New Blog Entry: Rookie Starting Levels & Wins across the NFL in 2014

[KB_fan]

I've finally had a chance to do a little follow up to my blog entry from about a month ago on rookie starting levels under Head Coach Ron Rivera.   In particular, after showing that Rookie starting levels are high under Rivera, I wanted to compare our recent rookie starting stats to other NFL teams.  I also wanted to look further at an intriguing pattern I saw in 20 years of Panthers data:  High % of rookies starting = Fewer wins.   Does that hold true across the NFL?

You can see the data for all the NFL teams in 2014 and my analysis here at my newest blog entry:

http://www.carolinahuddle.com/boards/blogs/entry/53-rookie-start-and-wins-2014-data-from-around-the-league/

Let's just say, I'm not chomping at the bit for our 2015 rookie class to all become starters quickly.   And it looks like our coaches aren't planning to do that this year either, at least not yet, according to the latest analysis at BBR. 

http://blackandbluereview.com/carolina-panthers-2015-rookie-watch-week-2/

This year seems to be about breaking rookies in more gradually than last year.  And that *COULD* be a very good thing.   See what you think of the data and my observations, and share your comments as to what you think the best strategy might be in terms of getting rookies seasoned vs. not starting them too quickly.  Can you provide examples of teams that do a really good job of bringing in fresh blood every year, but always have a strong seasoned core to build on?  I'd love to hear what teams people think we should emulate in this regard.

[KB_fan]

I got curious this evening whether there's ever been anything posted online about the number / % of rookies starting on a Superbowl team, and I found this article which gives some good data very relevant to what I've posted about trends of playing / starting rookies across the NFL over time:

http://www.footballperspective.com/rookie-draft-impact-and-super-bowl-champions/

[KB_fan]

The whole article I just linked is really worth reading for anyone interested in this topic.  It answers the question pretty strongly that most superbowl winning teams didn't get there by starting a lot of rookies.  Here's one excerpt:

The average Super Bowl champion has given just 11.5 starts to rookies (the Seahawks actually handed out 15 starts split between Wilson and 7th round tackle Michael Bowie).  Which team gave the most starters to rookies? The 1981 49ers, of course. While Joe Montana and Dwight Clark — two members of the 49ers’ 1979 draft class — starred in the most memorable moment for the team, it was the young secondary that helped San Francisco rank in the top three in points allowed, yards allowed, passing yards allowed, net yards per pass allowed and turnovers forced. In 1980, San Francisco ranked 2nd to last in passing yards allowed; the 49ers responded by drafting Ronnie Lott, Eric Wright and Carlton Williamson in the first three rounds of the 1981 draft.  Those three players each started 16 games for San Francisco that year.

I'll have to go back and look at Pro Football Reference's Average Value stat calculation and see how they used it to figure out what draft class traditionally contributes the most to a Superbowl team.  It's a nice analysis.  I look forward to digging into it further.

[Frizzy350]

Well put together KB_fan.

I think it is a societal issue of wanting rookies to start immediately and be productive.  Everyone wants their shiny new toys and they want them now!

[Moorgan]

Well put together KB_fan.

I think it is a societal issue of wanting rookies to start immediately and be productive.  Everyone wants their shiny new toys and they want them now!

Or perhaps it speaks to our desire for realized potential. Veterans have a dearth of evidence. They are what they are. They are a known. A given. That's not to say there aren't numerous variables that go into a veteran becoming better or worse in a given year. But from a fans perspective they are their body of work.

But a rookie? Oh that rookie gleams and glistens with the potential of the unknown. That is almost always seductive in its possibilities. Sure coaches can become enamored with that potential but fans? Fans almost always have the desire to see their fantasy become real. 

It's said that no one is as popular as the backup QB. Again alluding to the unknown...the potential. Rookies are the epitome of potential. And I think that's why we, as fans, become fascinated with them. Not dissimilar to the Free Agent discussion had every year.

[Frizzy350]

Or perhaps it speaks to our desire for realized potential. Veterans have a dearth of evidence. They are what they are. They are a known. A given. That's not to say there aren't numerous variables that go into a veteran becoming better or worse in a given year. But from a fans perspective they are their body of work.

But a rookie? Oh that rookie gleams and glistens with the potential of the unknown. That is almost always seductive in its possibilities. Sure coaches can become enamored with that potential but fans? Fans almost always have the desire to see their fantasy become real. 

It's said that no one is as popular as the backup QB. Again alluding to the unknown...the potential. Rookies are the epitome of potential. And I think that's why we, as fans, become fascinated with them. Not dissimilar to the Free Agent discussion had every year.

In today's NFL, first round rookies are expected to be starters right off the bat.  Regardless if they are ready or not.  If you don't cut it as an immediate starter as a rookie first rounder, you are labeled a bust.  This has not always been the expectation, even out of first round picks.

[Moorgan]

In today's NFL, first round rookies are expected to be starters right off the bat.  Regardless if they are ready or not.  If you don't cut it as an immediate starter as a rookie first rounder, you are labeled a bust.  This has not always been the expectation, even out of first round picks.

A result of hypercompetitiveness? Likely.

[KB_fan]

In today's NFL, first round rookies are expected to be starters right off the bat.  Regardless if they are ready or not.  If you don't cut it as an immediate starter as a rookie first rounder, you are labeled a bust.  This has not always been the expectation, even out of first round picks.

Perhaps the CBA or the salary cap have changed things?  Somehow maybe there's more pressure to get the most value out of a player's rookie years?  Or teams are cutting vets due to financial pressures, leaving them in a place where rookies have to step up and fill in?  (A bit like what we did with KB, letting Smith go and annointing KB #1 before he'd even played a snap?!  Thankfully it worked out for us.... but it sure does create huge expectations that it will always be like that.) 

[Moorgan]

Perhaps the CBA or the salary cap have changed things?  Somehow maybe there's more pressure to get the most value out of a player's rookie years?  Or teams are cutting vets due to financial pressures, leaving them in a place where rookies have to step up and fill in?  (A bit like what we did with KB, letting Smith go and annointing KB #1 before he'd even played a snap?!  Thankfully it worked out for us.... but it sure does create huge expectations that it will always be like that.) 

I think you're right. And the NFLPA is to blame when you think about it. The NFL used to be very much about the FA. To be sure, high first round picks have always had high expectations but they also used to get paid like it too (Sam Bradford). 

Then the NFLPA bargained the rookie wage scale so the vets would be the ones who got paid and not the unproven rookies. Enter: Law of Unintended Consequences.

Teams now have a financial incentive to get younger and rely on that unknown potential. While some vets will continue to get large paydays, namely QBs and other high impact players, building through the draft has become the more financially sound method of building a team.

Certainly, drafting well has always been a sound strategy...but perhaps because of the rookie wage scale, it has now become the primary means at the expense of the typical veteran.

And like Uncle Ben said, with great financial incentive comes great pressure. These rookies are now looked at as much more valuable, specifically the later rounds, now that they are essentially cheap labor, relatively. And thus expected to perform earlier and earlier.

And quickly fan expectations have followed. Teams very much used to look to FA as the dominant method of building the roster with the drafting of 2 or 3 guys. Now the rookie wage scale coupled with the salary cap makes that 5th and 6th round pick that much more valuable and the fans have come to expect that value.

But I don't have any numbers to back this up. So I can't be sure. But it's worth looking into from a sociological and NFL cultural perspective. How about it local Huddler sociologist @PhillyB?