Welcome to a whole new segment on DBN, appropriately titled, A Brownie For Your Thoughts. This is a segment that will be ran once or twice a week and will talk about more off topic football stories. An example would be my uniform fanpost of a week or so ago. I will talk about an idea that has ran across my ever free flowing imagination, speak my own opinion on the subject and ask for all of yours in the comments. I hope you all enjoy it and receive it well!
Now, the title Rookie Post, is an allegoric title. While this may be my own rookie post, it is also a post on how rookies should be brought up in the NFL. Should rookies be thrown in or should they be taught on the sidelines for a period of time? Maybe there is no control when a rookie starts in a NFL game. I'll examine the possibilities...
I have thought of three ways a rookie can be brought up in the NFL, but only two of them can be considered valid choices by a head coach. "Plug and Play" Rookie starter, "Apprentice Rookie starter and "Injury Forced" Rookie starter.
1. "Plug and Play" Rookie Starter - A "Plug and Play" starter, or PaP for short, is what I consider to be when a coach decides to start a rookie in the very first game of the season. Examples of this can be seen with Matthew Stafford of the Detroit Lions or Mark Sanchez of the New York Jets. A lot goes into a PaP starter. How well did they perform in college? How desperate is the team for production and notoriety? Will the rookie get injured?
To save space, we'll just use Matthew Stafford for example purposes.
How well did Stafford perform in college?
| Stats Overview | Passing | |||||||||
| YEAR | CMP | ATT | YDS | CMP% | YPA | LNG | TD | INT | SACK | RAT |
| 2006 | 135 | 256 | 1749 | 52.7 | 6.83 | 53 | 7 | 13 | 12 | 108.99 |
| 2007 | 194 | 348 | 2523 | 55.7 | 7.25 | 84 | 19 | 10 | 15 | 128.92 |
| 2008 | 235 | 383 | 3459 | 61.4 | 9.03 | 78 | 25 | 10 | 17 |
153.54 |
Check.
How desperate is the team for production and notoriety? Detroit Lions 0 - 16 in 2008. Check.
Will the rookie get injured? Stafford missed two games due to a knee injury. Sadly, Check.
PaP conclusion: Essentially, Stafford matches every boundary for a PaP starter, which he was amazingly. The Lions however, are 1 - 7. Stafford has a 5/12 TD to INT ratio and has a 55.9 rating. Now, many other factors play into this but ultimately, a PaP is a high risk/ high reward starter. So far, Stafford has not played out for the Lions. Then again, it is only Week 9 of the 2009 season. Personally, I've never been one for a PaP starter. I feel like you're throwing them to the "Lions" (Do - Do - Do - Chzzz). I agree more with the next type of Rookie starter...
"Apprentice" Starter - This one is short, sweet and opinionated. An "App" starter is one who sits by on the sidelines, learns from successful or smart veterans and is inserted into a starting role when prepared or at least more knowledgeable than a PaP starter. How can this be proven? It really can't; this is a low risk/ high reward approach. You don't know if any factors will change from a PaP starter but what's it going to hurt? Your rookie learns NFL experience before he experiences it. It can only help.
Let's look at Josh Freeman, another 1st Round rookie QB starter. The Tampa Bay Buccaneers went 0 - 7 until Freeman was named the starter for Week 8 against the Green Bay Packers. The first game Freeman was named starter, the Bucs won for the first time in the 2009 season! Freeman has a 3/1 TD to INT ratio and has a satisfying 83.2 rating. It's only been one game though so, really, who knows. Freeman seems to prove my un - provable point though.
App conclusion - LOW RISK/ HIGH REWARD. While you really don't satisfy the fan base or FO by holding back a high profile rookie, you let them learn from seasoned veterans who already know how to handle themselves in a NFL game. I see no real negatives to this approach all except for the negative notoriety. That will change though, once that studying rookie starts winning games.
"Injury Forced" Starter - This one can't be controlled by anyone. More specifically, this type of starter comes about when the starter above them goes down with an injury for at least one game, forcing the 2nd string rookie to start. This type can't be proven either since it can't be chosen. This one won't have a conclusion, just an explanation and example. It's basically a spontaneous split of the two "coach option" starters. As the 2nd string rookie, you're an App Rookie. Once the veteran above you goes down, said rookie morphs into a PaP Rookie, you have to go in regardless of knowledge or preparedness.
We'll use Kaluka Maiava for this example. Maiava had to come in for D' Qwell Jackson during the Pittsburgh Steelers game and started against the Green Bay Packers the week after. In both games combined, Maiava had a total of 10 tackles and one forced fumble. For an inside linebacker, those are decent stats for a span of two games. But who knows if he was even ready for the unexpectedness of Jackson's injury (he shouldn't have been, unless he planned it.) Maybe he'll get better challenging fellow rookie LB David Veikune for a starter spot or working beside veteran David Bowens. Who knows.
Well, there you go. My first ever post on my new segment. If you want, tell me how I did, critique me so the next post can be better. But please, above all else, TELL ME HOW YOU FEEL. Do you agree with these three types of rookies? Are there more types? Less? Please argue, agree and discuss. Thanks for reading and... GO BROWNS!
P.S. I will also be running the Power Rankings post which collects the Cleveland Browns power rankings from notable websites around the internet. It will usually be posted on Tuesdays or Wednesdays with "Brownie Thoughts" usually on Thursdays or Fridays.
0 recs | 37 comments
I don’t agree with the “Apprentice Starter”, especially in the example you gave. Who was Freeman learning from? He only got the job because of the incompetence of other TB QB’s. The best apprentice situation I can think of would be Aaron Rogers in GB, where he learned from Favre for 3 years. But then he’s not a rookie any more so your analysis wouldn’t apply. The apprenticeship and the injured necessity I think are the same.
I also think you’re doing an injustice to a lot of other performing rookies with your PaP analysis. Remember Joe Thomas, Adrian Peterson, Mark Sanchez, Big Ben, etc. There are a ton of rookies that are able to contribute to their teams at a high level. Maybe even better would be a look at which positions have the quickest return from Rookies. Such as, WR’s take longer to develop, but tackles immediately contribute.
tmptplayer - November 11, 2009
Right but I was just using Stafford as an example. This is my own opinion of course, I wanted you to agree or disagree with it. Now I did mention there are many factors that come with a PaP starter and even though I didn’t mention Big Ben, AP and such, it got you thinking of them regardless which is good.
That “injustice” is just what I think, I don’t approve of PaP starters, I just feel like they won’t be ready, but then again that’s been proven wrong but because of different factors.
SpecialBrownie - November 11, 2009
Good segment Brownie though I’m not so crazy about the title… maybe Special Speculations? Heh…
Anyway, I think the PaP success rate has a lot to do with position. Some positions have a lot more of a mental aspect that is quite different from the college game. QB, I believe, is one of them. I’ll leave it to others with more actual play experience to expand on this.
I’m sure we could come up with numerous examples of success in both but as a whole it is probably better that a player have time to get familiar with a new system through practice and training before they are thrown into a game situation. You might be able to correlate players moving to other teams through trades and rookies. If an experienced QB moves to another team (like Cassell or Cutler) do they experience the same kind of mistakes and growing pains as a rookie? That might point to the time it takes ANY player to pick up a new system and get used to the players and organization around them and not to the fact that they are a rookie or veteran.
OK… there are my thoughts, now I want my brownie!
Brownsyup - November 11, 2009
Ah, it’s just a play on the line “A Penny For You Thoughts.” I thought it was creative haha.
SpecialBrownie - November 11, 2009
I just think it is hard to categorize the individuals because it really depends on who the team is and what position and also what kind of supporting cast, or support system if you will, is around them. For example Sanchez has done pretty good thus far with the Jets, but I don’t think he would have had the same impact or success if he was starting at the Raiders or even us for his first season…
Joey_D - November 11, 2009
True but then again this is an opinionated post. I tend to see things scientifically, everything has to fit something. I also say that there are many factors that play into a “PaP starter,” Stafford was just the example I used. I just wanted to get you to think about it. As it seems, the commenters so far don’t seem to agree but that’s fine.
SpecialBrownie - November 11, 2009
You can’t generalize about these kinds of things at all. People like to point to guys like Ryan and Flacco who had instant success with their teams respectively and say “See? Rookie QB’s don’t have to sit on the bench. They should be able to play from the get go.”
A lot of people forget that they both had a great running game and stingy defenses to back up their mistakes (Flacco more so here than Ryan). If the Falcons fell behind, they often lost the game. The rookies came in and acted as game managers during their rookie year.
Technically, Quinn should be an example of someone sitting for two years before finally getting to play. Mentally, I think he’s ready. Its just about translating the film room to the field at this point.
Plus, tmptplayer is right. A LOT of rookies come in and contribute right away, like Percy Harvin (Vikings), Jame Laurnitis (Rams), and Lesean McCoy (Eagles). Brian Cushing (Texans) already has 78 tackles despite missing a few games!
The bottom line is, although I prefer to let certain positions develop (letting rookie CB’s work nickle or WR as a slot), there are no set rules about how rookies should be handled. Wasn’t Peyton Manning 3-13 his first season starting?
BrownDawg1409 - November 11, 2009
True but like I told Joey, I’m scientific and feel players need to be categorized. Why? I don’t really seem to know, maybe I’m OCD. But this is an opinionated post so, I’m glad to see your side of the argument.
Now, defending myself of course, I stated that many factors play into a PaP starter, Stafford was just my example. These are all what if examples and while they don’t encompass the whole spectrum, you’re of course telling me more that should or shouldn’t. Without mentioning other immediate impact rookies I still got you to think of them. I just don’t seem to like “PaP” starters so I’m biaed against them. And I mentioned that Freeman only had ONE game, so it could have been a total fluke!
SpecialBrownie - November 11, 2009
The scientific side of you should realize that the small sample size issues with your analysis.
I have found this debate very interesting. No doubt, every individual handles these things differently, and every situation is unique. The rookie is more likely to sit if you have a prolific Kurt Warner as your other option than if you have an banged up Dante Culpepper.
Looking at today’s successful QBs- they come from each of your above categories. Peyton Manning played right away. Favre and Brady only emerged because of injuries in front of them. Brees and Palmer both sat a year. Rivers and Rodgers sat multiple years.
The other thing is that you have looked at the recent bunch of rookies, but it is too early to say if they will have any sustained success in the league. I’d say the book is still out on Flacco. Ryan seems like the real deal, but is no where near a lock. Sanchez and Stafford could be great or could be out of the league in 2 years. Sanchez has looked anywhere from great to downright horrible. Stafford has looked mostly awful.
Ryan Kelsey - November 11, 2009
I realize you didn’t stay just with QBs, but I think the other positions are too different to really compare.
Ryan Kelsey - November 11, 2009
Yeah but I didn’t want to drag this post out longer than it needed to be, so I had to resort to one example per category and using this year’s rookies seemed like a good idea. I understand veterans who fit these molds would have been a better example.
SpecialBrownie - November 11, 2009
Now, please everyone remember that this post is not saying that PaP starters automatically suck and App starters are seasoned for the NFL after starting! There is tons of leeway to either side. The examples I used, in no way, fix each starter role to a certain style. Yes, I am biased to PaP and agree with App more but I didn’t mean to throw PaP under the bus. So don’t think that I meant to say PaP=suck and App=amazing.
SpecialBrownie - November 11, 2009
Nice post.
I am a fan of the PaP. See what the kid has got. I, myself, learn better from doing, so that is probably the rationale of my choice.
Bernie19Kosar - November 11, 2009
There is a concept in education called “scaffolding.” Basically, it’s when a teacher gives help to a student when it’s needed, and only when it’s needed, gradually withdrawing the assistance as the student begins to function on their own. I think the imagery is good. A lot of rookies need some type of scaffolding: they’re not ready to assume the full duties of the position, or learn all that’s required, without a good deal of assistance. That can come from having a veteran next to you, from being able to rely on another part of your team (running game, defense, etc.), from the coaching staff, or from a combination. Some people don’t need an scaffolding, and are fine from the get-go. Others need at least some structure for a long time. I think the concept applies well to a discussion of whether or not rookies should, or can, see the field early in their careers.
drjeo - November 11, 2009
That’s pretty interesting.
My thinking goes along the lines of this;
A coach and veteran player can tell you until they are blue in the face of what you are supposed to do in certain situations. But until the player gets into the game and sees what the coaches are talking about, then they cannot fully grasp what is being coached.
I would like to see a coach rotate QB’s for a rookie’s first season. Script out his plays, let him know what he is expected to do. After that series, pull the rookie aside, show him where he went wrong and what he did right. Then have him watch the veteran for a series. Repeat.
I personally think that a player learns better from seeing Ed Reed mix coverages than having a coach describe it.
Plus, you get an earlier look at what kind of player the team has.
Bernie19Kosar - November 11, 2009
A player that was good or great in college, can be decent or better in the NFL. This is mooncamping´s challenge to all college players.
mooncamping - November 11, 2009
pretty good first effort. however, i agree with most of the comments above, especially that it is hard to categorize rookies when each team has so many different variables that could tweek your definitions in many different directions.
Dawg Nuts - November 11, 2009
Thank you for at least acknowledging that this is my first post. They’ll get better and less opinionated hopefully haha.
SpecialBrownie - November 11, 2009
Hey, it is hard doing what you are doing. When you post something it is like poking your head above the trenches in no-man’s-land and everyone starts taking pot shots. Your skin must be thick and often it is best not to respond to some comments (you probably know the type). I like the topics so far… it is nice to take your mind off the current event news of the moment and discuss something more general. Good luck.
Brownsyup - November 12, 2009
no, i like your opinions; please keep your posts opinionated. i just happen to disagree with some of this one. your posts and comments make for good discussion.
Dawg Nuts - November 12, 2009
I got a better one for next week. And I should have my *ss covered for all loopholes against my writing at least but it will be opinionated haha.
SpecialBrownie - November 12, 2009
The thing I’ve always noticed regarding rookies is that there is a lot of room for contradiction, and fans often make their arguments based on examples that support their thought process; they completely ignore the cases that didn’t work, even if they occur much more often.
Regarding the Apprentice role, one of the most successful cases I recall was Carson Palmer sitting his entire first year while Jon Kitna started. This ended up working out, as Kitna did well, and when Palmer was ready to take over, he was very efficient with Kitna then serving as the backup.
Back in the year 2000-2002, Vinny Testaverde was the Jets starting quarterback, and Chad Pennington was waiting in the wings as the apprentice. This abruptly shifted to an “injury-forced” situation though when Testaverde went down in 2002, and Pennington was fantastic in his first couple of seasons.
Things didn’t work out as well with the Browns’ case though. Trent Dilfer was brought on as our starting quarterback, supposedly to help guide the transition to Charlie Frye at quarterback.
I think the one big category you’re missing is the “Coach Stubbornness” title, which I believe too many of our rookies have had to deal with, perhaps due to an issue with the GM and head coach as to who should be drafted versus them actually playing. In this category, a coach is so obsessed with playing their veterans that they will stick with them the entire season. Then, once the season is over with, the coach will let up a little and decide to throw the rookies in there. Especially if you’re playing on a bad team, the rookies tend to play like the product around them — crap. I’m sure that’s why Beau Bell and Martin Rucker never shined in the limited action they did get to see, or in the preseason under Mangini.
Chris Pokorny - November 11, 2009
Steve McNair also waited a season.
Bernie19Kosar - November 11, 2009
I should point out that it didn’t help that in the success cases, Kitna and Testaverde seemed very supporting, and in our case, if I recall correctly, Dilfer acted like a complete tool at the prospect of Frye taking over.
Chris Pokorny - November 11, 2009
The other difference between the Frye case and others it that Frye (the heir apparent) lacked the necessary talent to be a successful QB in the league.
Roger Dorn - November 11, 2009
Dilfer is still pissed off about being benched.
Bernie19Kosar - November 11, 2009
Yeah, the “coach stubborness” is an interesting aspect. I think it gets a little more play from the fans than what it is worth. For example, sure we would have liked to see Bell and Rucker last year, but maybe Romeo saw the same thing Mangini saw in practices. These guys just aren’t NFL caliber.
I’ve always liked the apprentice model for QBs. Finding the right person for the veteran role seems to be the challenge. The three times the Browns have tried this method in the last 10 years have resulted in failure (Detmer, Garcia, Dilfer).
Ryan Kelsey - November 11, 2009
Right and the reason it didn’t work out for Quinn so far was Mr. Blow it our your *ss Anderson and Dorsey ; )
SpecialBrownie - November 11, 2009
I don’t think there is one thing in your article that factors into the success of an NFL QB.
Where they played college, stats in college, whether they sat a year or two, or were thrown to the dawgs, or were thrown in emergency situations…. None of it factors into the success of a QB in this league.
Peyton Manning – Thrown in
Carson Palmer – Sat Behind
Tom Brady – Due to Injury
3 of the top QB’s in the league. 2 of the best ever.
The factors are football related, not due to what specific situation they are brought in to.
Dawg26 - November 12, 2009
I wasn’t trying to say how their specific situation plays out how they play. They were examples. I was just using their situations to show how it might play out for them their first year. In no way did I mean for PaP to mean suck and App to mean great. K?
SpecialBrownie - November 12, 2009
Another aspect of “coach stubbornness” is that often a new coach will get bench or get rid of a player because it isn’t “his guy”. Sure there may be more that goes into the decision but we have certainly seen a pattern consistent with this on the Browns over the past several years.
Brownsyup - November 12, 2009
BROWNS
GET RID OF MANGINA WHERE HAVE YOU GONE BROWNS,TIME TO CLEAN HOUSE.BILL COWLER,PARCELLS,JOHN GRUIDEN?BROWNS OWNER YOU OWE IT TO THE FANS,WAKE UP
JEETS - November 13, 2009
:: yawn ::
golanbatrac - November 13, 2009
As I believe Abraham Lincoln once said: “Better to be quiet and be thought a fool than to go on some website and remove all doubt.”
response to JEETS, BTW.
drjeo - November 13, 2009
BTW, the owner of the Browns is Randy Lerner. You know, the Internet is really great for looking up simple things you don’t know. You should try it some time!
RelapsingDawgCatcher - November 13, 2009
How do you spell Gruden wrong? And Big Tuna is with The Big Dolphins, I don’t see us picking him up. Even if he can raise up another down trotten franchise.
SpecialBrownie - November 13, 2009
How do you spell ‘trodden’ wrong?
(glass houses, stones and whatnot…)
golanbatrac - November 13, 2009
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Dawgs By Nature to post a comment.