AFC Old Folks home

[James-Eagles]

In the AFC all but two teams have an average age above 4.5. In the NFC all but 2 teams have an average age below 4.5. The youngest team is Washington at 4.1. Oldest team is Kansas City 5.26

[Rich-League Officer]

These averages are based on the 53 man rosters posted thus far. So once you remove the PS players, these numbers will rise slightly.

CIN = 5.13
JAX = 4.87
NE = 5.67 (have 3 old guys likely to retire)
NYJ = 4.57
KC = 5.94 (have 4 old guys likely to retire)
LAC = 4.81
MIN = 4.59
OAK = 4.19
SEA = 4.63
AFC = 4.93
What is interesting is, the 2 "youngest" teams in the AFC were in the title game.

DET = 4.28
NYG = 4.62
PHI = 4.29
WAS = 4.16 (no PS yet, this age will rise)
CAR = 4.27
CHI = 5.60 (have 5 old guys who will likely retire after the season)
GB = 4.23
NO = 4.31
SF = 4.43
NFC = 4.47

[Mitch-Oilers]

When decimal points separate the talent, it's all about PPPs.

[Jerry-Redskins]

PPP's matter, but I'm telling you guys the differences we have in talent still matters as well. There is more than just a few decimals involved and the attribute distribution and roster construction matters. A $60 or $70 million difference in salary based on a talent formula is a big difference in the game. Rich had the best PPP's in his day, but he also was the best GM and had the best talent. You could swap PPP's and get beat just as bad. Yes the talent is a little closer these days, but it is not evenly distributed and it matters

[Mitch-Oilers]

That's because Rich game planned heavily each week and made adjustments to his PPP based on matches created in play calls.

[Jerry-Redskins]

It's because he had the most talent. As I said. You could swap the PPP between you and him and still get beat bad. He had great PPP's but you still could not overcome the talent

[Rich-League Officer]

You are both right.
Back in those days the gap in player talent was MUCH larger.
And to make matters worse for the opposition, I was also coaching the crap out of this team.
I did a quick look back and 2003 was my greatest season.
19-0, ranked #1 in all categories on offense/defense scoring 730 points.
No way I was losing a game.

But, Jerry is right about the players. I had in most cases HUGE advantages in player talent.
From 98 on I was acquiring picks, dealing away old guys and loading up for what happened.
Here is a quick chart of 2003, this is just assigning a value of 1 to each attribute for each player.
Take a look at top to bottom how big a gap there was.

And as the seasons went on, that gap began to shrink to where we are today.
But to look back and see a 41 point gap is insane!
Today, the gap from top to bottom is a mere 7 points.
Even doing the coaching I did back then would never produce the same results because coaches are smarter.
Everyone does some version of what I was doing and now the talent gap is almost negligible.
It does make it more random, whether that's a good thing or not, I'm not sure.

In my final season 2029, the gap was also 7 points and I was in the middle of the pack 3 points off the top.
It was one of the reasons it was time to go. I felt like there was no pathway to creating a dynasty in roster talent.
That was a big part of the fun for me.

[Mitch-Oilers]

This information is very interesting. The 2003 teams didn't have the extra PS players which likely would have pulled their ratings down.

With a 40 pt spread in a 30 team league, it seems like the spread in an 18 team league would be closer to 20 vs 7.