Packers' roster skews young, again

Da-news-now

Da-news-now

RSS Reporter
Reporter
Member
Messages
5,405
Reaction score
311
Average age is 24.5 years old with 44 percent never having suited up for an NFL game.

home



Continue reading...
 
IMO this is a bad thing it shows TT refuses to sign vets that can help this team instead he is cheap and goes with rookies who we don't know can play. That's a big risk for a team you hope can compete for a super bowl. This is not a garbage team that is rebuilding and is going young.
 
GBP4EVER said:
IMO this is a bad thing it shows TT refuses to sign vets that can help this team instead he is cheap and goes with rookies who we don't know can play. That's a big risk for a team you hope can compete for a super bowl. This is not a garbage team that is rebuilding and is going young.
Click to expand...

Hm. GBP? Did you actually read the article? :)

I'm no big TT guy one way or another. I do love his sense of humor and his ability to balance his budget.

Did you forget about Peppers, Cedric, etc, etc. ?

"That's a big risk for a team you hope can compete for a super bowl."

Perhaps I'm wrong, but lately I'm never 'hoping' the Pack can compete for a Super Bowl . I know they can. Look at last year.

"This is not a garbage team that is rebuilding and is going young."

IMO, most 'garbage teams' tend to do the exact opposite. They spend their money on old guys. Tend to let their talent go.

I know we disagree on this.
 
1. Those numbers are for the current 88 man roster, which features a ton of UDFA and others unlikely to make the team. By the time we're at 53 that number will come up a little bit, to the ~25 where they've traditionally been recently under TT/MM.

2. Young and Old are relative in the NFL. I believe last year the youngest team was 25 on average, and the oldest 27.

3. Large rosters and the need for young, cheap depth skew the numbers compared to what we see on the field every week. I think it'd be far more interesting and telling to see the age of the average starting 22 per team rather than overall roster.
 
Let's see what it shakes out to be after camp. Test number is skewed due to pre camp roster size avid the UDFA on the roster. Wonder how those numbers compare to league average now. That headline may be a tad misleading
 
HeartyHops said:
Hm. GBP? Did you actually read the article? :) I did (now). Don't want to speak for Packinatl, but there are a number of points with which I agree. You didn't specifically address the issue of depending on unproven rookies, but after reading the article, so much of the optimism is based on them.

I'm no big TT guy one way or another. I do love his sense of humor won't make an issue here, but I'd be perfectly happy with a grumpy GM and another SB or two and his ability to balance his budget or, as Packinatl notes, cheap (trash/treasure, rebel/patriot, firm/bullheaded) - every team balances the budget, the rules require it, but it's how it's done that's important. I certainly give TT props for many, perhaps most, of the moves he's made. The problem is that he's almost gotten them back to the top, but I think he sometimes feels he can do no wrong and outsmarts himself at the end.

Did you forget about Peppers, Cedric, etc, etc. ? I'll assume Packinatl is talking about functional, proven veteran that can plug an acknowledged hole on the team - a reasonable bandaid. Peppers is the kind of splash player that runs counter to that, and Cedric (Benson?) was around for one unproductive season at the end of his career. Don't hold me to the exact number, but I think the point is that so much was made of the fact last year that only three or so players ever took a snap for another team, so I'd call any veterans signed the exceptions that prove the rule.

"That's a big risk for a team you hope can compete for a super bowl."

Perhaps I'm wrong, but lately I'm never 'hoping' the Pack can compete for a Super Bowl . I know they can. Look at last year. This one is strictly mine. I know, and I even vaguely understand, the opposing point of view, but I am in the camp that feels 30 teams fail to compete for the SB every year, and 31 teams are losers every year. To assemble a team that, at the start, could clearly win the SB without surprising anyone, and then not being able to do it, is the ultimate failure.

"This is not a garbage team that is rebuilding and is going young."

IMO, most 'garbage teams' tend to do the exact opposite. They spend their money on old guys. Again, perhaps a question of definition. I think of garbage teams as those that haven't had a chance at success for an extended period, and I'd have to see the evidence of what you say. I think the teams that do this are those that feel they're one or two guys away from the prize, like the Broncos or Jets. Tend to let their talent go. This one would be interesting to research. I know that Jenkins is arguably the only veteran that TT has allowed to 'escape', but how many are there who were released by their original teams and then caught fire elsewhere?

Anyhow, something else to discuss (or let fade away, as appropriate).

I know we disagree on this.
Click to expand...
 
Frankly this has been the norm the last 3 years, the big ?? has been and continues to be quality depth 2 deep. Some years like last year you get lucky stay healthy and it's not a huge factor. Other years it can bite you in the backside sb(tc(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top