Counting on Rookies

[Ring 6]

I think it's misleading to say "BB has never counted on a rookie LB contributing," because you could just as well say "BB has started every rookie LB he ever drafted who made the opening day roster." In other words, he's never had a rookie LB to count on or not count on. Ever. Until this year, the only rookie LBs I can recall on BB Patriot rosters were 7th round/UDFA projects, typically converting from other positions. So there's a zero sample size to extrapolate from.

Looking at other positions, promising rookies have been day-1 starters (Koppen, Mankins, Wilson); platooned with veterans (Maroney, Wilfork, Warren); and eased their way into the mix (Meriweather)...or not (Jackson). I'm guessing that's pretty typical of most teams.

This year, the 1st and 2nd-round picks earned their way onto the first string by outplaying veterans. Crable is the #4 OLB. O'Connell is the emergency QB. Wilhite is the #4-5 CB. Slater is the likely KR, a position that routinely goes to the young, inexperienced guys with fast, fresh legs.

Does this really seem like huge reliance on rookies? I honestly don't see it. The number of rookies on this team is totally in keeping with the number in past strong Patriots seasons, including '03 and '04.

I think you make a great point.
We are going to start a rookie at ILB. We are going to have a rookie at corner who may start, may play nickel or dime, but probably will see quite a bit of action.
To some that means we are doomed.
But in fact, that is pretty typical of what we do every season.

 

[patchick]

in fact, that is pretty typical of what we do every season.

I think our perspective has been a little skewed by last season, which was a huge aberration in terms of the lack of rookies on the roster. You might even argue that the influx of rookies was essential this year to make up for last year's drought, and that the worrisome thing would have been too many vets on this roster, not too many rooks.

Another way to look at it is in terms of total turnover, integrating new players into the starting lineups. Last season IIRC there were 3 1/2: A. Thomas, Moss, Welker, and 1/2 Morris. This year I'd call it 2 1/3: Mayo, Wheatley (probably), and 1/3 Jordan. That's great stability.

 

[PatsFan37]

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
Light started as a rookie, and played well (we won the SB)
Warren started in his rookie season at NT and played well.
Wilson started as a rookie, and Samuel was the nickel, on a SB champ.
Maroney equally shared time with Dillon and did not struggle. Branch did not struggle.
Koppen started day 1 and did not struggle.
I am having a hard time finding the rookie BB put on the field that didnt play well.

I think you're arguing with someone else when you reply to my posts.

I'm not saying the team can't win a SB or will do poorly or that rookies can't be playing well by the end of the season. I'm not looking that far ahead. Again, you seem to be arguing with someone else.

I'm saying it's rare for any rookie on any team to play well from the first snap, compared to a decent veteran. They will make rookie mistakes, hence the term.

That's why even good rookies like Wilfork had problems, aka struggled, in their early games. That was well documented at the time. To argue otherwise is to have a short memory. That's my example.

 

[Ring 6]

I think you're arguing with someone else when you reply to my posts.

I'm not saying the team can't win a SB or will do poorly or that rookies can't be playing well by the end of the season. I'm not looking that far ahead. Again, you seem to be arguing with someone else.

I'm saying it's rare for any rookie on any team to play well from the first snap, compared to a decent veteran. They will make rookie mistakes, hence the term.

That's why even good rookies like Wilfork had problems, aka struggled, in their early games. That was well documented at the time. To argue otherwise is to have a short memory. That's my example.

I am not argung with anyone, I answered your question about what rookies did well.

My opinion on Wilfork is not affected by memory, it is affected by the fact that I do not agree that he struggled. You saying it is well-documented doesnt make it fact. I watched him, and I felt he played well from day 1.

 

[JSn]

The thing about these rookies is... they're football players. The rookies were chosen from a pool of available talent and so far none of them flat out suck.

It's not like they haven't ever played the game before and I'm willing to bet their understanding of say... "cover one" is beyond most of ours.

They've moved to a higher level of play, but they have also entered what is largely a young man's game as young men with excellent coaching.

I just don't see reason to be afraid of how they will do out there, especially knowing each has a vet watching their backs who also wants them to succeed.

The big compliment Bill gave Both Mayo and O'Connell is that they rarely make the same mistake twice. That, to me, is the biggest addition to their toolboxes right there.

I'm excited to watch our crop of playmakers who will soon be the new spokepersons for what it means to play on an elite football team in the NFL.

End of sermon.

 

[Ring 6]

The thing about these rookies is... they're football players. The rookies were chosen from a pool of available talent and so far none of them flat out suck.

It's not like they haven't ever played the game before and I'm willing to bet their understanding of say... "cover one" is beyond most of ours.

They've moved to a higher level of play, but they have also entered what is largely a young man's game as young men with excellent coaching.

I just don't see reason to be afraid of how they will do out there, especially knowing each has a vet watching their backs who also wants them to succeed.

The big compliment Bill gave Both Mayo and O'Connell is that they rarely make the same mistake twice. That, to me, is the biggest addition to their toolboxes right there.

I'm excited to watch our crop of playmakers who will soon be the new spokepersons for what it means to play on an elite football team in the NFL.

End of sermon.

And many, many rookies play and play very well throughout the league, including some who are probowl caliber.

 

[JSn]

And many, many rookies play and play very well throughout the league, including some who are probowl caliber.

This blog has a cool chart (couple years old) of percentages.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=32

Offense wins, but still, good numbers.

 

[PatsFan37]

I am not argung with anyone, I answered your question about what rookies did well.

My opinion on Wilfork is not affected by memory, it is affected by the fact that I do not agree that he struggled. You saying it is well-documented doesnt make it fact. I watched him, and I felt he played well from day 1.

So if you say he played well from day 1 then it's fact but if I say he didn't it isn't. Nice world you live in.

I'm also saying I remember a number of articles about how he had trouble reacting to the play in front of him until he was coached to move back a yard from the LOS. That's in addition to my opinion. No I don't have links to them, but it's still better than what you've got.

Your turn.

 

[Ice Cold Bruschi]

just a slight note, wilfork didn't start right away Keith Traylor had the starting spot although Big Vince got significant time and played well as a rookie

 

[emoney_33]

So if you say he played well from day 1 then it's fact but if I say he didn't it isn't. Nice world you live in.

I'm also saying I remember a number of articles about how he had trouble reacting to the play in front of him until he was coached to move back a yard from the LOS. That's in addition to my opinion. No I don't have links to them, but it's still better than what you've got.

Your turn.

Wasn't that his 2nd year that he was coached to move back? And then didn't he move back closer a little last year?

I really don't remember exactly.

 

[emoney_33]

Also why are some people concerned about how rookies do "at first"?

Of course there is a larger learning curve for rookies than vets, and we shouldn't expect amazing pro-bowl play the first half of the season from any rookie, but solid play or even a little bit of struggle is OK and is not going to doom a game or a season.

 

[mgteich]

I think the bottom line is that we are indeed going to count on rookies from the beginning of this year, and that this is unusual for a Belichick defense. That being said, this is a perfect situation for the rookies. We have a bye week after Week 3 (time to re-calibrate). We have the best schedule in the league. We also have a very weak division.

I don't know if Seau has anything left. If not, I expect AT to play some ILB early, with Woods picking up more reps at OLB. This will help us as the season progresses at both ILB and OLB. In the end, we need Mayo (no rookie wall) and Bruschi (veteran exhaustion) fresh at year's end. To me, this goal is worth risking losing a game or two early.

We are fine at corner. We've had lots worse than Hobbs, O'Neal and Sanders. And that DOESN'T count on contributions from Wheatley and Wilhite. We should have a healthy set of three quality corners for the playoffs.

 

[PatsFan37]

Also why are some people concerned about how rookies do "at first"?

Of course there is a larger learning curve for rookies than vets, and we shouldn't expect amazing pro-bowl play the first half of the season from any rookie, but solid play or even a little bit of struggle is OK and is not going to doom a game or a season.

Exactly right and I'm not concerned. I do expect rookies to fight through mistakes through the first half of a season, especially as they man up on seasoned pros in their first real games at NFL speed. I'm only arguing when people unrealistically expect rookies to perform at high levels from the first snap. That's an unfair level of expectation.

Wasn't that his 2nd year that he was coached to move back? And then didn't he move back closer a little last year?

I really don't remember exactly.

I think you're right about that, and I thought Traylor got injured in Wilfork's first year and then came back. I don't remember how Wilfork did that year, because you're right, I'm remembering the issues he had his second year, but Traylor's presence minimized the need for Wilfork to have an outstanding rookie year.

 

[Ring 6]

So if you say he played well from day 1 then it's fact but if I say he didn't it isn't. Nice world you live in.

I'm also saying I remember a number of articles about how he had trouble reacting to the play in front of him until he was coached to move back a yard from the LOS. That's in addition to my opinion. No I don't have links to them, but it's still better than what you've got.

Your turn.

I'm simply saying we disagree on how Wilfork did as a rookie. Nothing wrong with that.
Assessing how players perform is widely open to interpretation. Its OK to disagree.
There really isnt proof in either direction. You saw what you saw, and had the bar where you had it, and I saw what I saw and had the bar where I had it.
I am sure we could choose quite a few players that if we both watched them play we'd have different opinions. That doesnt make either right or wrong.

 

[Ring 6]

I think the bottom line is that we are indeed going to count on rookies from the beginning of this year, and that this is unusual for a Belichick defense. That being said, this is a perfect situation for the rookies. We have a bye week after Week 3 (time to re-calibrate). We have the best schedule in the league. We also have a very weak division.

I don't know if Seau has anything left. If not, I expect AT to play some ILB early, with Woods picking up more reps at OLB. This will help us as the season progresses at both ILB and OLB. In the end, we need Mayo (no rookie wall) and Bruschi (veteran exhaustion) fresh at year's end. To me, this goal is worth risking losing a game or two early.

We are fine at corner. We've had lots worse than Hobbs, O'Neal and Sanders. And that DOESN'T count on contributions from Wheatley and Wilhite. We should have a healthy set of three quality corners for the playoffs.

I dont know that it is so unusual for a BB defense. At least when I look into it it isnt as unusual as I thought before.
Seymour, Warren, Wilfork, Green, Wright, Samuel, Wilson, Hobbs, Sanders, Meriwhether, and Im sure I missed a few, have all had roles as rookies, most as starters.
This year, it appears we 'need' Mayo to start, only because the other choices dont seem so good. We dont NEED anything from Wheatley because we have 3 veteran corners. Wheatley wont play by default he will play be earning it.
I am very comfortable with a 2nd round pick who earns his way onto the field by beating out veterans in Bryant, Webster, Sanders, and ONeal. If he earns his way onto the field ahead of those 4 veterans how can we be sitting here fearing that he isn't ready for the NFL?
Some of these posts sound like we drafted him yesterday and he's done nothing to prove himself or earn the job.

 

[mgteich]

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.

I dont know that it is so unusual for a BB defense. At least when I look into it it isnt as unusual as I thought before.
Seymour, Warren, Wilfork, Green, Wright, Samuel, Wilson, Hobbs, Sanders, Meriwhether, and Im sure I missed a few, have all had roles as rookies, most as starters.
This year, it appears we 'need' Mayo to start, only because the other choices dont seem so good. We dont NEED anything from Wheatley because we have 3 veteran corners. Wheatley wont play by default he will play be earning it.
I am very comfortable with a 2nd round pick who earns his way onto the field by beating out veterans in Bryant, Webster, Sanders, and ONeal. If he earns his way onto the field ahead of those 4 veterans how can we be sitting here fearing that he isn't ready for the NFL?
Some of these posts sound like we drafted him yesterday and he's done nothing to prove himself or earn the job.

 

[Metaphors]

As I said before, I don't believe Belichick puts rookies on the field until he believes they are ready. His judgment of readiness (especially on defense) seems to be pretty solid so far.

While we haven't seen a rookie LB get significant snaps before, I think the same notion applies and that Belichick wouldn't put Mayo out there in a primary role unless Belichick believed he would successful. While Mayo will make mistakes, I don't expect him to struggle.

We have seen rookies get significant time in the secondary before (Geno and Asante), so I would expect at least a similar level of production from Wheatley. In addition, Capers first coached DBs in 1975...so I would imagine he knows what it takes for Wheatley to be successful.

The guy I'm interested in is Crable. I contend that pass rushers start to lose effectiveness at 50 snaps and are useless after 60-65 snaps. Since Jarvis is a part-timer, that really doesn't affect him and he shows up at the end of games. Vrabel seemed to disappear in the 4th quarter (just my impression going from memory) so I think Crable could be a significant addition for applying pressure in 4th quarter, protecting-the-lead, must-pass situations.

Mayo and Wheatley will be fine. Slater and Guyton should have no problems on special teams. O'Connell should have plenty of opportunities to take a knee this year. Crable is the guy I'm expecting to eventually play a much needed finisher role when the games really matter.

 

[jeffbiologist]

I think the bottom line is that we are indeed going to count on rookies from the beginning of this year, and that this is unusual for a Belichick defense. That being said, this is a perfect situation for the rookies. We have a bye week after Week 3 (time to re-calibrate). We have the best schedule in the league. We also have a very weak division.

I don't know if Seau has anything left. If not, I expect AT to play some ILB early, with Woods picking up more reps at OLB. This will help us as the season progresses at both ILB and OLB. In the end, we need Mayo (no rookie wall) and Bruschi (veteran exhaustion) fresh at year's end. To me, this goal is worth risking losing a game or two early.

We are fine at corner. We've had lots worse than Hobbs, O'Neal and Sanders. And that DOESN'T count on contributions from Wheatley and Wilhite. We should have a healthy set of three quality corners for the playoffs.

This is NOT the perfect situation, far from it. Rookies are like children, better to see them than to hear them! This is the most scrutinized team in any sport in the past....decade? History? It is uncharecteristically thin, and in the past we could get by without starting rookies. For every person that says its the success of rookies winning the jobs there seem to be at least as many saying it is the failure of the FAs brought in to keep the jobs. While I think in the past a single rookie can get hidden within a great team and other guys can "cover" up mistakes....With 2 rookies its likely not twice the number of mistakes but an order(or 2)of magnitude more. Further depth problems will be on display if players get hurt, and they will-this is football. While I can point out problems, its not as if the other teams we will be playing dont have the same ones. I think the biggest problem with such a team will be the unrealistic expectations thrust upon a new team based on past experience. It has happened to alot of super bowl losers lately, and I would rather temper the expectations than try and put out the fires under the witches feet when/if things dont go as "expected".

 

[spacecrime]

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.

Didn't happen like that. First, Asante had nothing to do with Milloy being cut.

Second, BB was relying on Antwan Harris, not Wilson, to play Milloy's spot. Harris played the first game, but horribly, and in week 2 Wilson played safety.

BB did rely on wilson and Samuel that year, you are correct, but he didn't cut Milloy with the plan on relying on them to fill Milloy's position.

 

[BradyFTW!]

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.

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.