Ranking NFL teams by age: Rams the youngest

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
albefree69

albefree69

Hall of Fame
Joined
Sep 22, 2012
Messages
4,512
ROD Credit 2025
0
Name
Alan
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/eagles/Ranking-NFL-teams-by-age-Rams-the-youngest-Lions-are-the-oldest-Eagles-10th.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/eag ... -10th.html</a>
Ranking NFL teams by age: Rams the youngest, Lions the oldest, Eagles 10th
As of roughly 9pm on cut down day, when I finished collecting data from all 32 NFL team website rosters, the Rams had the youngest team in the NFL, as they did last year. The Lions are the oldest. By the time you read this, this data will already out of date as teams continue to make minor tweaks to their rosters. However, even with the continued roster movement, the average ages of each team shouldn’t change much. Here are the results:

NFL-ages.png


Also, one quick note: Every year I do this, I seem to get the same basic comment, which I'll address ahead of time. "The difference between the Rams and Lions is only 2.17 years. Big whoop." It most certainly is a big whoop. Keep in mind that these are the average ages of 53 players per team. 2.17 years on average * 53 players = A difference of 115 total years between the Rams and Lions. In other words, if you took the 23 oldest Lions and shaved 5 years off each of their ages, their roster would be the same age as the Rams.
Click to expand...

MOD EDIT: ADDED TABLE
 
I did some quick searching because I was curious how much older the roster was in the Spagnuolo era. I felt at the time he tended to keep vets over youth.

1994: 27.0 (Knox)
1995: 26.6 (Brooks)
1996: 26.1 (Brooks)
1997: 26.1 (Vermeil)
1998: 26.3 (Vermeil)
1999: 26.5 (Vermeil)
2000: 26.6 (Martz)
2001: 26.6 (Martz)
2002: 27.1 (Martz)
2003: 26.6 (Martz)
2004: 27.3 (Martz)
2005: 27.3 (Martz)
2006: 27.7 (Linehan)
2007: 27.3 (Linehan)
2008: 27.8 (Linehan)
2009: 26.1 (Spagnuolo)
2010: 26.1 (Spagnuolo)
2011: 26.5 (Spagnuolo)
2012: 25.4 (Fisher)
2013: 24.9 (Fisher)

Also; the Lions being at 27.1 is actually quite young for being the oldest team based on some of the recent seasons I've found while looking into the "ages". In fact, it's quite rare to have the oldest team under 28 average age.

The Patriots as recently as 2009/2010 were pushing 29.
 
Appears that the 2013 Rams are the youngest Rams team in a long time, maybe ever since the merger in 1970.

Also, it's interesting that this team is less than 1/2 year younger than the Seahawks who are SB favorites.

I think it may be better to get the average age of the starting 22 players on O and D. That is probably a better indication of the impact youth and inexperience have on team performance.

Interesting stuff.
 
max said:
Appears that the 2013 Rams are the youngest Rams team in a long time, maybe ever since the merger in 1970.

Also, it's interesting that this team is less than 1/2 year younger than the Seahawks who are SB favorites.

I think it may be better to get the average age of the starting 22 players on O and D. That is probably a better indication of the impact youth and inexperience have on team performance.

Interesting stuff.
Click to expand...

Yea we had that discussion over on the dormant board. Finding the avg age of the Starters is a good barometer. But also have to strongly consider the age of the first line backups spelling the starters.
 
That MOD guy must be a true Legend. :bg:
Thanks!
 
Notice the second oldest, that's the RG trade effect, we're the youngest and they're the second oldest
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back