Follow up to DanTurksGhost's post Part 1: Criteria for Coaches?

[DBuc]

Great post about players in there prime.  The prime age range in almost all sports is 26-31...I don't think that it is a coincidence that most players are eligible for their first free agent contract around that time either...They need to prove they are worth it before owners start throwing money around...

 The criteria for judging the performance of coaches in this league should be based more on how well  they are playing with prime age players.  If you are Arizona or Tampa for example...you get a pass for this year. If you look at 11 of Arizona's top 13 players on offense, 7 are younger than 26 and 4 are older.  Tampa has only 4 players of prime age on offense in Wade, Davis, Pittman and Becht (and all are relatively cheap and two of them are simply role players)...most of the players are very young and we have Galloway, Alstott on the other end of the age spectrum.  On defense it is even more shocking...Only Wymms, Hovan and Nece are in their prime...the rest are over 31 (except for Ruud and White)...of our top 13 players.  I bet you you will find that many of the struggling teams the last two or three years are in similar situations (Titans, 49ers, etc)...and the teams that win have a good number of solid prime age players.  The Colts offense, for example, has 10 of their top 12 players in the prime ages of their careers.  The two players in their offense that are not are Marvin Harrison (a freak of nature a probably still the best receiver in the game) and Joseph Addai (pretty good rookie). 

On the flip side, the most disappointing teams this year have been the Falcons and Redskins.  The Falcons have 7 of their top 12 players on offense in their prime and 8 of their top 12 defenders as well.  The Redskins have 11 of their 13 offensive starters in the prime age (and expensive) and on defense (if you count Shawn Springs) they have 9 of their top 11 defenders in the prime. 

This does not account for other factors...such as injuries and quarterback play...and for some teams you have to take a look at how much has been spent on certain prime age players (like us which is minimal or the Redskins and Falcons which is quite a lot) But wouldn't you think that this is a pretty good measure for which teams are underachieving are which are not?   Players in this age range are in their athletic prime, have valuable NFL experience, and bring professionalism and maturity to the field, practice, lockerroom and offseason.  With such a fine line in this league between winning and losing...the importance of this can't be discounted...

Here is a good question...How does a team get to this point (either too young and/or old or just right) and how do teams maintain this type of situation year in and out?  I will post my opinion on that later but  I was curious  what you all think....By the way...again, great post DanTurksGhost!

[DanTurksGhost]

By the way...again, great post DanTurksGhost!

Thanks very much.

[keeponbucn]

It's DarkTurdGhost. J/K

[DanTurksGhost]

It's DarkTurdGhost. J/K

Like I said, I answer to either.

[alldaway]

It is a bad arguement, it fits his defend Gruden like he's Stalingrad approach but it is meaningless. The numbers you give are 100% arbitrary and cherry picked to give the best look to another crumbling campaign. Why isn't it 25-30 or 27-32. Prime time for RB's will be younger than for QB's. Speed WR's will age before TE's. Prove your time line is the optimium for all players and that people with offense outside that optimium fail consistently. Tie the success of PIT with a second year QB and 3rd year RB to this scenario. Explain NE winning with a second year QB and a really, old RB their first. SD is rolling with a young QB and LOT and their best wr is on the wrong side of this balance. Their best defensive players are all under your range.

There is nothing about our offense at the start of this year that says it should be as mind numblingly bad as it is. There's no reason our "young" players can't perform given their positions given any reasonable other than Grads and you can ignore his effect since with Simms this offense was every bit as inept. Clayton isn't bad becuase he's young, he's just bad.

Exactly.

[DBuc]

Exactly?  Pittsburgh's defense last year had 9 of their 11 starters in the prime age area...and there offense (which was inconsistent and almost non-existent in the Super Bowl)...had 6 of their 11 starters in this age range... If you add in Cedric Wilson who played alot you would get 7.

New England had 7 players in the prime age range of their 11 offensive starters (Woody, Brady, Light and Randall were young) and on defense they had 8 of 11 in the prime age range...and one of the their rookies was a stud named Seymour...

I am not saying this theory is perfect but there does seem to be a pattern...Yes young running backs and sometimes receivers can be the exception but in the long run, having players in this age range helps alot...not only on the field but also off the field.

By the way...it appears you cherry picked players and teams...I am giving whole team examples...and the theory is something to consider or think about...or is that too much for you to do?

[DBuc]

By the way...what about our Bucs Super Bowl team.  With Dudley and Joe J. included, 8 of the 13 starters on offense were in the prime age range...McCardell just missed it at 32 years but he definitely is one of those guys who seems to have played better later in his career...On the defense, 9 of the 11 starters were in this age range...only Dexter Jackson and Wymms (McFarland was hurt most of the year) were young (Jackson was 25).

I do think this theory works against Gruden in the post-Super Bowl year.  That was his worst year (even with injuries) of his career.  But the subsequent years are understandable...and I think next year we will see a big difference in this team (with cap room, younger improving players and another full stable of picks)...