Dropoff age for QB's and WR's (1 Viewer)

[Bradshaw]

True or not, much has been made on how RB's have a significant dropoff once they reach the age of 30. Just wondering is there is similar proof/evidence (historically speaking) of what the dropoff age is for QB's and WR's, and whether or this year has been an exception or the rule for the trend.

I know a few owners in my league that drafted TO, Warner, etc. would possibly change their appraoch if they had to do it all over again.

 

[tomarken]

True or not, much has been made on how RB's have a significant dropoff once they reach the age of 30. Just wondering is there is similar proof/evidence (historically speaking) of what the dropoff age is for QB's and WR's, and whether or this year has been an exception or the rule for the trend.I know a few owners in my league that drafted TO, Warner, etc. would possibly change their appraoch if they had to do it all over again.

I looked at WRs a couple years ago and the dropoff age was clearly 35-36. Never did analysis on QBs, they're a different animal.

 

[Mr. Retukes]

WRs tend to hit the wall at around 32-33, but no one can really tell exactly when a particular receiver is going to drop off. A lot of people thought Owens was going to hit the wall last year (age 34) but he had 1000 yards and 10 TDs.

Quarterbacks have even more variance, although they can usually be productive up to 35-36. Warner is throwing more INTs than usual, but his fumbles and sacks are down and he's still on pace for over 4300 yards and 25 TDs.

 

[CalBear]

True or not, much has been made on how RB's have a significant dropoff once they reach the age of 30. Just wondering is there is similar proof/evidence (historically speaking) of what the dropoff age is for QB's and WR's

There is similar evidence for WRs and QBs--that is, none at all. The 30 year old thing is complete hokum for RBs, and while you could come up with a similar number for WRs and QBs, it would also be complete hokum.

 

[SSOG]

The reality is that there's no real "catch-all" age for WRs and QBs, because it depends on how good they are. Elite WRs obviously stay good longer than average WRs. Ditto that for QBs.

With that said, it's extremely rare for any WR to still be fantasy relevant at age 36.

True or not, much has been made on how RB's have a significant dropoff once they reach the age of 30. Just wondering is there is similar proof/evidence (historically speaking) of what the dropoff age is for QB's and WR's

There is similar evidence for WRs and QBs--that is, none at all. The 30 year old thing is complete hokum for RBs, and while you could come up with a similar number for WRs and QBs, it would also be complete hokum.

Hokum? Not in the slightest. Let's set a baseline for fantasy relevance. I'm going to set it at 100 points. Why 100? Because only once this entire decade has a WR ranked in the top 36 (i.e. "starting fantasy WR") while scoring fewer than 100 points. Deion Branch managed to finish as WR36 in 2003... with 99 points.52 times in NFL history has a 32 year old WR finished with 100+ points

40 times in NFL history has a 33 year old WR finished with 100+ points

28 times in NFL history has a 34 year old WR finished with 100+ points

14 times in NFL history has a 35 year old WR finished with 100+ points

8 times in NFL history has a 36 year old WR finished with 100+ points

2 times in NFL history has a 37 year old WR finished with 100+ points (Jerry Rice and Charlie Joyner)

2 times in NFL history has a 38 year old WR finished with 100+ points (Rice and Joyner)

1 time in NFL history has a 39 year old WR finished with 100+ points (Rice)

1 time in NFL history has a 40 year old WR finished with 100+ points (Rice)

No WR has ever scored 100+ points at age 41 or older.

Jerry Rice and Charlie Joyner are the only WRs in NFL history to still be playing at 39. Jerry Rice is the only WR in NFL history to still be playing at 40.

Now, anyone that says that a WR is guaranteed to be irrelevant the day after his 36th birthday is full of it. With that said, it's the furthest thing from hokum to look at the evidence and say that WRs TEND TO really fall off at a certain age.

 

[CalBear]

Now, anyone that says that a WR is guaranteed to be irrelevant the day after his 36th birthday is full of it. With that said, it's the furthest thing from hokum to look at the evidence and say that WRs TEND TO really fall off at a certain age.

It's not that WRs "tend" to do one thing or another; we can look at historical data and talk about what has happened in the past, but we can't use that to predict what any individual will do.Take a stat other than age--like, say, career receptions. Historically, WRs have "tended to" fall off after 900 career receptions; only 9 receivers in history have had more than 900, while 23 have had 800. Should we then predict a downturn for Randy Moss, who has 886? Torry Holt has 898, should we predict a downturn for him? [The answers are "no" and "yes", respectively, for reasons unrelated to the number of receptions they've had, or the 8-month difference in their ages.]

 

[SSOG]

Now, anyone that says that a WR is guaranteed to be irrelevant the day after his 36th birthday is full of it. With that said, it's the furthest thing from hokum to look at the evidence and say that WRs TEND TO really fall off at a certain age.

It's not that WRs "tend" to do one thing or another; we can look at historical data and talk about what has happened in the past, but we can't use that to predict what any individual will do.Take a stat other than age--like, say, career receptions. Historically, WRs have "tended to" fall off after 900 career receptions; only 9 receivers in history have had more than 900, while 23 have had 800. Should we then predict a downturn for Randy Moss, who has 886? Torry Holt has 898, should we predict a downturn for him? [The answers are "no" and "yes", respectively, for reasons unrelated to the number of receptions they've had, or the 8-month difference in their ages.]

Ummm... yeah, we certainly can use it to predict what an individual will do. For instance, I'm going to go ahead predict right now that Larry Fitzgerald will not still be playing at age 40. If we can't predict based on historical trends, then what are we supposed to predict based on? Geneology? Astrology?Also, your 900 reception stat like comparing apples to dumptrucks. What percentage of WRs who reached 800 receptions by age 31 managed to break 900 receptions? If a WR reached 800 receptions at age 36, then that's hardly relevant to Randy Moss. If we're positing that age is the limiting factor in a WR's career, then all comparisons need to be on a strictly even footing, age-wise. The comparisons I posted earlier, on the other hand, is a strict apples to apples comparison. Of all the WRs who scored 100+ points at age 34, half of them never repeated the feat again in their career. If you want to look for some unifying characteristics of the half that managed to repeat, be my guest, but in the meantime, I'm going to keep on with my "hokum" of predicting that any given WR will no longer still be effective at age 35, 36, and onwards, and I'll happily enjoy the rewards of being right far more often than being wrong.

That's the thing. Fantasy football isn't about getting every call right, especially in a dynasty league. It's about getting more right than you do wrong.

 

[gheemony]

As soon as I saw the thread title, I expected a CalBear posting.

I agree with SSOG. You tend be right more often than wrong by following "hokum" about age and peformance.

 

[CalBear]

As soon as I saw the thread title, I expected a CalBear posting.

I agree with SSOG. You tend be right more often than wrong by following "hokum" about age and peformance.

So what? You tend to be right more often than wrong by following the same hokum about career receptions, career yardage, or career TDs. That's because all of those things decline on a populational basis over time. That means that the population will decline, which means you'll be right more often than wrong if you predict that any individual will decline. That's what it means to have a declining population. It's completely tautological to use a populational study to predict individual performance and say "you'll be right more often than wrong." Yes, you will be, but it's meaningless.

 

[SSOG]

As soon as I saw the thread title, I expected a CalBear posting.

I agree with SSOG. You tend be right more often than wrong by following "hokum" about age and peformance.

So what? You tend to be right more often than wrong by following the same hokum about career receptions, career yardage, or career TDs. That's because all of those things decline on a populational basis over time. That means that the population will decline, which means you'll be right more often than wrong if you predict that any individual will decline. That's what it means to have a declining population. It's completely tautological to use a populational study to predict individual performance and say "you'll be right more often than wrong." Yes, you will be, but it's meaningless.

It's not meaningless. In dynasty, I'd rather sell players in a declining population for players in a non-declining population, or for players in a LESS declining population.Let's say historical trends suggest that 50% of WRs becomes useless between age 34 and 35, but only 10% of WRs become useless between 30 and 31. That's not meaningless, it means I'm looking to sell my 34 year old WR for a 31 year old WR. Let's say that 10% of WR's become useless between 30 and 31, and a comparable 10% become useless between 28 and 29. That's not meaningless, it means I'm not panicking and selling my 30 year old WRs for 28 year old WRs out of fear of a decline.

I am incredibly certain that Fitzgerald will not still be playing at 42. I'm very, very certain that he won't still be playing at 40. I'm pretty certain that he won't still be playing at 38. I'm relatively certain that he won't still be playing at 36. I'm relatively certain that he WILL still be playing at 34. I'm pretty certain that he WILL still be playing at 32. I'm very, very certain that he will still be playing at 30. I'm incredibly certain that he WILL still be playing at 28. If you want to call that "meaningless" or "hokum", then be my guest. I call it very valuable dynasty knowledge. The guy who traded for Marvin Harrison at age 30 because his owner was panicking about his age wound up making out like a bandit. The guy who traded away Marvin Harrison at age 34 to some other owner who wasn't yet panicking about his age wound up making out like a bandit, too. The key is knowing when to sell, and knowledge of when that "declining population" starts to really, really decline is invaluable in making decisions like that.

I have a serious question for you. If historical aging patterns are meaningless hokum, then how would you have valued Marvin Harrison or Terrell Owens at age 34 in a dynasty league? More importantly, why would you have valued them thus?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I don't think of it as "predicting individual performance."

I think of it as "playing the odds."

 

[footballsavvy]

Its just statistics... and it's incredibly useful information, especially in dynasty leagues.

While you can not predict a players current year fantasy stats based on their age, you can certainly apply a level of risk associated with that player's projections. In a dynasty leagues a player's age tremendously affects their value regardless of how good they are in the present.

Who has more value in a Dynasty league? Randy Moss or Roddy White?

My opinions on receivers longevity is related to their style. I think the guys you have to worry about dropping off the soonest are the guys that rely on pure speed. The strong, big physical receivers may not keep their quickness as they age, but they are probably even stronger than they were when they were in their 20's and they use it to their advantage. And they are certainly wiser.

 

[CalBear]

I have a serious question for you. If historical aging patterns are meaningless hokum, then how would you have valued Marvin Harrison or Terrell Owens at age 34 in a dynasty league? More importantly, why would you have valued them thus?

How would you have valued Jerry Rice, Brett Favre, or Kurt Warner at age 34?It's fair to say that the expected future production of a 34-year-old player is lower than the expected future production of a 24-year-old player, if the players are equal. If you can sell the 34-year-old Marvin Harrison for the 24-year-old Marvin Harrison, of course you would do so. But you can't, because his lower future production is already discounted in his value. So maybe you can sell the 34-year-old Marvin Harrison for the 29-year-old Laverneus Coles in a dynasty. Whether that's a good deal has almost nothing to do with the historical aging patters for WRs, and everything to do with the players themselves.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I have a serious question for you. If historical aging patterns are meaningless hokum, then how would you have valued Marvin Harrison or Terrell Owens at age 34 in a dynasty league? More importantly, why would you have valued them thus?

How would you have valued Jerry Rice, Brett Favre, or Kurt Warner at age 34?It's fair to say that the expected future production of a 34-year-old player is lower than the expected future production of a 24-year-old player, if the players are equal. If you can sell the 34-year-old Marvin Harrison for the 24-year-old Marvin Harrison, of course you would do so. But you can't, because his lower future production is already discounted in his value. So maybe you can sell the 34-year-old Marvin Harrison for the 29-year-old Laverneus Coles in a dynasty. Whether that's a good deal has almost nothing to do with the historical aging patters for WRs, and everything to do with the players themselves.

 

[Chase Stuart]

The reality is that there's no real "catch-all" age for WRs and QBs, because it depends on how good they are. Elite WRs obviously stay good longer than average WRs. Ditto that for QBs.

There is no age curve for players because players are not homogeneous. Elite players have very smooth curves; mediocre players have sharp steep ones.

 

[CalBear]

An actual interesting study in this area would be, do fantasy players appropriately discount players based on age, or do they over or underestimate their value? My guess would be that fantasy players undervalue older players; that if you have two players with identical ADPs, one of whom is 34 and one of whom is 29, that the 34-year-old will on average outperform the 29-year-old.

 

[Chase Stuart]

An actual interesting study in this area would be, do fantasy players appropriately discount players based on age, or do they over or underestimate their value? My guess would be that fantasy players undervalue older players; that if you have two players with identical ADPs, one of whom is 34 and one of whom is 29, that the 34-year-old will on average outperform the 29-year-old.

It always boggles my mind when I read posts like this, think of a Doug Drinen article from three years ago, look it up, and find out it was five seasons ago.http://footballguys.com/04drinen_youngwrs.htm

Not 100% on point, and certainly no longer relevant to the question of how fantasy players act in 2009. That said, there you go.

 

[SSOG]

I have a serious question for you. If historical aging patterns are meaningless hokum, then how would you have valued Marvin Harrison or Terrell Owens at age 34 in a dynasty league? More importantly, why would you have valued them thus?

How would you have valued Jerry Rice, Brett Favre, or Kurt Warner at age 34?It's fair to say that the expected future production of a 34-year-old player is lower than the expected future production of a 24-year-old player, if the players are equal. If you can sell the 34-year-old Marvin Harrison for the 24-year-old Marvin Harrison, of course you would do so. But you can't, because his lower future production is already discounted in his value. So maybe you can sell the 34-year-old Marvin Harrison for the 29-year-old Laverneus Coles in a dynasty. Whether that's a good deal has almost nothing to do with the historical aging patters for WRs, and everything to do with the players themselves.

Jerry Rice, pretty low. Kurt Warner, low for reasons unrelated to his age (i.e. he was a backup). Favre, more or less the same as I would have valued him at 30. Would I have been wrong about Rice? Sure... but again, the point isn't to never be wrong, it's to be right more than you're wrong.Also, I think you're overestimating just how discounted older players get. All you need is one guy in your league who thinks he can better predict individual aging patterns than 100 years of NFL history. Last offseason, I offered Terrell Owens for Antonio Gates and the other guy practically jumped at the chance. If I traded a 34 year old Jerry Rice for a 28 year old Shannon Sharpe and a 34 year old Terrell Owens for a 28 year old Antonio Gates, I'd score that as a net win for historical aging patterns.

 

[Mr. Retukes]

I know a few owners in my league that drafted TO, Warner, etc. would possibly change their appraoch if they had to do it all over again.

I hope those owners didn't give up on Warner after today's 4 TD 1st half.