DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum The Shift to Youth

http://www.phillyvoice.com/ranking-nfl-teams-age-after-53-man-cutdowns-2016-edition/

The rest of the AFC North are among ten oldest teams.

Cleveland's average age is 25.08.


Note from author below:



Every year I do this study, I seem to get the same basic comment, which I'll address ahead of time.

"The difference between the Rams and Falcons is only 2.08 years. Big whoop."

While 2.08 years may not be a big difference between two individual players, keep in mind that these are the average ages of 53 players per team.

2.08 years on average * 53 players = A difference of about 110.3 total years between the Rams and Falcons.

In other words, if you took the 22 oldest Falcons and shaved 5 years off each of their ages, their roster still wouldn't be as young as the Rams.



And this was before today's moves. (or before we cut/trade any other vets)

Sure, there will be growing pains and some of the young players will not turn out. But, you can see the plan has been to get as young as possible (based on SPARQ #s) and collect future assets.

Also, it's interesting to see that average ages on that list does not correlate in any way to franchise success. "Good" teams fall all over the map.

Also, looking at the Browns roster (2nd youngest by avg) compared to the Rams roster (youngest by average). Median age for Browns is 24, and median age for Rams is 25. A greater % of Browns players are in the If the question being answered is "who has the youngest team?", then looking at median along side average is revealing. The distribution of players on the Browns roster is more heavy shifted toward "younger" ages than the Rams despite what the average shows.

Continue to flood the roster with as many young lottery tickets as possible and hope some of the tickets turn up.

I am completely realistic about this season. I hope for the best but, expect it could be rough. I anticipate next year to be better and 2018 to be our breakout.

That said, I am eager and excited to see all these young pups turn into real Dawgs. With our 53-man roster the training to become full grown dawgs starts now.

Bring it on!

I have no way to prove this, but just from watching the nfl, youth movements aren't that big of a deal when it comes to offense.

The defensive side of the ball is when it really hurts, as playing defense is mostly reactionary, while offense is proactive.

I think it depends on the individual defense, but ours have definitely seemed of the reactionary variety. There are also positions that are easier and harder. I also think position changes are more common on D.

I'm hoping that we'll hold onto these young guns me be able to build them up no put together. Strong core within the next two years

I couldn't have said it better! I like the trend I've seen on this board of referring to the young guys as pups, as in young dawgs.

I'm starting to get excited about this FO and this approach. They are looking for solid athletes a bushel at a time and sorting the bad apples / weak apples / old apples at a rapid rate. They are not going to hit on 100% of their moves, nobody does, but they are correcting mistakes fast and always looking for value to move forward with and build upon.

We are looking at 14 more picks next year! Two years of them doing this is like having four drafts in two years! If they can manage to keep that pace we should have a roster full of studs in no time.

I could be way off point, but I really like this approach! And if we end up with a young and "Dominate" team in 2-3 years we're going to be in a very good position in the AFC North. It will be hard for the aging AFC to keep up.

I have been trying to not get excited and let this play out but I am liking what I'm seeing.

I agree. The results will be terrible this year, but at least we have a plan and progress to look for. Something to watch grow.

I remember when Mangini had a very old roster and we were still 4-12. That was a very bad feeling.

The problem is that you can't continually add 14 to 20 players to your roster and be successful. The Browns are in full rebuild. Rebuild results in the first year are normally poor.

plus, a good problem to have is if a large number of these guys pan out ... then you have to pick and choose which ones you let go

j/c

This last draft we started with 10 or 11 picks and turned that into 14 (+ Taylor). We went for a quantity of athletic over-achievers. This season will be about sorting out the keepers. I think next year will be a rinse and repeat. By 2018, I think we will have our foundation and be less looking for quantity and more looking for key pieces to take the team to the next level. That's when we are likely to see FA signings and moves to trade up in the draft instead of down.

I knew that we would go really young.

One thing that surprises me is that MCCown is still here. I would assume that he will probably be traded if RG3 plays well, and makes it through 4 or 5 games without any injuries. (and we get the right offer, of course)

Anyway: here is the roster, along with the NFL experience of each player, and bear in mind that a player with 2 years experience is actually a 2nd year player.

Offense:

QB: RG3(5) McCown(14) Kessler(R)

RB: Crowell(3) Duke Johnson(2) Atkinson(1)

FB: Malcolm Johnson(2)

TE: Barnidge(9) Telfer(1) DeValve(R)

WR: Hawkins(6) Pryor(4) Higgins(R) Corey Coleman(R) Payton(R) Louis(R)

OL: Thomas(10) Bitonio(3) Erving(2) Greco(9) Pasztur(4) Bailey(4) Shon Coleman(R) Drango(R)

Offense has players with:

14: 1
10: 1
9: 2
6: 1
5: 1
4: 3
3: 2
2: 3
R or 1: 10

Special teams:

P: Colquitt(8)

PK: Murray(3)

LS: Hughlett(2)

So:
8: 1
3: 1
2: 1

Defense:

DL: Cooper(2) Hughes(5) Meder(2) Nassib(R) Shelton(2) Holmes(R) Paea(6)

LB: Alexander(R) Carder(5) Davis(5) Kirksey(3) Lemonier(4) Ogbah(R) Orchard(2) Wright(R) Schobert (R)

DB: Briean(R) Burley(4) Campbell(2) Haden(7) Howard(R) Jones(4) Kindred(R) Poyer(4) Taylor(4) Tramon Williams(10)


The defense breaks down:

10: 1
7: 1
6: 1
5: 3
4: 5
3: 1
2: 5
R or 1: 10

Overall:

14: 1
10: 2
9: 2
8: 1
7: 1
6: 2
5: 4
4: 8
3: 4
2: 9
1 or R: 21


Man, 42 of our 53 have played 3 or fewer years, coming into this year this year.

http://www.phillyvoice.com/ranking-nfl-teams-age-after-53-man-cutdowns-2016-edition/

Nfl roster ages.

Crazy that the Rams have had the youngest roster four years in a row.

YOu can't get going young each year. At some point you have to keep what you have long enough to mature and in many positions that takes about 3 years. Once of the reason we keep hitting reset is because our coaches and GMs of the past very seldom get the chance to let the players they draft mature. Granted there has not been a draft I have liked in quite some time.

Also, while it's great they are drafting good athletes the body won't go anywhere till the brain tells it to. 1 second of delay is a blown play. They need to bring a higher focus on players with high reactions skills and intelligence. This ain't college football where being a great athlete is good enough.

Packers, Broncos, Chiefs, and Sehawks are pretty high as well.

It usually takes about three years for a rookie QB to develop into a winning QB. No matter how much people are buying into the youth movement, the longer we go without drafting a top tier QB, the longer it will take for their plan to come to fruition.

We already have our young QB. RG3

Says who?

Here is a list of QBs who started more than twelve games in a season (since 1999):

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/pl...amp;draft_pos=p

Most of them were pretty good in their second year.

Also, what is a winning QB? What does a QB have to do with defense? Can a QB be a winning QB, but his defense stinks so his team isn't acutally good?

It would be nice if he works out that way. Imagine having drafted so many QBs, only to have them all flop and fail .... and then get a guy who was cut by his old team ,...... and who no one else really seemed to want ...... and he becomes our franchise guy. I would love it, because we could then use our 2 1sts and 2 2nds next year and load up at other positions, and really build this team.

However, I am not counting on it yet. (and I was one of the biggest RG3 pimps during the 2012 draft, and people probably (no, definitely) got sick of hearing me complain about the fat walrus not going and getting their QB. Hey, but we got Richardson and Weeden ..... so that worked ou .... oh ... never mind.

Anyway, I sure hope that you are right.

He was signed to a two year deal at back up money.

Now do we all hope he will be the answer? Yes we do. But 31 other teams didn't think so. Obviously the investment and short term of the contract doesn't scream franchise QB.

A QB has nothing to do with defense. What does defense have to do with having a franchise QB? A great QB can create a winning team with a mediocre defense.

Not to mention that the contract was written to let us (or him) out of it easily enough after Year 1.

Well why can't we finally give a QB more than a year or two to develop? The guy what? 26-27? The guy has shown he has the talent and skills to lead a team to the playoffs.

Dude, he's been in the league for four years. How long do you give a QB to develop? He may be the long term answer, but so far there are no signs that point in that direction.

His problem has been injuries. However, IMO, even with our two loses on the O line, I still feel this line is better than the one he's had in Washington.

We have three young WR, one a pro bowler, and one who has shown some Gordon like abilities.

And we have a pro bowl TE. So one could also make the argument that we have equal or slightly better weapons than he had in Washington.

I have hope, besides, I trust him to be the better turn around than all these posters who wanted Sam Bradford.

I don't disagree that there's hope. Yet at the same time, it's been proven that after one ACL, your likelihood of future ACL's is increased. Will his list of injuries grow? Will he return to his rookie year or has the NFL figured him out?

So there is hope while at the same time lots of question marks. That's just where we stand at the moment.

If that's true, and I can't argue with it, then shouldn't RG be ready to show up big?

Well he was clearly out of favor with his coach in Washington. Man rode the bench all last season.

We'll see,,, I hope for the best.

I have always looked at RG3 as a long shot lotto ticket. If he works out and improves AWESOME. We'll be good.

If he sucks ... nothing lost. We would have been bad regardless and will draft a QB early.

Thanks for answering.

QBs don't take three years to develop.

Wouldn't that be two coaches in a row? Maybe he's humbled now. Let's hope for the best.

So Dalton had his best year under Hue. How many years was that? lol

Honestly, I'm not sure. don't forget, he was mostly injured after his excellent first year. (except for last year that is)

I guess it doesn't matter. We can and should only concern ourselves with now and forward.

You said QBs it usually takes QBs three years to develop. That is not true.

It sometimes takes three years for a QB to develop.

I would say it takes 3 years for almost all NFL rookies to make or break it. They might do one or two things well and be blessed with an ideal situation but overall its a solid time frame, which is why, contracts are for 4 years so they can see if their good 3rd year was was a fluke or not.

When you see a QB do great his first year its because the team has a good running game and a decent O-line but how many teams that draft a QB that high have those two things? Not many. So not only does it take 3 years for the QB to mature but also to finish build an offense that works best with him. Of course some coaches are stupid and try to force the QB to fit their system no matter what instead of adapting their system to work best with the QB they have.

I also think that 3 years is that point where players become more instinctual about what they are doing and gain faster reaction times that greatly improve performance. A rookie playing unders several different HCs and systems will take a lot longer to mature as a player vs a player who plays in the same system for 3 years or longer.

Of course it is also true that some players just never make that leap to the NFL. All you can do is give them consistent coaching and hope for the best. I think we have some outstanding new talent on offense and I think there is a good CHANCE that RB3 will mature into a good QB under HUE. If not then we will draft a new QB into a great situation where the offense is a good QB away from being a success.

I disagree. Denver are a good example. They got stomped by the Seahawks in the Super Bowl because they employed an Oregon Ducks style offense....score, score, score and hope to outscore your opponents. Didn't work as they hit a stifling defense. They went back to the drawing board, bolstered their own defense and won the Championship riding on their defense even with Manning playing less than stellar. Ideally, you want to have both a franchise QB and a fab defense. But, if push came to shove I would take a solid QB and a top rated defense over a fantastic QB and mediocre defense.

It can work both ways and either one is fine. You've had great D's win SB's and great O's win SB's.

Thinking QBs, who thought store grocery stocker would be MVP of NFL or 6th rounder becomes maybe best QB of all time, Warner and Brady came out of nowhere...Wilson....just hope our RGIII works out.....I'm all in on youth movement, Kruger/Mingo/Gilbert...underachievers...produce or you're replaced....people business, workers know you got produce, if you don't ANYONE can be replaced....Thomas, he's been superb, but he's getting older....we might need to use next years draft picks on some lineman....GO Browns!!!!