Which way should we go. Continue to be young or get older. That is actually a big question. This year, we have a few positions of need, one of the biggest being the Oline.

Who do we want to replace. That would be our Tackles. So if we draft some T and replace them we will be essentially getting rid of 66 years of age, and replacing them with 46. Last year the league average was 26.61 years, using that for 53 players and recalculating for the loss of those vets replacing them with rookies.

26.61x53=1410.33 - 66 + 46 = 1390.33/53 = 26.24 So just by replacing those two with young guys which many would like to see, that would drop our average team age @0.4. Considering the difference from us at the bottom to the average was less than 1 year you can see how easily it is to go from average to the oldest or youngest.

IMO I don't see anything wrong with us being young. We are young and experienced now. Can't get rid of old guys and expect the team to not get younger.

---

It doesn't really matter. Like you said, there isn't that big of a difference between the youngest and oldest teams. Its a neat stat to look at, but I don't think Ted Thompson cares where we are on that list, as he shouldn't.

Part of my point. People say we need to quit being the young team in one breath and want Clifton replaced in the next. Can't have it both ways.

I actually think we are in a very good place. We have something like 12 guys that are elders. Clifton,Taucher,Kamp,Pickett, and some others. Then we have a bunch that are in the 5 year area then a few 1 and 2 year players.

---

The Packers actual number would be lower than that because you are using the league average and not the Packers average.

---

you're also not factoring in the fact that everyone on the team is now a year older than they were last season~

I was just showing what the effect not the actual age of our team. Which is why I used the average as a starting point.

---

Getting the RIGHT players is what matters. Not age.
Look at what Clay3 did this season. If he improves on that, he's gonna be something special.

---

I like the mix of ages we have right now. At times during the season I heard the high number of penalties paired with the low average age of the team, but I never saw the connection. It seemed like our veteran players were committing more penalties than the young guys.

I don't think there is a contradiction, however, in fans who don't want to get younger but who also want to find replacements for Clifton and Tauscher. Those are only two positions. If somebody thinks that the team should be allowed to get older, that doesn't mean that they should disapprove of ANY veteran getting replaced by a younger guy. Clifton and Tauscher are very near the end of the line, if not there already. I think Lang is ready to replace Tauscher, but we still need an LT who'll be ready to replace Clifton.

---

The average age of the team is pretty irrelevant as is a players age as long as they can play that's all that matters (compare Charles Woodson to Clay Matthews).

People don't want to replace Clifton specifically because of his age they want to replace Clifton because he can't stay healthy and he has to have a bunch of surgeries during offseasons and his performance has declined. If anyone wanted him out just due to his age then people would be wanting to replace Woodson. The only thing that matters at all is performance.

People harp on the being young thing but all The Packers and Ted Thompson want is "better" players not "younger" ones. It has just turned out that the guys they thought were best have been "younger".

---

Exactly.

---