Brandon Aiyuk: on the move...?

[Jigga94]

I remember getting crushed for saying I didn't think breakout age was as important as others were saying. I didn't disagree that overall a lower breakout age was more ideal, but when zooming in at a micro level to an individual player, I find that breakout age is not really the thing that makes or breaks a player. If a player fails, they typically had other things wrong with their profile than just breakout age.

I agree. Breakout age is just another analytic tool to use, not the end all be all. There's some good correlation with success and younger ages, but draft capital usually makes up for that a lot of times.

I think I dinged Aiyuk a tad too much (had him at WR8 behind Higgins and Pittman, but that says more about this draft class) for his breakout age when he was in JUCO anyway.

I agree with the sentiment that him performing in his rookie year regardless of situation around you is a plus. I also agree that it's tough to know how he will perform moving forward in a run first offense that might have a different QB, will have their top target in Kittle back and maybe Deebo will stay healthy for longer (doubtful). Very interesting to see what trades Aiyuk is involved in

[OhCruelestRanter]

What do you mean “didn’t rate him”? Sorry if you’re not a native English speaker, I don’t mean to offend, I’ve just seen you use that phrasing a few times and I’m not sure what you mean. Do you mean didn’t rate him highly?

No offense taken, I am a native English speaker

Yes it means “didn’t rate him highly”, why use 4 words when 3 will do

Why waste time say lot word when few word do trick

Here, we have a word code the same way we have a dress code. And what we're talking about is basically the speech equivalent to just wearing underpants.

[cantguardjake]

What do you mean “didn’t rate him”? Sorry if you’re not a native English speaker, I don’t mean to offend, I’ve just seen you use that phrasing a few times and I’m not sure what you mean. Do you mean didn’t rate him highly?

No offense taken, I am a native English speaker

Yes it means “didn’t rate him highly”, why use 4 words when 3 will do

Why waste time say lot word when few word do trick

Exactly

[cantguardjake]

No offense taken, I am a native English speaker

Yes it means “didn’t rate him highly”, why use 4 words when 3 will do

Why waste time say lot word when few word do trick

Here, we have a word code the same way we have a dress code. And what we're talking about is basically the speech equivalent to just wearing underpants.

Are you familiar with the term “I rate him”?

[CGW]

I remember getting crushed for saying I didn't think breakout age was as important as others were saying. I didn't disagree that overall a lower breakout age was more ideal, but when zooming in at a micro level to an individual player, I find that breakout age is not really the thing that makes or breaks a player. If a player fails, they typically had other things wrong with their profile than just breakout age.

I agree. That can be said about every analytic. There is no magic formula. These are just numbers to help us determine trends, but mostly confirm our biases.

[Mjvb5]

I remember getting crushed for saying I didn't think breakout age was as important as others were saying. I didn't disagree that overall a lower breakout age was more ideal, but when zooming in at a micro level to an individual player, I find that breakout age is not really the thing that makes or breaks a player. If a player fails, they typically had other things wrong with their profile than just breakout age.

I agree. That can be said about every analytic. There is no magic formula. These are just numbers to help us determine trends, but mostly confirm our biases.

Except for fppt

[OhCruelestRanter]

I remember getting crushed for saying I didn't think breakout age was as important as others were saying. I didn't disagree that overall a lower breakout age was more ideal, but when zooming in at a micro level to an individual player, I find that breakout age is not really the thing that makes or breaks a player. If a player fails, they typically had other things wrong with their profile than just breakout age.

You got crushed for willfully misunderstanding how to use breakout age, saying things like "Nobody has busted solely from a bad breakout age" which demonstrates a misunderstanding of the concept itself, and then doing your trademark thing where you narrow down a sample size to the point where it's completely useless.

Here's the link: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=203069&hilit=pittma ... 5#p1869129

It's also interesting that you're thumping your chest over breakout age and Aiyuk, when here's how you applied it in that thread:

If you look at the study and focus on the groups with a decent enough sample size (of around 10), we can see where the big dropoffs are;

1st round WR with 20+ breakout age is significantly worse [Drop-off of 40+ percentage points]
-Bad for Ruggs and Aiyuk

Having said that, this is only one time that you got crushed for a bad take here; I know that there are multiple instances of this and I apologize if you were referencing a different one.

Anyways, back to Aiyuk- he's a great example of how to think analytically about players. I was not some Aiyuk truther- I actually didn't really like him as a prospect- but I ended up with multiple shares. Here's why I didn't like him- he's an old prospect with a late breakout age who was a clear second fiddle to a so-far-underwhelming N'Keal Harry. Having said that, here's why I ended up drafting him multiple times: the guy was still a first round pick he had an incredibly unusual profile, and his acquisition cost was a second round pick. Aiyuk was a risky prospect because there's not a track record of guys who have his profile and succeeded, but there's also not a ton of guys with his track record at all, so it's not like there's a track record of failure, either. At his second round price, I thought he was a good pick. It does make me wonder if the community at large isn't using breakout age correctly.

[hoos89]

He fell to me at pick 16 in one league and now he's my WR2 in the semis. I just got lucky...I was not ahead of the curve on him, but the last guy I had my eye on (Higgins) went 15 and it's just hard to turn down a 1st round WR at that stage in the rookie draft.

[Dynasty DeLorean]

I remember getting crushed for saying I didn't think breakout age was as important as others were saying. I didn't disagree that overall a lower breakout age was more ideal, but when zooming in at a micro level to an individual player, I find that breakout age is not really the thing that makes or breaks a player. If a player fails, they typically had other things wrong with their profile than just breakout age.

You got crushed for willfully misunderstanding how to use breakout age, saying things like "Nobody has busted solely from a bad breakout age" which demonstrates a misunderstanding of the concept itself, and then doing your trademark thing where you narrow down a sample size to the point where it's completely useless.

Here's the link: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=203069&hilit=pittma ... 5#p1869129

It's also interesting that you're thumping your chest over breakout age and Aiyuk, when here's how you applied it in that thread:

If you look at the study and focus on the groups with a decent enough sample size (of around 10), we can see where the big dropoffs are;

1st round WR with 20+ breakout age is significantly worse [Drop-off of 40+ percentage points]
-Bad for Ruggs and Aiyuk

Having said that, this is only one time that you got crushed for a bad take here; I know that there are multiple instances of this and I apologize if you were referencing a different one.

Me summarizing a chart that was posted is not a take. This was my original take.

I feel like I'm a lot lower on breakout age as a big factor than most nowadays. I understand the logic, that good players tend to be good right away. But it's also not inconceivable that other players simply take more time to grow into the role. It's not like it's never been done before, there are plenty of success stories.

Breakout Age / Name
22.6 Chad Johnson
22.6 Kelvin Benjamin
22.0 Greg Jennings
21.8 Victor Cruz
21.5 Brandon Marshall
21.5 Michael Thomas
21.5 Santonio Holmes
21.4 John Brown
21.1 Plaxico Burress
21.1 Stevie Johnson
21.0 Dwayne Bowe
20.9 Michael Pittman Jr.
20.8 Brian Hartline
20.8 Dionte Johnson - the guy people think is better than juju
20.8 Roddy White
20.7 Calvin Ridley
20.6 Deebo Samuel
20.6 Randy Moss
20.6 Vincent Jackson
20.5 Eric Decker
20.5 Michael Gallup

I believe someone reviewed that list and some were on there due to incorrect data, I can't remember if I edited the list, but my point still stands. I don't think breakout age is this significant factor we should be putting a ton of weight onto in and of itself. If a player has a great profile and a bad breakout age, the bad breakout age isn't going to sway me too much whereas you have some people on this site that won't touch a player with a bad breakout age. Just this year alone we have Aiyuk and Claypool showing out, both with 21+ breakout ages, both with great profiles except for breakout age.

[Chwf3rd]

I remember getting crushed for saying I didn't think breakout age was as important as others were saying. I didn't disagree that overall a lower breakout age was more ideal, but when zooming in at a micro level to an individual player, I find that breakout age is not really the thing that makes or breaks a player. If a player fails, they typically had other things wrong with their profile than just breakout age.

You got crushed for willfully misunderstanding how to use breakout age, saying things like "Nobody has busted solely from a bad breakout age" which demonstrates a misunderstanding of the concept itself, and then doing your trademark thing where you narrow down a sample size to the point where it's completely useless.

Here's the link: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=203069&hilit=pittma ... 5#p1869129

It's also interesting that you're thumping your chest over breakout age and Aiyuk, when here's how you applied it in that thread:

If you look at the study and focus on the groups with a decent enough sample size (of around 10), we can see where the big dropoffs are;

1st round WR with 20+ breakout age is significantly worse [Drop-off of 40+ percentage points]
-Bad for Ruggs and Aiyuk

Having said that, this is only one time that you got crushed for a bad take here; I know that there are multiple instances of this and I apologize if you were referencing a different one.

Anyways, back to Aiyuk- he's a great example of how to think analytically about players. I was not some Aiyuk truther- I actually didn't really like him as a prospect- but I ended up with multiple shares. Here's why I didn't like him- he's an old prospect with a late breakout age who was a clear second fiddle to a so-far-underwhelming N'Keal Harry. Having said that, here's why I ended up drafting him multiple times: the guy was still a first round pick he had an incredibly unusual profile, and his acquisition cost was a second round pick. Aiyuk was a risky prospect because there's not a track record of guys who have his profile and succeeded, but there's also not a ton of guys with his track record at all, so it's not like there's a track record of failure, either. At his second round price, I thought he was a good pick. It does make me wonder if the community at large isn't using breakout age correctly.

Curious how Aiyuk falling makes you think people are using breakout age incorrectly?

You just said that you yourself were down on him in large part because of his breakout age.

I mostly rely on my own film evaluation, factoring in some of the player profiler type of numbers, and anchored by draft capital. Wound up with Aiyuk in 9/11 leagues simply because I loved his film.

Main knocks I heard on him were non-film related — age, breakout age, playing behind Harry — so curious how you think people were using that information incorrectly when you said you were down on him for those same reasons.

[jetsfan5757]

He fell to me at pick 16 in one league and now he's my WR2 in the semis. I just got lucky...I was not ahead of the curve on him, but the last guy I had my eye on (Higgins) went 15 and it's just hard to turn down a 1st round WR at that stage in the rookie draft.

Same thing happened to me. I wanted Tee Higgins and got Aiyuk instead. Both look good so far...

[OhCruelestRanter]

Curious how Aiyuk falling makes you think people are using breakout age incorrectly?

You just said that you yourself were down on him in large part because of his breakout age.

I mostly rely on my own film evaluation, factoring in some of the player profiler type of numbers, and anchored by draft capital. Wound up with Aiyuk in 9/11 leagues simply because I loved his film.

Main knocks I heard on him were non-film related — age, breakout age, playing behind Harry — so curious how you think people were using that information incorrectly when you said you were down on him for those same reasons.

Fair question- I basically mean that the only factor that's more predictive than breakout age is NFL Draft Capital. Aiyuk was a first round pick, and he went behind guys like Pittman, who had a risky profile as well, and guys like Moss and Vaughn.

Also to be fair, my premise might be incorrect- there's no evidence that Aiyuk dropped because of his breakout age. People could have hated the situation or not liked the player.

[hoos89]

He fell to me at pick 16 in one league and now he's my WR2 in the semis. I just got lucky...I was not ahead of the curve on him, but the last guy I had my eye on (Higgins) went 15 and it's just hard to turn down a 1st round WR at that stage in the rookie draft.

Same thing happened to me. I wanted Tee Higgins and got Aiyuk instead. Both look good so far...

Yeah Aiyuk is not a bad consolation prize...could end up being better than Higgins. I traded up for Higgins in my other league so very happy with that (I'm only in 2 leagues and like to not have too much overlap in my players). Only top 6 rookie WR I don't have a share in is Lamb.

Fair question- I basically mean that the only factor that's more predictive than breakout age is NFL Draft Capital. Aiyuk was a first round pick, and he went behind guys like Pittman, who had a risky profile as well, and guys like Moss and Vaughn.

Also to be fair, my premise might be incorrect- there's no evidence that Aiyuk dropped because of his breakout age. People could have hated the situation or not liked the player.

Probably had as much to do with being the #2 WR behind a major bust as anything else.

[OhCruelestRanter]

I believe someone reviewed that list and some were on there due to incorrect data, I can't remember if I edited the list, but my point still stands. I don't think breakout age is this significant factor we should be putting a ton of weight onto in and of itself.

Again, the only single factor that's more predictive is draft capital.

If a player has a great profile and a bad breakout age, the bad breakout age isn't going to sway me too much whereas you have some people on this site that won't touch a player with a bad breakout age.

Is this really true? I've explained why breakout age matters to a number of people, and I've mentioned multiple times how I've drafted Aiyuk. Are there people here more loudly analytically minded than me saying they won't draft Aiyuk because of his breakout age?

Just this year alone we have Aiyuk and Claypool showing out, both with 21+ breakout ages, both with great profiles except for breakout age.

This is bad analysis. It's not different from saying that James Robinson is showing out despite being draft capital, so draft capital isn't "this significant factor we should be putting a ton of weight onto in and of itself."

I feel like I have to explain this to people every time an analytics discussion comes up, but here we go again: Citing exceptions to a trend does not disprove the trend.

Like I said before, breakout age matters. When somebody has a late breakout, you should ask yourself why. With somebody like Michael Pittman, maybe it was because he was a relatively late comer to the WR position. With somebody like Hakeem Butler, it seems like it was because that dude was only successful once he was older than his competition. For somebody like Aiyuk, with his JuCo path, you can explain it. I was more concerned that he couldn't beat out N'Keal Harry for more reps, frankly. Now I wonder if New England is just misusing Harry.

[Chwf3rd]

I was more concerned that he couldn't beat out N'Keal Harry for more reps, frankly. Now I wonder if New England is just misusing Harry.

Think some context here is needed as well.

N'Keal Harry was a huge recruit -- 5 star guy, #1 WR in the class, #18 overall ranked national recruit -- and was a HUGE get for Arizona St, one of the best recruits they've ever had. Not only that but he played great for the school as well, putting up 82/1141/8 his sophomore year (before Aiyuk came in).

It would be asking A LOT for a JUCO transfer to come in and supplant Harry his first year in the program and Harry's last year at the school.

Interesting side note about Aiyuk -- Alabama actually wanted him to come in as a CB.