+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Cincinnati Bengals / NFL (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Cincinnati-Bengals-NFL)
+--- Forum: JUNGLE NOISE (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-JUNGLE-NOISE)
+--- Thread: Bengals rank 28th in rookie snaps (/Thread-Bengals-rank-28th-in-rookie-snaps)
Pages:
1
2
Bengals rank 28th in rookie snaps - Bengalholic - 02-01-2017
According to Bill Barnwell, the Bengals were in the bottom 5 in terms of total rookie snaps (offense and defense) in 2016.
3 teams in the top 10 made the playoffs, but so did 4 of the bottom 10.
The factors that go into why, when and how much rookies play for each team are so completely different based on individual situations and needs (injuries, lack of talent, poor depth, etc)...that I'm not sure if these kinds of stats actually tell anything useful.
![[Image: C3ZtQM4XAAAYCwt.jpg:large]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3ZtQM4XAAAYCwt.jpg:large)
RE: Bengals rank 28th in rookie snaps - ochocincos - 02-01-2017
We all know Marvin is reluctant to give rookies significant snaps.
However, I think this particular year was very low because both WJ3 and Billings were on IR all year. Both were expected to at least contribute somewhat to the defense in 2016 had it not been for injuries.
RE: Bengals rank 28th in rookie snaps - yellowxdiscipline - 02-01-2017
Strange the Falcons and the Patriots are much higher.
Playing rookies over our veterans now matter how poorly the vets are playing is heresy!!!!
RE: Bengals rank 28th in rookie snaps - Au165 - 02-01-2017
Seems like there is no correlation to success and playing rookies.
RE: Bengals rank 28th in rookie snaps - bfine32 - 02-01-2017
Seems Zims and Gruden followed the teachings of their old master and have been fairly successful. A lot more so than the one that did not follow the formula.
RE: Bengals rank 28th in rookie snaps - wolfkaosaun - 02-01-2017
(02-01-2017, 05:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Seems Zims and Gruden followed the teachings of their old master and have been fairly successful. A lot more so than the one that did not follow the formula.
There's also a big difference between the Bengals roster and the Browns roster
RE: Bengals rank 28th in rookie snaps - Bengal Dude - 02-01-2017
Boyd had 66% of those rookie snaps.
RE: Bengals rank 28th in rookie snaps - wolfkaosaun - 02-01-2017
Fun fact: Tyler Boyd accounted for 739 of those 1112 snaps.
RE: Bengals rank 28th in rookie snaps - bfine32 - 02-01-2017
(02-01-2017, 05:18 PM)wolfkaosaun Wrote: There's also a big difference between the Bengals roster and the Browns roster
Yep. They relied heavily on rookies.
RE: Bengals rank 28th in rookie snaps - guyofthetiger - 02-01-2017
Dallas hit gold with Elliot and Prescott. Does not happen too often. Remember Manziel? The only way to test a rookie is to let him play. The Bengals should do a better job of balancing veterans and rookies.
RE: Bengals rank 28th in rookie snaps - Shake n Blake - 02-01-2017
(02-01-2017, 05:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yep. They relied heavily on rookies.
Right. That's the biggest difference for sure.
RE: Bengals rank 28th in rookie snaps - Nately120 - 02-01-2017
(02-01-2017, 05:47 PM)guyofthetiger Wrote: Dallas hit gold with Elliot and Prescott. Does not happen too often. Remember Manziel? The only way to test a rookie is to let him play. The Bengals should do a better job of balancing veterans and rookies.
I'm not sure I'd count the Browns constantly throwing extremely not ready QBs into hopeless situations as "testing them." That's like testing someone's swimming ability by tying an anchor to him and throwing him in the middle of the Pacific.
RE: Bengals rank 28th in rookie snaps - wolfkaosaun - 02-01-2017
(02-01-2017, 05:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yep. They relied heavily on rookies.
21 of their 63 players that were on their roster this year were rookies.
RGIII got hurt after week 1. So they put in McCown, who then got hurt during the Ravens game, and they had to put in Kessler.
There were 8 games where a rookie QB played for the Browns, whether Hogan or Kessler.
In all 8 of those games, a rookie QB started the game. They drafted Coleman in the 1st round, and had a need at WR.
Ogbah actually did decent, and numerous people on these boards wanted him or Nassib.
The Bengals were a Super Bowl caliber team for years. The Browns have been rebuilding and are under new regime.
There's so many differences. Sometimes you need rookies to come in and step up.
I mean, the Bengals needed that in 2011 with AJ Green and Andy Dalton. Those two alone had close to 2000 snap counts in 2011. Then throw in that Boling played in 5 games and started 3. Oh, and Andrew Hawkins was also a rookie who played in 11 games.
Sometimes it's better to play rookies. It worked out for us in 2011.
RE: Bengals rank 28th in rookie snaps - J24 - 02-01-2017
What I don't get is we used to play rookies all the time. Andy, AJ, Gresham, Geno, Dunlap, Joseph, Hall, Maluaga, Gio, Hill, Zietler, MJ, Shipley, Thurman, and Vontaz. Now guys can't seem to find any playing time.
RE: Bengals rank 28th in rookie snaps - coachmcneil71 - 02-01-2017
Interesting topic Holic. If not for the injuries to WJIII and Billings things may have been a little different.
RE: Bengals rank 28th in rookie snaps - wolfkaosaun - 02-01-2017
(02-01-2017, 08:06 PM)coachmcneil71 Wrote: Interesting topic Holic. If not for the injuries to WJIII and Billings things may have been a little different.
I doubt that in all honesty. Maybe minor number changes, but not much.
We didn't see Westerman when there was injury to Boling. He was the only backup OG we had, but they put TJ Johnson, a backup center, in there instead.
Adam Jones, Kirkpatrick, Shaw, and Dennard were all in front of WJIII. It took forever for us to see KeiVarae Russell, and he was limited too.
Billings is the only guy I could have seen get a number of actual decent snaps.
RE: Bengals rank 28th in rookie snaps - Bilbo Saggins - 02-02-2017
(02-01-2017, 05:09 PM)yellowxdiscipline Wrote: Strange the Falcons and the Patriots are much higher.
Playing rookies over our veterans now matter how poorly the vets are playing is heresy!!!!
But once you hit that magic number(like Ogbuehi did), it's live by the young guys - die by the young guys! We're going to stick with the youth movement no matter what!
RE: Bengals rank 28th in rookie snaps - Bengal Dude - 02-02-2017
(02-01-2017, 07:45 PM)J24 Wrote: What I don't get is we used to play rookies all the time. Andy, AJ, Gresham, Geno, Dunlap, Joseph, Hall, Maluaga, Gio, Hill, Zietler, MJ, Shipley, Thurman, and Vontaze. Now guys can't seem to find any playing time.
It doesn't help that we keep taking early CBs and Marvin believes it takes them a while to get up to speed in the NFL. Joseph and Hall got early playing time due to injuries.
RE: Bengals rank 28th in rookie snaps - Jpoore - 02-03-2017
(02-01-2017, 10:42 PM)wolfkaosaun Wrote: I doubt that in all honesty. Maybe minor number changes, but not much.
We didn't see Westerman when there was injury to Boling. He was the only backup OG we had, but they put TJ Johnson, a backup center, in there instead.
Adam Jones, Kirkpatrick, Shaw, and Dennard were all in front of WJIII. It took forever for us to see KeiVarae Russell, and he was limited too.
Billings is the only guy I could have seen get a number of actual decent snaps.
wjiii would have seen limited time but I could easily have seen Billings getting 50 percent of the snaps at nt.
RE: Bengals rank 28th in rookie snaps - Bengal Dude - 02-03-2017
(02-03-2017, 10:05 AM)Jpoore Wrote: wjiii would have seen limited time but I could easily have seen Billings getting 50 percent of the snaps at nt.
In 2008, John Thornton had to go over to the coaches and tell them to put Pat Sims into the game and get him snaps. I don't think Billings would've played 50% of the snaps.