ESPN Mosley: Commanders have league's oldest roster... Cowboys #16

WoodysGirl

WoodysGirl

U.N.I.T.Y
Staff member
Messages
79,329
Reaction score
45,844
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
Jul 12
12:21
PM ET

By ESPN.com staff


Over on the NFC West blog, Mike Sando takes a look at the average age of each NFL team's roster.

Excluding "kickers, punters or snappers because older players at those positions could distort averages in a misleading way," Sando finds the Washington Commanders have the league's oldest roster by a considerable margin. The average age of the team is 27.33, well above the next highest team, the Steelers at 26.78 and the league average of 26.04.

The next oldest NFC East team doesn't show up until the Dallas Cowboys at No. 16 with an average age of 26.0. Next is the Giants at No. 22 with an average of 25.71, making the Eagles the youngest team in the division at 25.20, ranking 29th in the league.
 
I don't know about 5-2.
3-4? Maybe.

I do know they get out of the shoot 0-1!:D
 
HoleInTheRoof;3457287 said:
If we were to cut Jon Kitna, our average age would drop to around 19.32.
Click to expand...

25.79. Not much of a difference without Kitna.
 
Joe Realist;3457277 said:
The SKins will start out something say 5-2, then end 8-8
Click to expand...

You're very generous. I don't see that at all..
 
sonnyboy;3457290 said:
I don't know about 5-2.
3-4? Maybe.

I do know they get out of the shoot 0-1!:D
Click to expand...

You know, I can see the Skins preparing their whole offseason for this first game. Dallas should win, but I would not be shocked if the Skins pulled the upset.
 
Seems kind of silly to be caring about the average roster age when we're sitting in the middle of the offseason and we're 30 some players over the season roster limit.
 
lkelly;3457333 said:
Seems kind of silly to be caring about the average roster age when we're sitting in the middle of the offseason and we're 30 some players over the season roster limit.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I'm guessing they took the age of the projected 53 man roster.
 
Luckily for the Commanders, they've stockpiled a huge collection of draft picks over the last few years to replenish all that old talent.

Oh, wait.
 
InmanRoshi;3457360 said:
Luckily for the Commanders, they've stockpiled a huge collection of draft picks over the last few years to replenish all that old talent.

Oh, wait.
Click to expand...

No worries. They have a new coach.

ratboy.jpg
 
Did they go from one of the youngest rosters to now one of the oldest? I was thinking they had one of the younger rosters last year.
 
BrAinPaiNt;3457386 said:
Did they go from one of the youngest rosters to now one of the oldest? I was thinking they had one of the younger rosters last year.
Click to expand...

No, they were the oldest last year as well.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/id/4447/three-of-nine-oldest-teams-in-nfc-west

1 Commanders 28.02
2 Saints 27.99
3 Cardinals 27.74
3 Patriots 27.74
5 Lions 27.62
6 49ers 27.51
7 Steelers 27.50
8 Vikings 27.48
9 Seahawks 27.41
10 Falcons 27.39
11 Titans 27.29
12 Browns 27.18
13 Jets 27.16
13 Broncos 27.16
15 Bears 27.02
16 Cowboys 26.93
17 Bills 26.93
18 Chargers 26.93
19 Texans 26.89
20 Giants 26.88
21 Ravens 26.83
22 Raiders 26.82
23 Eagles 26.81
24 Rams 26.73
25 Jaguars 26.61
26 Bengals 26.60
27 Dolphins 26.47
28 Bucs 26.46
29 Panthers 26.39
30 Chiefs 26.36
31 Colts 26.34
32 Packers 26.16
 
CowboyMike;3457345 said:
Yeah. I'm guessing they took the age of the projected 53 man roster.
Click to expand...

No, he used the entire 80-man roster of each team.
 
Any statistician (and I am one) will tell you that looking at this average-roster-age statistic is meaningless in terms of trying to extrapolate anything meaningful out of it.

For starters, a maximum mean of 27.33 and a minimum or 25.00 yields a range of 2.33 which is too tight. With a few older players replaced with youngsters, any team can easily shave off 2.33 years off its roster and not really change the overall makeup of its roster. For some teams such a player switch might be good (e.g. Eagles switching out McNabb for Kolb) but not for all (e.g. replacing Ray Lewis with a youngster does not make the Ravens better). So again, the statistic is worthless because it says nothing about the dynamics of roster in terms of age, and ability regardless of player-age.

Secondly, this statistic is bad because it considers the entire roster. What not starters only? It removes kickers, but why not also remove any player who ONLY plays on special teams? Or if you include all players, then when calculating the final average-age, why not weight their ages according to their contribution before factoring them into the grand mean (e.g. percentage of starting snaps they project to play, even factoring in probability of injury to the older starter, potentially based on age and past history of the player and his position played, that may force a younger player to play more)? Or better yet, why not do this separately for the different units/positions on the team (e.g. QB, RBs, Secondary, etc.) to see if all positions are younger or older to their lrague-average, or consistently near the mean for all positions (i.e. balanced across)?

And then, where does winning and losing and player skill come into play? And how does player-age, in total and by position, impact winning and playoff success (e.g. for some positions, like QB, having slightly older players gives you a better statistical chance to win)? Unless that gets factored in, analyzed, and understood, what meaningful conclusions can we really draw? To just assume that older is worse and young is better would be a mistake; more conclusive analysis really is needed.

Do all of that and maybe that more-detailed analysis will tell you something? The way these means are calculated now, all these are good for is compiling a useless list like the one in the article: a nice factual tidbit, but telling of absolutely nothing in terms of who’s more likely to win/lose and have playoff success as a function of age.
 
AMERICAS_FAN;3457425 said:
Any statistician (I am one) will tell you that looking at this average-roster-age statistic is meaningless in terms of trying to extrapolate anything meaningful out of it.

For starters, a maximum mean of 27.33 and a minimum or 25.00 yields a range of 2.33 which is too tight. With a few older players replaced with youngsters, any team can easily shave off 2.33 years off its roster and not really change the overall makeup of its roster. For some teams such a player switch might be good (e.g. Eagles switching out McNabb for Kolb) but not for all (e.g. replacing Ray Lewis with a youngster does not make the Ravens better). So again, the statistic is worthless because it says nothing about the dynamics of roster in terms of age, and ability regardless of player-age.

Secondly, this statistic is bad because it considers the entire roster. What not starters only? It removes kickers, but why not also remove any player who ONLY plays on special teams? Or if you include all players, then when calculating the final average-age, why not weight their ages according to their contribution before factoring them into the grand mean (e.g. percentage of starting snaps they project to play, even factoring in probability of injury to the older starter, potentially based on age and past history of the player and his position played, that may force a younger player to play more)? Or better yet, why not do this separately for the different units/positions on the team (e.g. QB, RBs, Secondary, etc.) to see if all positions are younger or older to their lrague-average, or consistently near the mean for all positions (i.e. balanced across)?

And then, where does winning and losing come into play and player skill? And how does player-age, in total and by position, impact winning and playoff success? Unless that gets factored in, analyzed, and understood, what meaningful conclusions can we really draw? To just assume that older is worse and young is better would be a mistake; more conclusive analysis really is needed.

Do all of that and maybe that more-detailed analysis will tell you something? The way these means are calculated now, all these are good for is compiling a useless list like the one in the article: a nice factual tidbit, but telling of absolutely nothing in terms of who’s more likely to win/lose and have playoff success as a function of age.
Click to expand...

That is all well and good and really makes a lot of sense. The point, however is to demonstrate that the Commanders suck. These stats back that up.
 
joseephuss;3457431 said:
That is all well and good and really makes a lot of sense. The point, however is to demonstrate that the Commanders suck. These stats back that up.
Click to expand...

They SUCK and they're OLD..... :lmao:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top