Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat
i find it amusing that people make a big deal about this.
the difference between the youngest team (25.9) and the redskins (28.1) is slightly more than two years. the average, middle-of-the pack age for a team is 27.2. So the Redskins are, on average, about 10-1/2 months older than the average NFL team.
who the heck cares? Ideally, ever team would have a mix of veterans and young, promising players at every position. The only position where i think having a lot of younger guys really comes in handy is running back, and thats only because running backs generally stop performing at a high level when they reach 27 or 28. At pretty much every other position, id much rather have veterans anyway.
|
I agree. I wish they would look more into each team and the ages of the players vs. how old the team in general is. What really matters is does the team have 25 or 27 players in their 30's or are the majority of the players around 25 y/o with about 10 - 15 players at age 28. I'm probably saying it wrong because averaging both they probably equal out but youth is the key. You'll get speed and health. Unfortunatly you lose playing smarts.
So what actually is the difference? maybe 1 to 5 players in their 30's?