The Annual Lie About Starting Rookies

[Fritz]

Each year, come spring, hope - and stupidity - spring eternal.

Each year, writers and fans alike talk about GM's needing to draft "difference makers" as if rookies could step in and immediately grasp the NFL system and play at a consistently high level.

Does it happen? Sure, if your name is Adrian Petersen or Matt Ryan or Mark Tauscher. However, the truth of the matter is that for the vast majority of NFL rookies, the first year is a flurry of learning and confusion.

Yet this does not stop supposed experts from making their annual dumb quotes about teams "needing" a rookie at a certain position to step in immediately. The GB Press Gazette's own Peter Dougherty has this year decided to partake in this rite of spring with the following passage from an article he has written on the defensive front seven, which I read this morning:

"The draft allows Thompson to hand pick a player or two who should have at least as good a shot, and probably better, at starting right away."

(Please note that the quote is less than three lines long, uses quotation marks, and is attributed to the writer, Pete Dougherty, of the Press Gazette. Note also that the quote was not used for commercial purposes.)

He then lists the following players as possible picks who might fit that bill: Texas’ Brian Orakpo, Penn State’s Aaron Maybin and maybe Florida State’s Everette Brown.

From what I have read in various places, including from our own Packerrats, all the players listed above have some holes in their games that might prevent them from being successful OLB's, much less starters from Day One. Orakpo - stiff hips, often played DE at Texas. Brown - pinned ears back and rushed, did not have other responsibilities at FSU. Maybin - very young, very raw.

Each might become a starter. But to say that any of t hem has a "probably better" shot at starting from Day One than Poppinga or Thompson or Chillar? Hmmm.

Now don't get me wrong. I don't say that any of the current guys is a superstar OLB. They've got some learning to do. They mioght only be average, at best. But they are not NFL rookies, and if consistency is important in the NFL, and I think it is, they've got a much better chance to start than any of the rookies the Packers could draft at #9.

[Gunakor]

Re: The Annual Lie About Starting Rookies

Each year, come spring, hope - and stupidity - spring eternal.

Each year, writers and fans alike talk about GM's needing to draft "difference makers" as if rookies could step in and immediately grasp the NFL system and play at a consistently high level.

Does it happen? Sure, if your name is Adrian Petersen or Matt Ryan or Mark Tauscher. However, the truth of the matter is that for the vast majority of NFL rookies, the first year is a flurry of learning and confusion.

Yet this does not stop supposed experts from making their annual dumb quotes about teams "needing" a rookie at a certain position to step in immediately. The GB Press Gazette's own Peter Dougherty has this year decided to partake in this rite of spring with the following passage from an article he has written on the defensive front seven, which I read this morning:

"The draft allows Thompson to hand pick a player or two who should have at least as good a shot, and probably better, at starting right away."

(Please note that the quote is less than three lines long, uses quotation marks, and is attributed to the writer, Pete Dougherty, of the Press Gazette. Note also that the quote was not used for commercial purposes.)

He then lists the following players as possible picks who might fit that bill: Texas’ Brian Orakpo, Penn State’s Aaron Maybin and maybe Florida State’s Everette Brown.

From what I have read in various places, including from our own Packerrats, all the players listed above have some holes in their games that might prevent them from being successful OLB's, much less starters from Day One. Orakpo - stiff hips, often played DE at Texas. Brown - pinned ears back and rushed, did not have other responsibilities at FSU. Maybin - very young, very raw.

Each might become a starter. But to say that any of t hem has a "probably better" shot at starting from Day One than Poppinga or Thompson or Chillar? Hmmm.

Now don't get me wrong. I don't say that any of the current guys is a superstar OLB. They've got some learning to do. They mioght only be average, at best. But they are not NFL rookies, and if consistency is important in the NFL, and I think it is, they've got a much better chance to start than any of the rookies the Packers could draft at #9.

There have been plenty of impressive rookie starters at LB over the years. I think if they were to land one of the top ones in this year's draft that they'd at the very least give Pop and Thompson a good run for their money in camp. But if they really want to draft a guy at #9 that could come in and be an effective starter right away, any of the top 4 OT's would likely win the RT starting job as a rookie. The top LB's in this year's draft are all very talented, and would probably win starting jobs on most other teams as rookies, but I honestly don't think our starting LB's are that bad. Certainly not bad enough to warrant a #9 pick to replace one of them out of necessity.

[mraynrand]

Re: The Annual Lie About Starting Rookies

(Please note that the quote is less than three lines long, uses quotation marks, and is attributed to the writer, Pete Dougherty, of the Press Gazette. Note also that the quote was not used for commercial purposes.)

The Department of Homeland Security will be paying you a visit shortly.

[mraynrand]

Hey, didn't that guy A.J. Hawk start some games as a rookie? What about Nick Barnett?

[Deputy Nutz]

Linebacker seems like one of the easier transitions on the defense from college to the pros. Secondary probably be the hardest physically and mentally. Defensive line is a very difficult transition from college to the pros because a lot of these guys use their physical gifts and talents rather than the skill needed to consistently beat offensive linemen in the NFL.

Even at number nine there are going to be guys that will need time to develop at the pro level, while maybe your third round pick ends up starting from day one. The NFL draft is really strange that way, that some of the rankings or ratings on these guys can be that far off.

[Lurker64]

I think the operative difference is that lots of rookies start, but it's a precious few who are actually "difference makers" right away, and that's okay. You really hope your rookies turn into difference makers in 2-3 years, if it happens right away that's just a bonus.

[Fritz]

Hey, didn't that guy A.J. Hawk start some games as a rookie? What about Nick Barnett?

Nope. Neither one started as a rookie.

[Waldo]

Since we already have 1 good pass rusher that most likely will be a liability in coverage, I don't like the chances of a college DE that is learning to stand up also coming in and starting across from him.

Any OLB rook will have to be able to cover unless Kamp turns out to be a dynamo.

I don't think any but Clay Matthews or Jason Williams stand much of a chance. Both of them are familiar with playing a spot similar to 3-4 OLB, and both were at one time safeties. Both also are extremely athletic and have an unusual amount of recovery speed for a linebacker. The guy that starts opposite Kamp will have to be a linebacker first and pass rusher second, not vice versa, unless we are in a 4-3 or 2-5, where a situational rusher could be used. In the base 3-4, I see an experienced linebacker across from Kamp, at least this season.

[Lurker64]

Since we already have 1 good pass rusher that most likely will be a liability in coverage, I don't like the chances of a college DE that is learning to stand up also coming in and starting across from him.

Any OLB rook will have to be able to cover unless Kamp turns out to be a dynamo.

I don't think any but Clay Matthews or Jason Williams stand much of a chance. Both of them are familiar with playing a spot similar to 3-4 OLB, and both were at one time safeties. Both also are extremely athletic and have an unusual amount of recovery speed for a linebacker. The guy that starts opposite Kamp will have to be a linebacker first and pass rusher second, not vice versa, unless we are in a 4-3 or 2-5, where a situational rusher could be used. In the base 3-4, I see an experienced linebacker across from Kamp, at least this season.

Sintim played 3-4 OLB in college and was a pretty complete player, definitely solid in coverage from what I've seen. Would we need someone better than him in coverage, or is the issue just that he probably plays the same position as Kampman?

[SnakeLH2006]

Re: The Annual Lie About Starting Rookies

There have been plenty of impressive rookie starters at LB over the years. But if they really want to draft a guy at #9 that could come in and be an effective starter right away, any of the top 4 OT's would likely win the RT starting job as a rookie. But I honestly don't think our starting LB's are that bad. Certainly not bad enough to warrant a #9 pick to replace one of them out of necessity.

LOL...So this is what Snake was/is saying, then why couldn't you state that in my TT thread? That's exactly what I'm saying in there. Those LB's MAY be beasts in a year or two or so, but so too may be the OT's. Get the OT and fill a need as they are talented as all hell this year. At #9 we may get an OT that is a #2 in another year. Get the need filled with a starter as both OT spots need an upgrade to help us win in 2009. Gunakor, dude...,you just said the same thing I've been preaching in the TT thread, as you've been not necessarily arguing but bantering with me on this issue on there. I've been saying the same thing in my TT thread for past week. Damn man...

[Gunakor]

Re: The Annual Lie About Starting Rookies

There have been plenty of impressive rookie starters at LB over the years. But if they really want to draft a guy at #9 that could come in and be an effective starter right away, any of the top 4 OT's would likely win the RT starting job as a rookie. But I honestly don't think our starting LB's are that bad. Certainly not bad enough to warrant a #9 pick to replace one of them out of necessity.

LOL...So this is what Snake was/is saying, then why couldn't you state that in my TT thread? That's exactly what I'm saying in there. Those LB's MAY be beasts in a year or two or so, but so too may be the OT's. Get the OT and fill a need as they are talented as all hell this year. At #9 we may get an OT that is a #2 in another year. Get the need filled with a starter as both OT spots need an upgrade to help us win in 2009. Gunakor, dude...,you just said the same thing I've been preaching in the TT thread, as you've been not necessarily arguing but bantering with me on this issue on there. I've been saying the same thing in my TT thread for past week. Damn man...

Those OT's might be future studs, but I highly doubt any of them are going to be Pro Bowlers right out of the gate. Nor do I think they'll make any kind of an impact over previous seasons. After all, no matter how good the guy might be, it's still a step backwards from what we've been used to with Tauscher healthy.

In your thread you were arguing for the need for an rookie phenom who makes an immediate impact, and I don't know if any of those OT's will be that for us. Just regular starters still developing into hopeful future studs. But considering the guy he'd be replacing, I don't see it being an upgrade at all. I'd rather have a healthy Mark Tauscher in at RT before any of those rookies.

[pbmax]

I think Fritz has several good points that Doughtery does not consider.

- Picking 9 doesn't mean all the prospects will be available and this is only partially in your control
- Not all of the top prospects for the front seven will be worth #9 money
- Not all of the prospects are equally ready to start

And their position means a lot. Pittsburgh has often taken years to develop OLBs (Harrison) and when they do start right away (Woodley) they often play poorly. One of the reasons cited for the Steelers defensive success is that Woodley made a big leap in year 2. Difference maker is a nearly arbitrary term to allow folks to criticize immediately.

[DonHutson]

I would hope the #9 pick would start eventually, but I don't see really any players we could pick there that are locks to start.

Raji would play behind Pickett. Oher behind Clifton. Orakpo or Maybin would be best suited to play behind Kampman, though maybe they could play the other side. Jenkins wouldn't start at CB, maybe at S. Jackson would be in the mix at DE.

[Fritz]

Thank you, PB. Also, I think Gun is right - even if you pick up a fine OT at #9, he's not going to be a starter out of the gate, not a good, consistent one, anyway. The only two Packer offensive linemen who seemed to be able to start and "get it" immediately on the line were Tauscher and Sitton, if he hadn't gotten hurt. Earl Dotson took time, Wahle did, Rivera did, even Clifton did. Flanagan took forever, partly because he got hurt. Wells took a couple of years.

That's perhaps too why I'm more confident in the O-line than many others here. Just because Colledge didn't blow people's doors off his first year (nor did Sitton, or Barbre) and just because he was better but still inconsistent his second year, does not mean he's not going to be the real deal. I think he is. I think Sitton is going to be solid, too. So I think that outside the need for a tackle, or maybe two, things on the line will be fine. As long as there is not a series of serious injuries, of course.

I stand by my original statement - I think people overestimate the contributions rookies can make. The easiest position to have an impact on and integrate into the game seems to be running back. Cornerbacks can come in right away, too, though that might depend on the complexity of the defensive scheme. But offensive line is a tough place to figure out how to play, it seems. And defensive linemen may be just too young and undeveloped unless someone is a freak of nature (of course, you look at their builds and they're all freaks of nature). Punters take years to develop. Most receivers do as well.

So pick a guy you really like, that you really think will be an excellent NFL player, but don't count on him stepping in to start his rookie year. Generally, that's not a recipe for success. In fact, I'd argue that starting rookies at certain positions - quarterback - is a highly risky move for that player's career. I'm a firm believer in drafting a rookie QB and then sitting his butt on the pine for the first two years. Sure, there are exceptions, but they are so few and far between that it's not worth the risk of ruining a guy's career. Harrington, Leaf, Tavaris Jackson, and on and on. l;ppppppp

[Bretsky]

Thank you, PB. Also, I think Gun is right - even if you pick up a fine OT at #9, he's not going to be a starter out of the gate, not a good, consistent one, anyway. The only two Packer offensive linemen who seemed to be able to start and "get it" immediately on the line were Tauscher and Sitton, if he hadn't gotten hurt. Earl Dotson took time, Wahle did, Rivera did, even Clifton did. Flanagan took forever, partly because he got hurt. Wells took a couple of years.

That's perhaps too why I'm more confident in the O-line than many others here. Just because Colledge didn't blow people's doors off his first year (nor did Sitton, or Barbre) and just because he was better but still inconsistent his second year, does not mean he's not going to be the real deal. I think he is. I think Sitton is going to be solid, too. So I think that outside the need for a tackle, or maybe two, things on the line will be fine. As long as there is not a series of serious injuries, of course.

I stand by my original statement - I think people overestimate the contributions rookies can make. The easiest position to have an impact on and integrate into the game seems to be running back. Cornerbacks can come in right away, too, though that might depend on the complexity of the defensive scheme. But offensive line is a tough place to figure out how to play, it seems. And defensive linemen may be just too young and undeveloped unless someone is a freak of nature (of course, you look at their builds and they're all freaks of nature). Punters take years to develop. Most receivers do as well.

So pick a guy you really like, that you really think will be an excellent NFL player, but don't count on him stepping in to start his rookie year. Generally, that's not a recipe for success. In fact, I'd argue that starting rookies at certain positions - quarterback - is a highly risky move for that player's career. I'm a firm believer in drafting a rookie QB and then sitting his butt on the pine for the first two years. Sure, there are exceptions, but they are so few and far between that it's not worth the risk of ruining a guy's career. Harrington, Leaf, Tavaris Jackson, and on and on. l;ppppppp

When are the last time we picked a OL in round one ? Did he start out of the gate ? My select memory brings back Aaron Taylor, John Michaels, Ken Ruettgers, and the Incredible Bust.

I think all four of them started right away if my memory serves me right. Now Michaels and Manarich sucked right away....but I think they started. AT and Ruettgers were solid.