PackFanWithTwins
14 years ago
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.
The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!
IronMan
14 years ago
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.
PackFanWithTwins
14 years ago
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 world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!
rabidgopher04
14 years ago

26.61x53=1410.33 - 66 + 46 = 1390.33/53 = 26.24

"PackFanWithTwins" wrote:



The Packers actual number would be lower than that because you are using the league average and not the Packers average.
Amazing Bacon Delivery  Service! Never be without good bacon again.
gbguy20
14 years ago
you're also not factoring in the fact that everyone on the team is now a year older than they were last season~
BAD EMAIL because the address couldn ot be found, or is unable to receive mail.
PackFanWithTwins
14 years ago

26.61x53=1410.33 - 66 + 46 = 1390.33/53 = 26.24

"rabidgopher04" wrote:



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

"PackFanWithTwins" wrote:



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.
The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!
Cheesey
14 years ago
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.
UserPostedImage
Greg C.
14 years ago
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.
blank
Stevetarded
14 years ago

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.

"PackFanWithTwins" wrote:



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".
blank
PackFanWithTwins
14 years ago

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.

"Stevetarded" wrote:



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".

"PackFanWithTwins" wrote:




Exactly.
The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!
Fan Shout
packerfanoutwest (19m) : Feliz Navidad!
Zero2Cool (5h) : Merry Christmas!
beast (13h) : Merry Christmas 🎄🎁
beast (21h) : Sounds like no serious injuries from the Saints game and Jacobs and Watson should play in the Vikings game
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : both games Watson missed, Packers won
Martha Careful (24-Dec) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!
Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol
buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier
buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol
Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Jacobs gonna be OK???
Zero2Cool (24-Dec) : Watson gonna be OK???
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I just checked. What tie breaker?
bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ahh, ok.
bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes due to tie breaker
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?
bboystyle (23-Dec) : Minny isnt going to lose out so 5th seed is out of the equation. We are playing for the 6th or 7th seed which makes no difference
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network
beast (23-Dec) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th
beast (23-Dec) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.
bboystyle (23-Dec) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno
beast (23-Dec) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?
packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I see what you did there Mucky
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : dammit. 3:25pm
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Yeah baby!
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.
beast (23-Dec) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.
packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : ok I stand corrected
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?
beast (23-Dec) : Saying no to the 6th lock.
beast (23-Dec) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.
beast (23-Dec) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games
beast (23-Dec) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality
beast (23-Dec) : We already have told you... if Packers lose all their games (they won't, but if they did), and Buccaneers and Falcons win all theirs
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
2h / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

13h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

13h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

17h / GameDay Threads / bboystyle

22h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

24-Dec / Random Babble / beast

24-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

23-Dec / Random Babble / Martha Careful

22-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

19-Dec / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

18-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

17-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

17-Dec / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.