Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Inside Slant: Running back cliff after age 27

jtnc

By jtnc,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

jtnc Newbie

jtnc

Posted
Posted

 

The red line represents all running backs who have played at least four NFL seasons since 2001, with a minimum average of 75 carries per season. Overall, we see their careers peak at age 27. Afterward, their rushing totals drop by 15 percent in one year, 25 percent in two and almost 40 by the time they are 30. 

Age-vs-Production-Running-Backs-Receiver
Most decision-makers -- whether their background was in scouting, accounting or anything in between -- saw that trend as a bad investment. As with any business, they reserve premium contracts for projected growth in production, not a decline. 
 
For comparison's sake, the graph also includes the receiver position (in blue, minimum average of 50 receptions over the same time period). You'll see some fluctuations, but even at age 31, the composite receiver produced a near-identical yardage total as he did at age 27. In other words, it's reasonable to expect a high-level performance into a receiver's early 30s. 
 
 
Running backs get no such benefit of the doubt, nor should they from a strict business sense. Even Minnesota Vikings tailback Adrian Peterson, one of the league's best players at any position, contributed to the curve at age 28 last season. It's true that he had the fifth-most rushing yards (1,266) in the NFL, but he also missed two games and overall fell 40 percent from his 2,097-yard effort in 2012. 
 
That line graph, along with a season that produced its fewest total league-wide rushing yards (57,795) in six seasons, led us to the eye-opening 2014 offseason. Keep in mind that age 27 is the essential point where most players, under the current collective bargaining agreement, become free agents for the first time. At their first opportunity for a payday, the league already views them to be beyond their prime. 
 
As of this week, teams have 177 running backs under contract. Of that group, 128 (72 percent) are 26 or younger. I counted only eight runners over the age of 29. Meanwhile, there was an obvious link between the handful of mid-20s running backs who did receive multiyear contracts this spring: None have been four-year feature backs. 

 

http://a.espncdn.com/photo/chartbuilder/Age-vs-Production-Running-Backs-Receivers1396880190285.png

 

Jonathan Stewart: 27

 

Deangelo Williams: 31

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost of Steve Smith Newbie

Ghost of Steve Smith

Posted
Posted

Age has almost nothing to do with it. The reason they wear down at such a young age is because of the physical beating their body takes. The human body isn't designed to sustain the abuse a running back endures.

Generally speaking a 27-29 year old man is at the peak of his physical stature, not a 21-23 year old who is a very young adult. The reason younger backs are more productive is because their body doesn't have any wear on it.

Williams is fine. He has a few good years left in him. The o-line is the only problem with our running game right now. Career carries compared to some of the premier backs in the league, age by midseason.

Tolbert, 28- 496 carries

Stewart, 27- 866 carries

Williams, 31- 1,370 carries

McCoy, 26- 1,149 carries

Johnson, 29- 1,742 carries

Lynch, 28- 1,753 carries

Peterson, 29- 2,033 carries

Gore, 31- 2,187 carries

Link to comment
Share on other sites
panthers222 Newbie

panthers222

Posted
Posted

Age has almost nothing to do with it. The reason they wear down at such a young age is because of the physical beating their body takes. The human body isn't designed to sustain the abuse a running back endures.

Generally speaking a 27-29 year old man is at the peak of his physical stature, not a 21-23 year old who is a very young adult. The reason younger backs are more productive is because their body doesn't have any wear on it.

Williams is fine. He has a few good years left in him. The o-line is the only problem with our running game right now. Career carries compared to some of the premier backs in the league, age by midseason.

Tolbert, 28- 496 carries

Stewart, 27- 866 carries

Williams, 31- 1,370 carries

McCoy, 26- 1,149 carries

Johnson, 29- 1,742 carries

Lynch, 28- 1,753 carries

Peterson, 29- 2,033 carries

Gore, 31- 2,187 carries

 

Age also has to be factored in. If you look at 2007 Deangelo and the current Deangelo there is a big difference in speed. He seemed to have lost that breakaway speed that made him great despite his relatively low mileage or wear and tear on the body. Someone like AP has had a ton of wear is and still considered one of the best. There is a balance between age and wear/tear/mileage that have to be factored in.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
panthermonium Newbie

panthermonium

Posted
Posted

Age has almost nothing to do with it. The reason they wear down at such a young age is because of the physical beating their body takes. The human body isn't designed to sustain the abuse a running back endures.

Williams, 31- 1,370 carries

While I agree with you that Deangelo still has a few solid years left and I don't mind him being on the roster, the guy was a 4 year work horse at Memphis, amounting a little less than a 1000 carries over his collegiate career. He WAS Memphis' offense.

I still believe he has some tread left, and sharing the backfield the majority of his pro career has helped that, but he's got some miles on those tires.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using CarolinaHuddle mobile app

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • PanthersATL
      NFL admits the TMac catch should not have been overturned

      By PanthersATL · Posted

      They said there wasn't clear evidence to warrant the overturn.  How would it have made a difference at that point in the game?   https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/nfl-privately-admitted-to-erroneous-reversal-of-catch-by-panthers
    • Khyber53
      WWE pay per view and programming thread

      By Khyber53 · Posted

      Me, I'm sick of WWE channel hopping their PLEs and shows. Netflix now with Raw. USA still has Smackdown but you can't get it with Roku if you don't also have cable. Then they went from all the PLEs on Peacock to ESPN+ which required upgrading your Disney+ package. Then they frikkin' move Saturday Night Main Event with John Cena's retirement match back over to frikkin' Peacock, which we'd just cancelled two months prior because no PLEs there anymore. And there are fewer, but longer matches and its the same danged stories again and again. Rematch after rematch after rematch between PLEs. Fewer matches, fewer wrestlers, more promos (of lesser quality) and less action.  It just seems like it's all fillers and re-runs. I'm tired of Cody Rhodes. I'm tired of Jey Uso. I'm tired of the two Brons. Shuffle the deck a bit guys, this game's getting stale.
    • CPantherKing
      Going for it instead of leading by two scores in the 4th

      By CPantherKing · Posted

      Chuba was 3 yards behind the 3 gap. He was lined up weak offset I. It was a 33 dive. Chuba needed to power through off of Ekwonu's block and slip off into the 5 gap where the Tremble had the lane sealed and Rick pulled the LB out of the 5 gap. Here's a visual if you need proof. Chuba did a jump cut laterally to the 2 gap on the right side with unblocked defenders crashing down and went airborne.   This is a 33 dive that should have been slipped off the block into the 5 gap. Chuba lacked vision, but you can see Rico and Bryce staring at the intended running lane sealed off by Tremble and Ekwonu. He should have read Ekwonu's block. The blocking and misdirection is NOT set up for the right side. The play worked. Chuba failed to execute on this play. Trust who you want to, but I wouldn't suggest you argue with the video. Anyone telling you this was drawn up to go right with the blocking did not analyze it. They are correct it should have been a called dive, and it was a called dive.  This was a weak offset I bringing Tremble in motion from the right to the left.
×
×
  • Create New...