Running backs and age (1 Viewer)

[Chase Stuart]

I was originally going to post this as an FBG article, but I think this is a better fit as a message board post. I'm looking for some feedback here. Here's what I've got so far:

How do running backs age? We all generally know that really old RBs are bad, really young RBs usually aren't great, and the sweet spot is somewhere in the middle. But you don't come to Footballguys.com for gut feelings, you come for the numbers. How much more productive are 30 year old RBs than 32 year old RBs? Which age is best -- 25, 26, 27 or 28? These are complicated questions, and there is no one right way to answer them. The plan is to look at several different methods, and see what results come up.

For starters, we have to choose what our data set will be. Going back to the '60s and '70s would be interesting for a historical perspective, but I think the gain in sample size would be more than offset by the loss in relevance of the data. Modern medicine and training has advanced significantly since those decades, and it stands to reason that the shape of a RB's career might have changed, too. I've decided to start looking at seasons beginning in 1988, as that avoids any issues with the strike season and still gives us 21 seasons to examine. Further, I'm only going to count players born before 1978 -- Thomas Jones, for example, was born in 1978. His career is clearly not over yet. So we'll be looking at every player who was at least 32 years old by the end of the 2008 season and who entered the league after 1987.

One way to measure how running backs age is to look at VBD. In our data set, there were 82 unique running backs who have at least 1 point of VBD in their careers -- this means in at least one season, they ranked in the top 23 fantasy running backs. I then calculcated the average VBD score for each of those 82 running backs for their age 21, 22, ... and 32 seasons. Here are the results. The first column shows each age and the second column shows the average VBD scored by these players at that age.

21 6 1922 14 4423 19 5924 29 8925 24 7426 33 10027 28 8528 20 6029 19 5730 14 4331 6 1932 1 3The far right column shows the average VBD score as a percentage of the RB's best season; here, it's age 26. It's worth noting that even if the RB was not in the NFL on the season in question, I'm including him in this study. That's because not being in the NFL is also a sign of lack of physical ability. If we were to only look at RBs at age 32 who were still in the NFL, we'd be looking at a very elite class of RBs.We can also measure the average FP score for these same 82 runners:

21 20 1622 57 4723 85 6924 114 9325 110 9026 123 10027 107 8728 92 7529 78 6330 58 4831 47 3832 27 22So RBs peak at age 26 and are very good over the four year stretch from 24 to 27 years of age. Also interesting -- a 30 year old RB is very similar to a 22 year old RB. Knowshon Moreno will be 22 this season; Brian Westbrook will be 30. They've got different age concerns, but perhaps the end result is the same -- Westbrook has worries about hitting the big 3-0 while no one thinks we'll see the best Moreno will ever offer in 2009.We just looked at all RBs who entered the league in 1988 or later and who were born in 1977 or earlier, and scored at least one point of VBD in their careers. This gives a wide cross-section of players, but what about the elite players? I used the same age and year cutoffs, but looked at the 40 RBs who totaled at least 100 points of VBD in their careers. Here's the VBD curve for them:

21 11 1722 25 4123 32 5324 44 7225 46 7526 61 10027 52 8528 36 5829 33 5430 29 4731 13 2032 2 4And the FP curve:

21	  30	  1722	  71	  4023	 107	  6024	 142	  8025	 150	  8426	 178	 10027	 155	  8728	 132	  7429	 122	  6830	 103	  5831	  83	  4732	  48	  27

Ages 24-27 still dominate, but there are some differences here. The "stud" RBs (the most recent two tables) are much better at age 30 than the "good" RBs (the first two tables); they've kept 58% of their peak value as opposed to just 48%; they're also a bit better at ages 29, 31 and 32. The lesson here is that stud RBs can age well.On the other hand, the "good" RBs reach their peak quicker than the "stud" RBs. For example, at age 24, the "good" RBs score at 93% of peak production versus just 80% of peak production for the studs. The reason, I think, is that the good RBs have a much lower ceiling; perhaps it just takes longer to get to an elite level. At ages 24, the average "good" RB was at 114 FP and 29 points of VBD; at age 24, our average "stud" RB was at 142 FP and 44 points of VBD. The studs would eventually work up to an average level of 178 FP in their age 26 seasons, which is why their percentages were so low. What does this mean for fantasy purposes? I'm not really sure.

A similar trend shows up when you look at the 23 RBs in the relevant period who had 200 or more points of career VBD: a more gradual curve on both sides of the peak. The rise to peak value is not as steep, because the age 26 season is so successful; and the average 'superstar' RB at age 31 is still scoring 120 FP; that's almost equal to the peak level of the "good" running backs.

21	 18	  2122	 35	  4123	 47	  5524	 56	  6425	 69	  7926	 87	 10027	 80	  9328	 54	  6229	 51	  5930	 46	  5331	 20	  2332	  1	   2

21	  46	  2122	  97	  4523	 136	  6324	 161	  7525	 184	  8526	 215	 10027	 205	  9528	 175	  8129	 161	  7530	 148	  6931	 120	  5632	  62	  29

After this, I'm sort of at a loss as to how to proceed from there. Thoughts?

 

[Terps2002]

Great work Chase.

I would be interested in knowing the amount of touches the running backs had each year. Two running backs may end up in the top 23 but one may have alot less touches then the other. While that wouldn't matter in most leagues as far as accumilated points go, it would tell the story of the TRUE production of a running back.

I believe most backs are at their peak by 23, however coming out of college alot of the stud backs get worked slowly into the offense. Last year for example I believe Forte was the only rookie back with more then 300 touches. That affects production. Also some backs who are later in their career are sheltered by their team or put in RBBC or become situational guys with their teams believing they are too important to the team to risk injury or wearing down.

I believe the data will always be skewed towards the 24-28 year old range because

Backs can't come into the league until 3 years after their high school class graduated, that eliminates most 21-22 yr olds

Backs are worked slowly into the league now, and there is the abudance of most teams philosophy to go RBBC

Backs are limited as they get older by their teams, with the thought process that they are more valuable in a limited role then risking a heavier role

 

[Jackal King]

Well...it sounds like the numbers suggest that by 24, you can probably identify those that are unlikely to evolve into stud status. I'd be interested in seeing if the divergence between 'good' and 'stud' can be correlated to variables beyond chronological age.

 

[Buckeyedawgs]

Under the age theory Mareno should be about the 6 or 7th rb taken in the draft because he is older then the other ones.

especially in dynasty drafts.

 

[lyon812]

Great work Chase. I would be interested in knowing the amount of touches the running backs had each year. Two running backs may end up in the top 23 but one may have alot less touches then the other. While that wouldn't matter in most leagues as far as accumilated points go, it would tell the story of the TRUE production of a running back.

Aye, nice work. I ditto this, somewhat. I think the biggest problems of any age analysis are 1) the difference in offensive schemes across all leagues, and therefore touches/surrounding cast. This is where football analysis becomes more difficult than, say, baseball, where you pretty much have the same individual scenario replayed thousands of times. 2) it doesn't account for people who don't follow the traditional career trajectory. Perhaps I'm mistaking your methodology, and if so, apologies. It just seems like there are going to be data gaps where a star player's injury-ridden season or slow start is going to negatively affect an entire age group. While the effect may be minor, enough of them can have a significant statistical impact. Let's take some examples.Talented but Blocked: Michael Turner. Let's say that he regresses a bit, as many project, but still has three very solid seasons upcoming where he accrues a fair amount of value. Thus, his success will be at ages 26, 27, 28, and 29. However, since he spent 22-25 behind Tomlinson, we have an inadequate assessment of his value. We can't make up numbers for bygone years, or even assume success or failure. His path skews inputted data towards the later age, while simultaneously inputting great big zeroes for the 22-25 range. Talented but Sporadic: Garrison Hearst. Started off his career highly hyped, but suffered injuries. In 1995, on a crappy team, he wins Comeback Player of the Year. Goes to Cinci, does ok, but he doesn't really peak until 26-27. Then, he suffers avascular necrosis, rehabs for two years, comes back, has another successful year at age 30. So, you have a player who essentially is a hit-or-miss; essentially, he has 4 or 5 years where he's a big fat zero in terms of a data point, and 3 or 4 years where he's racked up points, at various ages. Talented but Injured: Fred Taylor. His first 4 years, 15, 10, 13, 2 games. When he's playing, he's very good. He doesn't become reliable until age 26-28, when he plays in 46 out of 48 games. Once again, his injuries, particularly at age 23 and 25 (10 and 2 games), skew the VBD score of specific age ranges, though in a different way than Michael Turner. I may be misunderstanding the way you used the data, and perhaps you compensated for this already. If so, I'd appreciate an explanation as to how you compensate for including RBs like the above in your analysis.

 

[Biabreakable]

After this, I'm sort of at a loss as to how to proceed from there. Thoughts?

1st of all the information is useful when looking at exit value and projections for aging players. The biggest drop off is at 32 with still fairly decent chance for productive season at age 31. This matters for LT/ Westbrook/TJ/Jamal Lewis ect.It is nice to see the data again. Think I last saw this a couple years ago.Couch Tater uses similar data as a modification for projections for players across their entire career. Peaking at the key ages (higher modifier) then falling back. Pretty smart those voices sometimes.I use it more as a guideline when making a 3 year projection. But I don't use any hard # modifier.I think if you ran these same numbers on earlier seasons that the same general trend patterns will be there but perhaps slightly lower success rate at ages 31 and 32 than more recent years. But players like Walter Payton and perhaps a few others had good seasons in their later years too.I have a question. How would one use the data with players born around late August/September like Clinton Portis?Right now he is 27 he will be 28 when the season begins. Do you count that as 27 or 28 in regards to this?

 

[Chase Stuart]

Right now he is 27 he will be 28 when the season begins. Do you count that as 27 or 28 in regards to this?

This one's easy to answer (I'm putting off answering the harder ones). I am simply using age as the current season minus the year the player was born. So if you're born in November 1980, you are 28 for the 2008 season. Obviously this isn't perfect, but I don't think there are many drawbacks to using this as opposed to decimal ages.

 

[Biabreakable]

Part of me doesen't want to draw too many conclusions from this but I have already decided that elite level RB until age 31 will not see a significant decline in their production unless there are other circumstances like injury causing the decline. The trend seems good enough to me to make that assumption.

 

[Couch Potato]

Couch Tater uses similar data as a modification for projections for players across their entire career. Peaking at the key ages (higher modifier) then falling back. Pretty smart those voices sometimes.

That's right, mainly for viewing a player in his later years. It's been a few years now, and I used some different assumptions and modifiers than Chase, but find it interesting that we're not that far apart from prime years through decline years. Looking just at the VBD% column (Chase's last set of numbers) compared to my % change for essentially the same category of player he's measuring, here's how we compare:Age......25...26..27..28..29..30..31..32..33

Chase...85.100..95..81..75..69..56..29..??

CP......100..94..86..78..69..60..49..38..19

However, we differ in our comparisons of players' earlier years, and I think that's due to assumptions used. A comment Chase made in the first post should be rethought I believe. "It's worth noting that even if the RB was not in the NFL on the season in question, I'm including him in this study. That's because not being in the NFL is also a sign of lack of physical ability." I'll have to disagree with that for players in their early years.

(1) They usually are getting zeroes because they are simply stuck behind established vets who aren't ready to be moved. I don't want my data skewed by those zeroes, so I modified to remove them. Being stuck behind another guy has nothing to do with aging. I began taking a player's progression into account once he became a starter. Or, they may have not entered the league yet for lots of reasons. Not a RB, but was Peyton Manning's decision to enter the league a year later than he could have, choosing to graduate, a reflection of lesser ability? Of course not.

(2) Also, I modified to remove the goose eggs caused by injuries in a player's early years, reasoning that if my purpose is to see how players mature and decline due to age, a torn ACL at 23 has nothing to do with that natural progression and leaving the zeroes in there sabotages the data.

So, Chase's percentages are lower than mine from ages 22 through 25 (especially 22-24).

Age........22..23..24..25

Chase....45..63..75...85

CP.........87..92..97.100

Based on my own study, I'm pretty comfortable saying that in general a RB, once he has become a starter, can be considered at or near his peak from his 2nd year in the league (regardless of his age) through 26 or 27, with the decline beginning at 27 or 28 and steadily dropping to age 32, and then usually off the cliff after that.

PLEASE remember, these are generalities. Averages. They take into account both the Fred Taylor who goes beyond and the Priest Holmes who has to end abruptly. The reasons and rates of decline are as individual as the player and his circumstances. Still, it's good to see what the averages tell us, and whether Chase and I are a few percentage points apart isn't important. I think our studies validate each other for the ballpark purpose each was intended.

 

[Biabreakable]

Age......25...26..27..28..29..30..31..32..33Chase...85.100..95..81..75..69..56..29..??CP......100..94..86..78..69..60..49..38..13

Where I get a bit confused with this is does this mean that Westbrook and LT will preform at 60% of their peak performance?What is the baseline you use for said player at age 25? How they performed at that age? Or something else?Maybe baseline isn't the best term for this as that is something else (replacement level).What I mean is lets say the player in question has their career year at age 27. Do you use that high point when applying the percentages for age? Or do you just use how they performed at age 25?

 

[Couch Potato]

Age......25...26..27..28..29..30..31..32..33Chase...85.100..95..81..75..69..56..29..??CP......100..94..86..78..69..60..49..38..13

Where I get a bit confused with this is does this mean that Westbrook and LT will preform at 60% of their peak performance?What is the baseline you use for said player at age 25? How they performed at that age? Or something else?

I added a final paragraph to my post above, after your post. It doesn't mean that for Westbrook or LT specifically. What it usually means is that the an unnamed playerX (1) begins sharing more carries with a younger guy, (2) begins getting hit with more injuries, or (3) loses his starting job altogether. I use this to look at an overall trend to see what a player may be looking like down the road 2+ years, but I don't use it to calculate Year X+1 projections for specific players for the upcoming year, multiplying Year X stats by a factor change. I do take it into account, but to blindly use such a calculation for the coming year would ignore many specific facts surrounding the player which must be considered more seriously.What I really use this for, and I know it sounds crazy to people, is to come up with a net present value for a player for dynasty value. To answer your baseline question, I come up with a PPG value for the upcoming year just like anyone else who does projections or uses some else's, then I apply the maturity/decline percentages over the rest of a career (remember my Quality Years Remaining formula? LOL, that's where that comes in), then discount the years back to the present to give me a total value for the player. So there's no set baseline age. Each year I'm looking at the upcoming year's projections as the baseline, and from there it's forward looking. All this nonsense helps me compare a RB with 2 solid years left to a RB with 4-5 years left but with less current production, helping me decide whether it's worth it to own the greater current or later production.I never said I'm completely sane. But it's fun for me to look at things this way.

 

[lyon812]

Thanks for the explanation of your process, CP. There's definitely a difference in the early years, which I think reflects the scenarios I mentioned above regarding Chase's study.

Did you put in zeroes for injuries in later years as well?

Anyway, to collate this, I put the numbers together like so:

Age......22..23..24...25...26..27..28..29..30..31..32..33

Chase...45..63..75...85..100..95..81..75..69..56..29..??

CP.......87..92..97..100...94..86..78..69..60..49..38..19

Overall, the curve is consistent, even if the percentages are off. Hell, lemme put it in a chart.

Chart

Edit: I guess images are disabled, so click on the link. =p

 

[Biabreakable]

Thanks CP now I am really confused.

 

[Boone22]

Doesn't this just make sense from a development perspective? College players coming into the NFL take a year or 2 to adjust to the playbook and speed of the game as well as optimize their bodies/training through NFL level coaching, strength training, and nutrition. I'd actually be more suprised if the RBs came into the league already performing at their highest level.

Great work by the way Chase

 

[Tanner9919]

Chase

good work , one thing I'd be interested in, is body composition stats relative to the age theory.

Fantasy Index did a mini-study on this a few years ago, about the ideal size for a RB..it seems 5'-10" -5'-11" and

205-220 lbs is the idea size.

Emmitt, Lt2, Portis, Edge, Thurman Thomas, Walter Payton, C-Mart, etc..

they've all enjoyed long NFL careers..

 

[switz]

How do running backs age? We all generally know that really old RBs are bad, really young RBs usually aren't great, and the sweet spot is somewhere in the middle. But you don't come to Footballguys.com for gut feelings, you come for the numbers. How much more productive are 30 year old RBs than 32 year old RBs? Which age is best -- 25, 26, 27 or 28? These are complicated questions, and there is no one right way to answer them. The plan is to look at several different methods, and see what results come up.

So RBs peak at age 26 and are very good over the four year stretch from 24 to 27 years of age.

Ages 24-27 still dominate, but there are some differences here. The "stud" RBs (the most recent two tables) are much better at age 30 than the "good" RBs (the first two tables); they've kept 58% of their peak value as opposed to just 48%; they're also a bit better at ages 29, 31 and 32. The lesson here is that stud RBs can age well.

On the other hand, the "good" RBs reach their peak quicker than the "stud" RBs. For example, at age 24, the "good" RBs score at 93% of peak production versus just 80% of peak production for the studs. The reason, I think, is that the good RBs have a much lower ceiling; perhaps it just takes longer to get to an elite level. At ages 24, the average "good" RB was at 114 FP and 29 points of VBD; at age 24, our average "stud" RB was at 142 FP and 44 points of VBD. The studs would eventually work up to an average level of 178 FP in their age 26 seasons, which is why their percentages were so low. What does this mean for fantasy purposes? I'm not really sure.

After this, I'm sort of at a loss as to how to proceed from there. Thoughts?

I think you are trying to establish something that's not valid. I'm not sure how to express it, but every individual is unique.For instance, LT's best seasons were when he was 22, 23, and 26.

Barry Sander's best season came when he was 31. In fact his PEAK was 28-31.

Thurman Thomas peak was 25, 26.

Curtis Martin's best seasons were 31, 28, and 22 in that order. Ages 24 and 25 were some of his worst seasons.

Garrison Hearst's best seasons were 27 and 30.

I also disagree that really young RBs aren't great... in fact, it seems to me the best RBs start young and well...

LT still had 1600+ yards as a rookie at 21.

Sanders had 1470 yards as a rookie at 21.

Curtis Martin rushed for 1487 yards as a rookie, over 1700 total yards.

Adrian Peterson as a rookie at 22 had 1300+ rushing yards, at 23 had 1700+ rushing yards.

And look at how many rookies made it into the top-10 FF RBs this past season - Forte, Slaton, Johnson.

There are far too many variables that go into an RBs performance. The only correlations I can find between age and success is - the obvious that players tend not to last past 32 as RBs, and the age a player is when they are drafted seems to be a decent indicator of their success and longevity. RBs who enter the NFL under 23 tend to turn into better NFL players than those that enter at 23 or older. Some who've entered at 23 or older have had brief success, but haven't sustained it.

Of the top 20 rushing leaders who entered the NFL within the past 20 years, the number is their age when drafted

Emmitt Smith, 21

Barry Sanders, 21

Curtis Martin, 22

Jerome Bettis, 21

Marshall Faulk, 21

Edgerrin James, 21

Ladainian Tomlinson, 22

Fred Taylor, 22

Some other notable RBs whose careers were shortened by injuries, but displayed elite talent:

Terrell Davis, 23

Garrison Hearst, 22

Robert Smith, 21

Some notable first round flops:

Blair Thomas, 23

Darrell Thompson, 23 (don't remember him? first round pick, played 4 years for the Packers)

Steve Broussard, 23

Harvey Williams, 24

TD Tommy Vardell, 23

Vaughn Dunbar, 24

James Stewart, 24

Trung Canidate, 23

Michael Bennett, 23

William Green, 23

Kevin Jones, 24

I've left off, for the most part, guys whose careers were clearly destroyed by injuries, i.e. KiJana Carter, Rashaan Salaam, and Curtis Enis. For the most part, really successful RBs have been drafted before they turn 23, most in the 21-22 range when they start their first NFL game.

Last year's top 10 FF RBs in my main league:

1. Williams, DeAngelo 23 (interestingly so far only season in the top 10)

2. Turner, Michael 22

3. Peterson, Adrian 22

4. Forte, Matt 23

5. Jones, Thomas 22

6. Slaton, Steve 22

7. Westbrook, Brian 23

8. Tomlinson, Ladainian 22

9. Johnson, Chris 23

10. Portis, Clinton 21

2007's top 10:

1. Tomlinson, Ladainian 22

2. Westbrook, Brian 23

3. Peterson, Adrian 22

4. Addai, Joseph 23 (only season ever in top-10 so far)

5. Lewis, Jamal 21

6. Portis, Clinton 21

7. Barber, Marion 22

8. McGahee, Willis 23 (only season ever in top-10)

9. Gore, Frank 22

10. Graham, Earnest 24 (only season ever in top-10)

2006's top 10:

1. Tomlinson, Ladainian 22

2. Jackson, Steven 21

3. Johnson, Larry 24 (2 great seasons, otherwise a bust)

4. Gore, Frank 22

5. Westbrook, Brian 23

6. Parker, Willie 24

7. Barber, Tiki 22

8. Jones-Drew, Maurice 21

9. Johnson, Rudi 22

10. McAllister, Deuce 23

 

[switz]

Backs can't come into the league until 3 years after their high school class graduated, that eliminates most 21-22 yr olds

And yet there are numerous great NFL RBs who entered the NFL at 21 or 22.If you graduate at 18, you are eligible at 21 for the NFL draft...

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

I like breaking out "stud" and "superstar", why not break out "good" (as opposed to the large group of 82 that just dilutes the info) - in other words, whats the curve for the RBs from 41-82 by themselves? I suppose it will be weighted even more toward the early career because these are the kinds of RBs that become very replaceable once they are no longer at their physical peak.

 

[switz]

Doesn't this just make sense from a development perspective? College players coming into the NFL take a year or 2 to adjust to the playbook and speed of the game as well as optimize their bodies/training through NFL level coaching, strength training, and nutrition. I'd actually be more suprised if the RBs came into the league already performing at their highest level.

The exception is RBs. Most RBs that turn out to be truly elite, enter the NFL very near their peak. Some RBs may develop into elite payers for a short time, but they are unable to sustain it. These players might fit into your idea above. They may not be as talented, but through learning the game better, and improving their conditioning, they can perform at higher level, but for a shorter period.

IMO the curve for an RB looks like this:

First three years - mostly dependent on natural talent, elite backs, due to talent perform at a very high level. Lesser talented backs usually find themselves as reserve players.

Years four through eight - players still possess physical ability, but rely more on being a student of the game to perform at a high level (lesser talented RBs begin to perform better during these years than earlier in their career)

Years eight through end - physical abilities severely eroded, totally dependent on being a student of the game, elite talents frequently find themselves sharing time, lesser talents disappear completely. Those truly elite talents seem to have their skills erode slower than those who entered with less physical ability.

 

[geoff8695]

Mike Herman used to do an annual "Life of a Stud" article for FBGs, but I don't think their was a 2008 version - the last one I could find was 2007.

I found these articles very useful, and liked that they focused on players that had historically acheived multiple top 5 and top 10 fantasy seasons at their respective positions QB, RB, WR, & TE.

Would like to provide a link here but these articles are in FBG's $ub$criber section so I'm not sure if that is kosher...

 

[gonzobill5]

Doesn't this just make sense from a development perspective? College players coming into the NFL take a year or 2 to adjust to the playbook and speed of the game as well as optimize their bodies/training through NFL level coaching, strength training, and nutrition. I'd actually be more suprised if the RBs came into the league already performing at their highest level.

The exception is RBs. Most RBs that turn out to be truly elite, enter the NFL very near their peak. Some RBs may develop into elite payers for a short time, but they are unable to sustain it. These players might fit into your idea above. They may not be as talented, but through learning the game better, and improving their conditioning, they can perform at higher level, but for a shorter period.

IMO the curve for an RB looks like this:

First three years - mostly dependent on natural talent, elite backs, due to talent perform at a very high level. Lesser talented backs usually find themselves as reserve players.

Years four through eight - players still possess physical ability, but rely more on being a student of the game to perform at a high level (lesser talented RBs begin to perform better during these years than earlier in their career)

Years eight through end - physical abilities severely eroded, totally dependent on being a student of the game, elite talents frequently find themselves sharing time, lesser talents disappear completely. Those truly elite talents seem to have their skills erode slower than those who entered with less physical ability.

I mean no disrespect, but this notion that talent and work ethic are two completely unrelated traits is just plain wrong.

 

[switz]

Doesn't this just make sense from a development perspective? College players coming into the NFL take a year or 2 to adjust to the playbook and speed of the game as well as optimize their bodies/training through NFL level coaching, strength training, and nutrition. I'd actually be more suprised if the RBs came into the league already performing at their highest level.

The exception is RBs. Most RBs that turn out to be truly elite, enter the NFL very near their peak. Some RBs may develop into elite payers for a short time, but they are unable to sustain it. These players might fit into your idea above. They may not be as talented, but through learning the game better, and improving their conditioning, they can perform at higher level, but for a shorter period.

IMO the curve for an RB looks like this:

First three years - mostly dependent on natural talent, elite backs, due to talent perform at a very high level. Lesser talented backs usually find themselves as reserve players.

Years four through eight - players still possess physical ability, but rely more on being a student of the game to perform at a high level (lesser talented RBs begin to perform better during these years than earlier in their career)

Years eight through end - physical abilities severely eroded, totally dependent on being a student of the game, elite talents frequently find themselves sharing time, lesser talents disappear completely. Those truly elite talents seem to have their skills erode slower than those who entered with less physical ability.

I mean no disrespect, but this notion that talent and work ethic are two completely unrelated traits is just plain wrong.

I scoured through what I wrote, but failed to find any mention at all of 'work ethic' - what exactly do you mean?

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Doesn't this just make sense from a development perspective? College players coming into the NFL take a year or 2 to adjust to the playbook and speed of the game as well as optimize their bodies/training through NFL level coaching, strength training, and nutrition. I'd actually be more suprised if the RBs came into the league already performing at their highest level.

The exception is RBs. Most RBs that turn out to be truly elite, enter the NFL very near their peak. Some RBs may develop into elite payers for a short time, but they are unable to sustain it. These players might fit into your idea above. They may not be as talented, but through learning the game better, and improving their conditioning, they can perform at higher level, but for a shorter period.

IMO the curve for an RB looks like this:

First three years - mostly dependent on natural talent, elite backs, due to talent perform at a very high level. Lesser talented backs usually find themselves as reserve players.

Years four through eight - players still possess physical ability, but rely more on being a student of the game to perform at a high level (lesser talented RBs begin to perform better during these years than earlier in their career)

Years eight through end - physical abilities severely eroded, totally dependent on being a student of the game, elite talents frequently find themselves sharing time, lesser talents disappear completely. Those truly elite talents seem to have their skills erode slower than those who entered with less physical ability.

I mean no disrespect, but this notion that talent and work ethic are two completely unrelated traits is just plain wrong.

I scoured through what I wrote, but failed to find any mention at all of 'work ethic' - what exactly do you mean?

I'm guessing that he is equating it with "student of the game". I agree that they are different concepts.

 

[Native]

I love these threads

 

[Matt Waldman]

I've always enjoyed this type of thread and of course Chase does nice work here. I do wonder how are you defining a good or elite RB? Fantasy points? VBD? Skills? I'm presuming VBD and it seems implied by the analysis, but if it's skills, what criteria are you using?

Switz's point about younger players is right on. Maybe Chase discounted the data due to attempting to create a logical methodology, but I also had a rough time with the generalization that really young RBs aren't that great and it leads me to a point that I think most people here understand, but I think is worth mentioning for those who may not:

Data analysis like this is a terrific guideline and it can help you stay away from situations that are too risky for you, especially if you feel you don't know enough about a certain player. But you should try to understand as much as you can about the player's abilities and how they fit into an offense.

The rub about getting too strict with the use of data as a guideline is you can wind up picking "too" safe a team. Your league mates will slap you on the back and tell you how impressed they are with your draft, but these teams are like the players who look like studs running around mini camp in shorts and T's but fail to perform to expectations when the lights come on.

The data is a great guideline that should lead you to closely examine the players who don't fit into the model rather than simply eliminate them. If you eliminate them (young RBs usually aren't great) then you also eliminate that really great opportunity to get high-end production: Marshall Faulk, Edgerrin James, Matt Forte, Chris Johnson, Curtis Martin, etc. Knowing that Marshall Faulk had a big year the year before Edge came to the Colts and knowing Edge had excellent skills as a runner and receiver actually made it a more reasonable risk to select Edge higher than most rookies. Knowing the Indy offense of recent years is kind to RBs makes Donald Brown a reasonable risk if we learn he's the clear cut starter over Addai.

As Chase mentions, how do you precede once you get the numbers? Well, I think the numbers fail to explain the context of why players get to their peak, which has been mentioned here already. Westbrook. Thomas Jones', and Turner's careers each have vastly different reasons why their production increased at the paces they did, as did a Garrison Hearst, Marshall Faulk or Edgerrin James. The numbers work great from a "shopping in bulk" but I think what the numbers also do is effectively lead you to look at these players and ask the real question: What's the story behind these players in terms of skills, build, team situation, etc.

I think it's as important to examine who doesn't fit into the model and why they might "beat the system" because some of those guys are big factors in winning leagues.

 

[Mike Herman]

Mike Herman used to do an annual "Life of a Stud" article for FBGs, but I don't think their was a 2008 version - the last one I could find was 2007.

I found these articles very useful, and liked that they focused on players that had historically acheived multiple top 5 and top 10 fantasy seasons at their respective positions QB, RB, WR, & TE.

Would like to provide a link here but these articles are in FBG's $ub$criber section so I'm not sure if that is kosher...

Here is the 2007 version. I believe the old articles became free content the following off-season. I'm working on a 2009 version that will include the numbers from the last two years.

 

[geoff8695]

Mike Herman used to do an annual "Life of a Stud" article for FBGs, but I don't think their was a 2008 version - the last one I could find was 2007.

I found these articles very useful, and liked that they focused on players that had historically acheived multiple top 5 and top 10 fantasy seasons at their respective positions QB, RB, WR, & TE.

Would like to provide a link here but these articles are in FBG's $ub$criber section so I'm not sure if that is kosher...

Here is the 2007 version. I believe the old articles became free content the following off-season. I'm working on a 2009 version that will include the numbers from the last two years.

Thanks Mike - I'll be looking forward to it.

 

[texasbirdfan]

If it is true indeed that the average (mean, mode) NFL running back lasts a mere 4.5 years coupled with the new NFL management strategy (because of the Cap) to go to RBBC it is almost a crap shoot to pick a RB in dynasty that is going to score you huge points and last long...