Stop Saying "The Seahawks are a young team." They Are Not

bigskydoc

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Messages
4,125
Reaction score
1,470
Location
Kalispell, MT
1st string would maybe be a better term than starters, but we have 12 on offense, and they have 12 on defense. Doesn't mean they all see the field at the same time.

Sys you have a fullback. He may be first string, though he isn't out on every play.
 

Rock_the_Hawk

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 28, 2022
Messages
484
Reaction score
647
https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/cap/

The Seahawks rank 25th, and have one of the older rosters in the NFL.

The Rams rank 11th, The 49ers are 23rd, and AZ is a retirement home ranking 29th.



They are young at OT, and at CB, everywhere else they are a veteran team just about.
Ok so this is an honest question. Do you just say things to get a rise out of people? Then sit back and laugh at the reaction you get... no really im just curious?
 

Maelstrom787

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
12,011
Reaction score
9,969
Location
Delaware
To be fair, Fade is TECHNICALLY correct, I just feel like he thinks that the ranking of roster age means more than it does considering just how close the bulk of the teams are in said average age.

Furthermore, this is for the entire roster instead of the starters, so the number itself is even less useful in context.

He's right, but it probably doesn't mean what he thinks it does.
 

Lagartixa

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 6, 2020
Messages
1,806
Reaction score
3,167
Location
Taboão da Serra, SP, Brazil
The young excuse is just a euphemism for poor coaching and lack of talent. "It's okay, gize! They're young!"

It's the young players that are actually playing well. It's the coaches and the veterans that need to pick it up.
If the Seahawks had followed the plan suggested by "Failed" (with an "I" and a big fat "L" for Wilson against the 'Hawks), the team would be even older. Without the draft capital from the Wilson trade, at least some of the rookies currently starting or getting significant numbers of snaps wouldn't be on the team, plus they'd have a 33-year-old QB who doesn't want to run at all anymore (three rushing attempts for a grand total of five yards in two games against teams that have not been any good at stopping the run this season) tied up until his age-38 season, at which point I don't even expect him to be a starter in this league.
This is a case of somebody looking for a "yeah, but..."

200

...and coming up with his usual weak sauce.
 

onanygivensunday

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
5,808
Reaction score
1,775
On defense, today's game places a LOT of emphasis on pressuring the QB and limiting potential exposure of their defensive backfield.

In those two areas, the Hawks are starting two rookie OTs and playing CBs with little or no NFL experience.

In at least those two areas, the Hawks are a "young" team imo.
 

TwistedHusky

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
6,916
Reaction score
1,108
Except are most of the problems with this team stemming from the OL and the CBs? the 2 areas we are young?
Doesn't look like it.

The CBs seem to be holding up well and the OL is doing a decent job. Not sure how the youth is relevant.

We aren't failing to produce because of youth, we are failing to produce because of things like terrible RZ efficiency. Poor tackling (this is endemic to the defense, not the CBs).


The whole 'we are young' thing is trotted out to explain/shift blame from lack of results. But most of the lack of results has nothing to do with it. And it is weird to arbitrarily pick 2 or 3 position groups, because they are young, and then say because those groups are important it means the team is young. Yes they are important. No the youth is not significantly impacting the results more than other position groups.
 

CallMeADawg

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 26, 2012
Messages
2,468
Reaction score
2,121
Meh. Seems like a whole lotta nothing. The difference between 9th and 25th youngest rosters is half a year. People call the Seahawks young because of how many key starters are young players. No one is like "hmm, looks like they're about half a year older on average than the younger rosters in the NFL."
Exactly. OP just gave us all a great example of why finding a random data point and throwing it in people's faces without any actual analysis is a complete waste of people's time.

He also told us about the number of punts we forced our opponents to kick, and unfortunately he didn't look past the surface on that either, as his data in that case was inaccurate.

Another nothing burger here.....
 

hoxrox

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 5, 2009
Messages
3,300
Reaction score
1,976
Replace the word "young" with inexperienced. This is an inexperienced team if you're looking at NFL reps and snap counts, especially among CORE players. Geno and Woods, skewing the "average age" metric aren't exactly core players.
 

FrodosFinger

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 22, 2022
Messages
2,312
Reaction score
2,319
The young excuse is just a euphemism for poor coaching and lack of talent. "It's okay, gize! They're young!"

It's the young players that are actually playing well. It's the coaches and the veterans that need to pick it up.
Do you know how bad the 49ers sucked ass when Kittle and Warner were rookies? Nobody sat here and claimed the Hawks were winning the Super Bowl this year. Calm down man. Your lack of insight and roster building is starting to scare me. Look at the draft capital this team has and no more expensive overrated quarterback to cater to. Give us time to spend our draft capital and this team will be set for years to come.
 

seatownlowdown

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 19, 2013
Messages
1,433
Reaction score
2,220
Location
seatown
Do you know how bad the 49ers sucked ass when Kittle and Warner were rookies? Nobody sat here and claimed the Hawks were winning the Super Bowl this year. Calm down man. Your lack of insight and roster building is starting to scare me. Look at the draft capital this team has and no more expensive overrated quarterback to cater to. Give us time to spend our draft capital and this team will be set for years to come.
don't even bother replying to this fade guy unless its to tell him to go back to webzone. waste of time. he's only here to try and demoralize people. post anything positive? he's here to smack you down. i'm guessing he's a bay area 49er fan, based on his recent post history he's definitely not a hawk fan. it's one thing to criticize pete carroll, and a whole 'nother thing to celebrate losses and diminish wins, which is exactly what he's doing.
 

TwistedHusky

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
6,916
Reaction score
1,108
Weird take on Fade.

He has been here for years. Consistently pointing out issues we would face before they manifested.

Generally right on most of it and tends to have solid football insight.

Fade's posts are negative because we were in the middle of a downward slide. We were failing by any measure. This is why we got rid of coaches recently. This is why OCs and DCs were switched out.

It would be weird if he was positive because what positive has happened with this team in the past 3 years? Just curious.
 

BASF

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
3,844
Reaction score
2,475
Location
Tijuana/San Diego
Weird take on Fade.

He has been here for years. Consistently pointing out issues we would face before they manifested.

Generally right on most of it and tends to have solid football insight.

Fade's posts are negative because we were in the middle of a downward slide. We were failing by any measure. This is why we got rid of coaches recently. This is why OCs and DCs were switched out.

It would be weird if he was positive because what positive has happened with this team in the past 3 years? Just curious.
Losing Wilson has broken him. He was one of my favorite posters here, but since the Wilson trade, he is not the same.
 

HawkStrong

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 12, 2019
Messages
1,278
Reaction score
461
Location
In your PMs
Weird take on Fade.

He has been here for years. Consistently pointing out issues we would face before they manifested.

Generally right on most of it and tends to have solid football insight.

Fade's posts are negative because we were in the middle of a downward slide. We were failing by any measure. This is why we got rid of coaches recently. This is why OCs and DCs were switched out.

It would be weird if he was positive because what positive has happened with this team in the past 3 years? Just curious.

Fade is NOT generally right with his takes, it's just that he is consistently negative. After a decade, the team is not very good, so his takes finally look correct. A broken clock is right twice a day.

If you remember, dude almost quit the board and stopped posting his "weekly update" (wannabe Kearly with way less football knowledge) because it was routinely thrashed for being so off-base.
 

TwistedHusky

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
6,916
Reaction score
1,108
Was he consistently negative or was it just that the results and outcomes (as projected at the time) veered into the negative?

It would seem to be weird to be positive when none of the results end up that way.
 

sprhawk73

Active member
Joined
Sep 7, 2017
Messages
492
Reaction score
112

Yep, even this is grim news. 14th pick isn't going to cut it.
 

Latest posts

Top