Jump to content

OP31 Investigative Footballism Files: Aaron Jones Second Contract


MacReady

Recommended Posts

OP31 Investigative Footballism

8HtX.gif

37427fcb5e10b136c6299eaec15097ce157663ef

giphy.gif

woodward-bernstein-redford-hoffman-all-t

This is the first in a series of Investigative Footbalism where Outpost31 breaks football and comes up with all the answers.

 

 

I used Pro Football Reference.

I narrowed it down from ALL running backs drafted from 2000 - 2019.

I then collected some data based on where the running back was in their career.  First year, second year, third year, fourth year...

From 2000 - 2019 there were 376 running backs drafted from the first to the seventh round.  Thus, 376 running backs had a first year.
From 2000 - 2019 there were 318 running backs in their second year.  Meaning 58 running backs did not make it into their second year.
From 2000 - 2019 there were 253 running backs in their third year.  Meaning 123 running backs did not make it into their third year.
From 2000 - 2019 there were 204 running backs in their fourth year.  Meaning 172 running backs did not make it into their fourth year.
From 2000 - 2019 there were 156 running backs in their fifth year.  Meaning 220 running backs did not make it into their fifth year.
From 2000 - 2019 there were 108 running backs in their sixth year.  Meaning 268 running backs did not make it into their sixth year.
From 2000 - 2019 there were 86 running backs in their seventh year.  Meaning 290 running backs did not make it into their seventh year.
From 2000 - 2019 there were 54 running backs in their eighth year.  Meaning 322 running backs did not make it into their eighth year.
From 2000 - 2019 there were 40 running backs in their ninth year.  Meaning 336 running backs did not make it into their ninth year.
From 2000 - 2019 there were 21 running backs in their ninth year.
From 2000 - 2019 there were 13 running backs in their ninth year.

As far as how well they did...

First year:
95 had over 500 rushing yards
43 had over 800 rushing yards
26 had over 1,000 rushing yards

Second year:
99 had over 500 rushing yards
52 had over 800 rushing yards
38 had over 1,000 rushing yards

Third year:
90 had over 500 rushing yards
54 had over 800 rushing yards
41 had over 1,000 rushing yards

Fourth year:
68 had over 500 rushing yards
46 had over 800 rushing yards
26 had over 1,000 rushing yards

Fifth year:
52 had over 500 rushing yards
33 had over 800 rushing yards
24 had over 1,000 rushing yards

Sixth year:
52 had over 500 rushing yards
31 had over 800 rushing yards
23 had over 1,000 rushing yards

Seventh year:
34 had over 500 rushing yards
20 had over 800 rushing yards
14 had over 1,000 rushing yards

Eighth year:
19 had over 500 rushing yards
16 had over 800 rushing yards
11 had over 1,000 rushing yards

Aaron Jones is entering his fourth year.  Historically, the biggest drop in production is from the third year to the fourth year. 
Historically, 58% of running backs in this era of football don't even make it to their 5th year. 
72% don't make it to their 6th year. 

BUT...

35% of third year running backs have at least 500 yards
21% over 800
16% over 1,000

4th year
33% have over 500
22% over 800
13% over 1,000

Then there comes the 5th year:
33% over 500
20% over 800
15% 1,000

Then comes the 6th year:
48% over 500 yards
30% over 800 yards
21% over 1,000 yards

7th year:
39% over 500 yards
23% over 800 yards
16% over 1,000 yards

As you can see, the numbers actually get BETTER from the 5th year to the 6th year. 

In conclusion, based on the history of the past two decades, the best option is to extend Jones to a 4 year extension so that his contract year comes up in historically the biggest drop off point for veteran running backs. 

With any contract extension, it's likely that the contract will make a final year cut easy with a minimal dead cap.  If Jones heads into his 7th season off a strong performance you keep him, if he falters a bit you get rid of him. 

Conclusion:

The numbers really don't suggest that a second contract for a running back is a bad thing.  It's the third contract for a running back that kills you.  Of course this depends on the contract.  You can overspend on any position, but there is no compelling evidence to suggest that a running back can't be effective into their seventh year. 

 

 

Edited by Outpost31
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jones is in his 4th year but has had only 1 year of significant touches with 230+ carries and 49 receptions.   If he repeats his usage from this year he's still only 26 with two years of appreciable usage.   I would think he would still have some tread.    He's improved greatly in the passing game and I expect that to continue.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So presumably this says ...  wait until after his 4th season to see if he has a 4th season slump. Don't extend early. Why is the 4th season slump ?  Purely wear and tear ?  At this age, the guy should be at his physical peak and have the benefit of playing in the NFL for three years to find out how to win. 

What would be useful statistically would be to see how directly the 4th year slump directly correlates to the heavy usage guys. You assume it would but confirmation bias might skew memories. The low usage thing might actually work against the case for extending Jones. It might be that without as much wear and tear,  the 4th year slump happens in the 5th year instead so you can't just wait to see if he gets past the 4th year.

Ultimately though it comes down to how much you think RBs are plug and perform. Even if Jones still performs for seven years, maybe the money could be better spent. If you do sign him up, you would also need a good second option to spell him a lot to make sure he doesn't burn out too early.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, mikemike778 said:

So presumably this says ...  wait until after his 4th season to see if he has a 4th season slump. Don't extend early. Why is the 4th season slump ?  Purely wear and tear ?  At this age, the guy should be at his physical peak and have the benefit of playing in the NFL for three years to find out how to win. 

What would be useful statistically would be to see how directly the 4th year slump directly correlates to the heavy usage guys. You assume it would but confirmation bias might skew memories. The low usage thing might actually work against the case for extending Jones. It might be that without as much wear and tear,  the 4th year slump happens in the 5th year instead so you can't just wait to see if he gets past the 4th year.

Ultimately though it comes down to how much you think RBs are plug and perform. Even if Jones still performs for seven years, maybe the money could be better spent. If you do sign him up, you would also need a good second option to spell him a lot to make sure he doesn't burn out too early.

Another thing to consider is that it's usage from the staff.  Fourth year is typically contract years, so maybe teams are trying to hamper their bargaining chips and negotiations.

Also, 4th year is typically the year you see holdouts and missed camps, so that might effect it, too.

That's the problem with numbers... There's a lot that can explain them. 

I like numbers and drawing conclusions from numbers.  I know I'm not always right on the reasons, but when history continues backing certain things up (WR value, QB contracts, etc), I tend to buy into that. 

What history is showing me now is that for some reason, history is showing that the most significant drops in RB production is the drop from year three to year four and the drop from year 7 on.

I'm not sure on the reason for the first drop (I think contract squabbles is the best explanation), but I'm pretty certain that the drop from 6-8 is age and physical toll, which suggests that there's still value in an extension, but not a new contract, and certainly no contracts that bring a RB past their 7th year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Kampfgeist said:

Jones is in his 4th year but has had only 1 year of significant touches with 230+ carries and 49 receptions.   If he repeats his usage from this year he's still only 26 with two years of appreciable usage.   I would think he would still have some tread.    He's improved greatly in the passing game and I expect that to continue.  

First, bear in mind that it was announced almost immediately after the season that the organization was going to meet with Aaron regarding his contract so there's definitely something to debate in regards to what happens with his contract. It's a pity the news died shortly thereafter.

That said, the quote is literally where I am and I think the team will give him, I am assuming, a 3 year extension with a club option for a fourth year. This would allow us to get maximum usage from him knowing that there is plenty of tread left on the tire, but that Jones will be a key component of the offense moving forward. The big question becomes Jamaal Williams and, loosely related, Dexter Williams and what the role of RB2(whoever it is) may be moving forward. We're not going to go with a 1 stud back, but it's very clear that we're going to lean on Jones a lot and build our passing game through what Jones is able to provide week-to-week.

With that in tow, I suspect that the draft will reflect that and to the chagrin of many, we may hold off on WR depending on how the board falls OR we use our first pick on a WR and then wait to possibly double-dip until Day 3. Personally, I want to see us take AJ Dillon in the 3rd round even though it's a bit of a reach. Dillon is a power back with speed and production that would be a great change-of-pace that we expect from Jamaal Williams. If we could get a combination of the following in the first four rounds, I'd be sooooo happy: Jefferson, Reagor, Davis, Madubuike, Charles, T. Lewis, Dillon, Claypool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does make sense that RBs get better year 5 and 6. After year 4 rookie contracts are up. Generally if a player makes it to year 5, that means he was considered worth paying and probably like 26-28 which is  the athletic prime for RBs.

I'm personally not against paying Jones something.  It has to be smart though. No more than 3 years and like 8.5M a year. To get his plus level production, we'd need to burn resources (probably like the equivalent of a second round pick). I've posted this before but if you look at our draft history of RBs the last 2 decades, you have 2 plus guys when healthy (Lacy/Jones) and a lot of Jags/busts. You can find production in guys like Starks, Williams, Montgomery, etc pretty easy. Finding plus production isn't that easy though and there is value in not burning picks on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Addendum:

33/40 of the league's leading rushers the past 4 years have been under 26 years old.

If you want the best at RB, you need the youngest at RB.

You can still get good production out of an older RB, but it's rare to get the best while paying the best.

Best value at RB is 4 years on a rookie deal, trade, repeat.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

The wear and tear on RBs is only part of the problem.

The bigger problem is their value over a replacement level substitute. 

Yep.  I’d say if there was a chart that showed value relative to age, RB would be the lowest in the entire NFL.

A 3 year extension for Jones that’s tight between Ekeler and McCaffrey we can survive though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

Yep.  I’d say if there was a chart that showed value relative to age, RB would be the lowest in the entire NFL.

A 3 year extension for Jones that’s tight between Ekeler and McCaffrey we can survive though.

It has nothing to do with age. 

It has everything to do with RB being the 8th most important offensive player on the field when it comes to running the ball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

It has nothing to do with age. 

It has everything to do with RB being the 8th most important offensive player on the field when it comes to running the ball.

..which is why I seriously think we're more interested in getting that OL figured out over the long-term and will use one of our first three picks on an OT in particular. WR and IDL will be the other two unless the right CB or ILB falls. I'd be shocked if we drafted a TE at all, let alone one before the 6th round; and EDGE before Day 3.

Edited by Joe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Outpost31 said:

Then there comes the 5th year:

33% over 500
20% over 800
15% 1,000

Then comes the 6th year:
48% over 500 yards
30% over 800 yards
21% over 1,000 yards

7th year:
39% over 500 yards
23% over 800 yards
16% over 1,000 yards

As you can see, the numbers actually get BETTER from the 5th year to the 6th year.

I'd caution that this doesn't necessarily mean that individual players are performing better after year 5. This could just as well be a case of survivorship bias. Legitimately good running backs are continuing their performance, while some of those who rode for 4 years behind a good line then got scooped up on a trial basis in FA aren't getting the start their second year into that contract. Or at least that's one possible version of the story.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Cakeshoppe said:

I'd caution that this doesn't necessarily mean that individual players are performing better after year 5. This could just as well be a case of survivorship bias. Legitimately good running backs are continuing their performance, while some of those who rode for 4 years behind a good line then got scooped up on a trial basis in FA aren't getting the start their second year into that contract. Or at least that's one possible version of the story.

Yep, I’ve already stated a couple times that there could be a bunch of different reasons for the numbers, but I think it’s still meaningful that if a RB survives to their 5th year, lots of 5th year backs are still having success.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...