Easing rookies into the game...

[LinvilleGorge]

3 minutes ago, top dawg said:

I respect the coaches to make their decisions. They deserve that latitude. 

They also deserve the full scorn of the fanbase and the pink slip when they choose poorly.

[Shotgun]

17 minutes ago, Wes21 said:

To me the first game is like the movie Gladiator where the gates are about to open but you have no idea what's coming out.  I think rookies should sit the first game...or have a more specific role in the 1st game.  Put vets out there who can quickly figure out what the other team is doing and adjust on the fly.  Once you get further into the season and have a little bit of film on teams you can start throwing more rookies into the mix.

Barry Sanders didn't start his first game.  It's okay.

Was Rivera the coach?

[DaveThePanther2008]

41 minutes ago, OldhamA said:

Chinn and Brown walked into the lineup last year. YGM, Roy and Pride saw significant minutes. Horn will walk into the lineup this year. 

Marshall will start in the slot this year (or outside if they rotate Anderson / Moore into the slot) and Tremble will see significant minutes.

The common denominator? They were all better than the incumbent. Brown and Christensen haven't proven that they're better than the guys in-front of them YET. Same goes for Nixon, Hubbard and Taylor - as the season goes on they'll get into the lineup, but right now they're way behind the veteran starters. There's no shame in that. 

I get your point but they may not be better but maybe, just maybe they are equal and will be better once they get on the field.  

If the rookie is going to play at the same level to start with.  

Why not put them in and let them get better than the Vet.

[davos]

If they aren't quite ready, I get it, but they should have had acquired a more solid starter in front if they're willing to sit a top-70 pick to ease into things.

They took out Daley at LG and brought in Pat Elflein who has had a poor career in two separate cities with fanbases who were immensely frustrated by him.  I can be sold on Erving because he's had average to sometimes above average stints a multiple spots but Elflein was just weird for me.  He's been average to awful at both center and LG.

And now Daley is going into week one on his more uncomfortable side to the right, with a promising rookie behind him and a huge sore in Elf on the left that will make Paradis look worse.  It's a domino effect and the LG-Elf, C-Paradis, RG-Daley seems super off considering the talent we have.  But I'm willing to have their abilities and coaching speak for themselves.  Will wait and see I guess but it seems really turned around.

Erving-Daley-Paradis-Brown-Moton would be my preference.  There's a reason they're keeping Christensen away right now so I'm willing to wait on that but not for long.  

 

[kungfoodude]

2 hours ago, OldhamA said:

Chinn and Brown walked into the lineup last year. YGM, Roy and Pride saw significant minutes. Horn will walk into the lineup this year. 

Marshall will start in the slot this year (or outside if they rotate Anderson / Moore into the slot) and Tremble will see significant minutes.

The common denominator? They were all better than the incumbent. Brown and Christensen haven't proven that they're better than the guys in-front of them YET. Same goes for Nixon, Hubbard and Taylor - as the season goes on they'll get into the lineup, but right now they're way behind the veteran starters. There's no shame in that. 

This is in the realm of "questioning the coaches" but I am not yet convinced that Brown and BC aren't better than the guys in front of them.

[SmokinwithWilly]

Fair to remember that the rookies haven't had any time in real speed NFL games against top tier talent. If we rotate them in some and they perform better, by all means, start them. I'm good with getting a little live time under their belts. 

[pantherclaw]

8 hours ago, top dawg said:

Many fans thought Whitehead sucked from the beginning. They were right!

Yhank God for that easy layup to boost the confidence of fans everywhere !!!!!

[top dawg]

5 minutes ago, pantherclaw said:

Yhank God for that easy layup to boost the confidence of fans everywhere !!!!!

[panthers55]

I like playing rookies to spell the vets unless they are the best guy for the job like Horn. Then play them and live with the results. Even great rookies struggle more than vets until the game slows down. Usually around week 8 or so. Few guys drafted after the first couple of rounds can come in and start right away. If tons of rookies are starting your talent level is usually suspect.

[Pejorative Miscreant]

9 hours ago, Moo Daeng said:

Fans see a few minutes of practice play and think they know the whole story. What we as typical fans think is meaningless.

Yeah.  I think there is a s a lot of detailed evaluation and nuances going on the the general public doesn’t see.it’s very easy to see the upside on a few plays and just conclude that coach just favors vets where in a lot of cases the coach is actually protecting the young guy and playing the long game.  

[L-TownCat]

18 hours ago, Mr. Scot said:

One of the things a lot of people here passionately hated about Ron Rivera's coaching was his tendency to play what were seen as lesser veterans over more talented rookies.

Say hello to Matt Rhule...

Looking at some of the early depth chart decisions Rhule has made, I think he too could be of the belief that lower round rookies are best eased into the game.

High picks like Jaycee Horn, Derrick Brown and Jeremy Chinn might play right away, but lower round guys like Brady Christensen and Deonte Brown may have to wait while stopgap veteran players take their turn first. The rationale being that these guys need a little more time to learn and adapt to the pro game.

You'll find our old buddy Ryan Kalil is likely a proponent of that theory, having chronicled a lot of his own experiences in a book for rookies. We all know Kalil was an intelligent and immensely talented player, yet he freely admitted that even halfway into his rookie year, he frequently had no clue what he was doing.

Kalil eventually figured it out, but that's the thing.  How do you tell when those talented rookies you've been keeping on the bench truly are ready to face live bullets?

Rivera wasn't very good at that.

How good is Rhule?

I don't really think we know yet.

So yeah, if Rivera frustrated you, Rhule might do the same.

But is the idea of letting some young players ease into the game a little more slowly than others totally without merit?

You tell me

You laid it out pretty well.

If a guy can play at this level he’ll figure it out.

If he can’t, he’ll be looking at year 3-4 still hoping “the light comes on”.

Football is simple, either you can or you can’t.

[kungfoodude]

9 hours ago, panthers55 said:

 If tons of rookies are starting your talent level is usually suspect.

So, about that.....

[L-TownCat]

16 hours ago, kungfoodude said:

This is in the realm of "questioning the coaches" but I am not yet convinced that Brown and BC aren't better than the guys in front of them.

Me either.  Can *BBC outplay their veteran counterparts? Probably.  These guys are gifted.  But do they know the offense?  Can they be trusted to know what to do out there against seasoned vets week 1?

Or do you play it safe and roll with a less talented vet that may get beat by his opponent but wont beat himself?  

(Numbers are made up for general point making)

The rookies have a 50/50 shot at winning the matchup.  They also have a 50/50 shot at making an unforced mental error.

A vet has a 50/50 shot at winning the matchup.  Knowing what to do from experience allows the vet to play instinctively instead of having to think. Mental errors no longer a weighted variable.

This reduction of risk is like catnip for Coaches.  Its a difficult choice to gamble one's life work on a 20 year old kid that's never played a snap of pro ball.

 

TLDR:

Allllllll of that to say this, I agree with you.  I also see why so many coaches make the same "mistake".

 

* HA! that shits funny

[kungfoodude]

2 minutes ago, L-TownCat said:

Me either.  Can *BBC outplay their veteran counterparts? Probably.  These guys are gifted.  But do they know the offense?  Can they be trusted to know what to do out there against seasoned vets week 1?

Or do you play it safe and roll with a less talented vet that may get beat by his opponent but wont beat himself?  

(Numbers are made up for general point making)

The rookies have a 50/50 shot at winning the matchup.  They also have a 50/50 shot at making an unforced mental error.

A vet has a 50/50 shot at winning the matchup.  Knowing what to do from experience allows the vet to play instinctively instead of having to think. Mental errors no longer a weighted variable.

This reduction of risk is like catnip for Coaches.  Its a difficult choice to gamble one's life work on a 20 year old kid that's never played a snap of pro ball.

 

TLDR:

Allllllll of that to say this, I agree with you.  I also see why so many coaches make the same "mistake".

 

* HA! that shits funny

Yeah, I am sure it happens a bunch. I just think you accept the errors if the guy has upside versus the guy you know is going to fug up.