I agree. The whole young thing isn't so simple. It really comes down to how much talent you can afford. If you have a rookie All Pro, you know you'll be set at that position for a few years before a new contract comes up. If you have a bunch of young All Pros on the last year of their rookie deals, you can't assume you'll have a bright future because you might lose most of those guys the next year. Sometimes a team of vets is your best bet because you get a lot of affordable talent for the short term. The guys who usually get overpaid the most are the 26 year olds on their second contract.
I wanna add on to my previous post. I think we're making a mistake with this "only young talent" philosophy. The key is to acquire as much talent as possible. There are 3 guys in this league:
1) Rookies, Age: 22-26, Pros: Speed and athleticism, Cons: Inexperience, Cost: Cheap.
2) Young vets, Age: 26-30, Pros: Complete package, Cons: See cost, Cost: Very expensive.
3) Old vets, Age: 30+, Pros: Experience and leadership, Cons: Over the hill, Cost: Fairly cheap.
You need a mix of all three. Too many rookies, you lose to a more experienced team. Too many old vets, you lose to a faster team. Too many expensive vets, you lose to a deeper team.
People call Bill Bellichick a genius for cutting ties with stars who demand a huge second contract, but he'd usually replace them with a mix of vets and rookies. We try to bank on our luck in the draft every year. We're not gonna get lucky enough to replace every Sean Lee with a LVE.
