Shark Pool pet peeve (1 Viewer)

[TheFanatic]

I see this mentioned all the time. They guy has low mileage. For some reason the RB did not become a starter till late in his career and doesn't have the kinds of carries that say and Edge does.

Low mileage has nothing to do with one's body slowing down with age. Low mileage has nothing to do with one's ability to heal taking longer the older one gets.

An injury that might sideline a guy at 21 for one game could sideline a guy at 31 for 4 games no matter the mileage on the body.

Curtis Martin was a high mileage back. He went into his 30's and was still productive. Same with Edge. Emmitt Smith, etc.

Low mileage/high mileage means something for a car but not for a human being. As players (And people in general) get older they get slower and don't heal as fast no matter how much tread they have left on the tires....

 

[Christo]

Disagree.

The hits a player takes over a career also have an effect.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Disagree.The hits a player takes over a career also have an effect.

Prove it with statistical analysis. My recollection is that someone on this board who is good with stats (Chase? other?) did this analysis, and it showed that "cumulative workload" is statistically insignificant as a predictor of future production. But my memory is terrible, so my recollection could be incorrect.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

I think a lot of low mileage guys just didnt get the opportunity and flurished in their late 20's rather than early 20's

Tiki

Westbrook

Preist Holmes

Etc.

 

[TheFanatic]

I think a lot of low mileage guys just didnt get the opportunity and flurished in their late 20's rather than early 20'sTikiWestbrookPreist HolmesEtc.

These were low mileage guys and according to the theory that they still have a lot of tread on the tires yet these guys came to a screeching halt a little after 30 (Westbrook still has a couple of years before he hits a similar wall). Why didn't Priest go till he was 35? Or Tiki? They were low mileage guys. Not many hits. Stellar skill sets. Why didn't they go beyond what other high mileage guys did?

 

[David Yudkin]

I believe Doug ran the numbers and found that heavy workload backs at an early age actually had a better chance of continuing to receive a heavy workload in the future.

The logic behind the math was that if someone was consistently getting the ball a lot that his talent level was likely greater than a back that hardly saw much action, so it would make sense that the heavy workload guy would remain as a starter without questioning his abilities.

The low mileage guy, by comparison, may have had reasons why he wasn't a heavy workload back, and thatose reasons could continue on as his career progressed. Sure, once in a while a Tiki Barber will come along, but the list is pretty short for guys that didn't do much for several years before becoming a fixture running the ball.

That being said, I do think that a heavy workload COULD take it's toll even at a younger age, and I keep waiting for LT to fall apart like the car at the end of the Blues Brothers movie. However, it hasn't happened yet, but I suppose at some point it could.

 

[switz]

Both age and hits matter...

But, it's pretty hard to say how many hits a player has taken just by the number of carries he's had... some guys take a lot of hits on few carries, some carry it a lot and rarely get hit.

 

[valhallan]

But, it's pretty hard to say how many hits a player has taken just by the number of carries he's had... some guys take a lot of hits on few carries, some carry it a lot and rarely get hit.

Exactly. If there were a way to quantify the number of hits a guy has taken, I would bet it'd be a useful predictor of future production level. Carries just don't tell the whole story.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

I think a lot of low mileage guys just didnt get the opportunity and flurished in their late 20's rather than early 20'sTikiWestbrookPreist HolmesEtc.

These were low mileage guys and according to the theory that they still have a lot of tread on the tires yet these guys came to a screeching halt a little after 30 (Westbrook still has a couple of years before he hits a similar wall). Why didn't Priest go till he was 35? Or Tiki? They were low mileage guys. Not many hits. Stellar skill sets. Why didn't they go beyond what other high mileage guys did?

Just something about the magical age of 30 regardless of workload that slows down RB's.expecting a RB to go until 35 is a bit much

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

But, it's pretty hard to say how many hits a player has taken just by the number of carries he's had... some guys take a lot of hits on few carries, some carry it a lot and rarely get hit.

Exactly. If there were a way to quantify the number of hits a guy has taken, I would bet it'd be a useful predictor of future production level. Carries just don't tell the whole story.

This is why LT can continue this pace IMO. He doesnt get blasted alot.Same with Barry Sanders, his running style didnt see him take too many hits. I think he would have been productive past the magical 30 barrier.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Lots of assertions in here. Very few facts to back them up.

Until someone presents actual analysis - which Yudkin at least referenced - I'm skeptical of any and all claims.

 

[Franknbeans]

I think this thread proves one thing... LT2 is a statistical freak. Enjoy the ride.

 

[David Yudkin]

Taking a cursory look at the list of yardage leaders, here are the post merger players that played at least 3 seasons before having a 200 carry season. Whether that extended their careers any is a judgment call . . .

Stephen Davis

Tiki Barber

Larry Csonka

Joe Morris

James Wilder

Freeman McNeil

Mike Pruitt

Charlie Garner

Robert Smith

Thomas Jones

 

[TheFanatic]

OK, hits matter. I'm not so sure. Why don't we see backup RB's and 3rd down backs play till they're 35? Take Amp Lee. A great 3rd down back his entire career. Only had about 1800 touches for his career. Retired at 29.

Some full backs go well past 30 and they get blasted all the time. But they don't really have to be fast. They just have to have a hard head.

The magical age of 30 is no longer the ceiling. RB's have good years after 30 all the time in the last few years. The ceiling is closer to 32. But I attribute that to advances in medical science and physical training improvements.

I think that age is the only real factor. Low mileage and high mileage backs aren't playing at 35. Even REALLY low mileage backs like 3rd down backs and career backups aren't playing past 32...

 

[TheFanatic]

Taking a cursory look at the list of yardage leaders, here are the post merger players that played at least 3 seasons before having a 200 carry season. Whether that extended their careers any is a judgment call . . .Stephen DavisTiki BarberLarry CsonkaJoe MorrisJames WilderFreeman McNeilMike PruittCharlie GarnerRobert SmithThomas Jones

How many of these guys played beyond 32 years old? How many played beyond 30? Tiki did. TJones will be 30 in August. Anyone see him playing till 32?

 

[brock]

some backs have low mileage because they suck.

 

[David Yudkin]

Not exactly what was asked for, but here are all the RBs that ever had 2000 carries and what age they played to:

1. Emmitt Smith 4,409 35

2. Walter Payton 3,838 33

3. Curtis Martin 3,518 32

4. Jerome Bettis 3,479 33

5. Barry Sanders 3,062 30

6. Marcus Allen 3,022 37

7. Eric Dickerson 2,996 33

8. Franco Harris 2,949 34

9. Tony Dorsett 2,936 34

10. John Riggins 2,916 36

11. Thurman Thomas 2,877 34

12. Eddie George 2,865 31

13. Edgerrin James (29) 2,849

14. Marshall Faulk 2,836 32

15. Ricky Watters 2,622 32

16. Corey Dillon 2,618 32

17. Ottis Anderson 2,562 35

18. Warrick Dunn (32) 2,483

19. O.J. Simpson 2,404 32

20. LaDainian Tomlinson (28) 2,365

21. Jim Brown 2,359 29

22. Fred Taylor (31) 2,285

23. Tiki Barber 2,217 31

24. Earl Campbell 2,187 30

25. Shaun Alexander (30) 2,176

26. Terry Allen 2,152 33

27. Jamal Lewis (28) 2,120

28. Earnest Byner 2,095 35

Those guys pretty much had a consistent workload in their younger years and still managed to play into their 30s. hat tends to support the theory that if you were could when you were young there's a decent chance you'll be good when you're older.

Now fantasy wise, I'm not sure many of these guys were great fantasy options late in their careers . . . but at least they were still playing.

 

[AnonymousBob]

TheFanatic is right - the magical age seems to be 32 and not 30. My grandfather never played football in his entire life. Since he has low mileage, this 78 year old man should be able to last longer than LT...right?

 

[Chase Stuart]

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=66

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=69

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=328

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=483

 

[AnonymousBob]

I believe Doug ran the numbers and found that heavy workload backs at an early age actually had a better chance of continuing to receive a heavy workload in the future.The logic behind the math was that if someone was consistently getting the ball a lot that his talent level was likely greater than a back that hardly saw much action, so it would make sense that the heavy workload guy would remain as a starter without questioning his abilities.

It's why a player like Clinton Portis is a good bet to get a large number of carries next season. If they've held up under a heavy load thus far, they're more likely to CONTINUE receiving a lot of carries. They've shown they're not going to break down.

 

[munchkin]

You can't fool mother nature. As you age your reflexes change and your body doesn't recover from injuries as easily. That being said, the more carries you have the more likely you are to sustain an injury simply because you are exposing your body to harm. Cadillac Williams will never play to the age Priest Holmes did because of his accumulation of injuries. Of course it was a nasty hit that ended the career of Priest and started the career of Larry Johnson.

I think it's fair to say that some players are more susceptible to injuries than others because of genetics, and conditioning can only affect that so much. In the LaCharles Bentley thread the point was made that his body has recovered to the point that he should be able to play but his speed has taken a significant hit. A lineman who is a good technician can compensate for a loss in speed by position change where a running back who has lost quickness is out of luck.

So I think it is both age and exposure (through the number of carries) that affect a player's statistics. You cannot say a runner's body isn't affected by the number and severity of hits he sustains over a period of time. A player with skills who gets that opportunity later in his career, on average, will be more effective than one who has taken a beating earlier on.

 

[TheFanatic]

You can't fool mother nature. As you age your reflexes change and your body doesn't recover from injuries as easily. That being said, the more carries you have the more likely you are to sustain an injury simply because you are exposing your body to harm. Cadillac Williams will never play to the age Priest Holmes did because of his accumulation of injuries. Of course it was a nasty hit that ended the career of Priest and started the career of Larry Johnson.

I think it's fair to say that some players are more susceptible to injuries than others because of genetics, and conditioning can only affect that so much. In the LaCharles Bentley thread the point was made that his body has recovered to the point that he should be able to play but his speed has taken a significant hit. A lineman who is a good technician can compensate for a loss in speed by position change where a running back who has lost quickness is out of luck.

So I think it is both age and exposure (through the number of carries) that affect a player's statistics. You cannot say a runner's body isn't affected by the number and severity of hits he sustains over a period of time. A player with skills who gets that opportunity later in his career, on average, will be more effective than one who has taken a beating earlier on.

Hits and injuries are two different things. How many times have you seen a guy blow out a knee without being touched? I've seen it more than once. Guy plants and the knee blows. And I think it has been shown over and over here that guys that had more carries and took a lot of hits early last just as long as those guys that blossom late if not longer.

 

[Todem]

Disagree.

The hits a player takes over a career also have an effect.

Prove it with statistical analysis. My recollection is that someone on this board who is good with stats (Chase? other?) did this analysis, and it showed that "cumulative workload" is statistically insignificant as a predictor of future production. But my memory is terrible, so my recollection could be incorrect.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[TheFanatic]

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=66

The high mileage backs averaged 775 carries during the rest of their careers. The low mileage backs averaged 529.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=69

The backs who had more mileage before age 28 also logged more miles from age 28 on. So again we see no evidence that high mileage backs are having their careers shortened by the early workload.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=328

The majority of running backs, though, survived the period of early heavy usage without suffering an immediate injury. 24 of those 28 running backs in the high carry groups that did survive immediate injury went on to finish the season with 15 or 16 games played. So, if they did not manifest a severe injury soon after the high workload period, it did not seem to have a lingering effect.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=483

The last one is too focused on injuries that I don't want to really go into...

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Disagree.

The hits a player takes over a career also have an effect.

Prove it with statistical analysis. My recollection is that someone on this board who is good with stats (Chase? other?) did this analysis, and it showed that "cumulative workload" is statistically insignificant as a predictor of future production. But my memory is terrible, so my recollection could be incorrect.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

thanks for your contribution

 

[switz]

OK, hits matter. I'm not so sure. Why don't we see backup RB's and 3rd down backs play till they're 35? Take Amp Lee. A great 3rd down back his entire career. Only had about 1800 touches for his career. Retired at 29. Some full backs go well past 30 and they get blasted all the time. But they don't really have to be fast. They just have to have a hard head.

I'll make one assertion in regards to this... youth prevails in the NFL. Teams will always prefer a young "potential" player in a reserve role, over an older experienced player who has hit his ceiling.Most of these guys (like Lee) retire when they become FAs and no one wants them. It has nothing to do with them not being good enough to play anymore, just that teams know what they are, and if they have to choose they'll choose potential for more.And fullbacks? Teams rarely use a FB as a lead blocker anymore... but that would definitely need to be researched.

The magical age of 30 is no longer the ceiling. RB's have good years after 30 all the time in the last few years. The ceiling is closer to 32. But I attribute that to advances in medical science and physical training improvements. I think that age is the only real factor. Low mileage and high mileage backs aren't playing at 35. Even REALLY low mileage backs like 3rd down backs and career backups aren't playing past 32...

And that goes with the love for youth as well... the reason these guys seem to be going until 32, instead of thirty is that there are more teams, more need for RBs... players will be used longer. Contracts too are set up differently now than they were before.

 

[TheFanatic]

OK, hits matter. I'm not so sure. Why don't we see backup RB's and 3rd down backs play till they're 35? Take Amp Lee. A great 3rd down back his entire career. Only had about 1800 touches for his career. Retired at 29. Some full backs go well past 30 and they get blasted all the time. But they don't really have to be fast. They just have to have a hard head.

I'll make one assertion in regards to this... youth prevails in the NFL. Teams will always prefer a young "potential" player in a reserve role, over an older experienced player who has hit his ceiling.Most of these guys (like Lee) retire when they become FAs and no one wants them. It has nothing to do with them not being good enough to play anymore, just that teams know what they are, and if they have to choose they'll choose potential for more.And fullbacks? Teams rarely use a FB as a lead blocker anymore... but that would definitely need to be researched.

The magical age of 30 is no longer the ceiling. RB's have good years after 30 all the time in the last few years. The ceiling is closer to 32. But I attribute that to advances in medical science and physical training improvements. I think that age is the only real factor. Low mileage and high mileage backs aren't playing at 35. Even REALLY low mileage backs like 3rd down backs and career backups aren't playing past 32...

And that goes with the love for youth as well... the reason these guys seem to be going until 32, instead of thirty is that there are more teams, more need for RBs... players will be used longer. Contracts too are set up differently now than they were before.

These points seem to contradict each other. One states that the guy can play but teams go younger instead of bringing in the vet. And the other says that there are more teams now and thus guys play longer because there aren't enough RB's to go around. Which is it?And if a guy can still play, why not go with a guy that will have less to learn as he has been in the NFL for a while as opposed to a rookie who has to learn a play book as well as what it means to be a pro football player. If a guy can play he will be on a roster. Even if he can't but can mentor a young guy he has a chance to be on a roster. How many years did Neil Odonnel hold the clip board for Tennessee? He wasn't that good as a starter...

 

[David Yudkin]

Since someone was going to ask eventually, here are all the seasons since 1970 in which a 32 yeard old or older RB scored 125 fantasy points. I picked that number as that would have been a Top 24 RB last season.

1 John Riggins 1983 34 281.60

2 Walter Payton 1986 32 237.50

3 Ottis Anderson 1989 213.10

4 John Riggins 1984 35 212.20

5 Mike Anderson 2005 32 200.60

6 Marcus Allen 1993 33 190.20

7 James Brooks 1990 32 181.30

8 Jerome Bettis 2004 32 181.20

9 Corey Dillon 2006 32 173.90

10 Franco Harris 1983 33 170.50

11 Larry Csonka 1979 33 169.20

12 Marcus Allen 1996 36 164.00

13 Emmitt Smith 2004 35 163.25

14 MacArthur Lane 1976 34 158.80

15 Ottis Anderson 1990 33 158.30

16 John Riggins 1981 32 155.30

17 Marcus Allen 1994 34 147.80

18 Herschel Walker 1994 32 144.80

19 Marcus Allen 1995 35 140.00

20 Tony Dorsett 1986 32 137.50

21 Emmitt Smith 2002 33 136.40

22 Tom Matte 1971 32 132.60

23 Lamar Smith 2002 32 132.00

24 Emmitt Smith 2001 32 131.70

25 Marcus Allen 1997 37 125.10

It's happened 7 times in the past 10 seasons. While I would not consider that a rare feat, I would say it's still not a regular occurance.

 

[cstu]

OK, hits matter. I'm not so sure. Why don't we see backup RB's and 3rd down backs play till they're 35? Take Amp Lee. A great 3rd down back his entire career. Only had about 1800 touches for his career. Retired at 29. Some full backs go well past 30 and they get blasted all the time. But they don't really have to be fast. They just have to have a hard head.

I'll make one assertion in regards to this... youth prevails in the NFL. Teams will always prefer a young "potential" player in a reserve role, over an older experienced player who has hit his ceiling.Most of these guys (like Lee) retire when they become FAs and no one wants them. It has nothing to do with them not being good enough to play anymore, just that teams know what they are, and if they have to choose they'll choose potential for more.And fullbacks? Teams rarely use a FB as a lead blocker anymore... but that would definitely need to be researched.

The magical age of 30 is no longer the ceiling. RB's have good years after 30 all the time in the last few years. The ceiling is closer to 32. But I attribute that to advances in medical science and physical training improvements. I think that age is the only real factor. Low mileage and high mileage backs aren't playing at 35. Even REALLY low mileage backs like 3rd down backs and career backups aren't playing past 32...

And that goes with the love for youth as well... the reason these guys seem to be going until 32, instead of thirty is that there are more teams, more need for RBs... players will be used longer. Contracts too are set up differently now than they were before.

These points seem to contradict each other. One states that the guy can play but teams go younger instead of bringing in the vet. And the other says that there are more teams now and thus guys play longer because there aren't enough RB's to go around. Which is it?And if a guy can still play, why not go with a guy that will have less to learn as he has been in the NFL for a while as opposed to a rookie who has to learn a play book as well as what it means to be a pro football player. If a guy can play he will be on a roster. Even if he can't but can mentor a young guy he has a chance to be on a roster. How many years did Neil Odonnel hold the clip board for Tennessee? He wasn't that good as a starter...

Vets want more money and RB is a position that doesn't take much to learn.

 

[TheFanatic]

OK, hits matter. I'm not so sure. Why don't we see backup RB's and 3rd down backs play till they're 35? Take Amp Lee. A great 3rd down back his entire career. Only had about 1800 touches for his career. Retired at 29. Some full backs go well past 30 and they get blasted all the time. But they don't really have to be fast. They just have to have a hard head.

I'll make one assertion in regards to this... youth prevails in the NFL. Teams will always prefer a young "potential" player in a reserve role, over an older experienced player who has hit his ceiling.Most of these guys (like Lee) retire when they become FAs and no one wants them. It has nothing to do with them not being good enough to play anymore, just that teams know what they are, and if they have to choose they'll choose potential for more.And fullbacks? Teams rarely use a FB as a lead blocker anymore... but that would definitely need to be researched.

The magical age of 30 is no longer the ceiling. RB's have good years after 30 all the time in the last few years. The ceiling is closer to 32. But I attribute that to advances in medical science and physical training improvements. I think that age is the only real factor. Low mileage and high mileage backs aren't playing at 35. Even REALLY low mileage backs like 3rd down backs and career backups aren't playing past 32...

And that goes with the love for youth as well... the reason these guys seem to be going until 32, instead of thirty is that there are more teams, more need for RBs... players will be used longer. Contracts too are set up differently now than they were before.

These points seem to contradict each other. One states that the guy can play but teams go younger instead of bringing in the vet. And the other says that there are more teams now and thus guys play longer because there aren't enough RB's to go around. Which is it?And if a guy can still play, why not go with a guy that will have less to learn as he has been in the NFL for a while as opposed to a rookie who has to learn a play book as well as what it means to be a pro football player. If a guy can play he will be on a roster. Even if he can't but can mentor a young guy he has a chance to be on a roster. How many years did Neil Odonnel hold the clip board for Tennessee? He wasn't that good as a starter...

Vets want more money and RB is a position that doesn't take much to learn.

Running is not something that has to be learned. Pass protection is something that does need to be learned and is not that easy to learn. Keeping the face of the franchise upright is probably the most important skill a 3rd down specialist can have.

 

[Fullback Fro]

You never fully explained what your pet peave is.

What is it?

Can you provide links to the misscontsrued posts of people that have you irked as an example of this happening all the time?

 

[Chase Stuart]

This is a really tough question to answer because carries are almost inextrically tied up to ability. Outside of Tiki Barber, Priest Holmes and maybe Marcus Allen, most great RBs get a bunch of touches by the time they're 28.

When we say a "high mileage guy" is worse than a "low mileage guy", here's what I think we mean:

If one RB has a true ability level of X and has 2000 career carries by the age of 28, and another RB has a true ability level of Y and has 1000 career carries by age 28, I'd prefer the latter RB.

That's really hard to test, because RBs with the same level of ability usually have a similar number of carries. You just don't get those wide splits. If one RB has 2000 carries by age 28, and another RB has 1500 carries by age 28, the RB with 2000 carries is probably better. And the better RB at age 28 is probably going to be the better RB at age 29, and age 30, and age 31.

You basically need to find situations where a RB didn't get carries for some non-injury related reason. With Barber and Holmes, it's because they were thought to be less effective early in their careers. The same with Warrick Dunn. But there just aren't many examples of those. And once you want to compare the Tomlinsons to the Travis Henrys, you get into talent problems.

 

[TheFanatic]

You never fully explained what your pet peave is. What is it?Can you provide links to the misscontsrued posts of people that have you irked as an example of this happening all the time?

What tipped me off was someone talking about Larry Johnson saying that he's 29, but has low mileage like that means the guy is going to do much more than play a year or two more. And that despite having "low mileage" he is on the downturn of a career on a team that is rebuilding. Low mileage and a quarter won't buy you a cup of coffee....

 

[Chase Stuart]

This is a really tough question to answer because carries are almost inextrically tied up to ability. Outside of Tiki Barber, Priest Holmes and maybe Marcus Allen, most great RBs get a bunch of touches by the time they're 28.When we say a "high mileage guy" is worse than a "low mileage guy", here's what I think we mean:If one RB has a true ability level of X and has 2000 career carries by the age of 28, and another RB has a true ability level of Y and has 1000 career carries by age 28, I'd prefer the latter RB.That's really hard to test, because RBs with the same level of ability usually have a similar number of carries. You just don't get those wide splits. If one RB has 2000 carries by age 28, and another RB has 1500 carries by age 28, the RB with 2000 carries is probably better. And the better RB at age 28 is probably going to be the better RB at age 29, and age 30, and age 31.You basically need to find situations where a RB didn't get carries for some non-injury related reason. With Barber and Holmes, it's because they were thought to be less effective early in their careers. The same with Warrick Dunn. But there just aren't many examples of those. And once you want to compare the Tomlinsons to the Travis Henrys, you get into talent problems.

To put it into just a sentence, the problem can be summed up as follows. "Emmitt Smith would have been a whole lot better at age 31 if he had 1,000 less career carries by then; unfortunately, there's no one comparable to Emmitt Smith that didn't have a bajillion carries by age 31."

 

[TheFanatic]

This is a really tough question to answer because carries are almost inextrically tied up to ability. Outside of Tiki Barber, Priest Holmes and maybe Marcus Allen, most great RBs get a bunch of touches by the time they're 28.When we say a "high mileage guy" is worse than a "low mileage guy", here's what I think we mean:If one RB has a true ability level of X and has 2000 career carries by the age of 28, and another RB has a true ability level of Y and has 1000 career carries by age 28, I'd prefer the latter RB.That's really hard to test, because RBs with the same level of ability usually have a similar number of carries. You just don't get those wide splits. If one RB has 2000 carries by age 28, and another RB has 1500 carries by age 28, the RB with 2000 carries is probably better. And the better RB at age 28 is probably going to be the better RB at age 29, and age 30, and age 31.You basically need to find situations where a RB didn't get carries for some non-injury related reason. With Barber and Holmes, it's because they were thought to be less effective early in their careers. The same with Warrick Dunn. But there just aren't many examples of those. And once you want to compare the Tomlinsons to the Travis Henrys, you get into talent problems.

To put it into just a sentence, the problem can be summed up as follows. "Emmitt Smith would have been a whole lot better at age 31 if he had 1,000 less career carries by then; unfortunately, there's no one comparable to Emmitt Smith that didn't have a bajillion carries by age 31."

OK, now I have a headache. I think it's time to shut this thread down.

 

[CalBear]

It's happened 7 times in the past 10 seasons. While I would not consider that a rare feat, I would say it's still not a regular occurance.

I think the line for RB production has been moved from 30 to 31. Before 1999, in NFL history there were a total of seven RBs who had had 200+ carries at age 31. Since 1999, there have been 12. Two of those 12 seasons were among the league's best that year (Martin and Barber), with over 1600 rushing yards. Since 2001, there have also been more RBs getting carries at age 32 than ever before, but generally those have not been very effective; Mike Anderson was the only one of the seven to average over 4 ypc, and Bettis was the only other one who had a good season (3.76 ypc, 13 TD). So I still wouldn't expect good production out of a 32-year-old RB.

 

[Christo]

Lots of assertions in here. Very few facts to back them up. Until someone presents actual analysis - which Yudkin at least referenced - I'm skeptical of any and all claims.

So the OP is either correct or incorrect. But you don't believe either is true.

 

[Christo]

This is a really tough question to answer because carries are almost inextrically tied up to ability.

The most important statement in the thread.

 

[David Yudkin]

It's happened 7 times in the past 10 seasons. While I would not consider that a rare feat, I would say it's still not a regular occurance.

I think the line for RB production has been moved from 30 to 31. Before 1999, in NFL history there were a total of seven RBs who had had 200+ carries at age 31. Since 1999, there have been 12. Two of those 12 seasons were among the league's best that year (Martin and Barber), with over 1600 rushing yards. Since 2001, there have also been more RBs getting carries at age 32 than ever before, but generally those have not been very effective; Mike Anderson was the only one of the seven to average over 4 ypc, and Bettis was the only other one who had a good season (3.76 ypc, 13 TD). So I still wouldn't expect good production out of a 32-year-old RB.

Not sure where you are getting your numbers from, but I have 16 times where a RB had 200+ carries at age 31 or older from 1970-1999 and 19 times from 2000-2007. And the 31 year old guys fared pretty well.1 Curtis Martin 2004 31 278.20 2 Tiki Barber 2006 31 242.70 3 Ricky Watters 2000 31 239.50 4 Mike Anderson 2005 32 200.60 5 Garrison Hearst 2002 31 182.90 6 Emmitt Smith 2000 31 182.20 7 Jerome Bettis 2004 32 181.20 8 James Stewart 2002 31 171.40 9 Corey Dillon 2005 31 169.40 10 Lamar Smith 2001 31 168.20 11 Emmitt Smith 2004 35 163.25 12 Warrick Dunn 2006 31 161.00 13 Fred Taylor 2007 31 156.00 14 Emmitt Smith 2002 33 136.40 15 Lamar Smith 2002 32 132.00 16 Jerome Bettis 2003 31 131.70 17 Emmitt Smith 2001 32 131.70 18 Warrick Dunn 2007 32 119.60 19 Curtis Martin 2005 32 115.30 I'm saying the same thing you are, only with different numbers.

 

[CalBear]

It's happened 7 times in the past 10 seasons. While I would not consider that a rare feat, I would say it's still not a regular occurance.

I think the line for RB production has been moved from 30 to 31. Before 1999, in NFL history there were a total of seven RBs who had had 200+ carries at age 31. Since 1999, there have been 12. Two of those 12 seasons were among the league's best that year (Martin and Barber), with over 1600 rushing yards. Since 2001, there have also been more RBs getting carries at age 32 than ever before, but generally those have not been very effective; Mike Anderson was the only one of the seven to average over 4 ypc, and Bettis was the only other one who had a good season (3.76 ypc, 13 TD). So I still wouldn't expect good production out of a 32-year-old RB.

Not sure where you are getting your numbers from, but I have 16 times where a RB had 200+ carries at age 31 or older from 1970-1999 and 19 times from 2000-2007. And the 31 year old guys fared pretty well.

I was referring to RBs who were exactly 31 years old.

 

[Warhogs]

I traded Ryan Grant for Willis McGahee today. Many were commenting they liked the Grant side because he does not have the mileage on him? I like that he has proven to be solid.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Drinen did an article on this. He determined that a year of age was equal to roughly 800 carries IIRC. But the significance was pretty low.

The takeaway is that AGE is the driver. There are very few (if any) scenarios where you'd prefer to have a healthy 30 year old instead of a healthy 29 year old, assuming equal talent and situation for the coming season.

 

[Jimmy James]

It seems to me that wear is absolutely a factor to be considered but that saying somebody is "low mileage" is the wrong way about talking about it. As others have mentioned, a healthy and even athletic 50 year old who hasn't had a single professional carry still isn't going to be a NFL feature back. The warning signs for a back should be age over a certain number (29, 30, or 31, depending on what you believe) and high mileage. The guy without the high mileage issue might be a somewhat better prospect in some cases, but it is because of the pounding the other guy has taken and not because of his leg freshness.

 

[twr]

Both age and hits matter...But, it's pretty hard to say how many hits a player has taken just by the number of carries he's had... some guys take a lot of hits on few carries, some carry it a lot and rarely get hit.

good examples of both arerarely hit - warrick dunn/LThit alot- ricky williams/earl campbellthe type of running style is what will determine the length of the career. however, every case is differnt, but the guys who use a physical running style are bound to get injured, and are bound to have injuries that linger and affect their play.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

the type of running style is what will determine the length of the career. however, every case is differnt, but the guys who use a physical running style are bound to get injured, and are bound to have injuries that linger and affect their play.

Is that why Walter Payton, Jerome Bettis and John Riggins had to retire early?You picked two guys to prove what you already believed.There's very little evidence to suggest that carries matter enough to worry about given what age does to a RB after about 30/31.

 

[munchkin]

You never fully explained what your pet peave is.

What is it?

Can you provide links to the misscontsrued posts of people that have you irked as an example of this happening all the time?

What tipped me off was someone talking about Larry Johnson saying that he's 29, but has low mileage like that means the guy is going to do much more than play a year or two more. And that despite having "low mileage" he is on the downturn of a career on a team that is rebuilding. Low mileage and a quarter won't buy you a cup of coffee....

Hits and injuries are two different things. How many times have you seen a guy blow out a knee without being touched? I've seen it more than once. Guy plants and the knee blows.And I think it has been shown over and over here that guys that had more carries and took a lot of hits early last just as long as those guys that blossom late if not longer.

If you don't understand how the physicality of sports is tied to injuries then perhaps you ought to take a Biology 101 class.

 

[Tanner9919]

But, it's pretty hard to say how many hits a player has taken just by the number of carries he's had... some guys take a lot of hits on few carries, some carry it a lot and rarely get hit.

Exactly. If there were a way to quantify the number of hits a guy has taken, I would bet it'd be a useful predictor of future production level. Carries just don't tell the whole story.

This is why LT can continue this pace IMO. He doesnt get blasted alot.Same with Barry Sanders, his running style didnt see him take too many hits. I think he would have been productive past the magical 30 barrier.

Might also be a reason why guys like Rod Bernstine, Okoye, Brandon Jacobs, Chris Brown were/are always hurt. What I'm getting at is body-style has a lot to do with a RB's longevity. Fantasy Index ran a story a few years ago, about what the ideal RB size is.. Emmitt, Lt2 are prototypical backs.They've lasted longer in the league with fewer injuries, yet each has/had a ton of carries and receptions...On the other side is the guy like Chris Brown, who is seemingly always injured. Same with Brandon Jacobs, etc..Curtis Martin was 5-11, 210..Emmitt was 5-10, 221.Tomlinson is 5-10, 221.Portis is 5-11, 205 ( although I think he's actually closer to 215, I remember him gaining weight a few years ago to 'bulk up')Barber was 5-10,200..Thurman Thomas , 5-10, 200Walter Payton, 5-10, 200I know players like Dickerson and OJ were taller and lasted just as long, but they might have been the exception to the rule..a guy like Fred Taylor can have a good season like he did in 2007 at the age of 31, partly because he missed so much time to various injuries earlier in his career , so he often sat on the sidelines doing nothing..So I think the players physical size has a lot to do with longevity...plus, its harder to find and hit a guy like Tiki who disappears in a crowded line-of-scrimmage, than it is to hit a guy like Chris Brown, or Rod Bernstine or Okoye..and running style is another thing to take into account, Earl Campbell was a bruiser and lasted only 8 years...Emmitt lasted 15 years, C-Mart: 11 years, Thurman: 13 years..none of these guys were 'bruisers', they've succeeded at avoiding contact ( for the most part) ..This is also a reason why Marvin Harrison was able to play for so long and virtually injury free ( until now). The guy never takes a hit, he either falls down at initial contact, scores a TD, or steps out of bounds.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

a guy like Fred Taylor can have a good season like he did in 2007 at the age of 31, partly because he missed so much time to various injuries earlier in his career , so he often sat on the sidelines doing nothing..

This is pure assertion.......and basically summarizes the OP's original debate. I'm not sure how you can throw out an assertion like this, as if it's fact, when people have been debating this through 40+ posts.

 

[FUBAR]

OK, hits matter. I'm not so sure. Why don't we see backup RB's and 3rd down backs play till they're 35? Take Amp Lee. A great 3rd down back his entire career. Only had about 1800 touches for his career. Retired at 29.

Some full backs go well past 30 and they get blasted all the time. But they don't really have to be fast. They just have to have a hard head.

I'll make one assertion in regards to this... youth prevails in the NFL. Teams will always prefer a young "potential" player in a reserve role, over an older experienced player who has hit his ceiling.Most of these guys (like Lee) retire when they become FAs and no one wants them. It has nothing to do with them not being good enough to play anymore, just that teams know what they are, and if they have to choose they'll choose potential for more.

And fullbacks? Teams rarely use a FB as a lead blocker anymore... but that would definitely need to be researched.

The magical age of 30 is no longer the ceiling. RB's have good years after 30 all the time in the last few years. The ceiling is closer to 32. But I attribute that to advances in medical science and physical training improvements.

I think that age is the only real factor. Low mileage and high mileage backs aren't playing at 35. Even REALLY low mileage backs like 3rd down backs and career backups aren't playing past 32...

And that goes with the love for youth as well... the reason these guys seem to be going until 32, instead of thirty is that there are more teams, more need for RBs... players will be used longer. Contracts too are set up differently now than they were before.

These points seem to contradict each other. One states that the guy can play but teams go younger instead of bringing in the vet. And the other says that there are more teams now and thus guys play longer because there aren't enough RB's to go around. Which is it?And if a guy can still play, why not go with a guy that will have less to learn as he has been in the NFL for a while as opposed to a rookie who has to learn a play book as well as what it means to be a pro football player.

If a guy can play he will be on a roster. Even if he can't but can mentor a young guy he has a chance to be on a roster. How many years did Neil Odonnel hold the clip board for Tennessee? He wasn't that good as a starter...

Vets want more money and RB is a position that doesn't take much to learn.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...mp;qpid=8765100Footballguys Forums -> Replying in Shark Pool pet peeve

Running is not something that has to be learned. Pass protection is something that does need to be learned and is not that easy to learn. Keeping the face of the franchise upright is probably the most important skill a 3rd down specialist can have.

QBs wear out less and the position is harder to learn (more mental than physical), so NFL teams bring in veteran QBs pretty readily. While you're right on pass protection being a key, the rest of the position is fairly easy to learn. I would think the theory is the coaches can teach the young, faster, RB how to pass protect (you can't teach speed) - whether that's right or wrong.

Plus, REALLY low mileage backs probably aren't that good.

OTOH, there's a reason New England has kept Sammy Morris (31) and Kevin Faulk (32) around.

 

[TheFanatic]

OK, hits matter. I'm not so sure. Why don't we see backup RB's and 3rd down backs play till they're 35? Take Amp Lee. A great 3rd down back his entire career. Only had about 1800 touches for his career. Retired at 29.

Some full backs go well past 30 and they get blasted all the time. But they don't really have to be fast. They just have to have a hard head.

I'll make one assertion in regards to this... youth prevails in the NFL. Teams will always prefer a young "potential" player in a reserve role, over an older experienced player who has hit his ceiling.Most of these guys (like Lee) retire when they become FAs and no one wants them. It has nothing to do with them not being good enough to play anymore, just that teams know what they are, and if they have to choose they'll choose potential for more.

And fullbacks? Teams rarely use a FB as a lead blocker anymore... but that would definitely need to be researched.

The magical age of 30 is no longer the ceiling. RB's have good years after 30 all the time in the last few years. The ceiling is closer to 32. But I attribute that to advances in medical science and physical training improvements.

I think that age is the only real factor. Low mileage and high mileage backs aren't playing at 35. Even REALLY low mileage backs like 3rd down backs and career backups aren't playing past 32...

And that goes with the love for youth as well... the reason these guys seem to be going until 32, instead of thirty is that there are more teams, more need for RBs... players will be used longer. Contracts too are set up differently now than they were before.

These points seem to contradict each other. One states that the guy can play but teams go younger instead of bringing in the vet. And the other says that there are more teams now and thus guys play longer because there aren't enough RB's to go around. Which is it?And if a guy can still play, why not go with a guy that will have less to learn as he has been in the NFL for a while as opposed to a rookie who has to learn a play book as well as what it means to be a pro football player.

If a guy can play he will be on a roster. Even if he can't but can mentor a young guy he has a chance to be on a roster. How many years did Neil Odonnel hold the clip board for Tennessee? He wasn't that good as a starter...

Vets want more money and RB is a position that doesn't take much to learn.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...mp;qpid=8765100Footballguys Forums -> Replying in Shark Pool pet peeve

Running is not something that has to be learned. Pass protection is something that does need to be learned and is not that easy to learn. Keeping the face of the franchise upright is probably the most important skill a 3rd down specialist can have.

QBs wear out less and the position is harder to learn (more mental than physical), so NFL teams bring in veteran QBs pretty readily. While you're right on pass protection being a key, the rest of the position is fairly easy to learn. I would think the theory is the coaches can teach the young, faster, RB how to pass protect (you can't teach speed) - whether that's right or wrong.

Plus, REALLY low mileage backs probably aren't that good.

OTOH, there's a reason New England has kept Sammy Morris (31) and Kevin Faulk (32) around.

I think this is the point right there. At 31/32, no matter the "miles" on him, just isn't as fast and will be put out to pasture. A guy like Amp Lee that had 1300 carries over like 10 years wasn't let go/not resigned because he was capable and but they wanted to go younger. He lost his job because he wasn't fast enough anymore and couldn't stay healthy. So, by saying something like, "LJ will bounce back nicely this year despite being 29 because he has low mileage," is a complete fallacy. While he may very well bounce back nicely it will have a lot more to do with the team around him, his O line in particular, number of times the coach calls his number, how much the opposing D stacks the box to stop him, etc.