Youngest team myth

[finso]

The youngest team myth is getting old.
This team isn't that young by NFL standards so quit using it as an excuse or building block.
Bottom line is, teams in the NFL aren't old anymore. All the teams have young talent.
The youngest team which isnt the Bengals are only 2 years on average younger than the oldest, which isn't old at all.
There are teams light years ahead of the Bengals with young players and by the way, every team get to draft.
http://bloggingthebeast.com/2012/09/...re-the-oldest/

[Ron Mexico]

Originally Posted by finso

The youngest team myth is getting old.
This team isn't that young by NFL standards so quit using it as an excuse or building block.
Bottom line is, teams in the NFL aren't old anymore. All the teams have young talent.
The youngest team which isnt the Bengals are only 2 years on average younger than the oldest, which isn't old at all.
There are teams light years ahead of the Bengals with young players and by the way, every team get to draft.
http://bloggingthebeast.com/2012/09/...re-the-oldest/

What's your point?

[finso]

Originally Posted by Ron Mexico

What's your point?

You just read it.

[Ron Mexico]

Originally Posted by finso

You just read it.

Oh....the Bengals aren't the youngest team in the NFL? Sweet.

[Armoredcar]

Originally Posted by finso

The youngest team myth is getting old.
This team isn't that young by NFL standards so quit using it as an excuse or building block.
Bottom line is, teams in the NFL aren't old anymore. All the teams have young talent.
The youngest team which isnt the Bengals are only 2 years on average younger than the oldest, which isn't old at all.
There are teams light years ahead of the Bengals with young players and by the way, every team get to draft.
http://bloggingthebeast.com/2012/09/...re-the-oldest/

No other team had 4 pro bowlers on their rookie contract last year. That's where this is coming from. Sure all teams have young talent...but usually not at so many key positions at one time. That's the reason for all the optimism. It's a very good thing, if handled properly we'll have this same core for years to come.

[finso]

Originally Posted by Armoredcar

No other team had 4 pro bowlers on their rookie contract last year. That's where this is coming from. Sure all teams have young talent...but usually not at so many key positions at one time. That's the reason for all the optimism. It's a very good thing, if handled properly we'll have this same core for years to come.

The Bengals made the playoffs thats great.
But teams with a roster just as young have won SuperBowls.
My point is clear. Don't act like the Bengals have some advantage moving foward due to youth .It's not there.
Next.

[momadance02]

Such a dolt.


Next.

[Armoredcar]

Originally Posted by finso

The Bengals made the playoffs thats great.
But teams with a roster just as young have won SuperBowls.
My point is clear. Don't act like the Bengals have some advantage moving foward due to youth .It's not there.
Next.

Ok so having one of the best recievers in the league, the best defensive tackle, a solid QB, and a pro bowl TE all still on their rookie contracts isn't a good thing? Awesome point.

[McC]

Originally Posted by finso

The youngest team myth is getting old.
This team isn't that young by NFL standards so quit using it as an excuse or building block.
Bottom line is, teams in the NFL aren't old anymore. All the teams have young talent.
The youngest team which isnt the Bengals are only 2 years on average younger than the oldest, which isn't old at all.
There are teams light years ahead of the Bengals with young players and by the way, every team get to draft.
http://bloggingthebeast.com/2012/09/...re-the-oldest/

What exactly is your beef?

[OSUfan]

Originally Posted by finso

The youngest team myth is getting old.
This team isn't that young by NFL standards so quit using it as an excuse or building block.
Bottom line is, teams in the NFL aren't old anymore. All the teams have young talent.
The youngest team which isnt the Bengals are only 2 years on average younger than the oldest, which isn't old at all.
There are teams light years ahead of the Bengals with young players and by the way, every team get to draft.
http://bloggingthebeast.com/2012/09/...re-the-oldest/

Yet another wonderfully positive thread from finso. I just bet you are a joy to have at a party. Just more proof that no matter what some will find something to gripe about.

[ExtraNirvana]

...and the world keeps turning.

[Go Cards]

Originally Posted by finso

The youngest team myth is getting old.
This team isn't that young by NFL standards so quit using it as an excuse or building block.
Bottom line is, teams in the NFL aren't old anymore. All the teams have young talent.
The youngest team which isnt the Bengals are only 2 years on average younger than the oldest, which isn't old at all.
There are teams light years ahead of the Bengals with young players and by the way, every team get to draft.
http://bloggingthebeast.com/2012/09/...re-the-oldest/

Does not change my opinion one bit about the future being bright.

[Go Cards]

According to ESPN. The Bengals have the third youngest starters in the entire NFL.

The teams that ranked #1 Rams and #2 Eagles by the your blogging the beast site ranks #6 and #9. Well behind the Bengals starters.

Who cares about bench warmers when thinking of the future.

Looking at the Playoff teams. Seattle has 2nd youngest starters(bright future), Bengals 3rd, Minnesota 7th, Indy 10th.

In our division, Baltimore is the 30th oldest team per starters, and pittsburgh ranks 28th.

Looks like a changing of the guard is coming to the NFL.

The Bengals having the 3rd youngest starters in the NFL and sporting back to back Playoff appearances, are perched to pounce and take advantage of the elderly..

And now you know too why so many are excited as well.

Who-dey !

[ExtraNirvana]

Originally Posted by Go Cards

According to ESPN. The Bengals have the third youngest starters in the entire NFL.

The teams that ranked #1 Rams and #2 by the your blogging the beast site ranks #6 and #9. Well behind the Bengals starters.

Who cares about bench warmers when thinking of the future.

Looking at the Playoff teams. Seattle is 2nd youngest starters(bright future), Bengals 3rd, Minnesota 7th, Indy 10th.

In our division, Baltimore is the 30th oldest team per starters, and pittsburgh ranks 28th.

Looks like a changing of the guard is coming to the NFL.

The Bengals having the 3rd youngest starters in the NFL and sporting back to back Playoff appearances, are perched to pounce and take advantage of the elderly..

And now you know why so many are excited as well.

Who-dey !

He cant be excited dont you know the old phrase?

If you dont have anything negative to post then dont post. :thumbup:

[OSUfan]

Originally Posted by ExtraNirvana

He cant be excited dont you know the old phrase?

If you dont have anything negative to post then dont post. :thumbup:

Certainly seems to be the case in these parts!

[Thorobredbullies]

Everyone on the offense is on the right side of 30 with the exception of Whitworth, BGE is 27, Hawk is 26 and EVERYONE else is younger. The defense strong suit the D Line has no one 30 or over with the key pieces 25 or younger. Our secondary has some age but with the exception of Hall(28) and Nelson(29) are replaceable. Our best LB is 22. I'd say this team is VERY young.

[fredtoast]

Originally Posted by finso

The youngest team myth is getting old.
This team isn't that young by NFL standards so quit using it as an excuse or building block.
Bottom line is, teams in the NFL aren't old anymore. All the teams have young talent.
The youngest team which isnt the Bengals are only 2 years on average younger than the oldest, which isn't old at all.
There are teams light years ahead of the Bengals with young players and by the way, every team get to draft.
http://bloggingthebeast.com/2012/09/...re-the-oldest/

This from Finso?!?!?!

I am shocked.

SHOCKED!!!

[spazz70]

Originally Posted by Go Cards

According to ESPN. The Bengals have the third youngest starters in the entire NFL.

The teams that ranked #1 Rams and #2 Eagles by the your blogging the beast site ranks #6 and #9. Well behind the Bengals starters.

Who cares about bench warmers when thinking of the future.

Looking at the Playoff teams. Seattle has 2nd youngest starters(bright future), Bengals 3rd, Minnesota 7th, Indy 10th.

In our division, Baltimore is the 30th oldest team per starters, and pittsburgh ranks 28th.

Looks like a changing of the guard is coming to the NFL.

The Bengals having the 3rd youngest starters in the NFL and sporting back to back Playoff appearances, are perched to pounce and take advantage of the elderly..

And now you know too why so many are excited as well.

Who-dey !

This....the article linked is overall age of all teams.....that will be somewhat consistent for all eternity.....having a core group of young starters is what is exciting...i wish they broke down how many starters are on their rookie contracts for each team...I bet we are close to the top on that one and one of the few that made the playoffs...off the top of my head we have like 8 or 10???

[BengalzHacker]

Originally Posted by Ron Mexico

What's your point?

He's a lot like Colin Cowherd: stirs up crap for the sake of getting attention, mouths a lot of trash, doesn't seem to know a lot about football (at least to those who do know football well) and generally doesn't seem to like this team or those of us who support it.

[eoxyod]

2 things:
Only 3 other teams in the playoffs are younger than us in totality
The 2 year age difference is massive when you are taking into account 53 players and players that last in the league only last until about 31

[flyinryan]

Yeah the difference is the youth on the Patriots and teams like it is on their bench and all of their starters have the experience like Brady who is in at least his tenth season (I think). Whereas our experience is in our backups and secondary while almost all other key starting positions are very young and they WILL get better as they keep developing.

Dumb thread is dumb.

[THE PISTONS]

A better measure would be to take the average age of each teams 8-10 best players (core). The average skews it.

Our best players are young where the Steelers are mainly 30+. You don't get that from averages. Averages make it look like all items ages are within 2 years but over a 53+ man roster that's a lot.

[Jay62107]

Originally Posted by ExtraNirvana

He cant be excited dont you know the old phrase?

If you dont have anything negative to post then dont post. :thumbup:

That's what mama said, And she told me Vicki Valentine is the devil.

[THEBURG]

Young, or old, they still have to play the game.

[Ron Mexico]

Originally Posted by BengalzHacker

He's a lot like Colin Cowherd: stirs up crap for the sake of getting attention, mouths a lot of trash, doesn't seem to know a lot about football (at least to those who do know football well) and generally doesn't seem to like this team or those of us who support it.

Hmmmmm.....I wasn't even trying to be a ****, or being sarcastic when I asked him what his point was. I was legitimately trying to figure out the significance of the thread. Seriously....I'm glad the Bengals aren't the youngest team in the league. Whatevsies.