I am not sure why Ahmed I living another thirty years would have made much of a difference. He was not a particularly effective military leader, and did not undertake any notable military reforms, nor did he bring any new lands into the empire. Though the fact that he was not a drunken fool who left the empire to be run by his harem eunuchs makes him an above average 17th century sultan.
He is mostly remembered as a strict Islamist. A more traditionalist Sultan would not be a bad thing by any means, seeing as Islam the main ideological force in the empire at that time.
The most important difference would probably be keeping his fool brother Mustafa off the throne, and allow his son Osman time to gain experience, and hopefully solidify his base of support so that he could enact his necessary reforms. This could lead to a stronger Ottoman Empire entering the 18th century if Osman managed to either break the power of the jannisaries or train a suitable replacement force.