Counting on Rookies

[moss4ever]

I agree. The team needed to get faster and younger, and the best way to do that is to have a lot of starters be rookies.

 

[emoney_33]

I agree. The team needed to get faster and younger, and the best way to do that is to have a lot of starters be rookies.

Yea 2/22 = a lot, or just defense 2/11 = a lot, a ton, a HUUUUGE amount.

 

[Frezo]

2 could easily be addressed by also mentioning that the Belichick Pats have never drafted a LB who anywhere near Mayo's potential and talent coming right out of the gate. Rather than assuming the negative, you have to at least acknowledge the possibility that maybe Wheatley and Mayo are starting where rookies haven't in the past because they're far better, at this point, than any other rookie that we've had at their position has been.

As was opined by others here, it's probable that BB hired Hobson with the intent of starting him inside. It's possible that Mayo is starting based on the belief that a fast, inexperienced Mayo is better than a slow, experienced Seau. That's a tribute to Mayo, but I do feel better knowing that Seau is only a call away. The failure of Hobson cost me some comfort at the ILB position. At the time he looked like a good pickup.

 

[alvinnf]

As was opined by others here, it's probable that BB hired Hobson with the intent of starting him inside. It's possible that Mayo is starting based on the belief that a fast, inexperienced Mayo is better than a slow, experienced Seau. That's a tribute to Mayo, but I do feel better knowing that Seau is only a call away. The failure of Hobson cost me some comfort at the ILB position. At the time he looked like a good pickup.

For me the one wild card is Mayo, I really don't have a handle on how good he is.... I know everyone is saying he looks great and they like. I don't know, I have seen him give ground or get sealed inside while flowing to the ball, he has only seemed physical with the guards when he was mainlining it to the backfield. Now in fairness to him they have been playing deep off the ball, they must just be letting him get his eyes under him, so to speak.
I will now brace myself for the barage of criticism.....

 

[D-cleater]

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

You sure? I recall that Koppen stepped in when the LG went down due to injury and Woody replaced him. Woody started at Center when Koppen was a rookie

 

[D-cleater]

I disagree on Wilfork, I think he played well as a rookie, and we won a SB that year.
Seymour started as a rookie and played, IMO, at a probowl level - agreed
Light started as a rookie, and played well (we won the SB) - agreed
Warren started in his rookie season at NT and played well. - Disagree - Warren backed up Hamilton at LE. Klecko backed up the NT and got pushed around
Wilson started as a rookie, and Samuel was the nickel, on a SB champ. - Agreed
Maroney equally shared time with Dillon and did not struggle. Disagree - Maroney was hardly effective his first year, reported to be in BB's doghouse
Branch did not struggle. Agreed. I think you can add Graham and Green from this draft class as well
Koppen started day 1 and did not struggle. Disagree - Koppen started as a backup and came in as an injury replacement
I am having a hard time finding the rookie BB put on the field that didnt play well.

Jackson, Dexter Reid, Lua didn't play well. Not to many rookies saw significant playing time and didn't contribute. I'm not sure how many were counted on in a starting role on day one however, outside of Seymour, Light, Mankins, and I guess Wilson although he started in week two.

 

[JoePats]

You sure? I recall that Koppen stepped in when the LG went down due to injury and Woody replaced him. Woody started at Center when Koppen was a rookie

I think Woody got hurt in week 1 and Koppen played from week 2 through the Super Bowl. So technically he wasn't the opening day starter but he did play significantly as a rookie 5th rounder and was certainly up to the task.

 

[jeffbiologist]

Interesting statistic: on the average 3% of rookies start game 1. Of the 704 starters this year 25 are rookies(yes, 3%). This doesnt include guys like DMF, Gholston, Stewart or guys that will get alot of reps,just full time guys. We are the only winning team starting more than 1, and 2/11 on D=18%---thats 6x higher than a "average" team...The only other starting CB is Flowers on KC, the only other LB is Lofton on ATL.

 

[Lansdowne]

I believe Antwan Harris started at FS in Week 1 in 2003, with Eugene Wilson taking over soon after.

 

[patchick]

Interesting statistic: on the average 3% of rookies start game 1. Of the 704 starters this year 25 are rookies(yes, 3%). This doesnt include guys like DMF, Gholston, Stewart or guys that will get alot of reps,just full time guys. We are the only winning team starting more than 1, and 2/11 on D=18%---thats 6x higher than a "average" team...The only other starting CB is Flowers on KC, the only other LB is Lofton on ATL.

Jeff, can you give a source for these stats? On the face of it they seem frankly nonsensical. For instance you say that 25 rookies are starting around the league, but that only 3% of rookies start. 25 = 10% of rookies, not 3%.

(And of course, that includes everybody down through 7th round comp picks. What percentage of 1st-round picks start? And the ones that don't, especially high picks, are doubtless giving their fans fits. Here we are complaining that our top two picks looked good enough from day 1 to beat out veterans! Talk about high-class problems. )

 

[Ring 6]

We didn't count of many that you list from Day One, perhaps Green and Wilson. I note the absense of Gay from your list.

But you and I are in general agreement. It is only a matter of timing. Belichick often expects/needs rookies to contribute by mid-season of their rookie years, certainly for the playoff run.

And ultimately its the same thing. I dont think we are real worried abuot making the playoffs, so if we need the by the end of the year, we might as well need them at the start.

 

[Ring 6]

For me the one wild card is Mayo, I really don't have a handle on how good he is.... I know everyone is saying he looks great and they like. I don't know, I have seen him give ground or get sealed inside while flowing to the ball, he has only seemed physical with the guards when he was mainlining it to the backfield. Now in fairness to him they have been playing deep off the ball, they must just be letting him get his eyes under him, so to speak.
I will now brace myself for the barage of criticism.....

This is a great point raised.
I think that we need to recognize what a reasonable expectation is.
ILB are going to get blocked by Gs A LOT. They will get sealed inside, they will ABSOLUTELY give ground.
We are asking a 250lb or so LB to take on a 300+lb G. It is a mismatch by definition.
If our defenses success or failure depended solely on ILBs not getting effectively blocked by Gs, we would allow 50 points a game with any ILBs in the NFL.

The ILB in the 2 gap system is repsonsible for the c/g and g/t gaps on his side, when the play is run there. HOWEVER THE NT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE C/G GAP AND THE DE IS RESPOSIBLE FOR THE G/T GAP ALSO. The OLB and offside ILB will also flow to the ball when it is run in those gaps, and the safeties will come up.
In other words, the ILB SHARES resposnibility for his gap equally with another player. It is not necessary for the LB to 'unblockable' by a G. In fact, every ILB in the NFL is VERY BLOCKABLE by a G. The job of the ILB is to play off the block, try to maintain postioning and be part of the play.

Too many times the job of the ILB is described as it the play is a G, and ILB and a RB, and the ILB must destroy the G and make the tackle. Thats just not the case.

If you expect any ILB to 'win the battle with the G' half the time, or expect that when you see him blocked on plays that makes him bad because he never should be, your expectations are unrealistic.
This is not a Jimmy Johnson defense where a MLB is never supposed to get blocked because the other players tie up blockers. You will never see our LBs running free to the ball, and you will always see them losing battles with Gs, because its unreasonable to expect them to not lose a good amount of them. Getting blocked by a G does not mean the ILB didn't do his job. In fact, his job is to ENGAGE the blocker and keep 2 gap discipline. If he AVOIDS the G he loses 2 gap discipline, create a cutback seem, and failed to do his job.

 

[Ring 6]

Jackson, Dexter Reid, Lua didn't play well. Not to many rookies saw significant playing time and didn't contribute. I'm not sure how many were counted on in a starting role on day one however, outside of Seymour, Light, Mankins, and I guess Wilson although he started in week two.

Warren STARTED AT NT WHEN Ted Washington was injured for over half the season.
Maroney ran for over 700 yards and had a higher rushing average than Dillon. He played as much or more than Dillon all year. I don't know what doghouse you think a player is in when he plays all the time.

Jackson hardly played, and didn't do poorly when he did. Dexter Reid? He pretty much played special teams only.
Lua waqs never on the roster.

 

[JSn]

What do you think the odds are we'll see some 4-3 early in this game? I wonder if they'll crush Croyle as soon as they get a lead and create some awesome playmaking opportunities for the secondary.

 

[Ring 6]

Interesting statistic: on the average 3% of rookies start game 1. Of the 704 starters this year 25 are rookies(yes, 3%). This doesnt include guys like DMF, Gholston, Stewart or guys that will get alot of reps,just full time guys. We are the only winning team starting more than 1, and 2/11 on D=18%---thats 6x higher than a "average" team...The only other starting CB is Flowers on KC, the only other LB is Lofton on ATL.

Where are you getting the info that 25 rookies are starting?

By the way, where are you getting the info that Mayo and Wheatley are starting too?
BB doesnt make those decisions until the day before the game, so how do you know already?
If we are dealing in exact percentages of rookies STARTING, I just we better know if any of our rookies are exactly STARTING game 1, huh?

 

[Ring 6]

You sure? I recall that Koppen stepped in when the LG went down due to injury and Woody replaced him. Woody started at Center when Koppen was a rookie

Koppen started 15 reg season games his rookie year. I dont think we need to split hairs that closely that he did't play the first 3 possessions of the season before Compton got hurt, then played every play after that.

 

[RussFrancis]

Just to offer a little perspective. The Colts have 24 1st or 2nd year players on their team. 13 rookies this season I believe. That's our greatest competition. They had about 10 rookies last season and managed a 13-2 record before they folded their tent for the season. Rookies shouldnt scare anyone. We won a title with Seymour as the anchor of our Dline, and Samuel as the best CB in our secondary. Both rookies at the time.

 

[emoney_33]

Interesting statistic: on the average 3% of rookies start game 1. Of the 704 starters this year 25 are rookies(yes, 3%). This doesnt include guys like DMF, Gholston, Stewart or guys that will get alot of reps,just full time guys. We are the only winning team starting more than 1, and 2/11 on D=18%---thats 6x higher than a "average" team...The only other starting CB is Flowers on KC, the only other LB is Lofton on ATL.

Horrible analysis.

A) 3% is not defense only.

B) 11 starters on any ONE team is a small sample size, percentages go from 0, 9, 18 etc..

C) What's the real difference of starting game one, or starting game 2, or 3. Or even a rookie who gets SIGNIFICANT time but just doesn't "start"?

 

[Ring 6]

Just to offer a little perspective. The Colts have 24 1st or 2nd year players on their team. 13 rookies this season I believe. That's our greatest competition. They had about 10 rookies last season and managed a 13-2 record before they folded their tent for the season. Rookies shouldnt scare anyone. We won a title with Seymour as the anchor of our Dline, and Samuel as the best CB in our secondary. Both rookies at the time.

As well as with Light starting at LT.
And, really, was Brady far from a rookie in 2001?

 

[Ring 6]

Horrible analysis.

A) 3% is not defense only.

B) 11 starters on any ONE team is a small sample size, percentages go from 0, 9, 18 etc..

C) What's the real difference of starting game one, or starting game 2, or 3. Or even a rookie who gets SIGNIFICANT time but just doesn't "start"?

It also is unknown where 3% comes from (could be from thin air) and whether that means 3% of rookies start, or 3% of starters are rookies.
The post suggests that it is some combination of both.