Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
minutemancl

Ranking the youth on every team

Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, EliteTexan80 said:

Forgot about him - he's like, 41 now?

Without him we would be 2nd. (as per my perfect calculation)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EliteTexan80 said:

Forgot about him - he's like, 41 now?

Punters, kickers and long snappers should be removed from the list IMO.

Their age is pretty irrelevant.

No rebuild was ever slowed by a team not being able to get young talent at the punter position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, vikesfan89 said:

I'm surprised the Vikings are that old

Terrance Newman, Brian Robison and Joe Berger definitely play a big role in this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting enough, the Falcons have just 5 players 30 or older... And of those included 36 year old backup QB Schaub and 42 year old kicker Bryant. Take them out and the average drops to a league average 25.9. Which is still super young.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/4/2017 at 3:33 PM, titans0021 said:

It's interesting, but I've never found it to be all that useful in judging anything. I'd be more interested in it if they waited until after Week 1 and came up with a separate chart that contained the average age of each team's 22 starters. For the Titans, you're having that number bumped up because of guys like Harry Douglas (32 year old #5 receiver), Matt Cassel (35 year old backup QB), Brice McCain (30 year old #4 corner), Eric Weems (32 year old #6 receiver) and Erik Walden (32 year old #4 OLB).

With that said, I am surprised to see the Titans that low. But I guess there are enough veteran pieces that it's not too shocking.

I saw somewhere a weighted average of age by snap count.  That's more useful, IMO.  But harder to calculate.  Can't just dig up the roster sheet and do some quick math in excel.

EDIT: Also, obviously, can't do that calculation until there's been actual games played.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, theJ said:

Here, this is 2016 snap-weighted age.  By team, by team's unit, etc.  

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2017/snap-weighted-age-2016-nfl-rosters

New Orleans - oldest team, total, in 2016 (27.5)

Arizona - Oldest offense (28.3)

Cincinnati - Oldest defense (28.2)

Buffalo - oldest ST's (27.3)

Could also just use the totals xD

LA Rams - Youngest team - 25.7

New Orleans - Oldest team - 27.5

I don't feel like doing the math to remove special teams as requested by someone above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Hockey5djh said:

Could also just use the totals xD

 

I just picked out some of the data.  Obviously they have a lot of data in there.  Even unit age by position group (QB, WR, TE, DL, etc).  

Lots of good stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Hockey5djh said:

I don't feel like doing the math to remove special teams as requested by someone above.

The total basically does that.  The complaint is that 40 yo punter adds too much the team average.  Well, a punter plays, what, 80 snaps over a season?  So he barely factors into a team's total age.

That number is a very good representation of how old/young a team was in 2016.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/4/2017 at 11:10 PM, Shanedorf said:

This is from The Dope Sheet and sheds a little bit of detail on the Packers 90 man roster, just some different ways of sorting it. And I think pretty representative of the rest of the league. Its definitely a young man's game

GREEN BAY’S ROSTER ...

BY AGE (as of August 10)

  • 21-24: 56 players
  • 25-28: 25 players
  • 29-32: 7 players
  • 33-plus: 2 players

 

I actually think this is a better way to look at age.  Not how old is the average player, but how many players in each age bracket do you have.Not sure I wouldn't divide them differently though. The perception of 25 vs 28 is VERY different in the NFL.  A 25 yr old is a young pup, perhaps just finding his stride. A 28 yr old is "almost 30".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/5/2017 at 0:12 AM, Thomas5737 said:

Browns went from the 31st oldest team in 2016 to the 1st youngest team in 2017.

 

Need a band aid on the wounds from that epic fall????:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/4/2017 at 11:53 AM, bucsfan333 said:

This is our first time in at least five years being over 26 for our average age.

If grimes, dotson and ayers left this would drop significantly back under 25 again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Panthers lost some weight by dropping Mike Tolbert and Andy Lee but gained even more by signing Julius Peppers and Mike Adams, who I believe are both in the top five oldest defenders in the NFL with Terence Newman, Dwight Freeney, and James Harrison. In fact, we have three starters on defense who entered the NFL in 2005 or earlier (the other being Thomas Davis). Our youngest defender, Daeshon Hall, was only 7 when Peppers was drafted... and now he has DLine meetings with him!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Falcons holding on to tried and true 42 yr old Matt Bryant probably isn't helping their cause for age lol.  But thats ok Bryant is still kicking strong for his age so he can stay until he proves he can't imo no matter the age :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As always, this is one of those things that's interesting, but ultimately not all that meaningful without looking further into the data. Most teams fall within a very small bracket of variance. Small enough that a player or two, potentially a non-impactful player, can substantially sway things. I remember one of the first years this was posted that I saw, Indy was near the bottom of the list, but removing Vinatieri and Hasselbeck skyrocketed them up it. And there's a difference between youth and quality youth that this can't capture. Even if we were to factor snap count, that still isn't ultimately that meaningful. There's a common assumption in sports that youth leads to improvement, but it's only sometimes the case. Often, young players who suck only progress to become slightly less young players who still suck. Having young contributors could mean that there's a bright future ahead, or it could mean that you just don't have anyone older worthwhile, so drafted players are getting the start by default.

 

So interesting, but it lacks far too many important details to actually reveal anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  



×