Out of curiosity, I noticed that the boys 2003 age group (U17) looks a lot more talented and a lot more physical than the 2004 (U16) age group? Not only in Mass, but perhaps the entire nation, too? Just a thought
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
2003 vs 2004
Collapse
X
-
UnregisteredTags: None
- Quote
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View PostOut of curiosity, I noticed that the boys 2003 age group (U17) looks a lot more talented and a lot more physical than the 2004 (U16) age group? Not only in Mass, but perhaps the entire nation, too? Just a thought
- Quote
-
Unregistered
-
Unregistered
Looks like parents started buying "organic" crap from places like Whole Foods starting with the 2004 kids. All the 2003 kids rolled around in the dirt and ate foods full of hormones.
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
Gee, maybe the age difference and the fact that boys and finish puberty later than girls (hence are still putting on muscle mass well throughout high school), has something to do with it?
Duh.
- Quote
Comment
Comment