Redskins 2Nd Oldest Team In The League

[Riggo#44]

I saw this on twitter---and thought it warrented discussion: The Redskins are the 2nd oldest team in the league with an average age of 26.84 years. By contrast, the Eagles are 10th at 25.74, Cowboys are 15th at 26.00 and the Giants are 27th at 26.66.

 

Complete list: http://mobile.philly.com/blogs/?wss=/philly/blogs/red_zone/&id=221955211

 

Of our starters, we have 4 players 30 or over: Montgomery and Chester (both 30), Moss (34) and Fletch (38). Griffin is 23, Morris 24, Big Trent 25, Rak and Kerrigan are 27 and 25 respectively. These are some of our best players.

 

In contrast, the Giants, Cowboys and Eagles are all starting QBs over 30: Manning is 32, Vick 33, and Romo sits to pee is 33.

 

I wonder--does this matter? 

[garyclarkforhall]

Our numbers are skewed by a number of players where age doesn't matter... players over 32, with the exception of Fletcher, are all backups or in positions where age doesn't matter.

 

Sav Rocca - 38

Fletcher - 38

Nick Barnett - a backup linebacker - 32

Grossman - 3rd sting QB - 33

Santana Moss - slot 3rd receiver - 34

 

Everyone else is 30 or younger...

[Califan007 The Constipated]

I saw this on twitter---and thought it warrented discussion: The Redskins are the 2nd oldest team in the league with an average age of 26.84 years. By contrast, the Eagles are 10th at 25.74, Cowboys are 15th at 26.00 and the Giants are 27th at 26.66.

 

Huh?...The Redskins are 2nd oldest team in the NFL at 26.84...and the Giants are 27th oldest team in the league at 26.66? lol...

[Gamebreaker]

This isn't a big deal, only Rocca and Fletcher are starters. Moss won't see enough plays to make his age a factor, and Barnett may never see the field at all if our ILBs stay healthy.

[pjfootballer]

Doesn't matter. Overall we have a young team with a lot of depth. It's not how old you are, it's how you play.

[RedskinsInFebruary]

Huh?...The Redskins are 2nd oldest team in the NFL at 26.84...and the Giants are 27th oldest team in the league at 26.66? lol...

 

Makes the Giants the 6th oldest, in other words.  (27th youngest.)

[Dark Acre]

A couple of important points here.  First, we're talking about a difference of around *1* year?  Does that even make a difference on *average*?  (I'll get to that in a moment.)  Perhaps that year actually benefits us in terms of experience.  Second, and a garyclarkforhall alludes to (which is where the averages thing comes in), it utterly depends on where the age is distributed.  Fletcher should be considered to be a few years younger.  Then, yeah, you have age at positions either less affected by it (punter, 3rd string QB, etc.) or guys who are still productive but are transitioning from primary roles (starting WR) to secondary ones (slot WR) as their careers wind down.  If you take out these kinds of player ages from every team, you'll probably see different results.  We have a couple of 30 y.o. starting interior OL (which is fine) but most of the OL is 24, 25.  RB?  Young.  FB?  Young (pun)  QB? Young.  WR sans moss?  Young to middle age.  Defense is similar.  Stats are meaningless without context.

[RedskinsInFebruary]

Well very generally it seems the stronger teams are the "older" ones; a few exceptions (Seahawks?--wow).

[War Paint]

I'll admit I was a bit surprised because I thought we were one of the younger teams in the league.  As already pointed out, we only have two players over the 30 mark that get frequent playing time, Fletcher and Moss.  It's three if you count our punter.  This list can't be judged based on this ranking alone, because other teams like the Cowboys who are ranked younger and in the middle of the pack on that list have guys 30+ years old at critical positions, such as QB, pass rushing DE, and TE.  The three faces of their franchise, Romo sits to pee, Dware, and Witten are ages 31+.

 

I mean, I'm pretty sure London Fletcher's age alone skews our average up enough to drop us several spots.  It's not big deal really.  I'd be more worried if we were in the Cowboys position, where our key players are on the wrong side of 30.

[NikoBellic]

Fletcher is skewing the average LOL...

 

The difference between the oldest team and youngest team is not that big, actually --- a difference of a little over 2 years:

 

Youngest Team = Rams at 24.98

Oldest Team = Lions at 27.15

 

I think there are more good teams in the older half of the NFL, probably due more to correlation than causation since teams that are doing well tend to keep veterans who helped them achieve that success rather than replace them with young, unproven rookies.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Makes the Giants the 6th oldest, in other words.  (27th youngest.)

 

Ah, gotcha lol...

[War Paint]

Okay, I didn't go through every age on our roster, but I just did a calculation using a standard age of 25.  I multiplied 25x52 and got 1300.  I added 38 (Fletcher's age) for 1338.  I divided 1338 by 53 (roster total) and got 25.25.  So London's age alone increased the average age of the entire roster by .25.

 

Now look at the list. We are on average 26.84 and 2nd to last.  If you subtract .25 from 26.84, you get 26.59.  That's enough to raise us 4 spots and in front of the Giants. Again, I didn't average the accurate ages of the entire roster so those numbers aren't exactly right.   I was showing the impact of just one player who's up there in age has on the average.  I didn't even calculate Roca, our 38 year old punter.  In other words, this list can't be judged on rankings alone.  You have to get inside the numbers. 

 

I hope that all made sense because I didn't get much sleep last night and I'm tired haha.

[khaozerker]

Is there a list of the average age of teams based on only starters?

[Boss_Hogg]

Waiting for the WaPo writers or the 106.7 blowhards to complain about Mike and Bruce building an old roster.

Face palm

[War Paint]

Waiting for the WaPo writers or the 106.7 blowhards to complain about Mike and Bruce building an old roster.

Face palm

Yeah, this list is simply troll fodder.  I guarantee if somebody posted this on a Cowboys forums, they would turn it into a "Skins won't be good for long because they are old.  They are trying to catch lightening in a bottle.  Same old Redskins, trying to build a team of old players" lol. 

[Riggo#44]

Yeah, this list is simply troll fodder.  I guarantee if somebody posted this on a Cowboys forums, they would turn it into a "Skins won't be good for long because they are old.  They are trying to catch lightening in a bottle.  Same old Redskins, trying to build a team of old players" lol. 

 

That's interesting--I almost want to see how many times this logic used, while ignoring the fact that Romo sits to pee, Witten, and Ware are all 31+, Spencer and Austin are 29, etc.

[Darth Tater]

I saw this on twitter---and thought it warrented discussion: The Redskins are the 2nd oldest team in the league with an average age of 26.84 years. By contrast, the Eagles are 10th at 25.74, Cowboys are 15th at 26.00 and the Giants are 27th at 26.66.

 

Complete list: http://mobile.philly.com/blogs/?wss=/philly/blogs/red_zone/&id=221955211

 

Of our starters, we have 4 players 30 or over: Montgomery and Chester (both 30), Moss (34) and Fletch (38). Griffin is 23, Morris 24, Big Trent 25, Rak and Kerrigan are 27 and 25 respectively. These are some of our best players.

 

In contrast, the Giants, Cowboys and Eagles are all starting QBs over 30: Manning is 32, Vick 33, and Romo sits to pee is 33.

 

I wonder--does this matter? 

Problem of using average age is that distribution of that age is so important.  Do you have a handful of older players that skew that number upward?  Further, remember, the youngest guys usually can't be younger than 21 while technically, there is no upper limit except death (although in reality probably late 30s is the upper limit).  Are those at older guys starters?  Do they play positions that are hard to find the resources to fill (for instance, positions that usually only found using high picks)?  How physically taxing is the position (for instance, a punter or a kicker could play at a high level into his early 40s while you'd likely never see a RB like that)?

[Dark Acre]

Problem of using average age is that distribution of that age is so important.  Do you have a handful of older players that skew that number upward? 

I got one name for you:  George Blanda.  1949-1975.  No, that's not the years of his life; that's the years of his NFL career.  Yeah, he started playing before the Korean War and ended after Vietnam.

[markmills67]

In 2014 when I think the redskins will go deep in the playoffs we will

more than likely not have Fletcher,

moss, Chester etc , they are going to be replaced by younger players. we will be one of the youngest teams then.

[Voice_of_Reason]

There are only 3 places on the roster where an older player is starting:

ILB: Fletch

C: Monty

RG: Chester

Fletch is obviously the outlyer, and he's probably in his last year. The team also has a veteran backup for him. It will be very interesting to see how they plug that hole next year. If Keenan comes back and takes the spot, or if they draft somebody, or what.

C: Monty. I think that the idea is to have young depth here, and LeRebius was supposed to be that guy. We'll see. But Monty is still playing very well. No reason to remove somebody who's playing well with somebody younger.

RG: Chris Chester. Almost exactly the same comment as above. They have Gettis in there as well to back him up.

[Dark Acre]

In 2014 when I think the redskins will go deep in the playoffs we will

more than likely not have Fletcher,

moss, Chester etc , they are going to be replaced by younger players. we will be one of the youngest teams then.

Especially when we stock up with all those draft picks we're going to get for Cousins next year.   

 

BTW, and just as an aside about Capt. Kirk, my 77 y.o. mom is a huge Skins afficionado, so much so that when she and my dad used to go to parties at friends' houses, she was usually the only woman hanging out with the men watching the games.  Once she was essentially told to join the women in another room b/c she didn't know football.  She then proceeded to tutor the guy in all things Redskins.  Anyway, she says she really, really likes KC and hopes we never trade him, even in his last year.     Aww mom....

[Spearfeather]

Rocca will be 40 by the end of this season. I bet Fletcher calls him " old man ".

[PeterMP]

Okay, I didn't go through every age on our roster, but I just did a calculation using a standard age of 25.  I multiplied 25x52 and got 1300.  I added 38 (Fletcher's age) for 1338.  I divided 1338 by 53 (roster total) and got 25.25.  So London's age alone increased the average age of the entire roster by .25.

 

Now look at the list. We are on average 26.84 and 2nd to last.  If you subtract .25 from 26.84, you get 26.59.  That's enough to raise us 4 spots and in front of the Giants. Again, I didn't average the accurate ages of the entire roster so those numbers aren't exactly right.   I was showing the impact of just one player who's up there in age has on the average.  I didn't even calculate Roca, our 38 year old punter.  In other words, this list can't be judged on rankings alone.  You have to get inside the numbers. 

 

I hope that all made sense because I didn't get much sleep last night and I'm tired haha.

 

You realize though that by starting at 25, you are over inflating the increase due to Fletcher's age.

 

It isn't that hard to figure out what the average age WITHOUT Fletcher would be.

 

26.84*53 = 1422.52

1422.52-38 = 1384.52

1384.52/52 = 26.625

 

I'm going to go ahead and say I don't like it, and I think this partly a by product of them not gutting the team in the 1st place.

 

I think that Moss is probably the best example of the problem.  Josh Morgan is 28, and really not that good.  I'd rather my 3rd WR be a young guy that was pushing him rather then a guy that is even older.

 

As is, I suspect we'll have to replace 2 important WRs in the next 3 years or so (Moss and Morgan) (and that's assuming Garcon's toe holds up), assuming we want to have championship aspirations.

 

And yeah people like Fletcher and Roca inflate it, but those are people you are going to have replace.

[HeluCopter29]

Average age is one of those things that doesn't really matter where you rank.  It's usually older teams that win anyway.

 

It's more of a grade then a competition and 26.84 seam pretty good to me.

[War Paint]

You realize though that by starting at 25, you are over inflating the increase due to Fletcher's age.

 

It isn't that hard to figure out what the average age WITHOUT Fletcher would be.

 

26.84*53 = 1422.52

1422.52-38 = 1384.52

1384.52/52 = 26.625

 

I'm going to go ahead and say I don't like it, and I think this partly a by product of them not gutting the team in the 1st place.

 

I think that Moss is probably the best example of the problem.  Josh Morgan is 28, and really not that good.  I'd rather my 3rd WR be a young guy that was pushing him rather then a guy that is even older.

 

As is, I suspect we'll have to replace 2 important WRs in the next 3 years or so (Moss and Morgan) (and that's assuming Garcon's toe holds up), assuming we want to have championship aspirations.

 

And yeah people like Fletcher and Roca inflate it, but those are people you are going to have replace.

I used 25 because it was close to the Rams 24.98 who were ranked first.  You are right though. The math you showed was all that needed to be done. 

 

I don't think the age thing is a big deal though.  The biggest question will be London's replacement.  I'm pretty sure we can find a decent punter if need be.  3 years to replace a WR is plenty of time.