Were not group 4????

[turningpoint]

I mean I know we went 8-8, wow 1 game from being a winning team, but in all honesty look at the jags, and who cares if they start or not, i bet our team was top 5 in playing time for rookies.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/8361976

Pat Kirwan By Pat Kirwan

NFL.com Senior Analyst

(April 6, 2005) -- The most important thing in the NFL is to win as many games as possible every year. That's obvious to everyone from fans to front offices. But the truth is, not every team can win in the NFL each year, and there better be signs that your team is built or being built on a strong foundation. There are many ways to look at the present state of affairs with a team, and just before the draft I like to look back at the previous season and classify teams into one of four categories in order to get a feel for just where they stand before the draft comes up.

For example, the Patriots and the Eagles were widely thought of as the two best teams in their respective conferences, and by playing such a good Super Bowl game, there is no argument about how they were built in 2004. But when you look at the number of starts rookies had for those two teams, it is not surprising at the low number generated. New England had a total of just nine starts from rookies during the regular season and the Eagles only recorded two rookie starts. Granted, the Eagles lost offensive guard Shawn Andrews early in the season and may have wound up with closer to 17 rookie starts for the year if he remained healthy, but he didn't.

It should be clear just how hard it is for rookies to break into the starting lineup on good teams. This year, the Patriots have nine draft picks and the Eagles have 13, so it is safe to assume not too many of those 22 rookies are going to impact their respective starting lineups in 2005.

When you consider that there are 22 starters per game and each team plays 16 games, that equates to 352 starts for each team, each season. For a team to have just 5 percent of their starts dedicated to rookies, they need to post 17 rookie starts for the season. To have 10 percent of the starts dedicated to rookies, they need to produce 35 starts. Only seven teams in the NFL last season crossed the 10 percent threshold for rookie starts. The Cardinals led the league with 59 rookie starts followed by the Titans (49), Panthers (48), Chargers (48), Lions (44), Texans (41) and Jaguars (41).

Defensive end Darnell Dockett is one of many Cardinals rookies who started in 2004.

Of course, getting rookies on the field as starters is important, but not at the expense of winning. Of the seven teams that played rookies the most as starters, only one of them had a winning record. The Chargers' 48 rookie starts was more than complemented by their outstanding 12-4 record. And when you consider their future franchise QB Philip Rivers never touched the field, it is easy to see how strong their foundation is for the long haul.

For the sake of classifying teams into one of four categories, I used the following criteria. A winning record (9-7 or better) qualified your team as good; 8-8 or worse qualified your team as unsuccessful. If your team had at least 7 percent of the starts (25 or more) dedicated to rookies, then the integration of young players was healthy. There are many other ways to look at blending young players into the franchise but this is one way to see how your team stacks up against the rest of the league.

The higher the classification, the better off the foundation of the team is based on this small study.

Group 1: The worst situation

Teams with a below-.500 record that used rookies less than 25 starts belong here. There's nothing more disheartening than a bad team with older players. The end of the tunnel is nowhere in sight.

Group 2: Some hope in sight

These are teams with a below-.500 record but playing a solid number of rookies. At least you feel like the young players have a chance to get better and the future is brighter than the first group.

Group 3: A "Now" team

These are good teams built with veterans and very few rookies contributing as starters. It's okay to be in this position, but the future has some questions in it.

Group 4: A "Now and future" team

These are winning teams that have managed to do it with a significant number of rookies lining up.

Before I slot the teams in the group they finished up in, I thought I would post the teams, their record, and the amount of rookie starts they had an 2004. Remember, it's okay to have a low amount of rookie starts as long as you are winning (Group 3) but being a Group 1 team is tough to take. For example, the Cleveland Browns not only had a 4-12 record, but they only generated six rookie starts. There's a reason they have a new front office and coach. Rarely can teams make the jump from a Group 1 team to a Group 4 team in one year. Jumping or sliding two spots are possible in a given year.

TEAM 2004 RECORD ROOKIE STARTS (NOT INCLUDING KICKERS) GROUP

ARIZONA 6-10 59 2

ATLANTA 11-5 16 3

BALTIMORE 9-7 6 3

BUFFALO 8-8 16 1

CAROLINA 7-9 48 2

CHICAGO 5-11 29 2

CINCINNATI 8-8 33 2

CLEVELAND 4-12 6 1

DALLAS 6-10 10 1

DENVER 10-6 17 3

DETROIT 6-10 44 2

GREEN BAY 10-6 13 3

HOUSTON 7-9 41 2

INDIANAPOLIS 12-4 28 4

JACKSONVILLE 9-7 41 4

KANSAS CITY 7-9 10 1

MIAMI 4-12 13 1

MINNESOTA 8-8 32 2

NEW ENGLAND 14-2 9 3

NEW ORLEANS 8-8 26 2

N.Y. GIANTS 6-10 26 2

N.Y. JETS 10-6 30 4

OAKLAND 5-11 29 2

PHILADELPHIA 13-3 2 3

PITTSBURGH 15-1 13 3

ST. LOUIS 8-8 11 1

SAN DIEGO 12-4 48 4

SAN FRANCISCO 2-14 21 1

SEATTLE 9-7 9 3

TAMPA BAY 5-11 14 1

TENNESSEE 5-11 49 2

WASHINGTON 6-10 23 1

This chart and group classification is just a way to look at a team as it relates to how young talent is being integrated into the lineup. It is critical in the salary-cap era and with the value of the draft that good relatively inexpensive players become starters when possible. A team like Minnesota, which at 8-8 just missed a winning record, had well over 25 rookie starts so it probably should be considered up a category if you want to get closer to reality. But under this grouping, the Vikings just missed.

Now, free-agent moves this winter and four picks on the first day of the draft gives the Vikings a solid chance to make the jump to a Group 4 team in 2005. Buffalo and St. Louis were just a field goal away from a Group 2 classification and they both could easily move up, but I sure would like to see more starts from the rookies in 2005.

[JPW]

A team like Minnesota, which at 8-8 just missed a winning record, had well over 25 rookie starts so it probably should be considered up a category if you want to get closer to reality.

So maybe the Bengals should be up a category to ?

They had the same record as Minnesota and had one more rookie start even with his (NOT INCLUDING KICKERS) rule.

As for getting closer to reality it was also Palmer's 1st year playing even though he wasn't a rookie.

Pittsburgh only had 13 rookie starts ...

Was Big Ben the only rookie that started any games for them ?

[turningpoint]

Yeah I assume so.

I mean it is truely annoying, they aren't counting: our Punter, Ratliff in at Nickel, Geathers on 3rd down, Langeston Moore coming in often, Caleb and Landon filling in.

Just overall a bad article.

[DontPushMe]

They werent counting Moore because he wasnt a rookie. Also, just because rookies play doesnt mean they start, there is a difference, a lot of teams had rookies at nickel, or coming in on 3rd downs, this was about starters. And how could you say we belong in group 4? The team didnt win. Group 4 is for teams who WON games while starting rookies. 8-8 isnt a winning record.

[turningpoint]

well we aren;t a team with a record below .500 either dumbass.

sorry but i just don't like dontpushme.

[jjakq27]

They werent counting Moore because he wasnt a rookie. Also, just because rookies play doesnt mean they start, there is a difference, a lot of teams had rookies at nickel, or coming in on 3rd downs, this was about starters. And how could you say we belong in group 4? The team didnt win. Group 4 is for teams who WON games while starting rookies. 8-8 isnt a winning record.

Where you been lately, bro? Spring break? Welcome back.

[HairOnFire]

For the sake of classifying teams into one of four categories, I used the following criteria. A winning record (9-7 or better) qualified your team as good; 8-8 or worse qualified your team as unsuccessful.

This is where it all fell apart for me. More than half of the NFL won 8 games or less and the one thing they had in common was having almost nothing in common. Plus, teams start rookies for different reasons, good ones and bad ones, but on paper those reasons don't count.....but the numbers still do.

Add it all up and the final result is me not caring very much.

[turningpoint]

seriously how the hell r the Rams unsuccessful when they made it to the divisional playoff round.....

[not-another]

seriously how the hell r the Rams unsuccessful when they made it to the divisional playoff round.....

Well, being the NFC sucked this year. I say anyone that knew something about football could succed in the NFC and make it to the playoffs.