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

[LeaveLynchAlone]

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.

Here is a comical example of using meaningless statistics to try to prove a point that sounds meaningful but really means nothing. Thanks for trying. Do you want to try again? $5 please.

 

[LeaveLynchAlone]

11th oldest in that link, mine is up to date and they are now the 8th oldest. FAIL.

Statistics to prove a meaningless point = fail!

 

[oldhawkfan]

I’m just looking forward to watching these youngsters play on Sunday.

 

[LeaveLynchAlone]

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.

Twisted, it's no wonder you support Fade's ridiculous takes because you both tend to argue similar crap with similar assumptions using similar meaningless statistics with no actual relevancy. What is the commonality in all of this? Need I state it? Anyone? Anyone?

Spoiler: What could it be?

You hate Pete Carroll!!!

That's it.

This is simply another case of the following.

23 Characteristics of a know-it-all personality - PsychMechanics

A know-it-all person is someone who thinks they know it all. They have strong opinions on almost everything and believe they’re right all the time. This

www.psychmechanics.com

 

[LeaveLynchAlone]

Gotta love the every team is young argument.

If every team is young then it can't be used as an excuse then.

The Seahawks roster in 2013 (25.7 via pro-football-reference) was younger than the 2022 roster. Where we throwing out the young excuse for them?

In football when you're factoring in an entire roster, a 1 year AVG. age difference is huge. 4 years is cavernous. The difference between 25 & 28 is huge in football. Rebuilding teams should be 25 AVG, period. If you're well over 26, you're doing it wrong, you have too many vets, and you're trying to compete and rebuild at the same time which doesn't work.

Finally, someone looked like they read some of my follow up posts. The young guys at CB and OT are playing well, it's the coaches and the veterans who need to step up. They are not young, and that should not be the excuse. It's lazy, and laughable to read if you have any modicum of football knowledge.

All I did was post a factually correct statement. When compared against the entire league the Seahawks have one of the older rosters in the NFL (25th). And it is factually incorrect to call them young. if you're viewing this statement as a negative, then that is what is residing in you're own head, and I can't help you with that.

Actually all you did was post a meaningless statistic to prove a meaningless point. Great job!

It's great being a fan of a team with the oldest head coach in the league, who is a great coach and a nearly perfect model for other coaches to follow!

 

[LeaveLynchAlone]

Fades got no tire tracks on him as far as I'm concerned.

I don't know if Fade has tire tracks on him/her, but I can see he/she has no tread on the tires. Careful of a blowout.

 

[FrodosFinger]

Hold this L Fade

 

[SoulfishHawk]

I think this YOUNG team gets the Dub on Sunday.

 

[Spin Doctor]

We're certainly starting more rookies than any other team right now. Lucas, Cross, K9, and Woolen. Boye Mafe and Cobe Bryant are also contributing. This is shaping up to be the best draft class we've had since 2012. I haven't felt this optimistic about the Hawks in awhile. It's been awhile since we had a solid draft class like this. We didn't get cute either. In addition to this, Lucas, Cross, k9 and Woolen are all playing at high levels.

 

[FattyKnuckle]

We're certainly starting more rookies than any other team right now. Lucas, Cross, K9, and Woolen. Boye Mafe and Cobe Bryant are also contributing. This is shaping up to be the best draft class we've had since 2012. I haven't felt this optimistic about the Hawks in awhile. It's been awhile since we had a solid draft class like this. We didn't get cute either. In addition to this, Lucas, Cross, k9 and Woolen are all playing at high levels.

That's how stats get manipulated. Our roster may average out older but the starting lineup with 4 rookies and several 2nd and 3rd year players is definitely way younger than the team's overall average.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

VERY good point on the getting cute thing, Spin. That's the thing that was so different about that draft. There wasn't cute, or reaching, they just grabbed 6 guys who are ALL contributing. And got some steals, period. Without a doubt the best since 2012.

 

[LeveeBreak]

I found myself wandering during an online meeting and started reading this thread. Now I am clueless about the meeting and the purpose of the thread.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

The Seahawks are a young team.

 

[bigskydoc]

Average age is a particularly bad way to measure how "young" a team is. It can be significantly affected by having a Brady or Rodgers at the helm, and by having a stable of journeymen role players or backups that aren't integral to the future of the team

When people talk about a "young team," they are referring to the likelihood of a large percent of the current starters sticking around for a while, to build a team.

A better way would be to compare how many of the starters are on 1st or 2nd contracts. For the Seahawks 7 of 12 offensive starters are on first or second contracts, and 8 of the current 11 starting defense are on first or second.

Our oldest unit is the D-line, but that is a position that can remain productive longer than others.

Thinking more on this. What does a team structure look like, early in a rebuild? I woukd expect to have a number of rough 1st and 2nd year players in development, as well as a number of near-retirement vets. As the seasons go by, I would expect to see more of the vets replaced by rookies, until you reach the inflection point, where you sign the one or two missing pieces.

I see the Hawks as early in the rebuild. We still have a lot of placeholder vets on the roster, which should get younger, the further we go along.

 

[Lagartixa]

That's how stats get manipulated. Our roster may average out older but the starting lineup with 4 rookies and several 2nd and 3rd year players is definitely way younger than the team's overall average.

I'd be interested to see snap-weighted ages for teams. That's a better indicator of how old the players on the field have been.

 

[KinesProf]

Sure, if you go entirely by average age, they may not be young.

But the core? The guys that really matter going forward? - young.

Cross, Lucas, Lewis, Walker, DK, Nwosu, Mafe, Taylor, Bryant, Woolen, Brown ...

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Yep, that's a LOT of really YOUNG players on a YOUNG team. Ok, I made my point

 

[keasley45]

Sure, if you go entirely by average age, they may not be young.

But the core? The guys that really matter going forward? - young.

Cross, Lucas, Lewis, Walker, DK, Nwosu, Mafe, Taylor, Bryant, Woolen, Brown ...

That's half the starters. And there will be likely another 3 or 4 added next year. So if the draft next year is as good as this year, potentially 15 of our 22 starters / major contributors will have less than 5 years experience (DK skews that) and many of them with 3 or less, with up to 7 having 2 or less.

How is that not young?

What's the argument again?

 

[LeveeBreak]

That's half the starters. And there will be likely another 3 or 4 added next year. So if the draft next year is as good as this year, potentially 15 of our 22 starters / major contributors will have less than 5 years experience (DK skews that) and many of them with 3 or less, with up to 7 having 2 or less.

How is that not young?

What's the argument again?

I think the agrument is that an argument can be made to just about anything.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Explain why you care if people say they are a young team? MANY of their starters are younger players.

It's another Fade Pete Carroll smear thread.

He wants to make sure we know there's no "young rebuilding" excuses for the team being 3-3 and tied for first in our own division something something?