The Age Factor

daedge

Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Messages
616
Reaction score
1
Points
18
Age
38
Location
New Zealand
Website
www.coltfreaks.com
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/10233959


(June 22, 2007) -- Does age matter when putting long-term deals together? Of course it should. But each position should also be viewed separately. I took a look at the age of the top producers at a number of positions to clarify what the age tolerance is at each spot. For example, is a 32-year-old wide receiver the same as a 32-year-old running back?

Speaking of running backs, the first thing that jumped out at me was the volatility at the position. Of the top 25 rushers last year, six have changed teams for the upcoming season. Travis Henry (ranked 10th), Thomas Jones (11th), Jamal Lewis (16th), Ahman Green (19th) Tatum Bell (22nd) and Willis McGahee (24th) are all moving on to new employers. As a group, these players average seven years of experience and the ripe old age of 28. Is that the turning point where a team just decides it can't engage in another big contract? The average age of the top nine rushers last year was 26. It really is starting to look like there's a significant difference in two to three years when a back is closing in on his 30th birthday. And as great as Larry Johnson is, he will turn 28 in November and at that age he might be deemed too old for a long-term deal. Tiki Barber walked away from the game at the ripe old age of 31, but Barber's age wouldn't be much of an issue at other positions.


Age will be a key issue when RB Larry Johnson (27) is ready to cash in on a long-term deal.
The top 19 wide receivers all return to the team they worked for last year. Only the 20th, Keyshawn Johnson, announced he was retiring. Not one of the others was cut or traded. By the number of receptions, Marvin Harrison (ranked No. 3), Torry Holt (No. 4), Donald Driver (No. 5), Laveranues Coles (No. 6), T.J. Houshmandzadeh (No. 7), Terrell Owens (No. 10), Isaac Bruce (No. 16), Hines Ward (No. 17), and Terry Glenn (No. 18) are all going to be 30 or older by the end of the 2007 season. Owens caught the most touchdown passes last year with 13. And with Bruce being 35 years old, it seems clear that a long-term contract to a 28-year-old receiver makes better business sense. However, there really doesn't appear to be significant diminishing skills when a top quality wide receiver hit his 30th birthday.

Quarterbacks seem to get even better as they cross the three-decade mark in their life. Peyton Manning will be 31 this season. Jeff Garcia will be 37, while Brett Favre, who turned 30 back in the 1999 season, has thrown 201 touchdowns to just 135 interceptions since then. The Dolphins just traded for 37-year-old Trent Green, while Rams QB Marc Bulger turns 30 this year and his contract is due to expire. But for Bulger, age will not be a factor in getting a long-term deal. No one thinks of Tom Brady as being old just yet either, even though he turns 30 in August.

The big money on defensive players goes to pass rushers and cover corners. No one thinks of Jason Taylor (age 33) and Warren Sapp (35), who combined for 23½ sacks last season, as over-the-hill. The average age of the top 10 players in sacks was 28 last year, and that group included Leonard Little, Trevor Pryce, Aaron Schobel and Taylor who were all over 30. As for cover corners, scheme has a lot to do with age. Teams playing a lot of Cover 2 zone can get away with older players, but teams employing man-to-man schemes tend to need younger players.

Finally, the modern athletes can play longer than the players of a few decades ago and new technologies like Nike vision, diet and strength training, will prolong careers. But when it comes to long-term contracts that are going to bring players well past their 30th birthday, there are just a few positions that qualify as good business decisions. A five-year deal with 40 percent of the money guaranteed would make sense for a 30-year-old quarterback, a 26-year-old running back, a 29-year-old wide receiver, a 28-year-old pass rusher and a 25-year-old cover corner.
 
daedge on 06-24-2007 at 08:19 AM said:
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/10233959


(June 22, 2007) -- Does age matter when putting long-term deals together? Of course it should. But each position should also be viewed separately. I took a look at the age of the top producers at a number of positions to clarify what the age tolerance is at each spot. For example, is a 32-year-old wide receiver the same as a 32-year-old running back?

As a group, these players average seven years of experience and the ripe old age of 28. Is that the turning point where a team just decides it can't engage in another big contract? The average age of the top nine rushers last year was 26. It really is starting to look like there's a significant difference in two to three years when a back is closing in on his 30th birthday.


There is no question that the running back position is looked at differently than other positions; and with good reason. Running back is (IMO) physically the toughest position to play in football. I know the RBs are looked at as pretty boys by many but nothing is further from the truth. Running backs get hit repeatedly every time they carry the ball. Their body takes a vicious beating every game. In The NFL your're talking about 16 or more games. Backs are expected to break tackles, move piles, block, get creamed on play-fakes and catch the ball taking hits along the way. Their bodies can only take so much before they break down. E. James was replaced because Indy felt he was too old to pay big money to and went with a younger, cheaper option who has the opportuinity to closely approximate James' numbers in his prime. The avg. carreer for an NFL running back lasts about 3-4 years. Giving big money (especially in this day of large guaranteed signing bonuses, is foolish). Running backs are also often looked at as a dime a dozen type players. Teams don't value good RBs nearly as much as they do top QBs and WRs. Thomas Jones (a consistent performer) has moved all over the place, as has Travis Henry and others. Only the truly great RBs that an Offense can be built around are worth the truely huge money (B. Sanders, E. Smith, M. Faulk, C. Martin types of backs) and even they lose their long term worth when they hit 30. Backs don't really have the luxury of getting by on their smarts and experience the way QBs and WR can; they either can do it physically or they can't. The other strike against them is that good backs seem to lose it overnight so a back who has one bad year invites all kinds of questions-is he done?-will he hold up?. If his team thinks that he is suspect, they will go in another direction in a heartbeat.
 
Re: Re: The Age Factor

AllWorldTE on 06-24-2007 at 09:26 AM said:
There is no question that the running back position is looked at differently than other positions; and with good reason. Running back is (IMO) physically the toughest position to play in football. I know the RBs are looked at as pretty boys by many but nothing is further from the truth. Running backs get hit repeatedly every time they carry the ball. Their body takes a vicious beating every game. In The NFL your're talking about 16 or more games. Backs are expected to break tackles, move piles, block, get creamed on play-fakes and catch the ball taking hits along the way. Their bodies can only take so much before they break down. E. James was replaced because Indy felt he was too old to pay big money to and went with a younger, cheaper option who has the opportuinity to closely approximate James' numbers in his prime. The avg. carreer for an NFL running back lasts about 3-4 years. Giving big money (especially in this day of large guaranteed signing bonuses, is foolish). Running backs are also often looked at as a dime a dozen type players. Teams don't value good RBs nearly as much as they do top QBs and WRs. Thomas Jones (a consistent performer) has moved all over the place, as has Travis Henry and others. Only the truly great RBs that an Offense can be built around are worth the truely huge money (B. Sanders, E. Smith, M. Faulk, C. Martin types of backs) and even they lose their long term worth when they hit 30. Backs don't really have the luxury of getting by on their smarts and experience the way QBs and WR can; they either can do it physically or they can't. The other strike against them is that good backs seem to lose it overnight so a back who has one bad year invites all kinds of questions-is he done?-will he hold up?. If his team thinks that he is suspect, they will go in another direction in a heartbeat.

I agree with you 100% good quaity post man.
 
Back
Top