Drafting Kenny Clark at age 20, worked out pretty good. Those young players, if they develop early as contributors, can give you 10 good years. Also, they haven't reached their peak, where a 25 year old may be at their peak, and you only get their rookie contract, plus maybe a 1 or 2 years after if you are fortunate. Once you hit 30 yrs. old, that's almost a death sentence to a football players career, and if it takes 2 years to adapt to the NFL, you may only get 2 or 3 good years out of a player that age. I would rather roll the dice on a younger player with huge upside, and hope for 8 years of quality play, than 2-4 with an older player. It is, what it is.
2026 Roster Thread - Semi-Live
- Thread starter tynimiller
- Start date
Pokerbrat2000
Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Bottom line for me. If I am looking at 2 guys with equal experience of starting at the college level and equal talent, most of the time I am drafting the younger guy.
Again, always case dependent due to all sorts of variables to look at with each player, but its no different than I would choose a 30 year old QB over a 35 year old, if everything else was equal.
Again, always case dependent due to all sorts of variables to look at with each player, but its no different than I would choose a 30 year old QB over a 35 year old, if everything else was equal.
I never did understand the taboo against older rookies. “He’s 25! You probably won’t even want to give him a second contract!”
Okay, so? If I get 4-5 really good cheap years out of him from 25-29, is that really a bad thing? Bo Nix has a 5 million dollar cap hit in 2026. Is Bo Nix being 26 hurting the Broncos right now?
There’s advantages and disadvantages to both:
Young draftee - room for growth, might get 10 good years out of the player, but might be a project early on. Also too many people are ignoring the payroll considerations — sure you might get 10 years out of the player but 6 of them might be eating up $40M a year out of your payroll while 4 of them are at $8M a year on the rookie deal, just for an example.
Older draftee - less room for projection and growth, but likely more ready for the NFL and easier to project. Might not improve a ton from their state, but might be startable and a “value” on their rookie contract.
Okay, so? If I get 4-5 really good cheap years out of him from 25-29, is that really a bad thing? Bo Nix has a 5 million dollar cap hit in 2026. Is Bo Nix being 26 hurting the Broncos right now?
There’s advantages and disadvantages to both:
Young draftee - room for growth, might get 10 good years out of the player, but might be a project early on. Also too many people are ignoring the payroll considerations — sure you might get 10 years out of the player but 6 of them might be eating up $40M a year out of your payroll while 4 of them are at $8M a year on the rookie deal, just for an example.
Older draftee - less room for projection and growth, but likely more ready for the NFL and easier to project. Might not improve a ton from their state, but might be startable and a “value” on their rookie contract.
Pkrjones
Cheesehead
100/100 I'd prefer the younger guy, as he most likely hasn't reached his ceiling & is ascending. A 25 year old rookie is most likely at/near his ceiling & you get his descent.
COVID f'd everything up allowing some collegiate players 5 or 6 years eligibility & 25 yr old rookies. Now we can get back to "normal" with mostly 21-23 yr olds entering the draft.
COVID f'd everything up allowing some collegiate players 5 or 6 years eligibility & 25 yr old rookies. Now we can get back to "normal" with mostly 21-23 yr olds entering the draft.
Last edited:
The hard truth about this is that the NFL is structured with a hard cap and even if your projects land perfectly, you cannot get 8-10 years of quality play because even quality players break the bank out after 4 years of even serviceable play and you simply cannot afford to keep all your players for 8-10 years if you’re drafting well.
I mean LVN has been largely considered a disappointment and we are still talking about his $15M option for next year like it is a bargain because that’s the open market prices at work in the NFL.
NFL contracts are structured to be very cheap on rookie deals and then get very expensive after that. Successful teams need to be able to get production from their rookie contract players. It was absolutely a blueprint for both the Seahawks and Patriots last season.
Most NFL players aren’t declining at age 25, they’re still ascending. You’re getting their peak years for cheap as rookies.
CarryTheG14
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2026
- Messages
- 158
- Reaction score
- 118
Excellent move. 20 starts for a swing tackle, I'll take that all day
They still need to come in and learn the system, very few 25 year old draftees are coming in and starting day 1.
That’s what I’m saying. You can’t draft only young projects and expect to keep them all when their rookie contract ends and they get expensive.
Nobody is drafting all young projects, but drafting guys who have that potential isn't a bad thing. LVN has proven he can play in this league, it took a bit with his injuries, but the flashes have been there. He turns 25 this summer, and already knows the NFL game. He was drafted when we had Gary and Preston as starters, and now he is the starter opposite Parsons, and our #1 guy until Micah returns.
gopkrs
Cheesehead
- Joined
- May 12, 2014
- Messages
- 7,783
- Reaction score
- 2,744
Well said
gopkrs
Cheesehead
- Joined
- May 12, 2014
- Messages
- 7,783
- Reaction score
- 2,744
The thing about ceilings of a bit older draftee. I don't buy it. The jump from college to pro can be big, especially if you come from a smaller school. There will probably be improvement for all. I don't think you can say that the old man of 24 or 25 years has reached his peak.
gopkrs
Cheesehead
- Joined
- May 12, 2014
- Messages
- 7,783
- Reaction score
- 2,744
For me, we could have done a lot better. Upside after 4 years for a number 1 pick is not optimum. For any pick really.
Everyone likes potential. But if your day 1 picks are following a trend of taking 2-4 years to reach their potential, is that really a great return on investment?
Hind site is 20/20, I don't think they/we envisioned all the injuries he has had. Without the injuries, I think we aren't questioning him right now, and feel completely different about him. He was very impactful last year, when he was healthy... his 3rd year in GB.
Last edited:
Pokerbrat2000
Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
You must be logged in to see this image or video!
Pokerbrat2000
Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
I guess one could argue that a 30 year old player who has reached their ceiling, is a known commodity and thus paid on that skill set. Contractually that is "less risky". Now the problem with contracts with an older player, are you paying for their high end value and now maybe their skillset is in decline?
Teams often dole out second contracts to younger players based off of projected ceilings. This is where the rub comes in of signing players who should be ascending, but very well might not. Teams are trying to bank on a players future potential, then again so is the player and his agent.
I actually think this is an area where Gute sometimes shows a weakness. That weakness is doubling down on his higher picks with 2nd contracts because he thinks they should be better in years 5-8, simply because he invested a high pick in that player. LVN and Enagbare are 2 most recent examples of this. LVN a 1st round pick in 2023, Enagbare a 5th round pick in 2022. Gute let KE walk and pick up a $10M contract with the Jets. Gute has already decided LVN deserves a 5th year at $14.5M. I hope Gute is right and LVN has way more upside than KE, but I will say this, KE has stayed healthier, that should be a factor. KE also has 1896 snaps played in Green Bay VS LVN's 1056 snaps.
Pokerbrat2000
Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
On another note, what are folks thoughts on Chase Claypool?
Would you be in favor of signing him and if "yes", what should his contract look like?
How would signing him help the Packer receiver room?
How may it hurt the room?
My feeling is if they like him as a team player and he looks solid, I would sign him with low guaranteed money, but a minimum 2 year deal with some incentives. That way if he does work out, he buys you some leverage over having to possibly have to over-pay Watson.
The whole "it would take too many snaps away from this guy or that guy" doesn't work well for me. Earn your snaps in training camp, practices and on the field. I would see Claypool as potentially having the ability of being an upgrade over the Wicks loss and probably being that 4th or 5th WR.
Would you be in favor of signing him and if "yes", what should his contract look like?
How would signing him help the Packer receiver room?
How may it hurt the room?
My feeling is if they like him as a team player and he looks solid, I would sign him with low guaranteed money, but a minimum 2 year deal with some incentives. That way if he does work out, he buys you some leverage over having to possibly have to over-pay Watson.
The whole "it would take too many snaps away from this guy or that guy" doesn't work well for me. Earn your snaps in training camp, practices and on the field. I would see Claypool as potentially having the ability of being an upgrade over the Wicks loss and probably being that 4th or 5th WR.
gopkrs
Cheesehead
- Joined
- May 12, 2014
- Messages
- 7,783
- Reaction score
- 2,744
Luckily, I don't think we need Chasepool. I think a team in our division already gave him a shot. Just one of those nothing to lose moments imho.
Well that 30 year old player is going to come to fruition next year with Devonte Wyatt. We exercised his 5th year option last year, so he will be 29 years old, going into his 2nd contract or FA. What kind of contract will we be willing to offer him? 2 year? 3 yr? Let him walk? I personally don't see a 4 yr deal put on the table.
OldSchool101
Pack
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2014
- Messages
- 21,080
- Reaction score
- 10,849
IMO it’s the Junior season where you expect a production spike. Sure some players start faster, but skill positions take longer to learn. I’ve always thought off Ball LB, RB and some inline blocking TE’s and Hbare easier positions to excel quicker. WR, Flex TE, QB, Edge seems like it take Junior to Senior seasons to pop. We saw that with LVN last year but then he injured his ankle
We’ve also seen this with Brett Favre Aaron Rodgers and Jordan Love and Davante Adams. We were very smart to be patient with those players.
Last edited:
OldSchool101
Pack
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2014
- Messages
- 21,080
- Reaction score
- 10,849
Well J’aire, Stokes, Quay all started year 1
I’d say yes to Love it’s worth the investment waiting. Matter of fact the Vikings could take a page out of our employee handbook. I’d say Wyatt was worth waiting a year also. I see no problem with him.
Rashan got behind ZaDarius and Preston but you could argue that 5 years he played as a FT starter. We don’t know with Golden because he hasn’t played in his 2nd season yet. Chances are he’s a yes on worth investment wait.
Really the only players you can really argue might not be worth waiting for are Morgan and Van Ness (but Morgan also missed his entire Rookie season). It’s entirely possible he would’ve won a starting role faster but he injured. Yet you could arguable slide him to questionable. College Sophomore Lukas Van Ness is the only solid player you can definitively argue was not worth his draft placement (yet). He’s also the only true projection type after Barely seeing the field before being drafted.
Are 2 players a trend? Out of 6 qualifier? (excluding Golden and Cisse because jury is out). I’d give you Lukas but he is closer to anomoly than a trend in GB to not recover investments on Day 1’s. See I don’t agree with you saying it’s a trend that we don’t recover investment until it’s too late. I flat out disagree with the basis of that question with all due respect it’s a form of leading.
Last edited:
Similar threads
