Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Rams Huddle › Rams: Youngest Team In The League
- This topic has 6 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 2 months ago by bnw.
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 5, 2016 at 10:52 am #52281PA RamParticipant
“As of roughly 9:15 p.m. on cut-down day, when we finished collecting data from all 32 NFL team website rosters, the Los Angeles Rams had the youngest team in the NFL. The Atlanta Falcons are the oldest. By the time you read this, this data will already out of date as teams continue to make tweaks to their rosters, although even with continued roster movement, the average ages of each team shouldn’t change much.”
http://www.phillyvoice.com/ranking-nfl-teams-age-after-53-man-cutdowns-2016-edition/
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. " Philip K. Dick
September 5, 2016 at 11:15 am #52284znModerator“As of roughly 9:15 p.m. on cut-down day, when we finished collecting data from all 32 NFL team website rosters, the Los Angeles Rams had the youngest team in the NFL. The Atlanta Falcons are the oldest. By the time you read this, this data will already out of date as teams continue to make tweaks to their rosters, although even with continued roster movement, the average ages of each team shouldn’t change much.”
http://www.phillyvoice.com/ranking-nfl-teams-age-after-53-man-cutdowns-2016-edition/
I think this means less than it used to.
If you look at the avg. years of experience on the 2 starting units, O and D, the Rams STARTERS are not young.
Both average 4 years of experience (with different decimals after the 4).
That’s not young, that’s prime.
..
September 5, 2016 at 11:25 am #52286PA RamParticipantI think this means less than it used to.
If you look at the avg. years of experience on the 2 starting units, O and D, the Rams STARTERS are not young.
Both average 4 years of experience (with different decimals after the 4).
That’s not young, that’s prime.
Whoa, whoa, whoa there Mr. Scientist.
I refuse to discuss prime numbers.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. " Philip K. Dick
September 5, 2016 at 3:57 pm #52298wvParticipantI think this means less than it used to.
If you look at the avg. years of experience on the 2 starting units, O and D, the Rams STARTERS are not young.
Both average 4 years of experience (with different decimals after the 4).
That’s not young, that’s prime.
Whoa, whoa, whoa there Mr. Scientist.
I refuse to discuss prime numbers.
————–
…yeah right, Pa Ram — Mr Five letters in your name.
Go ahead. Pretend like you know nothing about Snisher’s new analytics — the
Prime theory of team building.w
v
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prime_numbers
The first 1000 prime numbersThe following table lists the first 1000 primes, with 20 columns of consecutive primes in each of the 50 rows.[1]
1–20 2 3 5 7 11 13 17 19 23 29 31 37 41 43 47 53 59 61 67 71
21–40 73 79 83 89 97 101 103 107 109 113 127 131 137 139 149 151 157 163 167 173
41–60 179 181 191 193 197 199 211 223 227 229 233 239 241 251 257 263 269 271 277 281
61–80 283 293 307 311 313 317 331 337 347 349 353 359 367 373 379 383 389 397 401 409
81–100 419 421 431 433 439 443 449 457 461 463 467 479 487 491 499 503 509 521 523 541
101–120 547 557 563 569 571 577 587 593 599 601 607 613 617 619 631 641 643 647 653 659
121–140 661 673 677 683 691 701 709 719 727 733 739 743 751 757 761 769 773 787 797 809
141–160 811 821 823 827 829 839 853 857 859 863 877 881 883 887 907 911 919 929……(sequence A000040 in the OEIS).
The Goldbach conjecture verification project reports that it has computed all primes below 4×1018.[2] That means 95,676,260,903,887,607 primes[3] (nearly 1017), but they were not stored. There are known formulae to evaluate the prime-counting function (the number of primes below a given value) faster than computing the primes. This has been used to compute that there are 1,925,320,391,606,803,968,923 primes (roughly 2×1021) below 1023. A different computation found that there are 18,435,599,767,349,200,867,866 primes (roughly 2×1022) below 1024, if the Riemann hypothesis is true.[4]
September 5, 2016 at 6:36 pm #52304bnwBlockedYoungest team in the league means what we already well know, mainly that our back ups are very inexperienced and it usually bites the team in the ass. But such players are cheap which is what StanK likes.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
September 5, 2016 at 6:58 pm #52307znModeratorYoungest team in the league means what we already well know, mainly that our back ups are very inexperienced and it usually bites the team in the ass. But such players are cheap which is what StanK likes.
Cheap doesn’t matter because the Rams, like ever other team, pays to the cap.
So the roster is going to cost the same no matter who is on it.
But still, the Rams at several positions are one of the deepest teams in the league.
So whether young or not, they know how to find them.
.
September 5, 2016 at 7:34 pm #52308bnwBlockedYoungest team in the league means what we already well know, mainly that our back ups are very inexperienced and it usually bites the team in the ass. But such players are cheap which is what StanK likes.
Cheap doesn’t matter because the Rams, like ever other team, pays to the cap.
So the roster is going to cost the same no matter who is on it.
But still, the Rams at several positions are one of the deepest teams in the league.
So whether young or not, they know how to find them.
.
For many years…..Have they found WRs? NO! Have they found QBs? NO! Have they found a LT? NO! Have they found a C? NO! I can go on but you get the drift.
Cap limit is misleading. Spending to it doesn’t matter as much as how it is allocated. If you are consistently the youngest team that is reflected in the payroll. Paying a few guys a lot of $$$ while the rest of the team is inexperienced compared to the rest of the league is a great recipe for sub .500 performance which is what the Rams have perfected over the last 11 years.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.