I did say Zimmer doesn't start rookies to a fault, similar to most head coaches. There are examples of him starting the wrong guy in favor of the vet (O'Neill, Diggs, Kendricks), but Gladney, JJ, and even Cleveland are not those examples since Gladney and Cleveland weren't ready and JJ actually played starter snaps (45 routes run versus Johnson's 43, Thielen had 59 in those first 2 games). He has been pretty quick to get the right guy in there too when a vet isn't playing well in front of a rookie.Pondering Her Percy wrote: ↑Sat Aug 21, 2021 10:45 pmI'm sorry but what???StumpHunter wrote: ↑Fri Aug 20, 2021 7:40 pm
Of those rookies you stated, Jefferson ran the second most routes in those first two games, he just didn't have the started designation.
Ezra wasn't very good as a rookie and struggled early on especially.
Gladney was terrible as a rookie and shouldn't have been starting.
Bradbury was terrible as a rookie and shouldn't have been starting.
Barr was pretty good as a rook and did start.
O'Neill was an okay rookie and should have been able to beat out Hill, he was NOT good right out of the gate though. His first 4 games he was graded at a 60, which was 51st among qualifying tackles and graded worse than Hill during that time period. He gave up 0 sacks which is great for a rookie, but gave up 31 pressures in 12 starts and was not a very good run blocker (55 grade per pff).
Zimmer is trying to put the best team out there and dislikes starting rookies for good reason. Most of them aren't very good in their first years or make mistakes vets don't. Even the great ones need a while to acclimate most of the time. He follows this to a fault sometimes true, but I think that is typical of a lot of head coaches.
-Jefferson played 65 snaps the first two weeks compared to Bisi Johnsons 75. And if you recall, we got blown out both of those games which forced more 3 WR sets which is why Jefferson was getting in. It might've been a blessing in disguise because if we were running with GB and Indy, Jefferson would've seen less snaps and probably wouldnt have blown up week 3 vs. the Titans
-Whether you thought Ezra was good as a rookie or not, he was 10000 times better than Dru Samia. Samia finished the year with a 33.1 PFF grade compared to Ezra's 66.2. At one point, Samia was the worst graded started of any offensive player in the entire NFL. Yeah he was THAT bad. But it literally wasnt even close with Cleveland and the fact that Samia started for as long as he did, was embarrassing in regards to this coaching staff. And if you recall, the only reason Cleveland started is because Samia had a wrist injury so they inserted Cleveland. It took an injury to Dru Samia for them to realize Cleveland was galaxies better than Samia.
-So Gladney was terrible as a rookie yet our two main starters were Mike Hughes and Holton Hill??? Holton Hill was getting burned on the reg and was an embarrassment. Mike Hughes wasnt far off. And mind you, Gladney got better as the season went on. I still say he shouldve had a pick 6 vs. Evans and the refs botched the PI call because Evans slipped. But either way, our two starters were horrid. Gladney struggled with mental mistakes early on but was much better than any CB not named Dantzler by mid year.
-As for Bradbury, he wasnt the greatest but was an exceptional run blocker. The only other option we had was Elflein back at center. And did we really want to go that route again? Either Bradbury started at center his rookie year and Elflein kicked to guard or Elflein played center that year and we have nobody at guard. Take your pick or name me a better option. I'll answer that, there wasnt one.
-Barr was good as a rookie but also started day 1 because what else did we have? Greenway was passed his prime and needed a reduced role. Who was the other LB? Brinkley? Either way, it was beat the crap out of Greenway taking on a full time role at SLB or start Barr.
-As for Oneill, regardless of what you think, he allowed zero sacks for practically two full seasons. I dont care what his run blocking looks like or whatever else for that matter. If you tell me Christian Darrisaw will not allow a sack this year but will be a below average run blocker, I'd tell you to get his as# in the starting lineup ASAP. I'd rather have a guy in there that is excellent in at least one area than a guy that is terrible in all areas. Bradbury is another example of that. Good run blocker, poor pass blocker. Whether you think that's justifiable or not, it's at least "partially" better than any other option.
Like I said in my original post, some rookies will start when there is literally nobody there to fill the need. But more often than not, he's keeping rookies on the bench. Which is fine and dandy when someone else is in there that can at least walk and chew gum. When you're starting the Dru Samia's and Bisi Johnson's of the world over much better players just because they are the "vets that know the system" then that's a problem. If you're starting Brian Robison over a raw Danielle Hunter, okay. Robison is still a solid player that can get to the QB and is a leader. What on earth does Dru Samia or Bisi Johnson or any other bum I listed above bring to the table other than absolutely nothing?
Which brings me to this year. If Griff isnt signed, Weatherly is starting guaranteed. I can already tell you Patrick Jones is the better DE even after one preseason game because Weatherly is truly that bad, especially when it comes to rushing the passer. But Jones will rot on the bench until Weatherly goes down or Jones makes enough plays in a rotational role where Zim has no choice. I understand Hill starting this year at LT because Darrisaw has had the injury and missed a lot of valuable practice time. I can also probably tell you that Chaz Surratt is a better LB than Nick Vigil. Surratt has been all over the field the last two games. But Vigil will get the old "Zimmer veteran nod". Udoh and Davis are up in the air because I just havent seen enough of Udoh to really know but I have a weird feeling he might be solid simply because of his strength and anchor which is what this interior has been missing.
But if you ask me, Surratt and Jones should be day 1 starters (barring a Griffen signing). And Darrisaw too if he was healthy but unfortunately he is not. Will that happen? Absolutely not and that is pathetic.
Also, making the rookies earn their spot and giving veterans a chance to keep a spot they have worked really hard to get is a good thing for the team. It is a business and you need to get the best guys out there, but the way Zimmer does things tells the team that if they play well they aren't going to lose their starting spot to some rookie just because he is the shiny new player we just drafted.
What have you seen exactly out of Jones and Suratt that you think those 2 should be starting? I am not a Weatherly fan, and I hope Wonnum wins the starting spot now that it looks like Griffen wants more money than the Vikings are willing to give him. I just wonder how you seem to know Jones is better than Wonnum and Weatherly, and how you know Suratt is better than a guy like Dye?
