Thank you for your post. To add another conclusion to what you wrote: the coaches in this sport are dumb to extrapolate that the same 16 year old will dominate over a 14 year old today will dominate as a 20 year old against 18 year olds...or a 23 year old versus 21 is a big mistake. At 14 you are not close to growing or putting on a frame. At 16 it gets closer, and at 18 you are what you will be. At 18 and up it is all about hitting the weights and other training to get stronger and faster with the body you have.
I don't think it is a mistake to generalize the held back a grade kids at 16 are generally athletic advantage motivated. Those kids tend to be undersized for their sports and lock down an immediate advantage to compete against kids 12-23 months younger during a growth phase for boys. That disappears over time. In 5 years with UNC and UVa you will be see 6 players at 5'7, 150 kids from Maryland or New England prep schools throwing the ball around and running away from poles and losing. Danowski is likely laughing and encouraging the parent inquiries he gets to those to programs.
Generally all the early commits have great stick skills relative to their peers now, most of whom are behind only because of age. Stick skills you can get, that is just hours of practice. Size is non negotiable and changes everything. When we someday see these kids playing in college, who do you want odds on? A first team midfield at Duke with a fleet of 6'2 200+lb hybrids that can run and have stick skills caught up, or a fleet of kids who were 5'7 130lb early commits who became 5'8 150lb prep school yesterday heroes? Yes, Duke will miss a Colin Munro, but they will also get 5 early commits who are not that one special player every year. You don't win that way.
