Michael Turner-Shelf life (1 Viewer)

[JohnnyU]

You said "I believe a RB shelf life depends on 4 things." in the OP. I was asking how you quantify it. You can't. Then why list it. That would be like me saying that I value RB's based on how many unicorns fly out of their ### every 3rd Sunday in February.

Just because you can't quantify genetics doesn't mean it shouldn't be listed in this conversation. I believe it is a factor in RB shelf life because we're all made differently, and since we're all made differently we all wear down differently.

nice. So you don't believe genetics plays a role in RB shelf life? If so, then why do you think that way?

Now you are just fishing.

Not sure I know WTF you're talking about. Either you think genetics plays a role in RB shelf life or you don't. Frankly, I don't see how anyone could say it doesn't. If they do, then maybe they're fishing? No doubt you're just trolling. I give.

 

[DoubleG]

Not sure I know WTF you're talking about. Either you think genetics plays a role in RB shelf life or you don't. Frankly, I don't see how anyone could say it doesn't. If they do, then maybe they're fishing? No doubt you're just trolling. I give.

I beleive he is simply saying that there is really no point in bringing it up, as we have no way to discuss, analyze or quantify genetic makeup of RBs (yet) - so why even list it? Is there an "RB durability gene" or at least an "RB body type" that lends itself to longevity? Possibly - but current genetic science is no where near being able to quantify these types of obscure genetic links (nor should they spend time on athletic performance as a key factor in genetic research). So there really is no point to listing it as a factor - is it? Sure. Can we discuss it a meaningful way that will help us better determine who will and who will not be better suited to having a longer NFL career? Nope.

 

[Getinthemix]

Not sure I know WTF you're talking about. Either you think genetics plays a role in RB shelf life or you don't. Frankly, I don't see how anyone could say it doesn't. If they do, then maybe they're fishing? No doubt you're just trolling. I give.

I beleive he is simply saying that there is really no point in bringing it up, as we have no way to discuss, analyze or quantify genetic makeup of RBs (yet) - so why even list it? Is there an "RB durability gene" or at least an "RB body type" that lends itself to longevity? Possibly - but current genetic science is no where near being able to quantify these types of obscure genetic links (nor should they spend time on athletic performance as a key factor in genetic research). So there really is no point to listing it as a factor - is it? Sure. Can we discuss it a meaningful way that will help us better determine who will and who will not be better suited to having a longer NFL career? Nope.

Exactly.

 

[TheFanatic]

Not sure I know WTF you're talking about. Either you think genetics plays a role in RB shelf life or you don't. Frankly, I don't see how anyone could say it doesn't. If they do, then maybe they're fishing? No doubt you're just trolling. I give.

I beleive he is simply saying that there is really no point in bringing it up, as we have no way to discuss, analyze or quantify genetic makeup of RBs (yet) - so why even list it? Is there an "RB durability gene" or at least an "RB body type" that lends itself to longevity? Possibly - but current genetic science is no where near being able to quantify these types of obscure genetic links (nor should they spend time on athletic performance as a key factor in genetic research). So there really is no point to listing it as a factor - is it? Sure. Can we discuss it a meaningful way that will help us better determine who will and who will not be better suited to having a longer NFL career? Nope.

Exactly.

I believe they call it a moot point. Lots of stuff to discuss. Lots of more quantifiable factors than genetics which is not quantifiable at all.