Runningback yardage over time: RBs typically peak at 26 and decline every year after.

[Dustin]

 

I know most people here are against taking a RB in the first round, but maybe this chart will convince those other people.

 

Y-axis = yardage

X-axis = age

[Surge89]

25 minutes ago, Dustin said:

 

I know most people here are against taking a RB in the first round, but maybe this chart will convince those other people.

 

Y-axis = yardage

X-axis = age

 

Is this sum of averages?  A tad vague on the information here. For example is this all the RB in the past 10 years averaged out by age according to yards per season? 

 

Just fill in some of the gaps if you would.  (and just an fyi I don't endorse taking a RB in the first round I just like to see the statistics)  

[Superman]

Yeah I feel like there's something missing. The result isn't surprising at all, and the word "typically" allows for exceptions, so I have no beef with the conclusion. Just wondering about all the data.

 

Basically, though, a RB would have to be an outstanding performer throughout his rookie contract, stay healthy, and be a deciding factor in a lot of games for those four years in order to justify using a first round pick on him. Once he's out of that low cost rookie contract, there's no sense paying for his decline. And the percentages say that most players won't live up to that high standard throughout their first four seasons, especially at such a physically demanding position, so the odds are stacked against you if you spend a first rounder on a RB.

[Superman]

A specific question I have about the data is whether age is more important than volume of carries. Would it be true to say that if a guy got drafted at 24 years old, he'd be more likely to peak at 28 in his fourth year?

 

Devontae Booker will be 24 before he plays his first NFL game. Does he basically have three years before he starts declining?

[Dustin]

24 minutes ago, Surge89 said:

 

Is this sum of averages?  A tad vague on the information here. For example is this all the RB in the past 10 years averaged out by age according to yards per season? 

 

Just fill in some of the gaps if you would.  (and just an fyi I don't endorse taking a RB in the first round I just like to see the statistics)  

 

12 minutes ago, Superman said:

Yeah I feel like there's something missing. The result isn't surprising at all, and the word "typically" allows for exceptions, so I have no beef with the conclusion. Just wondering about all the data.

 

Basically, though, a RB would have to be an outstanding performer throughout his rookie contract, stay healthy, and be a deciding factor in a lot of games for those four years in order to justify using a first round pick on him. Once he's out of that low cost rookie contract, there's no sense paying for his decline. And the percentages say that most players won't live up to that high standard throughout their first four seasons, especially at such a physically demanding position, so the odds are stacked against you if you spend a first rounder on a RB.

 

I forgot to include the link:

 

http://www.footballperspective.com/a-closer-look-at-running-back-aging-patterns-part-ii/

[Surge89]

10 minutes ago, Superman said:

A specific question I have about the data is whether age is more important than volume of carries. Would it be true to say that if a guy got drafted at 24 years old, he'd be more likely to peak at 28 in his fourth year?

 

Devontae Booker will be 24 before he plays his first NFL game. Does he basically have three years before he starts declining?

 

 

Now this would be very interesting.

 

If you've got anything on it Dustin I'd love to see.

[Superman]

I want to see those numbers adjusted for injured players (like Edge, who was still very productive but never the same explosive player after the ACL), but the truth is that injuries are a very big piece of the picture, so it doesn't really make sense to adjust for injuries.

 

[Track Guy]

I want us to hold off another year if we can on drafting a running back early, because I feel that adding pieces to the O-line will do more for our offense as a whole at this juncture. But I do think next year we'll definitely need to think RB somewhere in the draft with Gore getting up there.

[aaron11]

5 good years out of a player is enough to warrant a first round pick.  the average nfl career is less than 4 years anyway

 

gurley was huge for the rams this year, i dont think they regret taking him at all

[aaron11]

also, 3 of our last 7 first rounders are not even here any more, werner is one of the four that is 

 

go back more than 7 years and all of those first round picks are gone.  i dont think falling off before 30 is that big of a deal

 

 

[NewColtsFan]

 

I think the problem with the idea of using a 1st round pick is this.......

 

If it's true that the RB peaks at age 26 and then the performance starts to go down,  then you're not getting many peak years from the RB before you let him go elsewhere.

 

I don't want to spend a 1st on a guy who might only be with the team 5 years (rookie deal) before we say goodbye.

 

That's why I disagreed with your ranking last year of Todd Gurley as the best player in the draft.    Because if you're picking 1st overall,  you don't want just 4-5 years of top performance,  you're looking for a player to give you 10-12 years of top performance.     That's the desire to picking 1st overall.    Or even the top-10.

 

You need a lot of bang for your 1st round pick buck.

 

That's why some teams jump on a RB in the 2nd or 3rd round.   Still get a very good back,  but at a much cheaper cost.    And then,  it's OK to say goodbye at an early age.

 

Just a different perspective for consideration......

[aaron11]

6 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I think the problem with the idea of using a 1st round pick is this.......

 

If it's true that the RB peaks at age 26 and then the performance starts to go down,  then you're not getting many peak years from the RB before you let him go elsewhere.

 

I don't want to spend a 1st on a guy who might only be with the team 5 years (rookie deal) before we say goodbye.

 

That's why I disagreed with your ranking last year of Todd Gurley as the best player in the draft.    Because if you're picking 1st overall,  you don't want just 4-5 years of top performance,  you're looking for a player to give you 10-12 years of top performance.     That's the desire to picking 1st overall.    Or even the top-10.

 

You need a lot of bang for your 1st round pick buck.

 

That's why some teams jump on a RB in the 2nd or 3rd round.   Still get a very good back,  but at a much cheaper cost.    And then,  it's OK to say goodbye at an early age.

 

Just a different perspective for consideration......

my perspective is that our first round picks prior to 2011 are all gone anyway.  would be interesting to see the stats from other teams, i might look into it

 

minor edit for clarity

[Tracy Denton]

6 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I think the problem with the idea of using a 1st round pick is this.......

 

If it's true that the RB peaks at age 26 and then the performance starts to go down,  then you're not getting many peak years from the RB before you let him go elsewhere.

 

I don't want to spend a 1st on a guy who might only be with the team 5 years (rookie deal) before we say goodbye.

 

That's why I disagreed with your ranking last year of Todd Gurley as the best player in the draft.    Because if you're picking 1st overall,  you don't want just 4-5 years of top performance,  you're looking for a player to give you 10-12 years of top performance.     That's the desire to picking 1st overall.    Or even the top-10.

 

You need a lot of bang for your 1st round pick buck.

 

That's why some teams jump on a RB in the 2nd or 3rd round.   Still get a very good back,  but at a much cheaper cost.    And then,  it's OK to say goodbye at an early age.

 

Just a different perspective for consideration......

I see your point but have to disagree, There are great players at every position in every round, really don't know who is going to be the man. In hindsight, would any team let Robert Mathis fall to the 5th round? What team would pass on Edge with the #2 overall pick? I don't think there is a RB worthy of a first round pick(@18) but if there is I would love the pick.

[richard pallo]

The idea of taking a running back as your first pick is overwhelmingly not a popular one.  But I think if we stay at 18 and you have Elliot as your BPA you have to do it.  They did it with Dorsett last year.  It is a position of need and he is a very highly ranked prospect.  Some team is going to take him in the first round. I have seen some mocks with the Cowboys at 4 and the Giants at 10 and the Texans behind us.  Finding a great edge rusher at 18 is going to be very difficult. We know it's a copycat league.  Every team is going to try and find the next Von Miller. There will probably be a early rush on pass rushers.  Unless we move up we will probably miss out.  Hopefully we won't be drafting this high again for a long time.  We have to make our first three picks count with three starters.  BPA in position of need after free agency is, I think, the way to go even if it means a RB.

[Superman]

55 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

5 good years out of a player is enough to warrant a first round pick.  the average nfl career is less than 4 years anyway

 

gurley was huge for the rams this year, i dont think they regret taking him at all

 

36 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

my perspective is that our first round picks prior to 2011 are all gone anyway.  would be interesting to see the stats from other teams, i might look into it

 

minor edit for clarity

 

The bolded is a reflection of bad drafting. 

 

The average first round pick should last more than four years. If he doesn't, he was a bad pick. Anthony Castonzo just got a new contract; that's what you expect out of a first rounder. Saying that the average NFL career is less than four years isn't really pertinent, as you don't hold every player to the first round standard.

 

From the first round of the 2011 draft, 23 of 32 players selected are still with the team that drafted them. Another four played considerable roles for different teams. 

 

The Rams might not regret taking Gurley right now, but we're obviously talking about a long view here, not just reflecting on one season. In four years, when Peters and Peat and Thompson and Dupree are in their primes, and Gurley is coming over the hill, that's when the regret might kick in. Maybe Gurley is the outlier, but the odds don't work in his favor.

[Superman]

50 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

That's why I disagreed with your ranking last year of Todd Gurley as the best player in the draft.    Because if you're picking 1st overall,  you don't want just 4-5 years of top performance,  you're looking for a player to give you 10-12 years of top performance.     That's the desire to picking 1st overall.    Or even the top-10.

 

I think there's allowance to be made for positional value. 

[Defjamz26]

I see both sides here but I think if you have a complete team and can make a super bowl push in 5 years, than a 1st round back is worth it. 

 

The Rams don't regret taking Gurley but because they've failed at finding a franchise QB, he won't do much for them in the long term. 

 

But imagine if Ezekiell Elliot ends up on the Panthers, Cardinals or Broncos with Osweiler? He could turn either of those teams into a dynasty. Or what if Leonard Fournette ends up on the Seahawks?

 

But on the other hand, you have the Terell Davis' of the world. A late round RB whose importance to the Broncos needs no explanation. 

 

I think it all depends on the situation tbh. Todd Gurley at 27 isn't going to do much for the Rams. But a 27 year old Elliot could help propel the Colts to a Super Bowl. I'm not in favor of taking Elliot unless he's truly BPA but he and Luck could win multiple Lombardi's.

[aaron11]

14 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

I see both sides here but I think if you have a complete team and can make a super bowl push in 5 years, than a 1st round back is worth it. 

 

The Rams don't regret taking Gurley but because they've failed at finding a franchise QB, he won't do much for them in the long term. 

 

But imagine if Ezekiell Elliot ends up on the Panthers, Cardinals or Broncos with Osweiler? He could turn either of those teams into a dynasty. Or what if Leonard Fournette ends up on the Seahawks?

 

But on the other hand, you have the Terell Davis' of the world. A late round RB whose importance to the Broncos needs no explanation. 

 

I think it all depends on the situation tbh. Todd Gurley at 27 isn't going to do much for the Rams. But a 27 year old Elliot could help propel the Colts to a Super Bowl. I'm not in favor of taking Elliot unless he's truly BPA but he and Luck could win multiple Lombardi's.

rams could do something if they find a QB, but the move might set them back a little.

 

colts could be one of those teams where a back is worth it, luck and gurley would have scared the crap out of Ds

 

one last note, marshawn lynch is a perfect example of what you described.  he was good but not great in buffalo, but he was never on a good offense there.  in seattle i doubt they win the superbowl without him, and should have given it to him for a second!

 

he was a first round back that had a great career, though he did switch teams.  had he stayed out of trouble the bills may have have kept him

[Defjamz26]

2 hours ago, aaron11 said:

rams could do something if they find a QB, but the move might set them back a little.

 

colts could be one of those teams where a back is worth it, luck and gurley would have scared the crap out of Ds

 

one last note, marshawn lynch is a perfect example of what you described.  he was good but not great in buffalo, but he was never on a good offense there.  in seattle i doubt they win the superbowl without him, and should have given it to him for a second!

 

he was a first round back that had a great career, though he did switch teams.  had he stayed out of trouble the bills may have have kept him

Good point with Lynch. He ended up being the missing piece in Seattle. And had his coach not made a terrible play call, they'd have won 2 Super Bowls with him.

 

Thats why even though the stats that Dustin presented seem sound, I still think you can't rule out taking top RBs in the first round. A top RB going to a team poised to make a push can be the difference.

 

Richardson debacle aside, the Colts are in a position where if there isn't that top defensive game wrecker there at 18, they could easily take Elliot and it would be a good pick.

[richard pallo]

1 hour ago, Defjamz26 said:

Good point with Lynch. He ended up being the missing piece in Seattle. And had his coach not made a terrible play call, they'd have won 2 Super Bowls with him.

 

Thats why even though the stats that Dustin presented seem sound, I still think you can't rule out taking top RBs in the first round. A top RB going to a team poised to make a push can be the difference.

 

Richardson debacle aside, the Colts are in a position where if there isn't that top defensive game wrecker there at 18, they could easily take Elliot and it would be a good pick.

  

  

 Totally agree!

[BOTT]

22 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

I see both sides here but I think if you have a complete team and can make a super bowl push in 5 years, than a 1st round back is worth it. 

 

The Rams don't regret taking Gurley but because they've failed at finding a franchise QB, he won't do much for them in the long term. 

 

But imagine if Ezekiell Elliot ends up on the Panthers, Cardinals or Broncos with Osweiler? He could turn either of those teams into a dynasty. Or what if Leonard Fournette ends up on the Seahawks?

 

But on the other hand, you have the Terell Davis' of the world. A late round RB whose importance to the Broncos needs no explanation. 

 

I think it all depends on the situation tbh. Todd Gurley at 27 isn't going to do much for the Rams. But a 27 year old Elliot could help propel the Colts to a Super Bowl. I'm not in favor of taking Elliot unless he's truly BPA but he and Luck could win multiple Lombardi's.

While I agree with the premise, I don't think the Colts are a good example.  If they can fix some glaring holes in the roster the next couple years then it would be fine to take a stud RB late in the first.  Although, I probably still wouldn't do it.