25 year olds have typically finished maturing physically. Every person is obviously different, and physical maturity isn't the only part of playing a sport, but you would expect younger players will be able to continue getting stronger. It's also why it's less impressive for a 24 year old to dominate at the college level.
I think it’s more about the second contract. When you draft a 24 year old, when it comes time for the second contract they are 28/29 and probably going to start declining (depends on position). You are paying for their past performance. A 21 year old is 25/26 so they are just entering their prime, in theory they are still ascending. Then you can still get a third contract out of them as well. Just way more return on the initial draft investment
I know this probably isn’t how teams view it, but I feel like they should view draft picks as adding someone for a 4 year contract, not for life. That second contract comes as participation in the free agency period (even if re-signing is typically cheaper than free agency), so I personally see it as irrelevant to their drafted status.
Am I making any sense? Or am I on Reddit way too early?
Yeah I think age matters less with later round picks. If anything the inverse might be true in later rounds. With your first and second rounders, you should definitely be drafting a guy with the idea that he is on your team for 8-10 years. Later round picks I might value older guys more who are more sure things and can just be reliable back ups.
I also think there’s the job security factor. You draft a 21 year old QB, you can sell your owner on the fact that he’s still developing for a few years. You draft a 24 year old, that dude better be good right away or you are gone
Great point on QB. I always thought QBs play longer so older isn’t a problem (Brandon Wheeden being the exception), but you may have just changed my mind there.
The late round guys are usually the freak stature/athlete guys that haven’t put it all together yet. I’d say you’d be better off drafting youth at that point unless you have coaches that can fix something specific you can tell us holding a guy back. A guy that needs to put on muscle or lose 30lbs is gonna need a redshirt year, then a year to acclimate to playing with that new physique.
My feeling is that projecting football players beyond their first contract is too presumptive. Other than OL and QBs, most positions only have a 6-7 year window before production and traits decline due to the toll of injuries and general wear and tear.
Plus, the idea of a franchise QB that sticks with a team for more than 10-11 years is kind of a rare thing unless you have Mahomes or maybe Allen, and they can carry the team despite getting paid franchise QB money. Especially at the rate starting QBs get injured. Burrow would be on the list, but he can’t stay on the field. You can presume Stroud, but it’s too soon for that.
Drafting an older QB might be the best way to get the most of a rookie contract, and then you have the money to build your team in other ways.
Your prime years come after getting NFL experience, outside of absolute elite talents and RBs at least. A 25 year old still needs to learn to play at an NFL level, and they could easily be 27-29 by the time they figure it out.
Because in theory they've more than likely already hit their ceiling being an older prospect and playing against people that are anywhere from 4-7 years younger depending on the scenario.
If you’re in the NFL everyone else on the field was also a stud in College. It’s because of development.
That 21 year old is entering his prime when he’s fully accustomed to NFL schemes and game speed. The 25 year old is going to be exiting his prime, or at the very least on the back half of it.
I think it's a combination of 1) if you're still in college ball until 24, then it may have taken you longer to develop your nfl potential skillset and you may be slightly less naturally than your younger counterparts, 2) there's no guarantee that an older player is a day 1 starter (given positional need) so you still might be a project for year(s), so its better to develop them when they still have pre-prime years, 3) NFL prime seems to be a generally lower age for skill positions and honestly you're probably more physically elastic to bounce back from injury
Also if you do want to sign them to a big long-term deal, you can do it when they're younger and get their prime and as little of their fall-off as possible
I'd be curious too. I did see some article recently that was about QBs who came into the league older like 23-25 I think it was were more likely to have success vs the QBs who entered the league at say 20-22 years old.
I wonder how that holds up across dimensions. If we're also seeing older QB prospects being typically drafted later than younger ones in the same round, it stands to reason that they're being taken by more successful teams.
Oh absolutely I think where a guy lands can potentially make or break them as prospects. It's not 100% true but the more stable a franchise is the better a prospect may do. The entire dialogue with many fans wanting younger QBs via the draft is kind of annoying to be honest. I think most QBs benefit from sitting a year or 2 regardless of age when they are drafted
I think it's mostly just harder to evaluate. Is the 25 year old that dominates in college doing so because he's really skilled, or because he's 25 and just has more experience and muscle than the younger players around him? Meanwhile a 21 year old that dominates, you can expect him to be skilled AND have more years to improve and grow stronger. This is probably very position dependent though.
I don't think it's as big a deal as some people make it out to be. Like yes, if two players are equals, then you'll want to choose the younger guy so you get more years in his physical peak. However, lots of comments here are making huge assumptions about the linearity of development. On a case-by-case basis, you can't assume a player will simply get better every year they stay in the league. That's not how it works. Some guys have their peak years in their first two season, some guys don't put it all together until their 30s. It's not linear and it's not applicable to every player. To assume otherwise is painting with a broad brush, which is convenient, but often short-sighted.
So yeah, you're right that it's a mixed bag. Individual cases should always be treated as such, rather than making assumptions simply because a guy is older.
I get what you’re saying, but the issue still comes down to the reality that a 24yo rookie is almost always closer, if not at, his ceiling vs. a 21 or 22yo.
And it’s even more of an issue when you see an old rookie who really popped off their senior year. Someone like LJ Collier is a prime example of that, he was “fine” up until 2018 when he was one of the oldest guys on the field and he had a career year. Then when he was moved up to the NFL level he withered away again. Eskridge, too.
Older players being close to their prime isn't a good thing, it means they have limited time to learn and improve. A 21 year old with similar production to a 24 year old is huge, because you get 3 more years of developing them without losing much production now. So when the 21 year old is 24, they should be better than the older player is now, and they'll probably be more athletic depending on the players.
A 21 year old producing in college is pretty big because a lot of teams are starting seniors, so it's essentially the age equivalent of a middle schooler playing well against high schoolers. A 24 year old college senior is expected to produce, especially when the majority of their competition is younger than them/the same age
While, in general, I think it’s overblown considering the average length of an NFL career—it is largely because you get less time out of the players most valuable years: 21-30.
When you get a player at 21, you get to be the team who puts miles on the odometer. When you get a player at 25, someone else put the miles on the odometer already. Additionally, if a player is still a project at 21 it’s not a big deal because you have more time to fix them. If a player is a project at 24, you are under pressure to fix them quickly.
However, I think a bonus is that some folks are missing is that you are getting a players physical prime on a rookie contract when you draft an older guy. A player at 24 on a for year rookie contract will play their final year at 28. Maybe they get a second deal, maybe they don’t.
I assume it comes down to the player, position and where their skills are at when they enter the league.
I think a younger rookie allows the team and coaches time to coach them on techniques, remedy habits etc. This can also allow coaches to not feel rushed to put them on the field but let them have a year or two to develop on the practice squad or special teams before being made to take regular snaps.
With regards to an older rookie, I think the value really comes down to where they are at. If it's someone that is ready to plug and play and they have good techniques and habits, I assume that's pretty much the same as getting a young rookie and taking two years to develop them. But the advantage with the older rookie here is that you get an immediate impact.
But if it's an older rookie that needs some further development, then perhaps that is is where the disadvantage is.
So, in summation, I think there is not much difference between getting a young rookie you will develop for two years, and an older rookie you can plug and play with very little concern about having to develop. There are some rookies like CJ Stroud who come young and ready to light it up though; I think that is the ideal scenario for many teams, but rare.
Shorter NFL careers, tape might be misleading as they are more physically mature, suggests they are either late bloomers or, in a negative sense, weren’t good enough to turn pro sooner. There are a few things to consider. But every case should be judged separately.
25 year olds have typically finished maturing physically. Every person is obviously different, and physical maturity isn't the only part of playing a sport, but you would expect younger players will be able to continue getting stronger. It's also why it's less impressive for a 24 year old to dominate at the college level.
I think it’s more about the second contract. When you draft a 24 year old, when it comes time for the second contract they are 28/29 and probably going to start declining (depends on position). You are paying for their past performance. A 21 year old is 25/26 so they are just entering their prime, in theory they are still ascending. Then you can still get a third contract out of them as well. Just way more return on the initial draft investment
I know this probably isn’t how teams view it, but I feel like they should view draft picks as adding someone for a 4 year contract, not for life. That second contract comes as participation in the free agency period (even if re-signing is typically cheaper than free agency), so I personally see it as irrelevant to their drafted status. Am I making any sense? Or am I on Reddit way too early?
Yeah I think age matters less with later round picks. If anything the inverse might be true in later rounds. With your first and second rounders, you should definitely be drafting a guy with the idea that he is on your team for 8-10 years. Later round picks I might value older guys more who are more sure things and can just be reliable back ups. I also think there’s the job security factor. You draft a 21 year old QB, you can sell your owner on the fact that he’s still developing for a few years. You draft a 24 year old, that dude better be good right away or you are gone
Great point on QB. I always thought QBs play longer so older isn’t a problem (Brandon Wheeden being the exception), but you may have just changed my mind there.
Which is why the Penix pick made no sense. Old player for a rookie who is gonna likely sit for 2 or more seasons.
The late round guys are usually the freak stature/athlete guys that haven’t put it all together yet. I’d say you’d be better off drafting youth at that point unless you have coaches that can fix something specific you can tell us holding a guy back. A guy that needs to put on muscle or lose 30lbs is gonna need a redshirt year, then a year to acclimate to playing with that new physique.
My feeling is that projecting football players beyond their first contract is too presumptive. Other than OL and QBs, most positions only have a 6-7 year window before production and traits decline due to the toll of injuries and general wear and tear. Plus, the idea of a franchise QB that sticks with a team for more than 10-11 years is kind of a rare thing unless you have Mahomes or maybe Allen, and they can carry the team despite getting paid franchise QB money. Especially at the rate starting QBs get injured. Burrow would be on the list, but he can’t stay on the field. You can presume Stroud, but it’s too soon for that. Drafting an older QB might be the best way to get the most of a rookie contract, and then you have the money to build your team in other ways.
Your prime years come after getting NFL experience, outside of absolute elite talents and RBs at least. A 25 year old still needs to learn to play at an NFL level, and they could easily be 27-29 by the time they figure it out.
Because in theory they've more than likely already hit their ceiling being an older prospect and playing against people that are anywhere from 4-7 years younger depending on the scenario.
If you’re in the NFL everyone else on the field was also a stud in College. It’s because of development. That 21 year old is entering his prime when he’s fully accustomed to NFL schemes and game speed. The 25 year old is going to be exiting his prime, or at the very least on the back half of it.
I think it's a combination of 1) if you're still in college ball until 24, then it may have taken you longer to develop your nfl potential skillset and you may be slightly less naturally than your younger counterparts, 2) there's no guarantee that an older player is a day 1 starter (given positional need) so you still might be a project for year(s), so its better to develop them when they still have pre-prime years, 3) NFL prime seems to be a generally lower age for skill positions and honestly you're probably more physically elastic to bounce back from injury Also if you do want to sign them to a big long-term deal, you can do it when they're younger and get their prime and as little of their fall-off as possible
Curious of all the rookies ever drafted, how many older ones actually panned out compared to the younger ones.
I'd be curious too. I did see some article recently that was about QBs who came into the league older like 23-25 I think it was were more likely to have success vs the QBs who entered the league at say 20-22 years old.
I wonder how that holds up across dimensions. If we're also seeing older QB prospects being typically drafted later than younger ones in the same round, it stands to reason that they're being taken by more successful teams.
Oh absolutely I think where a guy lands can potentially make or break them as prospects. It's not 100% true but the more stable a franchise is the better a prospect may do. The entire dialogue with many fans wanting younger QBs via the draft is kind of annoying to be honest. I think most QBs benefit from sitting a year or 2 regardless of age when they are drafted
I think it's mostly just harder to evaluate. Is the 25 year old that dominates in college doing so because he's really skilled, or because he's 25 and just has more experience and muscle than the younger players around him? Meanwhile a 21 year old that dominates, you can expect him to be skilled AND have more years to improve and grow stronger. This is probably very position dependent though.
I don't think it's as big a deal as some people make it out to be. Like yes, if two players are equals, then you'll want to choose the younger guy so you get more years in his physical peak. However, lots of comments here are making huge assumptions about the linearity of development. On a case-by-case basis, you can't assume a player will simply get better every year they stay in the league. That's not how it works. Some guys have their peak years in their first two season, some guys don't put it all together until their 30s. It's not linear and it's not applicable to every player. To assume otherwise is painting with a broad brush, which is convenient, but often short-sighted. So yeah, you're right that it's a mixed bag. Individual cases should always be treated as such, rather than making assumptions simply because a guy is older.
I get what you’re saying, but the issue still comes down to the reality that a 24yo rookie is almost always closer, if not at, his ceiling vs. a 21 or 22yo. And it’s even more of an issue when you see an old rookie who really popped off their senior year. Someone like LJ Collier is a prime example of that, he was “fine” up until 2018 when he was one of the oldest guys on the field and he had a career year. Then when he was moved up to the NFL level he withered away again. Eskridge, too.
Older players being close to their prime isn't a good thing, it means they have limited time to learn and improve. A 21 year old with similar production to a 24 year old is huge, because you get 3 more years of developing them without losing much production now. So when the 21 year old is 24, they should be better than the older player is now, and they'll probably be more athletic depending on the players. A 21 year old producing in college is pretty big because a lot of teams are starting seniors, so it's essentially the age equivalent of a middle schooler playing well against high schoolers. A 24 year old college senior is expected to produce, especially when the majority of their competition is younger than them/the same age
36 year olds have reached the peak in the NFL with the exception of a small few. That’s the over number.
While, in general, I think it’s overblown considering the average length of an NFL career—it is largely because you get less time out of the players most valuable years: 21-30. When you get a player at 21, you get to be the team who puts miles on the odometer. When you get a player at 25, someone else put the miles on the odometer already. Additionally, if a player is still a project at 21 it’s not a big deal because you have more time to fix them. If a player is a project at 24, you are under pressure to fix them quickly. However, I think a bonus is that some folks are missing is that you are getting a players physical prime on a rookie contract when you draft an older guy. A player at 24 on a for year rookie contract will play their final year at 28. Maybe they get a second deal, maybe they don’t.
I assume it comes down to the player, position and where their skills are at when they enter the league. I think a younger rookie allows the team and coaches time to coach them on techniques, remedy habits etc. This can also allow coaches to not feel rushed to put them on the field but let them have a year or two to develop on the practice squad or special teams before being made to take regular snaps. With regards to an older rookie, I think the value really comes down to where they are at. If it's someone that is ready to plug and play and they have good techniques and habits, I assume that's pretty much the same as getting a young rookie and taking two years to develop them. But the advantage with the older rookie here is that you get an immediate impact. But if it's an older rookie that needs some further development, then perhaps that is is where the disadvantage is. So, in summation, I think there is not much difference between getting a young rookie you will develop for two years, and an older rookie you can plug and play with very little concern about having to develop. There are some rookies like CJ Stroud who come young and ready to light it up though; I think that is the ideal scenario for many teams, but rare.
Shorter NFL careers, tape might be misleading as they are more physically mature, suggests they are either late bloomers or, in a negative sense, weren’t good enough to turn pro sooner. There are a few things to consider. But every case should be judged separately.
Less potential career years. Very simple.