Need to keep adding to this young roster

[FrodosFinger]

2022 snaps played by players age 25 or younger:

18,302 - NYG
16,451 - SEA
16,286 - DET
15,879 - DAL
15,868 - CAR
15,860 - PIT
15,693 - BAL
15,112 - KC
15,028 - JAX
14,802 - ATL
14,693 - CHI
14,640 - MIN
14,636 - PHI
14,336 - TB
14,227 - CLE
14,113 - LAC
14,079 - NYJ
13,683 - LV
13,394 - ARI
13,247 - TEN
13,193 - GB
13,041 - BUF
12,971 - SF
12,213 - WAS
12,001 - IND
11,828 - DEN
11,657 - CIN
11,013 - LA
10,964 - NE
10,960 - MIA
10,748 - NO
9,809 - HOU

 

[toffee]

We may not have the youngest roster, but we sure played a lot of young guys. This stat no doubt was influenced by our two rookie tackles and two CBs.

Fir this years draft, I am hoping that we could get two starting DTs, a LB, and an OG.

 

[Scout]

Sometimes you can't read too much into these stats. But look at where Houston is at for example. Because for a team like Houston that is rebuilding and to have so few snaps from young players is borderline criminal. And then look at where the Rams are at given they lack picks and are behind the curve developing the few young players they do have.

Another example is New England as they need to hit this draft and see meaningful snaps from their rookie class or else they are in danger of being stuck in a mediocre state or worse.

Miami and NO always go for a win now approach which is not surprising as it is aggressive sacrifice of the future for the now. But Miami and NO do draft well.

The middle of the pack with Cleveland, Tampa Bay, San Diego, NYJets, and Philadelphia show you can compete while still allowing snaps for younger players.

Another home run draft by the Hawks in 2023 and it will allow them to be a highly competitive team for years to come.

 

[nanomoz]

That's a cool stat.

I'm hoping Mafe can emerge this year and be more effective than Irvin was in 2022.

 

[Mick063]

This is not directed at or intended to be critical of the OP. It just expands upon the valid point that he made.

It is disingenuous to average the age of an entire roster and then depict it as young or old. Rosters are revolving doors that are constantly evolving and changing. I saw this similar argument about Seattle's roster being depicted as old verse being depicted as young in some threads a few weeks ago.

I interpret this whole "age" thing by answering the following question. Is the majority of the best talent** on any given roster, on a rookie deal? If the answer is yes, then I consider it to be a young roster.

**Best talent is subjective, but it typically means an every down player, not a specialist "package" player or special teams player

Starters under the age of 25, and under contract for at least 2-3 more years should not be lumped together with one year "rentals" when describing a roster as young or old. Every team has short term veteran contracts to bolster a brief talent surge window. These guys bounce all over the place. Players like OBJ, or Suh, or Cooks, or Clowney. Every year, more are added to that mix. For example, it looks like Jalen Ramsey is about to be headed there and possibly Budda Baker as well. Players that have priced themselves into mercenary work and are too talented to not find a landing spot. It isn't always about opening a "championship window" for the purchaser of their services either. Sometimes it is just a simple case of a GM hanging on to his job.

Regardless, according to my own personal definition, Seattle has a very young roster, and I agree with the OP. This draft is an opportunity to really add to it.

 

[Fade]

Total Roster Age is more important than snaps when grading against the entire league. Here is why:

If you just go by snaps you're penalizing teams that are stocking building blocks on their rosters that haven't gotten on the field yet because they are deep and built incredibly well. Total snaps ignores those players, while rewarding teams with a buncha stop gaps, and bare cupboards which is a huge mistake for full roster eval.

Also injuries. Some players 25 and under only get on the field because veterans were injured not because they were playing great, and out playing the veteran. (TB comes to mind. As they were old, but had a lot of injuries.) It is also a war of attrition.

Age 25 and under snaps can be attributable to poor roster construction in the present and recent past, and injuries. Now we know with the Seahawks in 2022 they had a kickass draft class which is driving their Snaps.


Here is an honest break down of each group on the Seahawks.

Starting with the Defense.

The Seahawks are young at CB, but just about every team is. As that position ages faster than RB.

The Seahawks are old at Safety, and LBer. To go along with very expensive.

The D-Line was old, (But should get much younger after this draft, and the cuts they have made already to this position.)

The defense last year was old, outside of CB. It was very grating to read and hear "Oh, they're young." As they weren't on defense, far from it. It was a veteran laden unit. They just flat out sucked. The young Corners were a bright spot in fact and their youth wasn't the cause of them sucking.

They will be a younger defense this season than last season. So it makes the "young" excuse as to why they were terrible even more laughable.

On offense they are/were generally young.

O-Line: 2 Rookie Tackles, young OG in Lewis. Should add another Rookie Starter, maybe 2 in this draft. Which would be a real coo.

WR/TE: Only real older vets are Lockett & Dissley. They're young.

RB: It's a young man's position.

QB: Not young, but not old, just right.

 

[FrodosFinger]

Total Roster Age is more important than snaps when grading against the entire league. Here is why:

If you just go by snaps you're penalizing teams that are stocking building blocks on their rosters that haven't gotten on the field yet because they are deep and built incredibly well. Total snaps ignores those players, while rewarding teams with a buncha stop gaps, and bare cupboards which is a huge mistake for full roster eval.

Also injuries. Some players 25 and under only get on the field because veterans were injured not because they were playing great, and out playing the veteran. (TB comes to mind. As they were old, but had a lot of injuries.) It is also a war of attrition.

Age 25 and under snaps can be attributable to poor roster construction in the present and recent past, and injuries. Now we know with the Seahawks in 2022 they had a kickass draft class which is driving their Snaps.


Here is an honest break down of each group on the Seahawks.

Starting with the Defense.

The Seahawks are young at CB, but just about every team is. As that position ages faster than RB.

The Seahawks are old at Safety, and LBer. To go along with very expensive.

The D-Line was old, (But should get much younger after this draft, and the cuts they have made already to this position.)

The defense last year was old, outside of CB. It was very grating to read and hear "Oh, they're young." As they weren't on defense, far from it. It was a veteran laden unit. They just flat out sucked. The young Corners were a bright spot in fact and their youth wasn't the cause of them sucking.

They will be a younger defense this season than last season. So it makes the "young" excuse as to why they were terrible even more laughable.

On offense they are/were generally young.

O-Line: 2 Rookie Tackles, young OG in Lewis. Should add another Rookie Starter, maybe 2 in this draft. Which would be a real coo.

WR/TE: Only real older vets are Lockett & Dissley. They're young.

RB: It's a young man's position.

QB: Not young, but not old, just right.

You lost me on the first sentence when you stated total age is more important than players that actually play lol.

 

[JGreen79]

You lost me on the first sentence when you stated total age is more important than players that actually play lol.

Exactly this. You also have to take into account especially on defense how long they have played with each other. A good defense knows where each defender is going to be and how to communicate effectively.

 

[bileever]

Figuring out whether a team is "old" or "young" is complicated. Average roster age is fairly meaningless. And the average age for most NFL teams is pretty much the same. The youngest is 25.0, the oldest is 27.1. The great majority of teams (21 out of 32) fall within a tight range of 0.9 years (from 25.2 to 26.1).

Ranking NFL teams by age after 53-man cutdowns: 2022 edition

As of roughly 8:15 p.m. on cutdown day, when we finished collecting data from all 32 NFL team website rosters, the Cleveland Browns had the youngest team in the NFL. The Tampa Bay Buccaneers have the oldest roster in the NFL this year, followed by the Arizona Cardinals. The Eagles ranked 9th, as...

www.phillyvoice.com

What is more significant is who is getting older on your team, and who are the young players. For example, if your team's best players are all aging, that's bad. If your 39-year-old kicker is inflating your average age, not a big deal. If you have a bunch of young players but they're not any good, I don't see how it's a good thing.

The answer is probably that you want to have a mix of veterans and young players. Keeping track of age is a part of roster building, but just one part.

 

[morgulon1]

Is Bruce Irvin still with the team or will he be back ?