1661

I’ll take KC! Reporting in soon!

1662

On the Garrard thing – let’s say the Jags suspected they were going to drop Garrard from the start, and work Gabbart into the mix as the season went on. With Manning’s injury, is there sort of a logic to them holding on to Garrard as long as possible and not give him away to a division rival?

I still think the way they handled it stinks, but I can kind of see the Colts having interest in Garrard and why the Jags would want to hold on to him until the last second.

1663

They could cut him late for that reason, but there’s no logical reason for giving him all the first team reps in preseason. That hurts nobody but themselves.

1664

Pittsburgh Steelers
2010: 12-4, 1st AFC North, Lost Super Bowl

Overall: Coming off a disappointing 9-7 record, with an offseason filled with distractions and down to their 4th string QB for the first 4 games, the Steelers could have packed it in. Instead, they returned to their dominating style and earned a trip to the Super Bowl. Perhaps no team benefitted more from the lockout than the Steelers, who have the oldest starting squad in the league. With 8 defensive starters in their 30s and another who will turn 30 during the season, the question regarding the Steelers is age, not talent. Last year saw the emergence of young talent like Mike Pouncey and Ziggy Hood. Can the young guys step up and make contributions to give the older guys a much-needed breather?

Offense: The Steelers have their most potent offensive lineup in years. For a team that is known for their defense, they have slowly been building a formidable offense. Led by QB Big Ben Roethlesberger, the Steelers have a bevy of offensive weapons that can match up favorably with any team. The team is loaded at wideout, led by the Dancing with the Stars champ Hines Ward and perhaps the fastest man in the league, breakout star WR Mike Wallace (1,257 yards, 10tds). The depth is excellent, with young talents Emmanuel Sanders, Antonio Brown and veteran Jerricho Cotchery all more than capable of filling in and TE Heath Miller rounding out the passing game. Brown had a spectacular camp and looks like a star in the making. The running game isn’t taking a back seat either, with 3rd year RB Rashard Mendenhall coming off a 1,273, 13td season. He’ll be spelled by fan favorite Issac Redman (4.8 YPC). The only real question on the Steelers offense is the OL. Willie Colon is back at RT and All-Pro Maurkice Pouncy mans the middle, but the rest of the line is average or untested. The left side in particular looks vulnerable with journeyman T Jonathan Scott and G Chris Kemoeatu. But that is the same crew that got them to the Super Bowl, so there’s something to be said for that. Overall, if Big Ben stays upright, this is perhaps the strongest Steeler offensive squad since the 1970s and they should have little trouble putting points on the board.

Defense: There’s little change to the NFL’s best defense but there is a lot more worry. Can they do it again given the age of the group? Nine of the likely opening day starters will be 30 or older by Thanksgiving. There hasn’t been a starting defense in the NFL this old in quite some time. Also, many of them are recovering from injury. Aaron Smith has been hurt two years in a row. All-Pro James Harrison is still bothered by two offseason back surgeries. NFL DPoY Troy Polamalu is still hampered by an Achilles injury dating back to last year. At the same time, by resigning Ike Taylor, this is the same lineup that dominated teams last year. It’s still led by the NFL’s best quartet of linebackers, with Lamar Woodley and Lawrence Timmons recently signing long-term extensions. 2 of the last 3 DPoY recipients (Polamalu and Harrison) are still out there. There’s also a bunch of younger guys waiting in the wings for their chance, including LB Stephenson Sylvester, DE Cameron Heyward, LB Jason Woirlds, CB Keenan Lewis and S Ryan Mundy. Due to age and/or injury, they’ll all likely see substantial playing time this year and will need to step up or the defense will take a step back.

Outlook: 13-3, First Place AFC North. The last two times the Steelers made the Super Bowl, they didn’t even make the playoffs the following season. However, this time they didn’t win the championship. That, with the knowledge that this may be the last hurrah for many of them, should spur the Steelers with a new sense of urgency to compete for another Lombardi trophy. But if they show their age and the younger guys can’t step up, this “Over the Hill Gang” may just be that and slump to .500 record.

1665

13-3 for the Steelers is a bit optimistic, IMHO. If for no other reason then that the recent history of Superbowl losers is spotty at best. The last time a Superbowl loser won more then 10 games and made the playoffs the following year was the Titans*, who lost in 1999 and won 13 games the next year. Since then most of the Superbowl losers have failed to make the playoffs altogether the next year, and those who have made it have had 9-7 or 10-6 records. So a drop off is almost a guarantee.

*The Patriots did win 11 games the year after they lost to the Giants, but didn’t make the playoffs. A fluke, but still.

On another note, ignore the “Garrard to the Seahawks” talk you hear from the national media. They continue to think its obvious that Seattle would want someone other than Tavaris Jackson, but ignore that as soon as the lockout ended they made a beeline for Jackson. They have a plan and their plan is Tavaris. They didn’t change last years plan when Leinart was cut right before the season started and they aren’t going to change their plan this year, especially as Carroll continues to talk like he thinks Jackson is the perfect guy for what they want to do at this point.

1666

That is an entirely irrelevant stat. Past records of Super Bowl losers isn’t in any way a future predictor of the record of the Steelers this year, nor has any impact in any way on the performance of the Steelers this year. If you want to argue that 13-3 is optimistic due to age, injury or some other definable factor, that’s reasonable. But “almost guaranteeing” a drop off due to the past records of other teams…er, that’s some interesting “logic”.

1667

According to Mike and Mike this morning, he was introduced at a team brunch as the starting QB, and then cut from the team like an hour or two later. Situation does not make a lot of sense.

1668

How can you say its completely irrelevant? There is a Superbowl loser hangover apparent in at least the last 10 years of league history. You can’t completely ignore it, and players have even admitted it.

1669

Nope, and it will be interesting to see who picks up Gerrard. I’ve never been all that impressed with him, but he’s at least a serviceable QB. I can’t see anyone handing him a starting role this season, but someone is going to lose their QB in the first couple weeks of the season and will need his services desperately. The question is - does he take a backup role now or does he wait for that starting opportunity due to an inevitable injury?

1670

Because correlation =/= causation. It’s entirely irrelevant.

Not to mention if there is some sort of unquantifiable “Super Bowl hangover”, how does that impact a team that’s won 2 Super Bowls in the last couple of years, had an entirely different type of off-season due to the lockout and is the most veteran squad in the league? If anything, you could argue the Steelers have had a Super Bowl winner hangover the last two times they’ve won, so how does a loser hangover impact them?

The only reasonable “comp” to the Steelers would be the Patsies of 2008, but then again they lost their All-World QB for the entire year, so that’s out the window.

But I just don’t believe much in any Super Bowl hangover. It’s tough to repeat whether you win or lose. But the Steelers have largely the same squad, a couple of new improvements and a (at this stage) significantly easier schedule than last year. 12-4, 13-3 (I’ve seen expert predictions at 14-2) is entirely achievable…as is a .500 record, if Ben goes down or they start showing their age. After all, this is the NFL, which stands for Not For Long.

1671

I don’t know that it’s completely irrelevant. At worst, it warrants further investigation.

But in this particular case, I think Pittsburgh is at worst a wild-card team if Baltimore manages to beat them and the oldest defense in league history (note: may not be the oldest defense in league history, but it’s certainly in the top 10) shows it.

1672

Sounds like a segment on Jon Benjamin Has A Van. You just got… Publicly Humiliated!

1673

The conversation on age is an interesting one. There’s been some sudden talk about the age of the Patriots roster around these parts. Before the shortened start of the 2011 season, the Pats were on the younger end of the spectrum in terms of average age. Now after free agency signings and the 53-man roster cuts, the Patriots rank as the 8th oldest team between the Jets and Ravens.
[http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/id/44505/2011-nfl-team-age-ranks-at-53-man-cuts](espn link, don’t feed them though)


Team                  Defense  Offense  Special    Overall
Pittsburgh Steelers     1	13	  20	         1
Arizona Cardinals	3	14	  2	         2
San Diego Chargers	5	4	  25	         3
Detroit Lions	        24	1	  11	         4
Atlanta Falcons	        16	2	  10	         5
St. Louis Rams	        2	16	  17	         6
New York Jets	        9	3	  29	         7
New England Patriots	7	12	  16	         8
Baltimore Ravens	8	10	  23	         9
Minnesota Vikings	15	11	  6	        10
Washington Redskins	10	9	  22	        11
New York Giants	        6	15	  14	        12
Indianapolis Colts	28	7	  4	        13
Kansas City Chiefs	20	6	  27	        14
Oakland Raiders	        13	19	  5	        15
New Orleans Saints	19	8	  19	        16
Buffalo Bills	        14	18	  9	        17
Jacksonville Jaguars	21	17	  1	        18
Denver Broncos	        12	22	  21	        19
Dallas Cowboys	        4	25	  26	        20
Houston Texans	        30	5	  15	        21
Miami Dolphins	        11	23	  24	        22
Chicago Bears	        17	24	  12	        23
San Francisco 49ers	27	29	  3	        24
Cleveland Browns	22	28	  8	        25
Tennessee Titans	29	21	  13	        26
Philadelphia Eagles	25	20	  31	        27
Seattle Seahawks	23	30	  17	        28
Cincinnati Bengals	18	31	  28	        29
Carolina Panthers	31	26	  7	        30
Green Bay Packers	26	27	  30	        31
Tampa Bay Buccaneers	32	32	  32	        32

At first reaction one might wonder what all that draft pick stockpiling was for, but the Pats are in the odd position of rebuilding and trying to contend for titles at the same time. They have some very notable youth at TE, RB, LB and CB, but the Patriots don’t seem to be in a position to spend a lot of time developing non-obvious potential. They are instead getting established veterans and giving away some youth (currently six of the Pats cuts were claimed.) The greatest example of this is probably Brandon Tate. A developing third receiver, Tate had some spectacular plays last year as well as some bad mistakes. With the new kickoff rules, his special teams contributions might be very valuable. He is fast but maybe not the best decision maker. Since you can’t coach speed, maybe the perfect player to spend some time on. After all his rookie year was spent on IR. Instead the Pats went with Ochocinco.

Hard to argue against that move when the goal is to win and age doesn’t seem to hinder winning games. Certainly not the Steelers. Nor the Chargers, Falcons, Jets or Ravens. The Pats 2007 Superbowl loss blame landed mostly on the age of the defense, claim they were too old and slow. Three years and thirty-two draft picks later the defense was one of the youngest in the league. They were also terrible. Well in the a bend-don’t-break sense, they weren’t so bad. They were better than average in terms of giving up points. But they sure did a lot of bending. Now the Pats have a defensive line so old they remember what playing on grass was like. We’ll see how effective it is, but the development of raw young talent is clearly not in the playbook. Developing young talent when you aren’t competing is fine, but for the Pats at least, they don’t think youth leads to victories.

If you take a closer look at age like Chase Stuart did for the NYT, the Pats tend to use their veteran players even when they have youth. Of course they wouldn’t be on the team otherwise since the Pats have healthy competition for roster spots unlike say Washington. Looking at age, we can guess that the Packers have a huge window of opportunity and should be a competitive team for a while and that if the Bucs cut Rhonde Barber they might get mistaken for a junior varsity team. But otherwise I don’t see how the elderly Steelers turning one year older suddenly makes them a worse team. Certainly their future will require youth, but today, there’s no reason to expect a drop-off due to age. I think we can attribute any drop-off to the well established psychological effects of the Superbowl Hangover. :P

1674

Is there actually any correlation between age and winning?

1675

That’s essentially what I was asking. I dunno, maybe I’ll take the time to look at the numbers, but presumably a veteran player isn’t going to stay in the league if he sucks. So on average a veteran should be better than a young player. Whether that leads to more wins, or if the crippling effects of being over 30 factor in, I don’t know.

1676

Looking at the numbers, I would say there’s no correlation. In the top six you have Arizona, Detroit and St Louis, so half of the oldest teams were bad. In the bottom six you have Carolina, Seattle and Cincinatti so again, half are bad. You also had the oldest team and the second-youngest team in the Super Bowl last year.

If you wanted to expand the dataset to include 10 or 20 years, there might be some general trends that become apparent. But based on this chart there is no major advantage or disadvantage based on age. Probably because of free agency. Old teams don’t necessarily get old together. A team like the Lions presumably got old by trying to fill holes through free agency. Whereas the Packers rebuilt through the draft and won.

1677

The complication is that the Micky Mouse chart is completely insufficient, so comparing the top and bottom of one year is not only too small a sample (extend the comparison to nine teams and suddenly there’s correlation) it’s misleading. We’d have to do something closer to what Chase Stuart did and focus on the productive players and we would certainly need more than one year’s results. You can’t say there’s no correlation based on the chart.

If you guys are sincerely interested more than just retorting “prove it,” maybe I’ll actually put together a spreadsheet.

1678

This just landed in my inbox:

1679

I want to point out that in my original response all I said that 13-3 was “a big optimistic.” I’m not suggesting they are going to crash and burn or that they won’t make the playoffs, just that history says there will be a drop off. And I’m not just pulling that out of a hat.

In the last 20 seasons, the Superbowl loser has, on average, lost 3.45 games more the following season. It’s been worse the last ten years, with the average jumping to 4.8 more losses the next year. And that’s not just because of a few extreme situations. In that entire period, the Superbowl loser has only won more games the next year twice: the Bills in 1992 and the Cardinals in 2008. On two other occasions (both more then 10 years ago) teams won the same amount of games the next year. So that’s 4 times out of 20 years (or 20%) of the time when the loser hasn’t lost more games the next year.

There are obviously a lot of factors involved in how things turn out the next year, but to completely disregard the “Superbowl loser hangover” idea seems shortsighted.

1680

I’m soooooooooooooooooooo glad I kept him in the keeper league this year. /groan

~C~