Theory of 150

**redmike34** · 06-30-2012, 01:03 PM

Just saw this on ESPN:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/81...oo-long-o-line

On the one hand, it's just numbers. On the other, it seems that there's an awful lot of circumstantial evidence to support it.

Let's hope some of the younger guys come good...

**leachisabeast** · 06-30-2012, 01:43 PM

This was a interesting read, and it is kind of worrying to know that too. Starting Bobbie Williams could perhaps be more risky than starting rookie guard/tackle Kelechi Osemele. I suppose the good thing is that we have plenty of promising youth backing our vets up.

**psuasskicker** · 06-30-2012, 04:00 PM

Really, we need ESPN analysts to tell us that if your players collectively are getting old, you're likely not to perform as well as if you have them when they're younger?

Besides, it's a ridiculously stupid argument they're making...

Bears general manager Jerry Angelo told me at training camp then that it didn't make sense to break up the line in 2007. It was worth one more season. ... Total age: 159. Average age: 31.8.

Father Time won that season. The Bears went 7-9. Brown lasted only eight starts. The line gave up 43 sacks, and the team averaged only 83.1 rushing yards per game and a feeble 3.1 yards per carry.

In 2006, the Bears total OL age was 154. They went 13-3. Of the 80 games between OLs (16 games * 5 linemen), their starting OL missed two. The line gave up only 25 sacks (one to a RB trying to throw the ball) and the team averaged 119.9 rushing yards per game and 3.8 YPC (which was sorta pathetic, though more likely because no one respected Rex Grossman's ability to throw, and Thomas Jones and Cedric Benson were not particularly attractive rushers at that point in their careers).

How does a major media outlet like ESPN get away with garbage like this constantly? I don't get it...

- C -

**duffybr** · 06-30-2012, 04:03 PM

Angelo is a used car salesman who is unemployed after screwing up the Bears for years Who would care what he said

**mfdoom42** · 07-01-2012, 02:17 PM

This is why ESPN is the worst thing ever. "If 3+ players are over 30 and the total combined age is 150+ the line won't be as good" really translates to "if you have older offensive lineman they become less effective." There is nothing magical about the combined age of 150 that causes a line to perform less-effectively. All a combined age of 150 means is that your average starter is 30, and 30 year olds in the NFL are well past their primes. Stupid, stupid, stupid article and may I just again state that ESPN is the worst thing ever.

**JimZipCode** · 07-02-2012, 11:36 AM

Originally Posted by psuasskicker

Really, we need ESPN analysts to tell us that if your players collectively are getting old, you're likely not to perform as well as if you have them when they're younger?
Besides, it's a ridiculously stupid argument they're making...

I like it. Not as a proven cause/effect that has stood up to rigorous analysis, but as a quick & dirty way to say how old your O-line starters are.

I agree with the ESPN writer that we should be concerned about the Ravens O-line this season.

**psuasskicker** · 07-02-2012, 12:43 PM

I don't think it's a bad thing to say "Add up the age of your line and if it's too high you should be concerned." I do have a problem with them trying to stick a particular number on that age and call that the magic tipping point. Especially since you could have two 35 year olds and three 27 year olds and hit that point.

Yes, I think there's cause for concern about the age of the Ravens OL this year. We've seen Birk and McKinnie having declining skills in general the last couple years, there's no reason to think that will magically turn itself around.

No, we didn't need an ESPN article feigning analysis to tell us that.

- C -

**JimZipCode** · 07-02-2012, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by psuasskicker

No, we didn't need an ESPN article feigning analysis to tell us that.

I must be mellowing in my old age, I enjoyed the little piece.

This part caught my eye:

The Giants and the Seattle Seahawks proved in the mid-to-late 2000s that if you can keep a starting offensive line together for 50 starts, blocking chemistry becomes so consistent that average talents become top players. Communication on such experienced lines becomes instinctual.

Leaving aside that word "proved", and the analytical connotations it has, this explanation of O-line continuity is compelling.

Of course I agree with you, Chris, about magic number tipping points. But I always expect those things to be a bit fuzzy anyway, like FO's "rule of 370". By the way, your example O-line with the three 27yo's: I think that violates this guy's rule, since he said something about having 3 guys over 30. But that team should be looking for eventual replacements for the two 35yo's regardless, don't you think?