January 30, 20179 yr comment_161880 Bears in 4th. Surprisingly Vikings were in last with only 287 rookie snaps. Source: https://twitter.com/billbarnwell/status/825967715273887744 Report
January 30, 20179 yr comment_161881 I'm not sure what to make of that stat. It's misleading at best. Any of the following is possible: 1. A team was horrible, and the rookies just walked into the starting positions. 2. Incredible draft. 3. Injured starters left openings for rookies. 4. Strategic personnel decision put a rookie into the starting spot over a vet. 5. Personnel decision was made to start rookie to... 5A. Get rookies snaps for the future (e.g. Starting a lesser rookie QB because it's good for development) 5B. Put pressure on underperforming veteran (e.g. The Jamarcus Webb at OT move) 5C. See if a player's talents translate elsewhere (e.g. The Devin Hester at WR move) 6. A team makes a habit of rotating in rookies more often because they believe it's better overall for the team. I'm sure there are a bunch of other possibilities, but that's just off the top of my head. For the Bears, it's mostly a combination of 1-3. Report
January 30, 20179 yr Author comment_161885 I'm not sure what to make of that stat. It's misleading at best. Any of the following is possible: 1. A team was horrible, and the rookies just walked into the starting positions. 2. Incredible draft. 3. Injured starters left openings for rookies. 4. Strategic personnel decision put a rookie into the starting spot over a vet. 5. Personnel decision was made to start rookie to... 5A. Get rookies snaps for the future (e.g. Starting a lesser rookie QB because it's good for development) 5B. Put pressure on underperforming veteran (e.g. The Jamarcus Webb at OT move) 5C. See if a player's talents translate elsewhere (e.g. The Devin Hester at WR move) 6. A team makes a habit of rotating in rookies more often because they believe it's better overall for the team. I'm sure there are a bunch of other possibilities, but that's just off the top of my head. For the Bears, it's mostly a combination of 1-3. Absolutely, without context, it is hard to really see any cause and effect when a team is bad. However, it would seem to me that a playoff team with a ton of rookie snaps would be projected to be in a better position to have long term success than ones with fewer rookies getting PT. Also, if you look at the reverse, you can probably project which teams will have some potential cap issues in the next few years (w/ very few rookies playing): MIN, ARZ, WAS. Report
January 30, 20179 yr comment_161886 Absolutely, without context, it is hard to really see any cause and effect when a team is bad. However, it would seem to me that a playoff team with a ton of rookie snaps would be projected to be in a better position to have long term success than ones with fewer rookies getting PT. Also, if you look at the reverse, you can probably project which teams will have some potential cap issues in the next few years (w/ very few rookies playing): MIN, ARZ, WAS. So many variables in the whole process, it pretty well doesn't say anything important. Report
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.