Counting on Rookies - New England Patriots Forums

***AndyJohnson*** · 09-04-2008, 08:51 AM

There is a lot of talk about the uncertainty of counting on rookies such as Mayo and Wheatley and how disasterously dangerous that could be.
I am not going to make a point here but ask a question.

Please list 2 things in this thread:

1) All of the rookies that BB has given an important role to (starter or backup with a lot of pt) that have succeeded.
2) All of the rookies that BB has given an important role to that failed.

When the list is complete, please not the following:
How many rookies BB HAS relied on (I think the result will be a lot more than common perception) and what the success rate has been (again I think much better than common perception)

My instinct is that the general feeling is that BB avoids using rookies like the plague, and any team that relies on a rookie is basically screwed. I think the results of this thread will be enlgihtening.

naclone · 09-04-2008, 08:56 AM

in 2003 BB released Milloy a few days before the season and was relying on Geno and Assante.

My recollection is that it worked out to our satisfaction.

Lockdown06 · 09-04-2008, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyJohnson

There is a lot of talk about the uncertainty of counting on rookies such as Mayo and Wheatley and how disasterously dangerous that could be.
I am not going to make a point here but ask a question.

Please list 2 things in this thread:

1) All of the rookies that BB has given an important role to (starter or backup with a lot of pt) that have succeeded.
2) All of the rookies that BB has given an important role to that failed.

When the list is complete, please not the following:
How many rookies BB HAS relied on (I think the result will be a lot more than common perception) and what the success rate has been (again I think much better than common perception)

My instinct is that the general feeling is that BB avoids using rookies like the plague, and any team that relies on a rookie is basically screwed. I think the results of this thread will be enlgihtening.

I'm pretty sure Seymour started right away, others that come to mind are samuel, mankins, watson (but he broke his leg in the first game) I'm not sure if Light and Koppen did. Kaczur i know got time right away.

AllabouttheVinces · 09-04-2008, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyJohnson

There is a lot of talk about the uncertainty of counting on rookies such as Mayo and Wheatley and how disasterously dangerous that could be.
I am not going to make a point here but ask a question.

Please list 2 things in this thread:

1) All of the rookies that BB has given an important role to (starter or backup with a lot of pt) that have succeeded.
2) All of the rookies that BB has given an important role to that failed.

When the list is complete, please not the following:
How many rookies BB HAS relied on (I think the result will be a lot more than common perception) and what the success rate has been (again I think much better than common perception)

My instinct is that the general feeling is that BB avoids using rookies like the plague, and any team that relies on a rookie is basically screwed. I think the results of this thread will be enlgihtening.

OK, now list:

1) All the rookie CBs who started Wk1 in the BB era.
2) All the rookie LBs who started a single game in the BB era.

That would be none and none. We are in uncharted water.

As we have all agreed in many threads over the yrs, it takes time to learn the Pats defense. These guys will be learning on the job. Rookies make mistakes, and they will make their share. I'm not predicting disaster, I'm predicting a step back from the amazing season that was '07. There has been a talent drain that was replaced by rookies. The rookies will take time to grow.

xmarkd400x · 09-04-2008, 09:06 AM

LoMo - Succeeded
Ellis Hobbs - Succeeded
Vince Wilfork - Succeeded

***AndyJohnson*** · 09-04-2008, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lockdown06

I'm pretty sure Seymour started right away, others that come to mind are samuel, mankins, watson (but he broke his leg in the first game) I'm not sure if Light and Koppen did. Kaczur i know got time right away.

Light started right away on a SB Champ, so did Koppen/

***AndyJohnson*** · 09-04-2008, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AllabouttheVinces

OK, now list:

1) All the rookie CBs who started Wk1 in the BB era.
2) All the rookie LBs who started a single game in the BB era.

That would be none and none. We are in uncharted water.

As we have all agreed in many threads over the yrs, it takes time to learn the Pats defense. These guys will be learning on the job. Rookies make mistakes, and they will make their share. I'm not predicting disaster, I'm predicting a step back from the amazing season that was '07. There has been a talent drain that was replaced by rookies. The rookies will take time to grow.

When we are though compiling the list, we can look at how many rookies played on defense in the BB era, and that will probably be more insightful to whether 'it takes time to learn the defense' than saying we have all agreed in many threads. If a lot of rookies have started, and succeeded then I guess 'we have all agreed in many threads over the years' on something that we have 'all' been wrong about.

naclone · 09-04-2008, 09:17 AM

Geno had an interception in week 1 in 2003.

PatsFan37 · 09-04-2008, 09:22 AM

Hobbs didn't start until week 10 of his rookie year.
Samuel only started the Miami game in his rookie year, which was about mid-season.
Geno started right away and did well across from Rodney, a situation forced, as we know, by cutting Milloy.

I don't have time to look up any others. Happy to hear the results from other posters.

My sense is that Belichick prefers to have a veteran in front of a rookie, so the rookie can be eased into the game, but he will play the rookie if the veteran doesn't work out. Bryant comes to mind.

To back up your personal recall, you might want to go to nfl.com, look up the rookie year, and see at what point the player is listed as having started. Better for me, at least, than operating from memory.

I also think it's important to distinguish the round. 1st round picks are expected more often to start right away.

BelizePats · 09-04-2008, 09:29 AM

The reality here is that if rookies start on this team, its because they are ready to. Our interior defense was slow and aging and the AFC Championship game against the Colts and the Superbowl loss to the Giants underscored this to varying degrees. (the extent of which has been debated in many other threads)
BB has to play the hand he's dealt. We're not spending $55 million on Assante and another $50 million on Lance Briggs to fix it. We have to address the issue in the draft and by picking up vets with experience at a reasonable price.
One of the major aspects to the success of this team, that is so frequently overlooked by the basement dwellers on this site is the manamegent of the cap and the influence on the cap that the overall team success over the past 7 years has had. Players move around now like never before. Making the most amount of money is very much a part of the modern players mindset (I'm in no way passing jundment about this. It just is what it is) The Pats cannot pay everyone top dollar, so players leave.
BB and SP have a set value on positions. They have to if they want to properly manage the cap. So when Assante wants 11 million a year, BB knows that he can't pay this because it is out of line with the dollar alotment for the position Samuels plays.
So what do the Pats do? What can they do?
They can draft well and put their rookies in the best possible position to succeed. Relying on rookies is now a reality for all NFL teams, even the Pats. Its part of cap management in todays NFL. Andf some one knows of a tean that does it better, I'd like to hear about it!