Chronological age versus NFL game experience age

[Kelly the Dog]

First, there are no facts here. It is impossible for anyone to know this so please do not claim you do.

 

IMO, the age factor for Brandon Weeden is way overblown, simply because he was playing baseball for 5-6 years and his body was not taking the physical pounding that a football player suffers, and therefore is much more of a, say, 24 year old NFL body than a 28 year old body. If the body for a QB was to typically break down at, for example, 35, IMO Weeden's would break down at more like 38.

 

Sure there is a smaller disintegration of physical ability and things like pure speed when anyone gets in their late 30s, but it is surely less important for the QB position than it would be for most other ones. It's the same argument most Bills fans use for Fred Jackson, and one I agree with. To me, it is not the age that matters, it is the physical pounding the body takes.

 

This is not to say the Bills should draft Weeden, I am not sure about that and I personally woudn't take him until the third round, and he will be gone by then. I think he may be slated for a solid back-up career more likely than a solid starter career. But I see no reason why he couldn't be a 10 year NFL player and who the hell projects past 3-5 years on the same team let alone 10.

 

It's also possible that his age (and maturity) is what helped him become a great college QB at least as much as his great arm, and that his ceiling is a lot lower as far as improvement goes for all the guys that are 4-5 years younger than him. But that could also prepare him for the NFL better, as far as playing right away.

 

This thread is really to try to dissect everyone's opinions on whether it is age that starts to make a player deteriorate, or the actual physical pounding a guy takes. The reason RBs last way less than any position is not due to age, it's the fact they get pounded more than any position, often by guys much much bigger than them, which makes their body and speed break down quicker.

 

To me, Weeden's age shouldn't be all that much of a factor in his drafting. In a lot of ways, it's a plus. I'm not sold on him as a franchise player at all, although he surely looks like a very good passer and leader.

Edited April 22, 2012 by Kelly the Dog

[Lurker]

To me, Weeden's age shouldn't be all that much of a factor in his drafting. In a lot of ways, it's a plus. I'm not sold on him as a franchise player at all, although he surely looks like a very good passer and leader.

The problem comparing him to Jackson, as I see it, is that RB is a significantly less difficult position to play than quarterback. Weeden played in a very simple offense and would need a lot of reps to learn how to read NFL defenses--which would take time and experience, as opposed to Freddy, whose great vision gave him the ability to excel right off the bat and keeps him productive today.

 

Weeden would be an interesting backup-type guy, but if Buddy's truthful about wanting to win now, he might not be a good use of a mid-round pick, IMO...

[T master]

First, there are no facts here. It is impossible for anyone to know this so please do not claim you do.

 

IMO, the age factor for Brandon Weeden is way overblown, simply because he was playing baseball for 5-6 years and his body was not taking the physical pounding that a football player suffers, and therefore is much more of a, say, 24 year old NFL body than a 28 year old body. If the body for a QB was to typically break down at, for example, 35, IMO Weeden's would break down at more like 38.

 

Sure there is a smaller disintegration of physical ability and things like pure speed when anyone gets in their late 30s, but it is surely less important for the QB position than it would be for most other ones. It's the same argument most Bills fans use for Fred Jackson, and one I agree with. To me, it is not the age that matters, it is the physical pounding the body takes.

 

This is not to say the Bills should draft Weeden, I am not sure about that and I personally woudn't take him until the third round, and he will be gone by then. I think he may be slated for a solid back-up career more likely than a solid starter career. But I see no reason why he couldn't be a 10 year NFL player and who the hell projects past 3-5 years on the same team let alone 10.

 

It's also possible that his age (and maturity) is what helped him become a great college QB at least as much as his great arm, and that his ceiling is a lot lower as far as improvement goes for all the guys that are 4-5 years younger than him. But that could also prepare him for the NFL better, as far as playing right away.

 

This thread is really to try to dissect everyone's opinions on whether it is age that starts to make a player deteriorate, or the actual physical pounding a guy takes. The reason RBs last way less than any position is not due to age, it's the fact they get pounded more than any position, often by guys much much bigger than them, which makes their body and speed break down quicker.

 

To me, Weeden's age shouldn't be all that much of a factor in his drafting. In a lot of ways, it's a plus. I'm not sold on him as a franchise player at all, although he surely looks like a very good passer and leader.

 

If Todd Collins could still be playing as a back up in the NFL then Weeden could be playing as long , + he has a lot better skill set & winning percentage coming in than Collins did so i would think it would be easier for him to stick some where !!

[PaattMaann]

what does Fred Jackson have to do with this argument? Fred Jackson's body took plenty of pounding prior to his NFL football career...playing in a different league doesnt mean the wear and tear on your body is any less...

 

I agree, for Weeden, that playing baseball for 5 years didnt take the toll on his body like football would, but there is plenty of body fatigue for athletes in all sports, so its not like his body was in an incubator for those 5 years, he was still "adding up mileage"...but I wouldnt NOT take Weeden because of his age, I would NOT take Weeden because he blows haha

[Kelly the Dog]

what does Fred Jackson have to do with this argument? Fred Jackson's body took plenty of pounding prior to his NFL football career...playing in a different league doesnt mean the wear and tear on your body is any less...

 

I agree, for Weeden, that playing baseball for 5 years didnt take the toll on his body like football would, but there is plenty of body fatigue for athletes in all sports, so its not like his body was in an incubator for those 5 years, he was still "adding up mileage"...but I wouldnt NOT take Weeden because of his age, I would NOT take Weeden because he blows haha

Fred didn't play at all his first year out of college. Two years of indoor football is not the same as playing in the NFL. In 2006 he played in Europe and his 150 carries or so was like playing half an NFL season. His first NFL season he didn't play much. His second NFL season again he carried about half a workload.

 

I'd estimate he has 2-3 full years of non getting pounded, so his 31 year old body is much more like 28-29 year old body. It's just an opinion.

[PaattMaann]

its not just NFL game carries that wears down your body, its preparing, its practicing, its all wear and tear....I definately understand your point, but if im giving a contract extension, im giving that extension based on a 31 year old running back, not a 28 year old one....2 year extension....

 

and just curious, but under same scenario, lets say Adrian Peterson stops playing football for 5 years then comes back, do you think he can play until hes 40?

[Lurker]

and just curious, but under same scenario, lets say Adrian Peterson stops playing football for 5 years then comes back, do you think he can play until hes 40?

Bad analogy. Five years of NFL pounding is no comparison to what KTD listed as Fred's wear and tear.

 

If I drive my car at 30 MPH and you go 90, I suppose we could both have a fatal accident if we hit a tree. But I like my chances better...

[Kelly the Dog]

its not just NFL game carries that wears down your body, its preparing, its practicing, its all wear and tear....I definately understand your point, but if im giving a contract extension, im giving that extension based on a 31 year old running back, not a 28 year old one....2 year extension....

 

and just curious, but under same scenario, lets say Adrian Peterson stops playing football for 5 years then comes back, do you think he can play until hes 40?

1] I still think Fred has three top quality years left so I would go three years but no more, and not for huge money either. Just take care of the guy, he's an unusual case and he should be treated as such. Three years 15 million maybe.

 

2] Not the same thing for a few reasons. A] as I mentioned, it seems to me that pure speed does deteriorate in your mid to late 30s, and Peterson as much as anyone, is great because of that combination of power and speed. You don't see a lot of 35 year old sprinters in track and field (although their bodies take a different kind of pounding from their practicing which makes them wear down). B] away from football and then coming back you likely lost a significant portion of the agility and feel and intangibles of the game, being away from it for five years. I'd imagine, but do not know, that it would take a year or two to really get back into it. For example, if Weeden played college football at OSU five years ago, then went away to play baseball for five years and now is going into the draft, I wouldn't draft him at all. But the fact he played football the last two years and has re-acclimated his body and mind, makes a huge difference. C] Most even great running backs cannot play until they are 35.

Edited April 22, 2012 by Kelly the Dog

[Cash]

First, there are no facts here. It is impossible for anyone to know this so please do not claim you do.

 

IMO, the age factor for Brandon Weeden is way overblown, simply because he was playing baseball for 5-6 years and his body was not taking the physical pounding that a football player suffers, and therefore is much more of a, say, 24 year old NFL body than a 28 year old body. If the body for a QB was to typically break down at, for example, 35, IMO Weeden's would break down at more like 38.

 

Sure there is a smaller disintegration of physical ability and things like pure speed when anyone gets in their late 30s, but it is surely less important for the QB position than it would be for most other ones. It's the same argument most Bills fans use for Fred Jackson, and one I agree with. To me, it is not the age that matters, it is the physical pounding the body takes.

 

This is not to say the Bills should draft Weeden, I am not sure about that and I personally woudn't take him until the third round, and he will be gone by then. I think he may be slated for a solid back-up career more likely than a solid starter career. But I see no reason why he couldn't be a 10 year NFL player and who the hell projects past 3-5 years on the same team let alone 10.

 

It's also possible that his age (and maturity) is what helped him become a great college QB at least as much as his great arm, and that his ceiling is a lot lower as far as improvement goes for all the guys that are 4-5 years younger than him. But that could also prepare him for the NFL better, as far as playing right away.

 

This thread is really to try to dissect everyone's opinions on whether it is age that starts to make a player deteriorate, or the actual physical pounding a guy takes. The reason RBs last way less than any position is not due to age, it's the fact they get pounded more than any position, often by guys much much bigger than them, which makes their body and speed break down quicker.

 

To me, Weeden's age shouldn't be all that much of a factor in his drafting. In a lot of ways, it's a plus. I'm not sold on him as a franchise player at all, although he surely looks like a very good passer and leader.

Bolded statement is the big thing for me. With the average NFL career being something like 4-5 years, his age isn't the biggest deal. If he panned out and became a good starting QB for 6 years, that's still a lot better than most of the QBs drafted in any given year. But I'm VERY leery of the production of a grown man playing against essentially boys. It's rare to see a big age difference in college football, since most guys don't become starters until their junior or senior years, and there's only a 2-year window for guys to come out early. I don't think I've ever seen a real breakdown, but I'd guess that a plurality of the guys picked on Thursday will probably be 5th-year seniors, followed by 4th-year seniors, followed by 4th-year juniors, all between the ages of 21-23. (I also would expect the first round to skew much more towards the juniors than the rest of the draft, because the most elite prospects tend to come out early.) In football, there isn't a huge difference between a 20 year old and a 22 year old, but there is a big difference between a 20 year old and a 25 year old.

 

I don't know how closely anyone follows the NBA draft, but I follow it about the same as the NFL draft, and one of the big lessons that comes up every year is that age is a big factor. The gap's a lot tighter though. A guy who puts up good numbers at age 19 is a MUCH better prospect than the guy who puts up the same numbers at 21 or 22. SU's Wes Johnson is a good recent example off the top of my head. Money college player, but he was 22 (I think) by the time he was drafted. Hasn't done anything of note in the NBA, because he didn't have much room to improve athletically.

 

I'm probably being too long-winded here, but my point is that I don't usually look at age for NFL draft picks, because they're in a pretty narrow range that doesn't matter much. (To me, it would be like comparing two 19-year-olds in the NBA draft and deciding that one had more upside because he was born in February instead of June.) But in the case of a guy like Weeden, the big age difference between him and the guys he played against in college makes me suspect his numbers. Doesn't guarantee anything, but it's something to be concerned about.