Player Spotlight: LaDainian Tomlinson (1 Viewer)

[David Yudkin]

Here's where I tend to think differently than you. If I owned a Rolly-Royce and knew that at 100,000 miles 98% of all Rolls-Royces would need a new transmission and planned on going on a road trip much past 100,000 miles I'd be inclined to consider an alternate ride whether the car had issues before then or not. That's why actuaries have jobs and there are car insurance and life insurance rates. They base their rates on research and probability of statistics.

The problem is you have to use the right statistics. When you look at the entire population of 30-year-old RBs, you're not comparing all Rolls Royces to all other Rolls Royces--in some cases you're comparing a Rolls Royce to a Hyundai. And there are a lot more Hyundais than Rolls Royces. If you know that 98% of all cars are Hyundais, and 98% of all cars need a new transmission at 100,000 miles, does that mean your Rolls Royce will?If you look at modern (16-game) Hall of Fame RBs (or RBs who will soon be), a significant percentage of them had at least one very good season at age 30 or above. The Rolls Royces clearly take longer to break down than the Hyundais.

Using 10,000 yfs and ranking in the Top 5 at least once, here is the track record we have on the books so far in terms on # of Top 5 seasons once they hit 30 and the number of years they played at 30+ . . .Emmitt 1 of 6Payton 3 of 4Faulk 0 of 3Sanders 0 of 1Allen 1 of 8Martin 1 of 3Thomas 0 of 5Dorsett 0 of 5Barber 1 of 2Edge 0 of 1Dickerson 0 of 4Bettis 0 of 4Watters 0 of 3Harris 0 of 4FTaylor 0 of 3Riggins 1 of 6OJ 0 of 3OAnderson 0 of 6Craig 0 of 4Walker 0 of 6Byner 0 of 6George 0 of 2AGreen 0 of 2Priest 1 of 4McNeil 1 of 4Alexander 0 of 2TAllen 0 of 4Campbell 0 of 1Hearst 0 of 4Clearly LT is a cut above most of those, so maybe they are the bare bones ROlls-Royces and LT the limited edition, high end model. But there are still a ton of HOFers and Pro Bowlers on that list.Overall, there were 8 guys with at least 1 season in the Top 5 out of 29 listed (27%). In total, there were 10 occurances out of 110 seasons (9%).I don't think you'll get much argument that LT is substantially better than two thirds of that list. But the overall point was it's tough to get back to the Top 5.Certainly, the numbers are skewed in that LT could still have a decent season and NOT rank in the Top 5, but the debate for the past hour has been him getting back close to the top of the RB food chain.I don't think LT is a terrible pick this year as he certainly has the track record as a top performer. Determining where he should go is the question, as is where you may HAVE to take him if you want him.

 

[CalBear]

Overall, there were 8 guys with at least 1 season in the Top 5 out of 29 listed (27%). In total, there were 10 occurances out of 110 seasons (9%).

I don't think you'll get much argument that LT is substantially better than two thirds of that list. But the overall point was it's tough to get back to the Top 5.

It's tough to get back to the top 5, no matter what your age or mileage. In fact, your study shows that this population is significantly better than average; you would expect only 15% of backs to finish in the top 5 (5 out of 32), and 27% of these backs did. Think about that--27% of the 10k yard backs who've finished in the top 5 at least once, also finished in the top 5 at least once after age 30. That's actually a huge number, at least double the normal population. And it's even better if you look at which of these backs were the unquestioned starter for their teams in the relevant seasons.

 

[David Yudkin]

Overall, there were 8 guys with at least 1 season in the Top 5 out of 29 listed (27%). In total, there were 10 occurances out of 110 seasons (9%).

I don't think you'll get much argument that LT is substantially better than two thirds of that list. But the overall point was it's tough to get back to the Top 5.

It's tough to get back to the top 5, no matter what your age or mileage. In fact, your study shows that this population is significantly better than average; you would expect only 15% of backs to finish in the top 5 (5 out of 32), and 27% of these backs did. Think about that--27% of the 10k yard backs who've finished in the top 5 at least once, also finished in the top 5 at least once after age 30. That's actually a huge number, at least double the normal population. And it's even better if you look at which of these backs were the unquestioned starter for their teams in the relevant seasons.

FlaVVed. You are assuming Year X+1 as a return to the Top 5. That's NOT what I used for numbers. The data set had players returning to the Top 5 AT SOME POINT, not necessarily Year X+1. Better stated, you are assuming that all the players I listed were Top 5 the year before they turned 30 AND that the guys that were Top 5 did so at age 30.Most of the data set had guys with big numbers in their careers but not in the years near age 30 and not after age 30. The numbers you cited were for players in Year X being able to return in Year X+1 without any time lapse in between. Not a fair fight, IMO.

Not sure what the percentage chance of returning to the Top 5 AT SOME POINT would be if PLAYER Y was a Top 5 RB his first year and he played 15 more seasons. I'm guessing it's higher than 5/32 (15%).

 

[CalBear]

Overall, there were 8 guys with at least 1 season in the Top 5 out of 29 listed (27%). In total, there were 10 occurances out of 110 seasons (9%).

I don't think you'll get much argument that LT is substantially better than two thirds of that list. But the overall point was it's tough to get back to the Top 5.

It's tough to get back to the top 5, no matter what your age or mileage. In fact, your study shows that this population is significantly better than average; you would expect only 15% of backs to finish in the top 5 (5 out of 32), and 27% of these backs did. Think about that--27% of the 10k yard backs who've finished in the top 5 at least once, also finished in the top 5 at least once after age 30. That's actually a huge number, at least double the normal population. And it's even better if you look at which of these backs were the unquestioned starter for their teams in the relevant seasons.

FlaVVed. You are assuming Year X+1 as a return to the Top 5. That's NOT what I used for numbers. The data set had players returning to the Top 5 AT SOME POINT, not necessarily Year X+1. Better stated, you are assuming that all the players I listed were Top 5 the year before they turned 30 AND that the guys that were Top 5 did so at age 30.Most of the data set had guys with big numbers in their careers but not in the years near age 30 and not after age 30. The numbers you cited were for players in Year X being able to return in Year X+1 without any time lapse in between. Not a fair fight, IMO.

Not sure what the percentage chance of returning to the Top 5 AT SOME POINT would be if PLAYER Y was a Top 5 RB his first year and he played 15 more seasons. I'm guessing it's higher than 5/32 (15%).

* If you look at the 10 RB-seasons instead of the 8 RBs, and eliminate the RB seasons where the RB in the list was not the primary starter for his team, you're still going to wind up with a number higher than 15%.* Given that Tomlinson is a better back than most of the backs on the list, it would be fair to say that your study suggests that Tomlinson has a greater than 27% chance of having another top-5 season at some point in his career. I would further note that the probabilities are heavily weighted towards 2009 or 2010.

* Returns to the top 5 are probably higher than 5/32 (15%), but I would be surprised if they're much higher than 8/29 (27%). I'll take a look at this in a minute.

 

[CalBear]

* Returns to the top 5 are probably higher than 5/32 (15%), but I would be surprised if they're much higher than 8/29 (27%). I'll take a look at this in a minute.

From 1990-2007, there were 44 different RBs who've finished in the top 5 for at least one year. 21 of them returned to the top 5 at some point in the future; of the remainder, only S.Jackson has a decent chance of repeating. So let's call it 50%; a RB that finishes in the top 5 once has about a 50% chance of finishing in the top 5 again at some point in his career.Now, eliminate from your list of RBs those who were no longer the primary back for their team, and I think you'll see numbers which look pretty close to that; it won't be 50%, but it'll be above 30%, maybe above 40%. So historically a 10k yard RB who has finished in the top 5 at least once, who is still the primary RB for his team, is at a minor disadvantage to the top-5 back population, and still at a large advantage to the general RB population.

 

[David Yudkin]

* Returns to the top 5 are probably higher than 5/32 (15%), but I would be surprised if they're much higher than 8/29 (27%). I'll take a look at this in a minute.

From 1990-2007, there were 44 different RBs who've finished in the top 5 for at least one year. 21 of them returned to the top 5 at some point in the future; of the remainder, only S.Jackson has a decent chance of repeating. So let's call it 50%; a RB that finishes in the top 5 once has about a 50% chance of finishing in the top 5 again at some point in his career.Now, eliminate from your list of RBs those who were no longer the primary back for their team, and I think you'll see numbers which look pretty close to that; it won't be 50%, but it'll be above 30%, maybe above 40%. So historically a 10k yard RB who has finished in the top 5 at least once, who is still the primary RB for his team, is at a minor disadvantage to the top-5 back population, and still at a large advantage to the general RB population.

I think the other issue is that manyu of these backs were pretty far from being Top 5 and some of them fell off the face of the earth. I certainly have no desire to calculate the rate of occurance for those things for 29 and younger backs, but I'm guessing oblivion is more likely in older backs than younger ones.Long story short, I doubt there's enough of a sample size to conclude much of anything. But erring on the side of caution is the side I'm going to go with, and given that last year my projection for LT was pretty close, I'm going with what my gut tells me.Projection from last year: 260-1170-12, 50-400-2Actual: 292-1110-11, 52-426-1

 

[CalBear]

* Returns to the top 5 are probably higher than 5/32 (15%), but I would be surprised if they're much higher than 8/29 (27%). I'll take a look at this in a minute.

From 1990-2007, there were 44 different RBs who've finished in the top 5 for at least one year. 21 of them returned to the top 5 at some point in the future; of the remainder, only S.Jackson has a decent chance of repeating. So let's call it 50%; a RB that finishes in the top 5 once has about a 50% chance of finishing in the top 5 again at some point in his career.Now, eliminate from your list of RBs those who were no longer the primary back for their team, and I think you'll see numbers which look pretty close to that; it won't be 50%, but it'll be above 30%, maybe above 40%. So historically a 10k yard RB who has finished in the top 5 at least once, who is still the primary RB for his team, is at a minor disadvantage to the top-5 back population, and still at a large advantage to the general RB population.

I take this back, partially; I was using the "yearly leaders" list on PFR, which sorts by # of carries, not fantasy points. I'll look for a quick way to do it by fantasy points.

 

[CalBear]

* Returns to the top 5 are probably higher than 5/32 (15%), but I would be surprised if they're much higher than 8/29 (27%). I'll take a look at this in a minute.

Revised to look at the right numbers:From 1990-2007, there were 44 RBs who finished in the top 5 by FBG scoring (coincidentally, the same number who finished in the top 5 by # of carries). 20 of them finished in the top 5 more than once (if you include Adrian Peterson, who did it in 2008), and Gore, S.Jackson, and B.Westbrook have realistic chances to do it again, so the numbers are more or less equivalent when you look at it this way.

One thing that stands out working with these numbers is that the trend is changing towards more focus on multi-year backs. From 1990 Barry Sanders (#1) through 1998 Garrison Hearst (#5), only 8/25 backs (32%) repeated in the top 5. From 1999 through 2007, 12/19 (63%!) have repeated. That is, in the past 9 years, backs have been twice as likely to repeat in the top 5 as they were in the previous 9 years. This makes sense, given that the era of the Bell Cow RB began in approximately 1998. One consequence of that change is that historical data may not be relevant; medical technology has evolved, and the way NFL teams use running backs has changed, so that top backs today are more likely to have longer, more productive careers where they get a larger percentage of the workload. You can't necessarily extrapolate from the fact that Joe Cribbs never returned to the top 5 after 1980, because RB is a different position now.

There's one more thing that's striking in working with the data. Most of the data set can be divided in clean halves; 20/44 are included more than once, 7 of those 20 are included more than twice, 6 of the remaining 13 are included more than 3 times, and 4 of the remaining 7 are included more than 4 times. But then it breaks down. Only one back, Marshall Faulk, is included exactly 5 times; the other three (Sanders, Smith, Tomlinson) are each included 6 times. Those are all clear-cut first-ballot Hall of Fame backs. I think the division by half breaks down because HOF backs break the rules; they keep producing top numbers for longer, because they're simply better backs.

 

[David Yudkin]

* Returns to the top 5 are probably higher than 5/32 (15%), but I would be surprised if they're much higher than 8/29 (27%). I'll take a look at this in a minute.

Revised to look at the right numbers:From 1990-2007, there were 44 RBs who finished in the top 5 by FBG scoring (coincidentally, the same number who finished in the top 5 by # of carries). 20 of them finished in the top 5 more than once (if you include Adrian Peterson, who did it in 2008), and Gore, S.Jackson, and B.Westbrook have realistic chances to do it again, so the numbers are more or less equivalent when you look at it this way.

One thing that stands out working with these numbers is that the trend is changing towards more focus on multi-year backs. From 1990 Barry Sanders (#1) through 1998 Garrison Hearst (#5), only 8/25 backs (32%) repeated in the top 5. From 1999 through 2007, 12/19 (63%!) have repeated. That is, in the past 9 years, backs have been twice as likely to repeat in the top 5 as they were in the previous 9 years. This makes sense, given that the era of the Bell Cow RB began in approximately 1998. One consequence of that change is that historical data may not be relevant; medical technology has evolved, and the way NFL teams use running backs has changed, so that top backs today are more likely to have longer, more productive careers where they get a larger percentage of the workload. You can't necessarily extrapolate from the fact that Joe Cribbs never returned to the top 5 after 1980, because RB is a different position now.

There's one more thing that's striking in working with the data. Most of the data set can be divided in clean halves; 20/44 are included more than once, 7 of those 20 are included more than twice, 6 of the remaining 13 are included more than 3 times, and 4 of the remaining 7 are included more than 4 times. But then it breaks down. Only one back, Marshall Faulk, is included exactly 5 times; the other three (Sanders, Smith, Tomlinson) are each included 6 times. Those are all clear-cut first-ballot Hall of Fame backs. I think the division by half breaks down because HOF backs break the rules; they keep producing top numbers for longer, because they're simply better backs.

Over the years, we have established that better backs get more carries and are more likely to get more carries. However, in LT's case, whose to say that he already hasn't burned his street cred of "doing more for longer" than typical backs?Certainly we can look at all sort of numbers and suppose different conclusions. I would still argue that from age 30 heading forward that the workload Tomnlinson has endured will downstream hurt him at some point by not having enough left in the tank. Given that there are few high workload backs to begin with and only a few that were decent into their early 30s, I realize that's hardly going out on a limb. But at this stage I don't see LT having a lot more upside than last year's numbers. Let's not kid ourselves, that's still better than 75% of the starters in the NFL. I just don't see him going back to where he once was.

 

[CalBear]

Certainly we can look at all sort of numbers and suppose different conclusions. I would still argue that from age 30 heading forward that the workload Tomnlinson has endured will downstream hurt him at some point by not having enough left in the tank. Given that there are few high workload backs to begin with and only a few that were decent into their early 30s, I realize that's hardly going out on a limb. But at this stage I don't see LT having a lot more upside than last year's numbers. Let's not kid ourselves, that's still better than 75% of the starters in the NFL. I just don't see him going back to where he once was.

I have him projected to have his fourth-best season; a relatively mediocre one, by LT standards. But that still puts him in a position to compete for the #1RB spot.

 

[David Yudkin]

Certainly we can look at all sort of numbers and suppose different conclusions. I would still argue that from age 30 heading forward that the workload Tomnlinson has endured will downstream hurt him at some point by not having enough left in the tank. Given that there are few high workload backs to begin with and only a few that were decent into their early 30s, I realize that's hardly going out on a limb. But at this stage I don't see LT having a lot more upside than last year's numbers. Let's not kid ourselves, that's still better than 75% of the starters in the NFL. I just don't see him going back to where he once was.

I have him projected to have his fourth-best season; a relatively mediocre one, by LT standards. But that still puts him in a position to compete for the #1RB spot.

LT has scored 429, 345, 321, then 309 in terms of his best fantasy seasons. So by extension you have to have him projected for at least 310 points.In the salary cap era (1994 on), only Priest had a year that high scoring wise of 30 year old backs or older. There have been only 5 guys that even hit 250 (Tiki 305, Martin 278, Garner 256, Dillon 251).Clearly it's possible, but IMO I don't see it. But that's why they play the games . . .

 

[CalBear]

I have him projected to have his fourth-best season; a relatively mediocre one, by LT standards. But that still puts him in a position to compete for the #1RB spot.

LT has scored 429, 345, 321, then 309 in terms of his best fantasy seasons. So by extension you have to have him projected for at least 310 points.In the salary cap era (1994 on), only Priest had a year that high scoring wise of 30 year old backs or older. There have been only 5 guys that even hit 250 (Tiki 305, Martin 278, Garner 256, Dillon 251).Clearly it's possible, but IMO I don't see it. But that's why they play the games . . .

Tomlinson is better than Holmes or Barber; why don't you see him outscoring them?

 

[David Yudkin]

I have him projected to have his fourth-best season; a relatively mediocre one, by LT standards. But that still puts him in a position to compete for the #1RB spot.

LT has scored 429, 345, 321, then 309 in terms of his best fantasy seasons. So by extension you have to have him projected for at least 310 points.In the salary cap era (1994 on), only Priest had a year that high scoring wise of 30 year old backs or older. There have been only 5 guys that even hit 250 (Tiki 305, Martin 278, Garner 256, Dillon 251).Clearly it's possible, but IMO I don't see it. But that's why they play the games . . .

Tomlinson is better than Holmes or Barber; why don't you see him outscoring them?

After two pages I had hoped we had gotten past the "better" part of the discussion. No one is arguing that LT isn't better than 99% of all RBs. The argument against him is "older," "high mileage," and starting to "wear down some." Just because LT is better does not necessarily mean he will get the 394 touches and 27 TD that Holmes had or the 411 touches and nearly 2400 yards Tiki had.I'm sure Tomlinson and the Chargers want him to get that many touches and TD. It remains to be seen if he can hit those touch/TD/yardage levels.

 

[rzrback77]

Ladanian Tomlinson has been one the most consistent RBs over the past decade. The two most significant questions for him are is his body failing him and is the Chargers offense going more to the pass?

Chargers 08 - 478 pass attempts 4009 yds 8.4 ypa 34 TDs 392 rushes 1584 yds 13 TDs 4.0 ypc

Chargers 07 - 470 pass attempts 3158 yds 6.9 ypa 21 TDs 440 rushes 1987 yds 18 TDs 4.5 ypc

Chargers 06 - 462 pass attempts 3392 yds 7.4 ypa 22 TDs 461 rushes 2482 yds 31 TDs 5.3 ypc

Chargers 05 - 522 pass attempts 3691 yds 7.2 ypa 24 TDs 434 rushes 1994 yds 21 TDs 4.6 ypc

The stats seem to indicate a marked increase in passing efficiency in 08 as well as a marked decrease in rushing efficiency. A review of the Chargers defenses performance revealed another major change in 08. They ranked 10th overall in 05, 10th overall in 06, 14th overall in 07, and 25th overall in 08. Perhaps the failure of the defense led to the decreased numeber of offensive plays and forced the Chargers to pass more often as a percentage of their offensive plays.

I am not an offensive line guru, but I would be interested in others opinion there as the yard per carry stat really fell off in 08. Now a look at LT's stats:

05 339 carries 1462 yds 4.3 ypc 18 TDs 51 catches 370 yards and 2 TDs FBG RB #3

06 348 carries 1815 yds 5.2 ypc 28 TDs 56 catches 508 yards and 3 TDs FBG RB #1

07 315 carries 1474 yds 4.7 ypc 15 TDs 60 catches 475 yards and 3 TDs FBG RB #1

08 292 carries 1110 yds 3.8 ypc 11 TDs 52 catches 426 yards and 1 TD FBG RB #7

Similar marked decrease, so was it all LT and his injuries? Or was the O-Line play much worse in 08? Will LT again play like his old self or has his body begun to fail him? I think that the injuries were the significant difference in these stats and LT is in for a bounce back season along with the Chargers defense.

Tomlinson 320 carries 1344 yds 4.2 ypc 50 catches 420 yds and 16 total TDs

 

[Tau837]

Just wanted to add a note on offensive plays. Last year, the Chargers offense only ran 924 plays. Only 3 teams (Browns, Raiders, Lions) ran fewer. In 2007, they ran 980. In 2006, they ran 1016, though I put less stock in that season since Rivers was a first year starter and Marty was head coach, so the offensive playcalling was presumably quite different.

Hopefully the defense will be better this year. And chances are the offense may generate fewer long scores. Both of those things would presumably contribute to more offensive plays. I'm expecting 980-1000 this season. Just something to keep in mind when doing offensive projections.

 

[Banger]

Ladanian Tomlinson has been one the most consistent RBs over the past decade. The two most significant questions for him are is his body failing him and is the Chargers offense going more to the pass?Chargers 08 - 478 pass attempts 4009 yds 8.4 ypa 34 TDs 392 rushes 1584 yds 13 TDs 4.0 ypc Chargers 07 - 470 pass attempts 3158 yds 6.9 ypa 21 TDs 440 rushes 1987 yds 18 TDs 4.5 ypcChargers 06 - 462 pass attempts 3392 yds 7.4 ypa 22 TDs 461 rushes 2482 yds 31 TDs 5.3 ypcChargers 05 - 522 pass attempts 3691 yds 7.2 ypa 24 TDs 434 rushes 1994 yds 21 TDs 4.6 ypcThe stats seem to indicate a marked increase in passing efficiency in 08 as well as a marked decrease in rushing efficiency. A review of the Chargers defenses performance revealed another major change in 08. They ranked 10th overall in 05, 10th overall in 06, 14th overall in 07, and 25th overall in 08. Perhaps the failure of the defense led to the decreased numeber of offensive plays and forced the Chargers to pass more often as a percentage of their offensive plays.I am not an offensive line guru, but I would be interested in others opinion there as the yard per carry stat really fell off in 08. Now a look at LT's stats:05 339 carries 1462 yds 4.3 ypc 18 TDs 51 catches 370 yards and 2 TDs FBG RB #306 348 carries 1815 yds 5.2 ypc 28 TDs 56 catches 508 yards and 3 TDs FBG RB #107 315 carries 1474 yds 4.7 ypc 15 TDs 60 catches 475 yards and 3 TDs FBG RB #108 292 carries 1110 yds 3.8 ypc 11 TDs 52 catches 426 yards and 1 TD FBG RB #7Similar marked decrease, so was it all LT and his injuries? Or was the O-Line play much worse in 08? Will LT again play like his old self or has his body begun to fail him? I think that the injuries were the significant difference in these stats and LT is in for a bounce back season along with the Chargers defense.Tomlinson 320 carries 1344 yds 4.2 ypc 50 catches 420 yds and 16 total TDs

You hit on two important points with the defense and O-line. The loss of Merriman led to almost no pass rush and their defense couldn't get off the field last year. Hopefully with his return it will enable Phillips to get free and Merriman can return to form and get some pass rush because they sorely missed it last year. As JWB mentioned above with his post regarding the reduced number of plays I think it largely has to do with the defense not getting off the field. The Chargers were 5th in '06 in TOP, 16th in '07 and 24th in '08. If their defense improves which it should with Merriman coming back, it will result in a better TOP, more plays and more rush attempts. Also, with respect to the line they were pretty terrible. As Hostile mentioned earlier in the thread McNeill was hurt, Hardwick was hurt (two pro bowlers) and Goff was horrible (and replaced this offseason). They've made some changes on the line and are healthy now so there's reason to think that the line will improve.With respect to their passing increase I think it was done out of necessity. With the defense playing poorly, the O-line playing poorly and LT banged up for the majority of the year the Chargers needed to lean on their passing game in order to win games. Norv has always been a coach that has leaned on the running game and I don't expect that will change if the other aspects of the Chargers return to "normal"...(i.e. defense bounces back, line bounces back and LT is healthy).

 

[Biabreakable]

LT had turf toe all year and still finished RB 7

Does he still have turf toe? That is not an lingering injury and he wasn't listed for it after week 10 or something last year but I am pretty sure it affected him the whole season. You can't just get healthy when you are playing every week.

So actualy there is some upside for LT to finish better than RB 7 if all goes well and he is fully healthy now.

 

[Snotbubbles]

LT had turf toe all year and still finished RB 7Does he still have turf toe? That is not an lingering injury and he wasn't listed for it after week 10 or something last year but I am pretty sure it affected him the whole season. You can't just get healthy when you are playing every week.So actualy there is some upside for LT to finish better than RB 7 if all goes well and he is fully healthy now.

Ask Deion Sanders if turf toe is a lingering injury.

 

[Biabreakable]

LT had turf toe all year and still finished RB 7Does he still have turf toe? That is not an lingering injury and he wasn't listed for it after week 10 or something last year but I am pretty sure it affected him the whole season. You can't just get healthy when you are playing every week.So actualy there is some upside for LT to finish better than RB 7 if all goes well and he is fully healthy now.

Ask Deion Sanders if turf toe is a lingering injury.

Why?Hundereds of players have had turf toe, recovered from it and had no further ill effects from it. Just because one guys case may have been more severe does not mean it is for everyone.Sanders played a pretty long time too. Although he had to move to FS in his later years.He isn't a player I like much but sorry to hear if he has had continued problems from this injury.ETA - some great posts in here.RB decline at age 30 is a myth. I think Westbrook and LT further dispell it this season.

 

[David Yudkin]

RB decline at age 30 is a myth. I think Westbrook and LT further dispell it this season.

I'm not convinced it's a myth. Sure, a few players have done well at 30 and 31, but not a ton. I guess everything is relative.There have only been 8 guys 30 or older at RB to score 250 fantasy points in a season.1 Priest Holmes 2003 30 373.00 2 Tiki Barber 2005 30 305.00 3 John Riggins 1983 34 281.60 4 Curtis Martin 2004 31 278.20 5 Walter Payton 1984 30 271.20 6 Walter Payton 1985 31 269.40 7 Charlie Garner 2002 30 256.30 8 Corey Dillon 2004 30 251.80 IMO, there are so few that it would be hard to make a compelling argument either way. Yes, there have been 5 of the 8 in the past 10 years, but there have also been other 30+ year old backs that didn't fare as well.As for LT and Westbrook, I would say that Tomlinson's workload and recent nagging injuries and Westbrook being banged up each year won't help their chances.And to be clear, IMO a decline = "less than they used to produce." So both guys could have decent seasons, but if they were subpar compared to what they did when they were younger it would still be considered a "decline." If LT ranked 10 but scored 100+ fantasy points less than the regular LT season, I'd still consider that a pretty decent fall off.

 

[Biabreakable]

RB decline at age 30 is a myth. I think Westbrook and LT further dispell it this season.

It's no myth. There is hard data to support the theory.In fact, RB decline actually begins at age 28.

I've seen it.Perhaps I am wording wrong. However I think LT and Westbrook who are 30 will show that elite RB continue to be elite past the age of 30 and see more significant decline at age 31.

Jamal Lewis I think is another guy to look at for this.

 

[David Yudkin]

RB decline at age 30 is a myth. I think Westbrook and LT further dispell it this season.

It's no myth. There is hard data to support the theory.In fact, RB decline actually begins at age 28.

That article is like 10 years old. Things have changed some since then. I happen to think that age, injury history, and workload are all part and parcel to the breakdown process and that those combined potentially pose more red flags than one of those on its own.

 

[TheDirtyWord]

RB decline at age 30 is a myth. I think Westbrook and LT further dispell it this season.

I'm not convinced it's a myth. Sure, a few players have done well at 30 and 31, but not a ton. I guess everything is relative.There have only been 8 guys 30 or older at RB to score 250 fantasy points in a season.1 Priest Holmes 2003 30 373.00 2 Tiki Barber 2005 30 305.00 3 John Riggins 1983 34 281.60 4 Curtis Martin 2004 31 278.20 5 Walter Payton 1984 30 271.20 6 Walter Payton 1985 31 269.40 7 Charlie Garner 2002 30 256.30 8 Corey Dillon 2004 30 251.80 IMO, there are so few that it would be hard to make a compelling argument either way. Yes, there have been 5 of the 8 in the past 10 years, but there have also been other 30+ year old backs that didn't fare as well.As for LT and Westbrook, I would say that Tomlinson's workload and recent nagging injuries and Westbrook being banged up each year won't help their chances.And to be clear, IMO a decline = "less than they used to produce." So both guys could have decent seasons, but if they were subpar compared to what they did when they were younger it would still be considered a "decline." If LT ranked 10 but scored 100+ fantasy points less than the regular LT season, I'd still consider that a pretty decent fall off.

Surprised Emmitt Smith isn't on that list...1999 & 2000 were pretty good years for him. I can tell though production he doesn't meet criteria. Just that 250 points is a big number.

 

[David Yudkin]

Doing some quick math . . .

From 1960-1998 (39 years), there were 189 RB that were 30 or older with 100 touches in a season.

So there were 4.85 per year on average

3 of them scored 250+ fantasy points (1.6%)

17 scored scored 200+ fantasy points (9.0%)

From 1999-2008, there were 75 RB that were 30 or older with 100 touches in a season.

So there were 7.5 per year on average

5 of them scored 250+ fantasy points (6.7%)

12 of them scored 200+ fantasy points (16%)

Before people point to the jump in each category, remember that back in the day the league played fewer games and there were also fewer teams. I'm not sure what impact that would have on the results. But it does appear that the trend is for players to play longer and some of them at or near the top fantasy wise.

 

[David Yudkin]

RB decline at age 30 is a myth. I think Westbrook and LT further dispell it this season.

I'm not convinced it's a myth. Sure, a few players have done well at 30 and 31, but not a ton. I guess everything is relative.There have only been 8 guys 30 or older at RB to score 250 fantasy points in a season.1 Priest Holmes 2003 30 373.00 2 Tiki Barber 2005 30 305.00 3 John Riggins 1983 34 281.60 4 Curtis Martin 2004 31 278.20 5 Walter Payton 1984 30 271.20 6 Walter Payton 1985 31 269.40 7 Charlie Garner 2002 30 256.30 8 Corey Dillon 2004 30 251.80 IMO, there are so few that it would be hard to make a compelling argument either way. Yes, there have been 5 of the 8 in the past 10 years, but there have also been other 30+ year old backs that didn't fare as well.As for LT and Westbrook, I would say that Tomlinson's workload and recent nagging injuries and Westbrook being banged up each year won't help their chances.And to be clear, IMO a decline = "less than they used to produce." So both guys could have decent seasons, but if they were subpar compared to what they did when they were younger it would still be considered a "decline." If LT ranked 10 but scored 100+ fantasy points less than the regular LT season, I'd still consider that a pretty decent fall off.

Surprised Emmitt Smith isn't on that list...1999 & 2000 were pretty good years for him. I can tell though production he doesn't meet criteria. Just that 250 points is a big number.

250 is a big number which is basically the point. If a guy was scoring 300+ points and fell under 250, is that not a decline?Emmitt scored 230 points (and ranked 5th) in 1999 at age 30. But that total was off about a third from when he was at his peak.At that point we have to decide if that year is good, bad, or indifferent fantasy wise. Clearly it is still a solid fantasy season, but technically it is still a dropoff or a decline.

 

[Biabreakable]

RB decline at age 30 is a myth. I think Westbrook and LT further dispell it this season.

I'm not convinced it's a myth. Sure, a few players have done well at 30 and 31, but not a ton. I guess everything is relative.There have only been 8 guys 30 or older at RB to score 250 fantasy points in a season.1 Priest Holmes 2003 30 373.00 2 Tiki Barber 2005 30 305.00 3 John Riggins 1983 34 281.60 4 Curtis Martin 2004 31 278.20 5 Walter Payton 1984 30 271.20 6 Walter Payton 1985 31 269.40 7 Charlie Garner 2002 30 256.30 8 Corey Dillon 2004 30 251.80 IMO, there are so few that it would be hard to make a compelling argument either way. Yes, there have been 5 of the 8 in the past 10 years, but there have also been other 30+ year old backs that didn't fare as well.As for LT and Westbrook, I would say that Tomlinson's workload and recent nagging injuries and Westbrook being banged up each year won't help their chances.And to be clear, IMO a decline = "less than they used to produce." So both guys could have decent seasons, but if they were subpar compared to what they did when they were younger it would still be considered a "decline." If LT ranked 10 but scored 100+ fantasy points less than the regular LT season, I'd still consider that a pretty decent fall off.

Surprised Emmitt Smith isn't on that list...1999 & 2000 were pretty good years for him. I can tell though production he doesn't meet criteria. Just that 250 points is a big number.

Yeah well your not going to answer the right question which is how will LT do in 2009 at age 30 by looking at decline from their previous performance.When LT set the record for TD in 2006 he was going to decline significantly from that regardless of his age ect.I do think the information is useful, intersting and something to be mindful of. But each specific case has to be looked at on its own.I do not see LTs workload or age having a detrimrntal effect on how he will perform this season. Next year I expect a steeper decline however when he is 31.

 

[Traders2001]

Lots of people here drinking the LT2 Kool-Aid.I cannot deny what my eyes have seen. LT2 is injury prone. He has lost explosiveness with age. The Chargers have a dynamite RB in Sproles who they will surely be trying to get more touches and lessen the load on LT2. Norv Turner has shifted the focus of the offense to the passing game.I think it's crazy that people are still projecting LT2 to be one of the top 2 or 3 backs in fantasy football this year.

Please dont make me laugh ...A 5'6'' 175pound RB ( Dynamite ) , he does nt have 100 carries in the NFL over 4 years and you think he can carry the load .If you give him the ball 15 times , 5 straight games they will break him apart .I dont think LT is a top 2 - 3 , but a top 5 without a doubt and that for the next 2 seasons , after that i see his role declining a lot or retirement .

 

[CalBear]

From 1999-2008, there were 510 RBs who had at least 100 touches; 51 of them (10%) scored 250 fantasy points, and 112 (22%) scored 200. So the numbers for 30-year-old RBs are lower, but not dramatically so. And a lot of those 30-year-olds had already been put out to pasture and were acting as role players.

 

[David Yudkin]

From 1999-2008, there were 510 RBs who had at least 100 touches; 51 of them (10%) scored 250 fantasy points, and 112 (22%) scored 200. So the numbers for 30-year-old RBs are lower, but not dramatically so. And a lot of those 30-year-olds had already been put out to pasture and were acting as role players.

If you look at each group on their own . . .29 and younger:435 RB seasons from 1999-2008 with 100+ touches46 scored 250+ fantasy points = 10.6%100 scored 200+ fantasy points = 23.0%30 and older:75 RB seasons from 1999-2008 with 100+ touches5 of them scored 250+ fantasy points = 6.7%12 of them scored 200+ fantasy points = 16.0%If you bump it up to 200 touches to include more "starters" and fewer "role players" . . .29 and younger:248 RB seasons from 1999-2008 with 200+ touches46 scored 250+ fantasy points = 18.5%100 scored 200+ fantasy points -= 40.3%30 and older:41 RB season from 1999-2008 with 200+ touches5 scored 250+ fantasy points = 12.2%12 scored 200+ fantasy points = 29.3%Still looks like the older crowd has not been as productive. But as others have said, maybe each case needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis.I still think that there would be some sort of correlation between ag, workload, and injury history . . . just not sure how it could be defined properly.

 

[Banger]

Lots of people here drinking the LT2 Kool-Aid.I cannot deny what my eyes have seen. LT2 is injury prone. He has lost explosiveness with age. The Chargers have a dynamite RB in Sproles who they will surely be trying to get more touches and lessen the load on LT2. Norv Turner has shifted the focus of the offense to the passing game.I think it's crazy that people are still projecting LT2 to be one of the top 2 or 3 backs in fantasy football this year.

Please dont make me laugh ...A 5'6'' 175pound RB ( Dynamite ) , he does nt have 100 carries in the NFL over 4 years and you think he can carry the load .If you give him the ball 15 times , 5 straight games they will break him apart .I dont think LT is a top 2 - 3 , but a top 5 without a doubt and that for the next 2 seasons , after that i see his role declining a lot or retirement .

Who said anything about Sproles "carrying the load"?It's quite simple. Sproles role in the offense will continue to increase. LT2's role in the offense will continue to decrease. I expect Sproles to get about a third of the carries this year and he will be the primary RB on third downs.

Based on what? Coachspeak? rumor? guess?

 

[fourd]

RB decline at age 30 is a myth. I think Westbrook and LT further dispell it this season.

It's no myth. There is hard data to support the theory.In fact, RB decline actually begins at age 28.

I've seen it.Perhaps I am wording wrong. However I think LT and Westbrook who are 30 will show that elite RB continue to be elite past the age of 30 and see more significant decline at age 31.

Jamal Lewis I think is another guy to look at for this.

Jamal Lewis is elite?

 

[Moniker]

Lots of people here drinking the LT2 Kool-Aid.

The Chargers have a dynamite RB in Sproles

I think it's crazy that people are still projecting LT2 to be one of the top 2 or 3 backs in fantasy football this year.

The bolded statement is much more crazy than people projecting LT to be a top 2 or 3 back.

 

[TheDirtyWord]

RB decline at age 30 is a myth. I think Westbrook and LT further dispell it this season.

I'm not convinced it's a myth. Sure, a few players have done well at 30 and 31, but not a ton. I guess everything is relative.There have only been 8 guys 30 or older at RB to score 250 fantasy points in a season.1 Priest Holmes 2003 30 373.00 2 Tiki Barber 2005 30 305.00 3 John Riggins 1983 34 281.60 4 Curtis Martin 2004 31 278.20 5 Walter Payton 1984 30 271.20 6 Walter Payton 1985 31 269.40 7 Charlie Garner 2002 30 256.30 8 Corey Dillon 2004 30 251.80 IMO, there are so few that it would be hard to make a compelling argument either way. Yes, there have been 5 of the 8 in the past 10 years, but there have also been other 30+ year old backs that didn't fare as well.As for LT and Westbrook, I would say that Tomlinson's workload and recent nagging injuries and Westbrook being banged up each year won't help their chances.And to be clear, IMO a decline = "less than they used to produce." So both guys could have decent seasons, but if they were subpar compared to what they did when they were younger it would still be considered a "decline." If LT ranked 10 but scored 100+ fantasy points less than the regular LT season, I'd still consider that a pretty decent fall off.

Surprised Emmitt Smith isn't on that list...1999 & 2000 were pretty good years for him. I can tell though production he doesn't meet criteria. Just that 250 points is a big number.

250 is a big number which is basically the point. If a guy was scoring 300+ points and fell under 250, is that not a decline?Emmitt scored 230 points (and ranked 5th) in 1999 at age 30. But that total was off about a third from when he was at his peak.At that point we have to decide if that year is good, bad, or indifferent fantasy wise. Clearly it is still a solid fantasy season, but technically it is still a dropoff or a decline.

The misnomer is this though. You could argue that Emmitt's 1999 (when he turned 30) was better than his 3 previous years or at the very least on par with them. So when we talk about decline, are we talking about sudden decline (i.e: Shaun Alexander) or decline from peak? I don't think anyone drafted Emmitt Smith in 1999 thinking they were getting the 1995 Emmitt Smith.What people are guarding against with aging RB's IMO from a draft perspective is a precipitous decline from one year to the next. LaDainian Tomlinson's performance was so disappointing in 2008 because he was a consensus #1 overall pick for the most part and didn't produce to that expectation. But if he puts up the same numbers in 2009 and is drafted on average at 1.06 to 1.08, I think he'll be viewed differently.I guess I don't agree with the practical application of stating an RB is in decline if his production does not match his peak performance. It's entirely possible that the expectation of that player has been reset from those peak performance days.

 

[fourd]

Lots of people here drinking the LT2 Kool-Aid.I cannot deny what my eyes have seen. LT2 is injury prone. He has lost explosiveness with age. The Chargers have a dynamite RB in Sproles who they will surely be trying to get more touches and lessen the load on LT2. Norv Turner has shifted the focus of the offense to the passing game.I think it's crazy that people are still projecting LT2 to be one of the top 2 or 3 backs in fantasy football this year.

Please dont make me laugh ...A 5'6'' 175pound RB ( Dynamite ) , he does nt have 100 carries in the NFL over 4 years and you think he can carry the load .If you give him the ball 15 times , 5 straight games they will break him apart .I dont think LT is a top 2 - 3 , but a top 5 without a doubt and that for the next 2 seasons , after that i see his role declining a lot or retirement .

Of course there's doubt. For this year certainly, let alone the next two. LT is in decline. How badly is debatable but at some point his age and injuries will/have caught up with him. Top 5? I don't see it.

 

[Banger]

For all of those thinking that LT is going to hit 30 and the wheels are going to come off do you realize that Thomas Jones had his 1st top 5 season last year at age 30? LT is more talented, has been a much more consistent back and plays on a better offense.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

If you bump it up to 200 touches to include more "starters" and fewer "role players" . . .29 and younger:248 RB seasons from 1999-2008 with 200+ touches46 scored 250+ fantasy points = 18.5%100 scored 200+ fantasy points -= 40.3%30 and older:41 RB season from 1999-2008 with 200+ touches5 scored 250+ fantasy points = 12.2%12 scored 200+ fantasy points = 29.3%Still looks like the older crowd has not been as productive. But as others have said, maybe each case needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis.I still think that there would be some sort of correlation between ag, workload, and injury history . . . just not sure how it could be defined properly.

I'd be interested in seeing either a graph or table that breaks it down by each year of age --- that kind of arbitrary choosing of endpoints can be very misleading when dealing with statistics.Just from a common sense standpoint, you'd think the premise would hold up pretty well, but I'm wondering if you aren't poisoning your database by including the final years on all these guys.Another thing is I'd guess that injuries can become a little more common as the player ages, which can account for some statistical downturn for the population, but I think people are loathe to predict injuries on an individual basis. That turf toe greatly reduced LT's production, for example, and he's generally been a pretty healthy back up to that point. Do we pencil in more injuries for '09?

 

[Biabreakable]

RB decline at age 30 is a myth. I think Westbrook and LT further dispell it this season.

It's no myth. There is hard data to support the theory.In fact, RB decline actually begins at age 28.

I've seen it.Perhaps I am wording wrong. However I think LT and Westbrook who are 30 will show that elite RB continue to be elite past the age of 30 and see more significant decline at age 31.

Jamal Lewis I think is another guy to look at for this.

Jamal Lewis is elite?

Well he did have a 2000 yard rushing season.But what is more important here is he is also 30 years old. Of course his style has lead him to more injuries than LT. And no I am not saying he is the same caliber of RB.

 

[David Yudkin]

Lots of people here drinking the LT2 Kool-Aid.

The Chargers have a dynamite RB in Sproles

I think it's crazy that people are still projecting LT2 to be one of the top 2 or 3 backs in fantasy football this year.

The bolded statement is much more crazy than people projecting LT to be a top 2 or 3 back.

Sproules scored 103 fantasy points in only 90 touches last year. Not many guys put up 1.14 fantasy points per touch. Obviously we don't know how well he would do with a larger workload . . . but Michael Turner never had 100 touches in a season either and he seemed to do ok.

 

[CalBear]

From 1999-2008, there were 510 RBs who had at least 100 touches; 51 of them (10%) scored 250 fantasy points, and 112 (22%) scored 200. So the numbers for 30-year-old RBs are lower, but not dramatically so. And a lot of those 30-year-olds had already been put out to pasture and were acting as role players.

If you look at each group on their own . . .29 and younger:435 RB seasons from 1999-2008 with 100+ touches46 scored 250+ fantasy points = 10.6%100 scored 200+ fantasy points = 23.0%30 and older:75 RB seasons from 1999-2008 with 100+ touches5 of them scored 250+ fantasy points = 6.7%12 of them scored 200+ fantasy points = 16.0%If you bump it up to 200 touches to include more "starters" and fewer "role players" . . .29 and younger:248 RB seasons from 1999-2008 with 200+ touches46 scored 250+ fantasy points = 18.5%100 scored 200+ fantasy points -= 40.3%30 and older:41 RB season from 1999-2008 with 200+ touches5 scored 250+ fantasy points = 12.2%12 scored 200+ fantasy points = 29.3%Still looks like the older crowd has not been as productive. But as others have said, maybe each case needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis.I still think that there would be some sort of correlation between ag, workload, and injury history . . . just not sure how it could be defined properly.

OK, how about this one--confine it to 30-31 year old RBs, instead of including guys like a 36-year-old Emmitt.30-31 years old:51 RB seasons from 1999-2008 with 100+ touches5 scored 250+ fantasy points = 9.8%14 scored 200+ fantasy points = 27.5%30 RB seasons from 1999-2008 with 200+ touches5 scored 250+ fantasy points = 16.7%11 scored 200+ fantasy points = 36.7%Which, given the sample sizes, means that 30-31 year old RBs performed pretty much identically to 29 and younger RBs.

 

[Biabreakable]

From 1999-2008, there were 510 RBs who had at least 100 touches; 51 of them (10%) scored 250 fantasy points, and 112 (22%) scored 200. So the numbers for 30-year-old RBs are lower, but not dramatically so. And a lot of those 30-year-olds had already been put out to pasture and were acting as role players.

If you look at each group on their own . . .29 and younger:435 RB seasons from 1999-2008 with 100+ touches46 scored 250+ fantasy points = 10.6%100 scored 200+ fantasy points = 23.0%30 and older:75 RB seasons from 1999-2008 with 100+ touches5 of them scored 250+ fantasy points = 6.7%12 of them scored 200+ fantasy points = 16.0%If you bump it up to 200 touches to include more "starters" and fewer "role players" . . .29 and younger:248 RB seasons from 1999-2008 with 200+ touches46 scored 250+ fantasy points = 18.5%100 scored 200+ fantasy points -= 40.3%30 and older:41 RB season from 1999-2008 with 200+ touches5 scored 250+ fantasy points = 12.2%12 scored 200+ fantasy points = 29.3%Still looks like the older crowd has not been as productive. But as others have said, maybe each case needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis.I still think that there would be some sort of correlation between ag, workload, and injury history . . . just not sure how it could be defined properly.

OK, how about this one--confine it to 30-31 year old RBs, instead of including guys like a 36-year-old Emmitt.30-31 years old:51 RB seasons from 1999-2008 with 100+ touches5 scored 250+ fantasy points = 9.8%14 scored 200+ fantasy points = 27.5%30 RB seasons from 1999-2008 with 200+ touches5 scored 250+ fantasy points = 16.7%11 scored 200+ fantasy points = 36.7%Which, given the sample sizes, means that 30-31 year old RBs performed pretty much identically to 29 and younger RBs.

I do look at this pretty much every year and this is pretty much the way I see it as well. And actualy the recent trend has been more favorable to 30 year old starting RB than in the past.Combine that with knowing that LT was injured last year but played through it. And that caused the offense to throw the ball more. This team is still coached by Norv Turner right? Do we really need to drag out Norv's history of running an offense? They are going to run the ball more as long as LT is healthy and Norv feeds his main guy.I haven't done team projections for SD yet but I can see a role for Sproles while still getting LT the ball a lot. If he is fully recovered from injury and is not injured in 2009 I see him having a LT season. He might not finish RB 1 but he is the safest bet to finish in the top 10.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

From 1999-2008, there were 510 RBs who had at least 100 touches; 51 of them (10%) scored 250 fantasy points, and 112 (22%) scored 200. So the numbers for 30-year-old RBs are lower, but not dramatically so. And a lot of those 30-year-olds had already been put out to pasture and were acting as role players.

If you look at each group on their own . . .29 and younger:435 RB seasons from 1999-2008 with 100+ touches46 scored 250+ fantasy points = 10.6%100 scored 200+ fantasy points = 23.0%30 and older:75 RB seasons from 1999-2008 with 100+ touches5 of them scored 250+ fantasy points = 6.7%12 of them scored 200+ fantasy points = 16.0%If you bump it up to 200 touches to include more "starters" and fewer "role players" . . .29 and younger:248 RB seasons from 1999-2008 with 200+ touches46 scored 250+ fantasy points = 18.5%100 scored 200+ fantasy points -= 40.3%30 and older:41 RB season from 1999-2008 with 200+ touches5 scored 250+ fantasy points = 12.2%12 scored 200+ fantasy points = 29.3%Still looks like the older crowd has not been as productive. But as others have said, maybe each case needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis.I still think that there would be some sort of correlation between ag, workload, and injury history . . . just not sure how it could be defined properly.

OK, how about this one--confine it to 30-31 year old RBs, instead of including guys like a 36-year-old Emmitt.30-31 years old:51 RB seasons from 1999-2008 with 100+ touches5 scored 250+ fantasy points = 9.8%14 scored 200+ fantasy points = 27.5%30 RB seasons from 1999-2008 with 200+ touches5 scored 250+ fantasy points = 16.7%11 scored 200+ fantasy points = 36.7%Which, given the sample sizes, means that 30-31 year old RBs performed pretty much identically to 29 and younger RBs.

Thanks --- that's pretty much what I was looking for.In addition to all this, I'd throw in the difficulty of defining your terms --- what's 'decline'?Are we comparing to a previous peak season, or maybe an average of previous seasons, because either way I think a slight decline from LT's past performance would be pretty good. When he comes down from the mountain top, is that just the 'regression to the mean' that everybody in here likes to talk about, or actual declining ability to put up numbers, or does it even matter what the reason is?

 

[gianmarco]

To me, the bottom-line is this.

Could LT finish in the top 5 again? Absolutely

Could LT defy history and be one of the few HOF RB's to post top #'s at his age? Absolutely

Could LT have a larger workload despite his increase in injuries, a franchised Sproles, and his age? Absolutely

Would I bet any $ on the above happening? Absolutely not.

Part of LT's value in the past wasn't his ceiling but also his ridiculously high floor. I don't think the ceiling has changed all that much but that floor sure has. Thus, he carries a seriously increased risk that he hasn't really had his entire career. This is why I'm not bullish on him this year. It's not that I don't think he can do it, it's just that I wouldn't want to be counting on it because I think there's just as good a chance he disappoints. Thus, given a comparable RB with similar ceiling and floor, I'll take the younger guy. Of course there will be a breaking point where his upside/downside outweighs other options, but the mid 1st round in a redraft isn't that spot, IMO.

LT is going to be a guy who either wins or loses a lot of leagues for people this year.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

To me, the bottom-line is this.Could LT finish in the top 5 again? AbsolutelyCould LT defy history and be one of the few HOF RB's to post top #'s at his age? AbsolutelyCould LT have a larger workload despite his increase in injuries, a franchised Sproles, and his age? AbsolutelyWould I bet any $ on the above happening? Absolutely not.Part of LT's value in the past wasn't his ceiling but also his ridiculously high floor. I don't think the ceiling has changed all that much but that floor sure has. Thus, he carries a seriously increased risk that he hasn't really had his entire career. This is why I'm not bullish on him this year. It's not that I don't think he can do it, it's just that I wouldn't want to be counting on it because I think there's just as good a chance he disappoints. Thus, given a comparable RB with similar ceiling and floor, I'll take the younger guy. Of course there will be a breaking point where his upside/downside outweighs other options, but the mid 1st round in a redraft isn't that spot, IMO. LT is going to be a guy who either wins or loses a lot of leagues for people this year.

I'd be curious to know which RBs you'd take ahead of him, which you feel are pretty much interchangeable with him, as well as which first round guys carry lower risk.

 

[David Yudkin]

LT is going to be a guy who either wins or loses a lot of leagues for people this year.

I disagree with this. The only way LT loses leagues for people is if he gets hurt and stays hurt, thus missing most of the season.Look at it this way. If LT sees a slightly reduced role from last year and does not rekindle his proclivity for getting in the end zone, what would he rank 12th? 14th? If you get that from a mid to late first round pick, that's still pretty good when you compare it to guys that will do very little with long-term injuries.I look at LT and Manning in the same light. Both probably will not earn back their investment costs/draft position, but you are reasonably assured at getting most of your return back. Both of these guys will probably get you a 90-95% ROI, and that's still very good.

 

[gianmarco]

LT is going to be a guy who either wins or loses a lot of leagues for people this year.

I disagree with this. The only way LT loses leagues for people is if he gets hurt and stays hurt, thus missing most of the season.Look at it this way. If LT sees a slightly reduced role from last year and does not rekindle his proclivity for getting in the end zone, what would he rank 12th? 14th? If you get that from a mid to late first round pick, that's still pretty good when you compare it to guys that will do very little with long-term injuries.I look at LT and Manning in the same light. Both probably will not earn back their investment costs/draft position, but you are reasonably assured at getting most of your return back. Both of these guys will probably get you a 90-95% ROI, and that's still very good.

My worry with LT is him losing effectiveness and eventually more and more carries to Sproles as the year goes on. Whether that happens, I don't really know, but there's so much unknown with him that he's not someone I'd bank on in the mid 1st round or higher. I think it's entirely possible he falls out of the top 15. Guys like Jacobs, Gore, Barber, etc. are guys that compromise that 12-15 range in terms of pts last year. They didn't have terrible years, per se. So I see it being very possible that LT falls behind even them.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Could LT have a larger workload despite his increase in injuries, a franchised Sproles, and his age? Absolutely

He's not going to have a larger workload if he has an increase in injuries.The most likely scenario, IMO, is that he'll have a larger workload than last year due to a decrease in injuries.Tomlinson is really not much of a team player in the sense of being willing to step aside just because a teammate is playing better. Tomlinson wants the ball, and as long as he's healthy, I'm not sure Norv has the guts to tell him no, even if Sproles would be more effective.

 

[Tau837]

But as others have said, maybe each case needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis.

This.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

But as others have said, maybe each case needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis.

This.

I clicked this thread just for this?Well, just so it's not a wasted trip, let me add that while people might knock his turf toe slowed production last year, there aren't too many backs in the league that give you both top shelf ground production as well as significant ppr points through the air.

Even if he doesn't find the end zone on any given week, the ppr points tend to make up for it.

Only 2 other guys in the league gave you both 1000 yds on the ground and 50 catches --- Forte (12 TDs) and Slaton (10 TDs), and while these guys have done it for only one year, Tomlinson just ran off 8 consecutive while averaging over 17 TD/season.

Honorable mention would go to guys like S Jax, Westbrook, or Bush (who isn't getting any 1000 yds on the ground), if they could stay on the field, but I think all those have far greater injury concerns than a guy who's missed one game in the last 8 years.

Never thought I'd be in the position of selling Tomlinson --- I can't deny he's a giant d-bag, but he's definitely a fantasy producer.

 

[Biabreakable]

But as others have said, maybe each case needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis.

This.

I clicked this thread just for this?Well, just so it's not a wasted trip, let me add that while people might knock his turf toe slowed production last year, there aren't too many backs in the league that give you both top shelf ground production as well as significant ppr points through the air.

Even if he doesn't find the end zone on any given week, the ppr points tend to make up for it.

Only 2 other guys in the league gave you both 1000 yds on the ground and 50 catches --- Forte (12 TDs) and Slaton (10 TDs), and while these guys have done it for only one year, Tomlinson just ran off 8 consecutive while averaging over 17 TD/season.

Honorable mention would go to guys like S Jax, Westbrook, or Bush (who isn't getting any 1000 yds on the ground), if they could stay on the field, but I think all those have far greater injury concerns than a guy who's missed one game in the last 8 years.

Never thought I'd be in the position of selling Tomlinson --- I can't deny he's a giant d-bag, but he's definitely a fantasy producer.

I would have prefered just "this" rather than calling LT a ##### bag. But maybe that's just me.

 

[gianmarco]

Could LT have a larger workload despite his increase in injuries, a franchised Sproles, and his age? Absolutely

He's not going to have a larger workload if he has an increase in injuries.The most likely scenario, IMO, is that he'll have a larger workload than last year due to a decrease in injuries.Tomlinson is really not much of a team player in the sense of being willing to step aside just because a teammate is playing better. Tomlinson wants the ball, and as long as he's healthy, I'm not sure Norv has the guts to tell him no, even if Sproles would be more effective.

Read in the context of the other things in that list, I meant given his RECENT increase in injuries. In other words, the injuries that he's suffered in the last couple years. Put another way, despite the fact he's seemed to "breakdown" and not be available in the playoffs, would SD want to lighten his load during the year to keep him fresh OR is he going to still get a larger workload than last year despite his recent past.