Rookie Draft Age Factor

[Ice]

While there isn't one end all be all thing to look at when evaluating players, I value age quite a bit just because it is completely unbiased. Age has no prejudices and is a constant for all players. When it comes to college prospects, if a college prospect doesn't show much until they are 21+, I usually drop those guys some in my rankings. There will always be statistical outliers, but if you have to be older and physically superior to be relevant in college, you don't have much chance in the pros.

The reality is some players from the bigger schools do have a tendency to declare early if they show skill but that is purely a function of talent not age. It is also true many parents hold their kids back a year at an early age to give them a chance to compete better prior to college due to maturity timelines.

Look at last years NFL draft which will give an idea of what the actual NFL thinks about age vs talent.

Moore #24 age 21
Ridley #26 age 24
Sutton #40 Age 23
Pettis # 44 age 23
Kirk #47 age 22
Miller #51 age 24
Washington#60 age 22
Chark #61 age 22
Gallup #81 age 22

https://fftoolbox.scoutfantasysports.co ... yer_pos=WR

Every single one of those players you listed showed ability and contributed at the college level before the age of 21 except Anthony Miller (who I passed on in my draft fwiw). That's my point that I think you missed. I don't care about drafting Calvin Ridley at age 24 when he had a 1000 yard season as soon as he got to Bama as a freshman. I do have concerns that Anthony Miller was 22 before he was on the NFL draft radar, especially at the price tag people were paying to acquire him in the draft.

I'm also well aware about parents holding their kids back. In coaching at a high level program where we had multiple D1 recruits every year, the kids that weren't held back and still balled out were always the better and higher ranked prospects according to all the recruiting sites. Not to mention they had the better offers too.

No I get your point but the reality the primary way these kids get to major levels in college for the most part is because they flash talent much sooner than college. How they develop once they get to the league is the real issue and one reason it is so rare for rookie WR's to break out as rookies.

Miller as an example was 2nd in TD receptions as a rookie behind only Ridley. Scheme and QB in this case actually matters quite a bit. Miller led the Bears in TD receptions and didn't have anyone close Julio to pull coverage from Ridley. He also has a QB that is really green compared to Ryan as an example. Miller went late 1st to mid 2nd in most drafts IMO so didn't think his price was that high given his tape. Miller was a late bloomer but had a ton of tape his last couple of years in college. Bears actually see a lot of A. Brown in him who also was a late bloomer. Miller put up better rookie stats I believe.

Here is an interesting take on Miller from one of their scouts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA0ejhDmSRI

Obviously, looking at talent early matters but in reality it is opportunity not age. All these players drafted have ability, just some more than others. Sometime Talent jumps off the page. If that freshman QB from Clemson could enter this draft he would 1.1 and was being recruited to college in the 9th grade. Brady is the best and went in the 6th. Miller was a walk on at his position.

My take is you are conflating age with actual talent to a degree. "Always" is simply not true. Obviously, if an excellent prospect shows early he is highly coveted but the difference between 365 days doesn't really mean much in football given many high end prospects deal with a myriad of health issues and get better with strength and maturity.

BTW, Not faulting your thought process or system but it seems we just look at it the age issue from a different perspective.

[jenkins.math]

No I get your point but the reality the primary way these kids get to major levels in college for the most part is because they flash talent much sooner than college. How they develop once they get to the league is the real issue and one reason it is so rare for rookie WR's to break out as rookies.

Miller as an example was 2nd in TD receptions as a rookie behind only Ridley. Scheme and QB in this case actually matters quite a bit. Miller led the Bears in TD receptions and didn't have anyone close Julio to pull coverage from Ridley. He also has a QB that is really green compared to Ryan as an example. Miller went late 1st to mid 2nd in most drafts IMO so didn't think his price was that high given his tape. Miller was a late bloomer but had a ton of tape his last couple of years in college. Bears actually see a lot of A. Brown in him who also was a late bloomer. Miller put up better rookie stats I believe.

Here is an interesting take on Miller from one of their scouts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA0ejhDmSRI

Obviously, looking at talent early matters but in reality it is opportunity not age. All these players drafted have ability, just some more than others. Sometime Talent jumps off the page. If that freshman QB from Clemson could enter this draft he would 1.1 and was being recruited to college in the 9th grade. Brady is the best and went in the 6th. Miller was a walk on at his position.

My take is you are conflating age with actual talent to a degree. "Always" is simply not true. Obviously, if an excellent prospect shows early he is highly coveted but the difference between 365 days doesn't really mean much in football given many high end prospects deal with a myriad of health issues and get better with strength and maturity.

BTW, Not faulting your thought process or system but it seems we just look at it the age issue from a different perspective.

Antonio Brown was 23 in his 2nd season in Pittsburgh and finished with 1100 yards receiving. I would hardly call him a late bloomer. He also was in a WR room as a rookie with Antwaan Randle El, Hines Ward, Mike Wallace, and Emmanuel Sanders (who was also a rookie). That WR rotation was much tougher to crack than Anthony Miller's was this season.

The OP asked how age factored into everyone's evaluations of prospects. I feel like you're moving the goal posts in the discussion to say they have to have talent. Well of course they do. Nobody is disputing that at all. Obviously I'll take the super talented and productive 22 year old over the 20 year old that hasn't done anything. I also agree that opportunity plays a role in your productivity and when you produce. But I think age plays a large role in evaluations as to how a prospect will top out and what his ceiling is.

To your point on the 365 days not really meaning much in football prospects; feel free to tell that to the multiple Power 5 head coaches that ask about the kids' birthday and how old they are every single time they come in and first view a kid. Every single time a kid is a year or more older than his peers, they always make some sort of comment. So in my experience, it's been always. Also, my highest ranked and recruited kids that I've been around were never held back. They all graduated HS at 18. Not 19 or close to 20 as is becoming more and more common.

We can agree to disagree. Just figured I would give my perspective and thoughts on age.

[Orenthal Shames]

Age is a number. The reality is humans mature at different rates. Size, speed, opportunity, and ability to learn and adapt are all factors to be considered.

Drafting a player a year younger or older is actually foolish. Stats can be twisted to any narrative if you look long enough. The real reality is draft the best player in rookie drafts.

WR's last a long time in the NFL. Brown is already 30 and considered by the many to be the best in the game today.

Here is a an article of plenty of 30 plus WR's that have made marks in the NFL. Worrying about a year or two on the front end is silly.

Could care less if a player is 21 or 24 being drafted. I will 100% draft the player I think is better with the most upside. If the 21 year demonstrates the ability to cut equally off either foot better as one marker he will have an advantage. If the 24 year old has the better catch radius and run routes better especially back shoulder fades he will get looked at harder. None of these evaluations has anything to do with initial entry age.

The goal in fantasy is to get the one that has the best chance to succeed early on the field.

https://www.theringer.com/2017/6/21/160 ... 7ed39b3cec

Aside from Marshall, most of the receivers in this article had really early breakout ages.

Dez Bryant (19)
Antonio Brown (19)
Demaryius Thomas (19)
Odell Beckham Jr (19)
Larry Fitzgerald (19)

Jordy Nelson (20)
A.J. Green (20)
Eric Decker (20)

Brandon Marshall (21)

Not sure how this article serves as a counter argument.

[maxhyde]

I try to draft good players that I think have a good skillset for the NFL and age only becomes a factor if I need a tie breaker. Same way a 40 time might be used to choose between guys, height/weight, or any other attribute I consider important at a position. Age is a factor but not the most important one.
Last year that meant people were drafting DJMoore and Sutton over Ridley in many leagues. Not saying it is wrong because they have years to catch up but you might get DJMoore and Sutton for Ridley right now if you decided to trade him

[Ice]

Age is a number. The reality is humans mature at different rates. Size, speed, opportunity, and ability to learn and adapt are all factors to be considered.

Drafting a player a year younger or older is actually foolish. Stats can be twisted to any narrative if you look long enough. The real reality is draft the best player in rookie drafts.

WR's last a long time in the NFL. Brown is already 30 and considered by the many to be the best in the game today.

Here is a an article of plenty of 30 plus WR's that have made marks in the NFL. Worrying about a year or two on the front end is silly.

Could care less if a player is 21 or 24 being drafted. I will 100% draft the player I think is better with the most upside. If the 21 year demonstrates the ability to cut equally off either foot better as one marker he will have an advantage. If the 24 year old has the better catch radius and run routes better especially back shoulder fades he will get looked at harder. None of these evaluations has anything to do with initial entry age.

The goal in fantasy is to get the one that has the best chance to succeed early on the field.

https://www.theringer.com/2017/6/21/160 ... 7ed39b3cec

Aside from Marshall, most of the receivers in this article had really early breakout ages. Not sure how this is an argument against breakout age as a receiver metric.

Dez Bryant (19)
Antonio Brown (19)
Demaryius Thomas (19)
Odell Beckham Jr (19)
Larry Fitzgerald (19)

Jordy Nelson (20)
A.J. Green (20)
Eric Decker (20)

Brandon Marshall (21)

What round was Antonio Brown drafted again? ( 6th)

How many Great early games did players have that were never drafted at all or ever played in the league? Do that research. Obviously really good players have really good games early but really average players also have really good games early. How does one account for the Wes Welker types or even a more stark example would be Edelman who was drafted in round 7 and had no breakout WR games given he was a QB.

Stats can be looked at a lot of different ways is the point. The reason the players on that list had successful careers because they were/are very good and got better as they honed their craft in the NFL.

Many of those Players were 5 star recruits out of High School. They should have and often did break out early but again it was talent based. One can cherry pick break out age but talent is the reason a player excels not when they first had a great game.

The article goes to show that age early isn't the overriding factor it does show that players can play great later in their careers.

The college game is very different with wide hash marks and huge disparity of talent. A WR doesn't have to be great but certainly has to be better than the DB he is facing to breakout so putting too much stock in age given so many variables is closer to coincidence.

In 2006 DHB had 175 yard game as a Freshman, went in round 1. Couldn't catch. Plenty of examples on the other end of age is the point.

[Orenthal Shames]

Age is a number. The reality is humans mature at different rates. Size, speed, opportunity, and ability to learn and adapt are all factors to be considered.

Drafting a player a year younger or older is actually foolish. Stats can be twisted to any narrative if you look long enough. The real reality is draft the best player in rookie drafts.

WR's last a long time in the NFL. Brown is already 30 and considered by the many to be the best in the game today.

Here is a an article of plenty of 30 plus WR's that have made marks in the NFL. Worrying about a year or two on the front end is silly.

Could care less if a player is 21 or 24 being drafted. I will 100% draft the player I think is better with the most upside. If the 21 year demonstrates the ability to cut equally off either foot better as one marker he will have an advantage. If the 24 year old has the better catch radius and run routes better especially back shoulder fades he will get looked at harder. None of these evaluations has anything to do with initial entry age.

The goal in fantasy is to get the one that has the best chance to succeed early on the field.

https://www.theringer.com/2017/6/21/160 ... 7ed39b3cec

Aside from Marshall, most of the receivers in this article had really early breakout ages. Not sure how this is an argument against breakout age as a receiver metric.

Dez Bryant (19)
Antonio Brown (19)
Demaryius Thomas (19)
Odell Beckham Jr (19)
Larry Fitzgerald (19)

Jordy Nelson (20)
A.J. Green (20)
Eric Decker (20)

Brandon Marshall (21)

What round was Antonio Brown drafted again? ( 6th)

How many Great early games did players have that were never drafted at all or ever played in the league? Do that research. Obviously really good players have really good games early but really average players also have really good games early. How does one account for the Wes Welker types or even a more stark example would be Edelman who was drafted in round 7 and had no breakout WR games given he was a QB.

Stats can be looked at a lot of different ways is the point. The reason the players on that list had successful careers because they were/are very good and got better as they honed their craft in the NFL.

Many of those Players were 5 star recruits out of High School. They should have and often did break out early but again it was talent based. One can cherry pick break out age but talent is the reason a player excels not when they first had a great game.

The article goes to show that age early isn't the overriding factor it does show that players can play great later in their careers.

The college game is very different with wide hash marks and huge disparity of talent. A WR doesn't have to be great but certainly has to be better than the DB he is facing to breakout so putting too much stock in age given so many variables is closer to coincidence.

In 2006 DHB had 175 yard game as a Freshman, went in round 1. Couldn't catch. Plenty of examples on the other end of age is the point.

A. What an entitled statement. Do your own damn research. It's far easier to just ask rhetorical questions and speak in generalities.

B. I honestly have no idea what you're arguing. The OP asked about age as a factor in rookie drafts. Prognostication is the name of the game in our rookie drafts. There is a strong correlation with young breakouts in college and nfl success as is there with late breakouts and poor success.

Late breakouts haven't had much longterm success in the nfl. Is this the only factor? Of course not. But it is a major red flag imo and this draft is filled with them.

[DynastyDabbler]

I wanted Juju because he was so young and showed good talent. Unfortunately I didn't grab him because I had Brown and a promising Eli Rogers rostered (so much regret... ). I thought Ronald Jones looked good and he was really young too.. Thankfully he was picked by the guy ahead of me.

[Ice]

Not arguing at all:

The bottom line is using age in any capacity from 17 to 24 may look like one knows what they are talking about as it relates to when a player shows elite NFL skill sets but it is simply not a very quantifiable metric. Anyone who really believes this doesn't have a great grasp of stats. No issue with anyone believing it but it's simply not factual.

There are plenty of great players that were not studs in High School or even studs in college. The body human develops uniquely. Maturity and the fortitude it takes to be great are moving targets at an individual level.

A Brown as an example may have had good games early and certainly exploded in year two but the fact remains he was passed 194 times in the draft so in spite of his youth breakout, teams passed on him.

The comment I agree with from the posters is if all things are equal then using age as tie break makes sense. Drafting a player based on age makes little logical sense on its own merit.

WR's are real difficult for anyone of us and NFL Scouts to judge overall. I actually liked several in this past class and it mattered not if they played great as a freshman . The tape that really matters is the last year or two to determine if route skills and cut ability improved. Did the catch radius improve or remain consistent, did the player improve in hand catching and timing? It Takes WR's some time. the difference in a player at 19 or 20 and 24-27 is very different.

Anyone can use the age factor if they so choose but like most things life players too get much better with maturity and coaching. WR's that face better competition in practice and have better QB's and coaches tend to flourish.

Better to look at a player like Hopkins that showed exceptional growth 3 straight years in college than when he first showed signs of being elite even with what many would claim as substandard speed while being overshadowed by Sammy Watkins.

Age is about the last factor considered in a draft at the highest level. Most Players will flash talent early.

[Orenthal Shames]

Not arguing at all:

The bottom line is using age in any capacity from 17 to 24 may look like one knows what they are talking about as it relates to when a player shows elite NFL skill sets but it is simply not a very quantifiable metric. Anyone who really believes this doesn't have a great grasp of stats. No issue with anyone believing it but it's simply not factual.

There are plenty of great players that were not studs in High School or even studs in college. The body human develops uniquely. Maturity and the fortitude it takes to be great are moving targets at an individual level.

A Brown as an example may have had good games early and certainly exploded in year two but the fact remains he was passed 194 times in the draft so in spite of his youth breakout, teams passed on him.

The comment I agree with from the posters is if all things are equal then using age as tie break makes sense. Drafting a player based on age makes little logical sense on its own merit.

WR's are real difficult for anyone of us and NFL Scouts to judge overall. I actually liked several in this past class and it mattered not if they played great as a freshman . The tape that really matters is the last year or two to determine if route skills and cut ability improved. Did the catch radius improve or remain consistent, did the player improve in hand catching and timing? It Takes WR's some time. the difference in a player at 19 or 20 and 24-27 is very different.

Anyone can use the age factor if they so choose but like most things life players too get much better with maturity and coaching. WR's that face better competition in practice and have better QB's and coaches tend to flourish.

Better to look at a player like Hopkins that showed exceptional growth 3 straight years in college than when he first showed signs of being elite even with what many would claim as substandard speed while being overshadowed by Sammy Watkins.

Age is about the last factor considered in a draft at the highest level. Most Players will flash talent early.

Aside from you just talking in circles over the same generalizations, this post is entirely untrue. Nearly any dynasty "expert" that focuses on advanced metrics highly values breakout age. Just because you disagree unfortunately doesn't make it true.

Breakout age is a metric. It's based on player contributions to overall team production indicative of nfl success, not simply just the player's chronological age.

Regarding maturity, isn't it all the more impressive and unique then when young players excel against older competition as opposed to the opposite?

If players with late breakout ages in college got better in the nfl with maturity, there would be more than 2 current cases of these receivers with multiple successful seasons on their resumes.

Again with Hopkins you're making my case for me. His breakout age was 18.

[petebusey]

I feel like I’m watching the Rocky when Ivan Drago just keeps pounding Rocky right in the face over and over again and Rocky is stumbling all around and can barely stand up. ... but he keeps standing somehow and coming back for more.

Edit: if Ice mounts a comeback... chants will begin to grow in the crowd...“Ice. Ice. Ice. Ice. Ice.”

[Orenthal Shames]

[jenkins.math]

Not arguing at all:

The bottom line is using age in any capacity from 17 to 24 may look like one knows what they are talking about as it relates to when a player shows elite NFL skill sets but it is simply not a very quantifiable metric. Anyone who really believes this doesn't have a great grasp of stats. No issue with anyone believing it but it's simply not factual.

There are plenty of great players that were not studs in High School or even studs in college. The body human develops uniquely. Maturity and the fortitude it takes to be great are moving targets at an individual level.

A Brown as an example may have had good games early and certainly exploded in year two but the fact remains he was passed 194 times in the draft so in spite of his youth breakout, teams passed on him.

The comment I agree with from the posters is if all things are equal then using age as tie break makes sense. Drafting a player based on age makes little logical sense on its own merit.

WR's are real difficult for anyone of us and NFL Scouts to judge overall. I actually liked several in this past class and it mattered not if they played great as a freshman . The tape that really matters is the last year or two to determine if route skills and cut ability improved. Did the catch radius improve or remain consistent, did the player improve in hand catching and timing? It Takes WR's some time. the difference in a player at 19 or 20 and 24-27 is very different.

Anyone can use the age factor if they so choose but like most things life players too get much better with maturity and coaching. WR's that face better competition in practice and have better QB's and coaches tend to flourish.

Better to look at a player like Hopkins that showed exceptional growth 3 straight years in college than when he first showed signs of being elite even with what many would claim as substandard speed while being overshadowed by Sammy Watkins.

Age is about the last factor considered in a draft at the highest level. Most Players will flash talent early.

I've got a math degree and specialized in probability and statistics. I also have a master's that is math related and I'm in a career now that all I do is use math and run off statistics and trends. I would say my degrees and subsequent other credentials would say I have a pretty firm grasp of stats.

It's very clear that you disagree with the entire age discussion, but I highly doubt you want to take it to a level of what is a quantifiable metric or not. You can disagree with where you place the value of age and that is perfectly fine. However, let's not act like everyone that disagrees with you doesn't know what they are talking about.

[tresskid84]

Not arguing at all:

The bottom line is using age in any capacity from 17 to 24 may look like one knows what they are talking about as it relates to when a player shows elite NFL skill sets but it is simply not a very quantifiable metric. Anyone who really believes this doesn't have a great grasp of stats. No issue with anyone believing it but it's simply not factual.

There are plenty of great players that were not studs in High School or even studs in college. The body human develops uniquely. Maturity and the fortitude it takes to be great are moving targets at an individual level.

A Brown as an example may have had good games early and certainly exploded in year two but the fact remains he was passed 194 times in the draft so in spite of his youth breakout, teams passed on him.

The comment I agree with from the posters is if all things are equal then using age as tie break makes sense. Drafting a player based on age makes little logical sense on its own merit.

WR's are real difficult for anyone of us and NFL Scouts to judge overall. I actually liked several in this past class and it mattered not if they played great as a freshman . The tape that really matters is the last year or two to determine if route skills and cut ability improved. Did the catch radius improve or remain consistent, did the player improve in hand catching and timing? It Takes WR's some time. the difference in a player at 19 or 20 and 24-27 is very different.

Anyone can use the age factor if they so choose but like most things life players too get much better with maturity and coaching. WR's that face better competition in practice and have better QB's and coaches tend to flourish.

Better to look at a player like Hopkins that showed exceptional growth 3 straight years in college than when he first showed signs of being elite even with what many would claim as substandard speed while being overshadowed by Sammy Watkins.

Age is about the last factor considered in a draft at the highest level. Most Players will flash talent early.

I've got a math degree and specialized in probability and statistics. I also have a master's that is math related and I'm in a career now that all I do is use math and run off statistics and trends. I would say my degrees and subsequent other credentials would say I have a pretty firm grasp of stats.

It's very clear that you disagree with the entire age discussion, but I highly doubt you want to take it to a level of what is a quantifiable metric or not. You can disagree with where you place the value of age and that is perfectly fine. However, let's not act like everyone that disagrees with you doesn't know what they are talking about.

[alewilliam789]

Every top 10-15 WR for the past 10 years has had a 50th percentile breakout age and 30% Dominator Rating in their last year besides the two stated WRs Michael Thomas and Brandon Marshall. Each had good dominator ratings tho. I use the Player Profiler model.

Now everyone may argue the value of age, like you said, but for me specifically I wouldn’t draft a WR within the first 18 rookie picks without those two qualities.
By drafting a player of 21 or higher is either playing the odds (which aren’t good), or accepting they maybe will at best be an average WR2. I’d rather play the odds in my favor.

[Ice]

To all that really buy into the correlation of an age metric and success, which I do disagree with, go back and study the 2015 draft. Many of you are spinning the successes of this metric without giving any credence to the actual failures which counters the metric.

The NFL is riddled with WR's and x WR's that were great in college but made zero impact in the NFL or limited success. Age may be important to some but the point remains it is talent not the age factor they actually flashed elite traits.

Once one fairly applies both sides without cherry picking age factor the results will surprise.

2015 Draft
15 C. Coleman
21 W. Fuller
22. J Doctson
23. L Treadwell
40. S Shepard
47. M Thomas (Stud at this level)
55. T Boyd
85. B Miller
86. L Carroo
107. C Moore
114. R Louis
117. P Cooper
126. D. Robinson
140. T Sharpe
154. J Payton
163. T Davis
165. Tyreek Hill ( Stud Jr. College Transfer)

Picks 47 and 165 are obviously the best in class. but using the age metric; What happened to the other 14 in this sample size.

Pro scouts don't really look at break out games or age. All of them are young. While break out games may get them noticed, Scouts are looking at talent metrics starting with the feet up.

Good Luck with your research attempting to prove the relevancy of break out age from this entire draft class.