26CornerBlitz Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 The Shrinking Shelf Life of NFL Players According to data from Pro-Football-Reference.com, NFL careers are shrinking at an unprecedented rate. From 2008 to 2014, the average NFL career dropped in length by about two and a half years.The decrease in career lengths is a historical abnormality. From 1991 to about 2008, career lengths were mostly consistent. But since 2008, players have been exiting the league earlier. Just heard about this on the John Murphy Show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 Interested to see whether this trend continues. I think that it will...continued "education" of players on the dangers of the game & I think we'll see a few surprises every off season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 (edited) This is probably a decent thing for everyone involved. Older players who have had made enough to be comfortable are prolonging their health, and younger players will get more spots to make some cash. Edited March 1, 2016 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBill Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 Can't open the article a work... what qualifies as starting a career to then be included in this averaging? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strive_for_five_guy Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 Can't open the article a work... what qualifies as starting a career to then be included in this averaging? It sounds like playing one snap may be the qualification? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 The Shrinking Shelf Life of NFL Players Just heard about this on the John Murphy Show. It's ok you don't have to hide that you read the wsj...=) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boater Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 Wanted to read the article, but I am not a WSJ suscriber. In the old days, you could Google the article's title and get find it for free. Didn't work today. WSJ closed the loophole. Damn Wall Street capitalists! Where's my free stuff? Not having read the article.. I'll say: Probably two things interplay to shorten shelf life: 1. the game is getting more physical 2. even the lowest paid player could live well for life on their NFL earnings (if they don't blow their money in foolish ways) Or, put in other words: your 1960's AFL player was actually playing to make ends meet; they went as far as they could, injuries or not. Today, a player facing life crippling injuries can say "I've got some money in the bank, I'm not going to risk my health when I don't need to." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chandler#81 Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 Players are more physical AND simply put, better! It's fairly obvious to me that great prospects in one years Draft are 'outshown' 2 Drafts later in today's game. The differences in the college game to the pros are shrinking every year, making it easier and faster to adjust to the 'bigs'. As an example, EJ Manuel. My thoughts about him are well known, but is he a better QB than Trentative? Yes. Is he a better equipped QB than our previous 1st Rd QB Losman? Absolutely. While it doesn't mean he'll have an NFL job in 2 years, he's just better than those 2. Biscuit Bennett was a perennial Pro Bowler and a Freak of speed & agility when he played. Today, all linebackers are that good and some even better. I do think, however, with all the League talk of extending the Season, rosters will grow -perhaps to 60 players, so very good, fringe vets may still have a place in the near future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boater Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 ...... I do think, however, with all the League talk of extending the Season, rosters will grow -perhaps to 60 players, so very good, fringe vets may still have a place in the near future. I'd like to see rosters stay the same size, but have the practice squad doubled. Nice profile pic "Look, it's from Fragile....must be Italian!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBill Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 Demands of the game are higher. I am also surprised nobody has mentioned that it is considerably more expensive to carry veterans on the roster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 I'd like to see rosters stay the same size, but have the practice squad doubled. Nice profile pic "Look, it's from Fragile....must be Italian!" it must be a...a...MAJOR AWARD! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chandler#81 Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 I'd like to see rosters stay the same size, but have the practice squad doubled. Nice profile pic "Look, it's from Fragile....must be Italian!" Thing is, think of all the players we brought in off the street this past season. I lost count at 10 who were not a part of the team from last off season until we signed them through desperation. While we had soo many injuries, so did every team. A longer season can only make this worse, so adding 5-6 more players at least gives teams a fighting chance with players who are more familiar with the O & D concepts of the team as well as.. you know.. KNOW the names of his teammates.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 Can't open the article a work... what qualifies as starting a career to then be included in this averaging? wouldnt let me open either, but as you note, with a broad study like this there is a lot to be said for the details. What qualifies a player to be included, whether the changes are being found in 3-4 year careers becoming 1-2, or 15-20 year careers becoming 10, etc.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Billieve Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 Probably two things interplay to shorten shelf life: 1. the game is getting more physical 2. even the lowest paid player could live well for life on their NFL earnings (if they don't blow their money in foolish ways) Or, put in other words: your 1960's AFL player was actually playing to make ends meet; they went as far as they could, injuries or not. Today, a player facing life crippling injuries can say "I've got some money in the bank, I'm not going to risk my health when I don't need to." That's all I can think of too, but it seems like something else has to be involved. It looks like playing length has been in free fall starting around 2008-2010. Something different had to happen to explain this. Players have been getting better since sports were invented. I guess you could say its reached a tipping point and injuries/awareness are causing players to opt out but to me (without any data) its seems like teams are the ones responsible for players not playing in monumentally more significant numbers. Although it seems very reasonable, has also been put forward, that there are more quality players available now. I don't think that is something new either. As more people play football and it gains in popularity the bell curve gets bigger and more people are in the middle, this should have a relatively continuous effect. Perhaps its the new CBA that is to blame. Although the decline started around 08, that could definitely be explained by natural fluxtuations. Things didn't really start getting significant until 2010, perhaps precipitated by the lockout and new CBA. Were there any major changes that would stop teams from signing there own? I don't really know the CBA but it seems like this has to be something new, something that was changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malazan Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 Demands of the game are higher. I am also surprised nobody has mentioned that it is considerably more expensive to carry veterans on the roster. ^This. I think you are seeing players be replaced at a faster rate because of the Salary cap and younger, cheaper options. Not to mention, these guys now are science experiments...tuned and machined through diet, exercise, drugs, etc to be perfectly physically adapted for their positions. I think it's tougher for Veteran to provide enough of a gap in play to justify the increased cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 Can't open the article a work... what qualifies as starting a career to then be included in this averaging? If you get a single check, you're in the denominator. So think of all the guys who disappear between camp day 1 and week 1 of the season, multiplied by 32. Compare that to the tiny number of players who "decide to retire early" from an actual 53 man roster each year. A handful of well known names have left "early" over the past several years. The vast majority are simply cut and disappear forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 If you get a single check, you're in the denominator. So think of all the guys who disappear between camp day 1 and week 1 of the season, multiplied by 32. Compare that to the tiny number of players who "decide to retire early" from an actual 53 man roster each year. A handful of well known names have left "early" over the past several years. The vast majority are simply cut and disappear forever. And didn't the last CBA extend camp rosters and some of the fringe element? Could that be a simple part of the dip? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBill Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 If you get a single check, you're in the denominator. So think of all the guys who disappear between camp day 1 and week 1 of the season, multiplied by 32. Compare that to the tiny number of players who "decide to retire early" from an actual 53 man roster each year. A handful of well known names have left "early" over the past several years. The vast majority are simply cut and disappear forever. Yep that's what I was thinking. Especially in recent years with the inordinate number of Juniors declaring meaning more players signed as cheap UDFAs, meaning more camp fodder who will never even sniff a roster for a regular season game. If all of those are in that leads me to think this is not very surprising at all and not related to early retirements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Best Player Available Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 Wanted to read the article, but I am not a WSJ suscriber. In the old days, you could Google the article's title and get find it for free. Didn't work today. WSJ closed the loophole. Damn Wall Street capitalists! Where's my free stuff? Not having read the article.. I'll say: Probably two things interplay to shorten shelf life: 1. the game is getting more physical 2. even the lowest paid player could live well for life on their NFL earnings (if they don't blow their money in foolish ways) Or, put in other words: your 1960's AFL player was actually playing to make ends meet; they went as far as they could, injuries or not. Today, a player facing life crippling injuries can say "I've got some money in the bank, I'm not going to risk my health when I don't need to." You can blame Jerry Hall's new fiancé for that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 And didn't the last CBA extend camp rosters and some of the fringe element? Could that be a simple part of the dip? I think so. Not much of an analysis. A more meaningful one would only look at final week 1 rosters. It should be obvious very few players are walking away from the game by choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts