Myth: 30+ Athlete = "Over the Hill"

[Thoner7]

Here is my theory. Draft OL/DL/Lb because those guys tend to come in and play right away, and can play into their mid 30s (lots of seasons from 1 pick). Sign average to above average, 'savy veteran' CBs and WRs after they have developed on another team (guys like winfield/greer). I feel experience matters more at these positions.

 

Why draft a McKelvin, when it takes 3 seasons for him to 'develope' when a Ryan Clady can play like a 10 yr vet his first day of camp? Meanwhile CBs like Greer and Florence (he has been a good signing, regardless of the Giants game)are more than adequate and can start the day you sign them in FA. There is so much less adjustment from college to the NFL at certain positions, take the day one starters in the draft and the savy vet at the positions where its important to hae a savy vet.....

[skibum]

I posted a while back in a similar thread regarding Freddie's age.

 

I strongly believe in "old man strength", because I am experiencing it in my mid-30's. I think there's plenty of research out there to support the fact that men hit their athletic peak around age 29-30, and that it lasts a few good years. The problem with NFL players is they've been so beat up by then that it doesn't matter. They really never get to enjoy their true "peak".

 

I think Fred is a rare example of an NFL running back who is reaping the benefits of his athletic peak, only because he was spared the constant beatings typically showered on a starting RB.

[Captain Caveman]

FJ has years in the arena league and NFL Europe.. Those years do count.. They take their toll no matter what league

 

But I agree FJ is a young 30

 

 

As for the over 30 debate.. the odds say most decline after passing 30.

 

I'm so tired of hearing that he has less mileage. One year he actually played two seasons in the same year (one in NFL Europe and one in NFL.)

 

I love Fred, and he's proven himself as a great back. I hope he has 5 more good years. But to expect anything more than 2 years from him is going against common sense.

Edited October 19, 2011 by Captain Caveman

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

Over the past 5-10 years the NFL has changed. Younger players have been given more money based on their potential to be great players before they prove their actual worth. Before this season, 1st round rookies were seeing more money than any proven veteran player had EVER seen. Much of this trend had to do with money. Crafty agents were finding ways to get paid big money early in players' careers, instead of waiting to see their clients earn the fruits of their labor. Why did a guy like Aaron Maybin get a big paycheck when guys like Jabari Greer and Nate Clements were shown the door??

 

Is a 30 year old athlete really too old? Think about the players the Bills have let walk out the door because they were "too old". Pat Williams, Ruben Brown, London Fletcher, Antoine Winfield, Takeo Spikes, etc. These guys went on to play many more successful years for their respective teams.

 

So is Fred Jackson too old to re-sign? Is a guy like Brandon Lloyd too old to bring in? I think not. If you have a shot at a talented player, you take it.

 

It's a generalization and applies foremost to Runningbacks. LT, Shaun Alexander, Thurman, Tiki, Bettis, Marshall all showed significant production declines around 30 years old. It's not a myth or a fact. It is a generalizatoin that some defy better than others and unquestionably vairies by position.

[Got_Wood]

I posted a while back in a similar thread regarding Freddie's age.

 

I strongly believe in "old man strength", because I am experiencing it in my mid-30's. I think there's plenty of research out there to support the fact that men hit their athletic peak around age 29-30, and that it lasts a few good years. The problem with NFL players is they've been so beat up by then that it doesn't matter. They really never get to enjoy their true "peak".

 

I think Fred is a rare example of an NFL running back who is reaping the benefits of his athletic peak, only because he was spared the constant beatings typically showered on a starting RB.

 

You hit the nail on the head. Freddy doesn't have the bumps and bruises your average NFL RB has. As "skibum" said, we have an extremely rare player on our hands here. There aren't many running backs in the history of this game that were able to start their career this late. And especially at such a high level without an injury history.

 

Guys like Thurman Thomas were banged up from the wear and tear of the NFL. He literally played without an ACL throughout much of his career. And he still made it 13 years. Emmit Smith made it 15 years and endured a broken shoulder blade and lots of bumps, bruises, and blows to the head.

 

This thread wasn't meant to talk about just Freddy in particular. But if you were to ask me if I would sign him to a 3 year deal at a much higher salary, I would say YES without question. Currently his deal looks like this - 2011: $1.75 million, 2012: $1.83 million, 2013: Free Agent. I would give him a reworked contract through 2014 worth about $6 million per year. And only guarantee about $15 million of it. This is similar to Frank Gore's new deal, and that guy has a massive injury history with significantly greater risk than Freddy. Seems like a no brainer to me.

[Endless Ike]

I agree to a point, but a lot of that has to do with the mileage, not just age. If you pile up 2500 carries by the time you hit 30 (like Thurman), than a sharp decline should not come as a surprise.

 

But FJ has only played 4+ years, and half of those as a backup. IMO, he is a very 'young' 30.

 

He played elsewhere before coming to the NFL...those hits still count

[Fan in San Diego]

Running Backs expire at the age of 30 that's just a fact... BUT that's only the atypical lifespan of a back that starts their careers at the age of 22-25. Most backs by the age of 25 know if they are starters (Or at least if they will be getting significant playing time).

 

But for Freddie he didn't enter the NFL till he was 25 and he didn't get to play until he was 26. On top of that he didn't get to play significant snaps (Over 100) till the age of 27. He also didn't get full time snaps until he was 28 years old (200+ snaps).

 

The guy has only been playing in the NFL at a meaningful level for 4 years. At age 30 Freddie only has the wear and tear of a 26-27 year old RB if that. Not saying Freddie can play for 4+ years. BUT he should be good for another 2 seasons past this one if you think carries and play time is much more accurate of how long RB's last.

 

+1

[bbb]

Does anybody know how much mileage (carries, etc.) Freddy put on while playing in the "minor leagues?"

 

We talk about him having low mileage because he hasn't had that many NFL carries, but I would think an NFL Europe or whatever carry puts just about as much mileage on you.

[jwmann2]

Agreed. Plus the average NFL lifespan for RB stats and other players is really misleading. It's low because so many suck and are cut after 1-2 years. Good and great ones play for 8-10-12 years.

 

The NFL lifespan is far from misleading. Not sure if you have ever played football but getting tackled by 240 lb. players hurts.

 

Starting running back runs 20-25 times a game, right?

20-25 X 16 = Circa 350 collisions a season

350 X 3.5 (average playing career of a RB/NFL Player) = 1225 Collisions

1225 does not include getting tackled in practice, preseason games, playoff games.

After a while, your body starts to break down. And that math is just after 3 and 1/2 seasons!!!

The most elusive ones are the ones that play for 8-12 years. (B Sanders, W Payton, M Faulk, E Smith) And those players are very rare.

Third down backs like Mike Alstott and Kevin Faulk stuck around so long because they weren't taking as many carries.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

jwmann2,

 

Your quick audit doesn't even account for blocks and blocking which is also a punishing endeavor… or being tackled after catching a pass.

 

So yes, it is easy to understand how between 1) physical attrition 2) the desire to keep salaries low, and 3) the upswing in the passing game, running back has evolved into more of a committee position and less of a marquee position as it was in days of yore.

 

It'll be interesting to see if running backs have longer careers in the near future as there are not too many workhorse backs anymore.

[Chimp]

Only position i disagree with is RB.

I pulled up some stats about month ago when everyone was talking about paying Jackson.

Very very few RB play well into there 30's. Only a handfull have 1,000 yd+ seasons.

And usually when they do decline it is a very quick drop off.

Even Thurman dropped very quickly after 30. At 30y/o he rushed for 1033 at 31y/o he went for 643. and then down to 381 at 32y/o.

And there are plenty of guys like this.

Kickers, QBs, even offensive lineman can be very roductive into their mid 30's

Those stats for Thurman are quite misleading. He had a higher yards per carry average at 31 and 32 than he did when he was 30. He had 60 persent of the yards because he had a little more than half the carries from 1 year to the next. His longest run of the year was comparable with the longest run of the year when he was 27-28.

[TheBows]

You hit the nail on the head. Freddy doesn't have the bumps and bruises your average NFL RB has. As "skibum" said, we have an extremely rare player on our hands here. There aren't many running backs in the history of this game that were able to start their career this late. And especially at such a high level without an injury history.

 

Guys like Thurman Thomas were banged up from the wear and tear of the NFL. He literally played without an ACL throughout much of his career. And he still made it 13 years. Emmit Smith made it 15 years and endured a broken shoulder blade and lots of bumps, bruises, and blows to the head.

 

This thread wasn't meant to talk about just Freddy in particular. But if you were to ask me if I would sign him to a 3 year deal at a much higher salary, I would say YES without question. Currently his deal looks like this - 2011: $1.75 million, 2012: $1.83 million, 2013: Free Agent. I would give him a reworked contract through 2014 worth about $6 million per year. And only guarantee about $15 million of it. This is similar to Frank Gore's new deal, and that guy has a massive injury history with significantly greater risk than Freddy. Seems like a no brainer to me.

 

I agree. And I hope so...my Fiancee bought me his jersey this year. I'd hate to toss it in the Takeo Spikes pile.

[atlbillsfan1975]

Those stats for Thurman are quite misleading. He had a higher yards per carry average at 31 and 32 than he did when he was 30. He had 60 persent of the yards because he had a little more than half the carries from 1 year to the next. His longest run of the year was comparable with the longest run of the year when he was 27-28.

Misleading?

I know stats can be twisted to say anything, but Thurmans production almost got cut in half over night. Not sure if injuries were invloved, cant remember. But probably a reason his carries got cu tin half? Coaches are not stupid.

Edited October 20, 2011 by atlbillsfan1975

[Got_Wood]

Misleading?

I know stats can be twisted to say anything, but Thurmans production almost got cut in half over night. Not sure if injuries were invloved, cant remember. But probably a reason his carries got cu tin half? Coaches are not stupid.

 

I'm just going to re-post my last statement that covers Thurman's predicament...

 

Freddy doesn't have the bumps and bruises your average NFL RB has. As "skibum" said, we have an extremely rare player on our hands here. There aren't many running backs in the history of this game that were able to start their career this late. And especially at such a high level without an injury history.

 

Guys like Thurman Thomas were banged up from the wear and tear of the NFL. He literally played without an ACL throughout much of his career. And he still made it 13 years. Emmit Smith made it 15 years and endured a broken shoulder blade and lots of bumps, bruises, and blows to the head.

 

This thread wasn't meant to talk about just Freddy in particular. But if you were to ask me if I would sign him to a 3 year deal at a much higher salary, I would say YES without question. Currently his deal looks like this - 2011: $1.75 million, 2012: $1.83 million, 2013: Free Agent. I would give him a reworked contract through 2014 worth about $6 million per year. And only guarantee about $15 million of it. This is similar to Frank Gore's new deal, and that guy has a massive injury history with significantly greater risk than Freddy. Seems like a no brainer to me.

[SelmonSmith6378]

It really depends on the position. If you're a quarterback, linebacker or defensive back than you'll probably have a great career after 30 (If you were great in the first place) However, if you are a wider reciever, pass rusher or running back, your career will probably last at most 31 years. This is especially true for running backs. Yes, a great few manage to break the pattern, but running back's in general have very limited shelf life.

[PDaDdy]

Talent is talent regardless of age. That being said the exceptions don't invalidate the rule.

 

RBs in particular head down hill and so will Fred. He is kicking ass this year and probably could next year and maybe the year after that. Do you sign him to a 4 or 5 year contract? Yes and no. NO because he will never last that long. YES because nfl contracts aren't worth the paper they are written on and the owners can tear them up anytime they want and kick the player to the curb.

 

Sign Fred to a 20 year contract. Who cares? As soon as he doesn't live up to his contract and his ability drops off we can cut him without financial penalty. The only true concern is guaranteed money. As long as we don't give him 4, 5 or 20 years worth of guaranteed and/or bonus money it means nothing.