Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Panthers' youth a blessing in disguise???

The Don

By The Don,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

The Don Newbie

The Don

Posted
Posted

Since the beginning of the NFL, a statement that has been uttered so many times has now befallen upon our beloved Carolina Panthers... "This is a young man's game."

Entering the 2010 season, the Carolina Panthers have the 3rd youngest team in the NFL, with only the Green Bay Packers and San Diego Chargers surpassing us in youth. Two teams, I might add, that both went to the playoffs last season.

Turning the clock back about 7 years, when players such as Jake Delhomme, Jordan Gross and Julius Peppers were first breaking on to the scene, in their youth, might I add...

Does this all point to a more obvious question? Why yes it does... Does this mean that the 2010 Carolina Panthers will have a better shot at getting into the playoffs this year, led by youth and exuberance of the likes in which we, the fans, haven't seen since the 2003 run at the super bowl?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Highlandfire Newbie

Highlandfire

Posted
Posted

You know all teams esp great ones go through this. there is a time to part ways with older vets and retool with younger guys.

We may be one of the youngest teams in the NFL but we are fortunate to have many really good pieces in place that are young, OL and RB are the first that come to mind. If moore develops like we think he can then add QB to that

Link to comment
Share on other sites
carolinarolls Newbie

carolinarolls

Posted
Posted

we did not trim the team to get younger

we did not trim the team to get older

we trimmed the team to get rid of old and aging problems that have been festering for several years

we trimmed the team to get rid of salary

we trimmed the team to promote competition

we trimmed the team to give the possible staff exodus plenty of outs

there are lots of positives and negatives and intelligent arguments for what happened and for why it should not have happened.

the only thing I truly believe about youth is that it is much more entertaining to watch a bunch of young guys fvck up repeatedly than to watch a bunch of wiley vets with huge contracts do the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Davidson Deac II Grand Master

Davidson Deac II

Posted
Posted

According to this we are fourth youngest. And the Chargers are in the middle, although the colts are younger than us.

1 Redskins 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

The Saints were almost the oldest team, the Colts were nearly the youngest. Guess that means young or old, you still need talent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
smash_n_dash Newbie

smash_n_dash

Posted
Posted

I saw something on ESPN the other week about us being THE youngest... I'll look it up

EDIT: Of course this was on July 12th so perhaps with cuts/additions to the roster, perhaps things have changed...

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/id/19677/age-rankings-for-every-nfl-team

Either way, according to this, the colts are/were the second youngest and they were in the SB

Link to comment
Share on other sites
smash_n_dash Newbie

smash_n_dash

Posted
Posted

According to this we are fourth youngest. And the Chargers are in the middle, although the colts are younger than us.

.

.

.

The Saints were almost the oldest team, the Colts were nearly the youngest. Guess that means young or old, you still need talent.

That was from September of last year I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ed bell Newbie

ed bell

Posted
Posted

There are probably a lot of ways to evaluate the "average age" of an NFL team....I'd say that the average of your starting 22 is probably a little more significant than an average of your overall 53 man roster.....I think the fact that besides kickers, Smitty is the oldest member on our squad indicates that there is a true youth movement here that isn't what I would consider the classic "rebuilding" type scenario. It's exciting....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Joe Bear
      Okay, now face the facta guyd

      By Joe Bear · Posted

      No, it will be a raw 6'7" 17-year-old European who just played basketball for the first time in March and who the idiot GM "had first on our board." He'll play the whole G-League season, get in 42 games for the Hornets and average 1.1 ppg on 35% shooting. Been there, seen that.
    • ForJimmy
      JJ Jansen on tanking

      By ForJimmy · Posted

      We missed on Burns at his peak value. That’s the problem with trading for picks 2-3 years away (which people were convinced the Rams would suck by now and these would be higher picks btw). Each year away the pick is the further in value it drops. Fitt was clearly hired based on turning us around quickly. It’s one of the many reasons tanking isn’t really a thing as our player JJ is telling you in this original article. It would take the whole organization from the owners down admitting they aren’t winning soon with Burns and picks 2-3 years away having more value because that’s when we are still rebuilding. It would only make sense if Fitt had a longer leash and would more than likely be the ones making these picks anyway which you wouldn’t want. The question is would you rather have those Rams picks with the strong possibility of Fitt still being here or would you rather Fitt try to “win now” like he did and expedite his firing? Altering the timeline would affect more than just the Rams picks. 
    • HaricotVert
      Potential changes to playoff seeding

      By HaricotVert · Posted

      I dont buy the idea that it would create more competitive games Given this: Seed Current Format Record Proposed Open Seeding Record 1 Lions 15–2 Lions 15–2 2 Eagles 14–3 Eagles 14–3 3 Buccaneers 10–7 Vikings 14–3 4 Rams 10–7 Commanders 12–5 5 Vikings 14–3 Rams 10–7 6 Commanders 12–5 Buccaneers 10–7 7 Packers 11–6 Packers 11–6 That would mean Wild Card round would have been Eagles (14/3) v  Pack(11/6) Vikings(14/3) v Bucs(10/7) Commanders(12/5) v Rams(10/7) Instead of Eagles (14/3) v  Pack(11/6) Bucs(10/7) v Commanders(12/5) Rams(10/7) v Vikings(14/3) Then with the reseed it would mean that highest remaining seed would always draw the lowest remaining team.
×
×
  • Create New...