors instead of seniors. Those are just two recent examples that came to mind.
 

PJ, through his own words, has set the highest bar of any Gopher coach in my lifetime. He's talked about his desire to win not only B1G championships, but national championships.

Yet this same coach, in the minds of many on GH, is doing everything possible to artificially downplay expectations for the first 3 years? Really? He's that into Jedi mind games that he is intentionally blowing away multiple seasons just so he can be the heroic savior 3-4 years from now? Really?

:confused:
 

With transfers, JUCOS, walk-ons, and scholies, the Gophers have twenty-one OLs.

IMHO, PJF has a realization that you need to consider JUCOs in addition to transfers and walk-ons to balance out needs. Initially, he indicated that he is not a fan of JUCOs. He is now out of necessity. Meanwhile, he has to build depth in any way possible.

Maybe in the future when the program gets going he'll have the luxury.

OL Roster 2-25-2018.jpg
 




Top Bottom