Packers 2nd Youngest Team in the League

[vince]

As of yesterday's cutdowns...

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/id/44505/2011-nfl-team-age-ranks-at-53-man-cuts

1 Tampa Bay
2 Green Bay
3 Carolina
4 Cincinnati
5 Seattle
....
25 New England
26 New York Jets
27 St. Louis Rams
28 Atlanta Falcons
29 Detroit Lions
30 San Diego Chargers
31 Arizona Cardinals
32 Pittsburgh Steelers

[Lurker64]

Why are the Lions so old? Is it their OL?

[BlueBrewer]

As of yesterday's cutdowns...

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/id/44505/2011-nfl-team-age-ranks-at-53-man-cuts

1 Tampa Bay
2 Green Bay
3 Carolina
4 Cincinnati
5 Seattle
....
25 New England
26 New York Jets
27 St. Louis Rams
28 Atlanta Falcons
29 Detroit Lions
30 San Diego Chargers
31 Arizona Cardinals
32 Pittsburgh Steelers

That is some pretty ugly company at the top, besides tampa of course

[vince]

Why are the Lions so old? Is it their OL?
Must be. Their offense is the oldest in the league and it's not because of their skill-position starters.

Old and needs improvement... That's not a good combo for an offensive line.

[MJZiggy]

That is some pretty ugly company at the top, besides tampa of course

It helps to know what you're doing.

[vince]

This organization is in such great shape it's ridiculous, although I'm pretty sure if you compare "starter" ages across the league the Packers are in the middle of the pack somewhere.

[KYPack]

As of yesterday's cutdowns...

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/id/44505/2011-nfl-team-age-ranks-at-53-man-cuts

1 Tampa Bay
2 Green Bay
3 Carolina
4 Cincinnati
5 Seattle
....
25 New England
26 New York Jets
27 St. Louis Rams
28 Atlanta Falcons
29 Detroit Lions
30 San Diego Chargers
31 Arizona Cardinals
32 Pittsburgh Steelers

Thanks for that, Vinny.

Rams and Cards surprised me. I thought both clubs had lopped off a good bit of age. GB seems to be such a well-managed organization.

[Brandon494]

http://wesleying.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/dazedandconfused3.jpg

That's what I like about this Green Bay team; I get older, they stay the same age.

[Joemailman]

They're that young even with 3 starters that are defying their age. Clifton is the NFL's oldest starting LT. Driver may be the oldest starting WR. Woodson has to be up there among CB's. Other than that though, no one over 30 I believe.

[denverYooper]

http://wesleying.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/dazedandconfused3.jpg

That's what I like about this Green Bay team; I get older, they stay the same age.

Hey I know you, second period, gym class...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_o-Bdc7R1KK0/TNG4TUWDrWI/AAAAAAAABWI/DXdl162KHMA/s1600/Green+Bay+Packers+Punter+Tim+Masthay.jpg

I love those redheads man.

[rbaloha1]

Young team + Salary Cap Space = Dynasty

[Smidgeon]

Why are the Lions so old? Is it their OL?

Punter.

[Lurker64]

Punter.

???

Ryan Donahue is 23.

[Joemailman]

???

Ryan Donahue is 23.

Kicker is about 57.

[Brandon494]

Hey I know you, second period, gym class...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_o-Bdc7R1KK0/TNG4TUWDrWI/AAAAAAAABWI/DXdl162KHMA/s1600/Green+Bay+Packers+Punter+Tim+Masthay.jpg

I love those redheads man.

hahaha

[VegasPackFan]

Hansen the FG Kicker is older than sin. I think TT is just killing it with his philosophy. Dan Snyder might want to take note.

[jmbarnes101]

Snyder would never have the patience or the shot puts needed to be anything even resembling TT. Most organizations aren't that patient.

[Fred's Slacks]

Thanks for that, Vinny.

Rams and Cards surprised me. I thought both clubs had lopped off a good bit of age. GB seems to be such a well-managed organization.

I remember seeing that the Rams also have one of the worst cap situations. Besides Bradford and Jackson, who are they spending money on? Brady Poppinga?

[Harlan Huckleby]

I'd like to see a breakdown by age for teams starters. I bet the packers are somewhere in the middle of the pack. It doesn't matter that much whether the backups are young or old. A lot of the rookies at back of roster end up getting cut in following year.

[pbmax]

Snyder would never have the patience or the shot puts needed to be anything even resembling TT. Most organizations aren't that patient.

Snyder is all about marketing opportunities and selling every square inch of that team's surface area. That becomes harder when you are reading negative stories about your methods and lack of activity all offseason. When you are winning the offseason every year with ridiculous free agent signings, the sell is easier.

Thompson's method would be a hard sell in a lot of markets for a lot of owners. It was tough here for 3 years until an NFC Championship run. Then another bad year after Favre-a-polooza.

[Partial]

In Ted we trust. I can definitely foresee him continuing to keep a ton of young guys in hopes that they develop into solid players. He's going to have a very difficult time finding another Raji, Matthews (diamond in the rough), etc now that he'll be picking low for awhile.

These next few years, assuming we're competitive each year, will be a very different test for Ted and will require a lot more skill in finding good players imo. We'll be low on the waiver claim list, we'll be drafting low, etc. It will be very interesting to see how Ted adjusts and continues to fortify the roster.

[Brandon494]

He drafted Rodgers and Matthews late in the first round while players like Jennings, Collins, Finley, and Sitton were drafted in rounds 2-4. TT knows how to draft and find gems no matter what spot hes picking.

[rbaloha1]

The Packers shall continually find gems no matter draft position. Again -- packaging draft pics for an impact player could be the future.

Youth certainly helps late in the season.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

He drafted Rodgers and Matthews late in the first round while players like Jennings, Collins, Finley, and Sitton were drafted in rounds 2-4. TT knows how to draft and find gems no matter what spot hes picking.

Yep, and Bishop, Starks, and Crosby in the 6th, Nelson in the 2nd, Jones in the 3rd, Burnett in the 3rd, etc. etc.

[Partial]

He drafted Rodgers and Matthews late in the first round while players like Jennings, Collins, Finley, and Sitton were drafted in rounds 2-4. TT knows how to draft and find gems no matter what spot hes picking.

Sure, but it's going to get more and more difficult the lower he's picking. He's already really great, and will go to that next level if he can continue to let the overpriced guys walk and replace them with the "next man up" philosophy and quality drafting. The team right now is extremely deep, if it's still really deep in 5 years, then TT is the freaking man and one of the best GMs in the NFL history. I can't imagine picking low and still finding players over the next 4-5 years will be easy.

[Brandon494]

Sure, but it's going to get more and more difficult the lower he's picking. He's already really great, and will go to that next level if he can continue to let the overpriced guys walk and replace them with the "next man up" philosophy and quality drafting. The team right now is extremely deep, if it's still really deep in 5 years, then TT is the freaking man and one of the best GMs in the NFL history. I can't imagine picking low and still finding players over the next 4-5 years will be easy.

No its not, the Colts, Pats, and Steelers having been doing just fine the past decade. If you know how to draft your going to be successful no matter what pick you have.

[swede]

Sure, but it's going to get more and more difficult the lower he's picking...

Think of it as the having the perennial first pick in every round after the first is over.

[Smidgeon]

???

Ryan Donahue is 23.

Sorry. I meant kicker.

[King Friday]

Sure, but it's going to get more and more difficult the lower he's picking. He's already really great, and will go to that next level if he can continue to let the overpriced guys walk and replace them with the "next man up" philosophy and quality drafting. The team right now is extremely deep, if it's still really deep in 5 years, then TT is the freaking man and one of the best GMs in the NFL history. I can't imagine picking low and still finding players over the next 4-5 years will be easy.

I disagree. I think Thompson is BETTER later in the draft. His worst picks to this point have been the guys he's taken in the top half of the first round. His hit-miss % in the 20-32 range is ridiculous.

[MadScientist]

I disagree. I think Thompson is BETTER later in the draft. His worst picks to this point have been the guys he's taken in the top half of the first round. His hit-miss % in the 20-32 range is ridiculous.

No, he does relatively better later because not many are expected to stick from later rounds, but his real strength is hitting early in the draft. TT's first, second and third rounders have hit. Remember the knock on Wolf was that he did not do very well in the first round, but TT has picked up Rodgers, Raji and Mathews, along with useful starters in Hawk and Bulaga.

[MJZiggy]

Lol, MadScientist, you just agreed with the king...read his post again.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Thompson has done much better in the first round than Wolf, but I think the point some are trying to make is that most of Thompson's stars have come late in the first round (Rodgers, Matthews, Bulaga) or even after the first round (Jennings, Sitton, Bishop, Collins, Williams, Finley). So, why would it be more difficult for Thompson to find stars in the draft in the range that he's been drafting them already? Raji is the only star top 20 pick he's had. Hawk is solid. Harrell was a bust.

[pbmax]

Thompson has done much better in the first round than Wolf, but I think the point some are trying to make is that most of Thompson's stars have come late in the first round (Rodgers, Matthews, Bulaga) or even after the first round (Jennings, Sitton, Bishop, Collins, Williams, Finley). So, why would it be more difficult for Thompson to find stars in the draft in the range that he's been drafting them already? Raji is the only star top 20 pick he's had. Hawk is solid. Harrell was a bust.

Small sample size. And let's hope it stays that way.

[Smidgeon]

I'd like to see a breakdown by age for teams starters. I bet the packers are somewhere in the middle of the pack. It doesn't matter that much whether the backups are young or old. A lot of the rookies at back of roster end up getting cut in following year.

I think it does matter if the backups are young rather than old if the ability level is the same. An older player will have an established ceiling and will likely be a career backup whereas a younger backup may not have hit their ceiling yet and might turn into a serviceable or better starter. I think that's where the value of having a young team (with talent) comes in. It isn't for this year. That's where the average age of the starters comes in. It's for next year. And the year after...

[rbaloha1]

Small sample size. And let's hope it stays that way.


15 players on IR in 2010 and winning a super bowl is big enough sample size to determine TT shall continue to find the correct players to maintain Packer Super Bowl expectations.

[pbmax]

15 players on IR in 2010 and winning a super bowl is big enough sample size to determine TT shall continue to find the correct players to maintain Packer Super Bowl expectations.

That is a fantastic assertion, I hope its true.

However, the guidelines in Harv's question were picks under #20 in the first round. Thompson has had three in seven drafts. Small sample size is the likeliest reason only one of three have been sure fire All Pro.

[TennesseePackerBacker]

Statistics 101. It's all about the sample size baby!

[Fritz]

Lions )-line is old; J. Backus, the left tackle, played Mr. Howell on Gilligan's Island.

And the kicker is old, too, yes. They're in an odd spot - they're seen as an up-and-coming team which we associate with young teams - but they're not that young, at least on average.

[Fritz]

Statistics 101. It's all about the sample size baby!

Hey, hey, watch it here, people, or this thread will end up in the GC.

Questioning Ted's sample size, saying it's too small. This is a football board, darn it!

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think it does matter if the backups are young rather than old if the ability level is the same. An older player will have an established ceiling and will likely be a career backup whereas a younger backup may not have hit their ceiling yet and might turn into a serviceable or better starter. I think that's where the value of having a young team (with talent) comes in. It isn't for this year. That's where the average age of the starters comes in. It's for next year. And the year after... I get the TT way. I was just commenting on why it is somewhat deceptive to call GB a young team. The starters are seasoned. And less obvious, those young guys at the end of the roster are being turned-over at a very high rate. Most will not be with the team in a couple year. Their primary advantage is that they are high energy and cheap. In that sense, it doesn't matter so much whether they are 23-year-old temps or 30-year-old temps.

Uhhh, I don't think I will be submiting this post to the local paper for publication, its a pretty scant point.