Return of the "Over the Hill Gang"?

Pages : 1 [2] 3

artmonkforhallofamein07
05-06-2010, 03:50 PM
I like this team. Although we are old we have a good mix of young guys in there to. This team could be special.

SouperMeister
05-06-2010, 03:57 PM
Philly's skill position guys are VERY young. If Kolb turns out to be the real deal, their O will be excellent for 5+ years.

BigHairedAristocrat
05-06-2010, 04:06 PM
i find it amusing that people make a big deal about this.

the difference between the youngest team (25.9) and the redskins (28.1) is slightly more than two years. the average, middle-of-the pack age for a team is 27.2. So the Redskins are, on average, about 10-1/2 months older than the average NFL team.

who the heck cares? Ideally, ever team would have a mix of veterans and young, promising players at every position. The only position where i think having a lot of younger guys really comes in handy is running back, and thats only because running backs generally stop performing at a high level when they reach 27 or 28. At pretty much every other position, id much rather have veterans anyway.

SouperMeister
05-06-2010, 04:09 PM
Yup, and apparantly there is a possibility we might wear those George Allen jerseys with the gold pants.I always liked that look. For that matter, the throwbacks that we wore for the 70th anniversary season were very cool too.

Lotus
05-06-2010, 04:28 PM
I'd like to return to this after final cuts in Sept. We could get younger or older depending on how the cuts go.

Bigreds77
05-06-2010, 06:03 PM
I was 12 years old in 1971 when I became a Skins fan. It was George Allans pep talks & their uniforms that lured me to them. But being 51 now is not the same for guys being called old when I am 18 to 25 years their age.lol

12thMan
05-07-2010, 01:38 PM
Are we wearing the gold pants full time or just for the throw backs?

SBXVII
05-07-2010, 01:57 PM
i find it amusing that people make a big deal about this.

the difference between the youngest team (25.9) and the redskins (28.1) is slightly more than two years. the average, middle-of-the pack age for a team is 27.2. So the Redskins are, on average, about 10-1/2 months older than the average NFL team.

who the heck cares? Ideally, ever team would have a mix of veterans and young, promising players at every position. The only position where i think having a lot of younger guys really comes in handy is running back, and thats only because running backs generally stop performing at a high level when they reach 27 or 28. At pretty much every other position, id much rather have veterans anyway.

I agree. I wish they would look more into each team and the ages of the players vs. how old the team in general is. What really matters is does the team have 25 or 27 players in their 30's or are the majority of the players around 25 y/o with about 10 - 15 players at age 28. I'm probably saying it wrong because averaging both they probably equal out but youth is the key. You'll get speed and health. Unfortunatly you lose playing smarts.

So what actually is the difference? maybe 1 to 5 players in their 30's?

MTK
05-07-2010, 02:01 PM
We have 5-6 guys that really throw off the curve. Galloway, Daniels, Fletcher, etc.

I'm with BHA on this one, not a huge deal.

freddyg12
05-07-2010, 02:06 PM
i find it amusing that people make a big deal about this.

the difference between the youngest team (25.9) and the redskins (28.1) is slightly more than two years. the average, middle-of-the pack age for a team is 27.2. So the Redskins are, on average, about 10-1/2 months older than the average NFL team.

who the heck cares? Ideally, ever team would have a mix of veterans and young, promising players at every position. The only position where i think having a lot of younger guys really comes in handy is running back, and thats only because running backs generally stop performing at a high level when they reach 27 or 28. At pretty much every other position, id much rather have veterans anyway.

I don't think it's such a big deal when we look at it in one given year. Old teams can play really well in a year, but a year later that same group might be too old.

I think it's more important to look at the trend over the course of several years, and when you do that we see that we are old. In Snyders time, we've usually been an old team because of the lack of draft picks & signing a lot of free agents. Over time that hasn't proven too successful.

EZ Archive Ads Plugin for vBulletin Copyright 2006 Computer Help Forum