Graziano on Coughlin/McAdoo Playing Rookies

But some will run with it

did you read the article?

qualified it

Coughlin made good decisions.

and they contributed to a Super Bowl win. Without a strong draft class including Aaron Ross, Steve Smith, Ahmad Bradshaw and Kevin Boss, we probably wouldn't have won.

i've heard coughlin say personally that he preferred to save rookies for later in the year. rookies can't last the whole NFL season. After 4 preseason games they hit "the wall" around week 8.
the idea is when the vets get injured, the rookies are able to fill in late in the year and are often valuable parts of the stretch run with their fresh legs

you do not want a rookie starting from day 1 of camp, if you can help it. they will burn out

In comment 12974600 area junc said:

Quote:

i've heard coughlin say personally that he preferred to save rookies for later in the year. rookies can't last the whole NFL season. After 4 preseason games they hit "the wall" around week 8. the idea is when the vets get injured, the rookies are able to fill in late in the year and are often valuable parts of the stretch run with their fresh legs

hey Skunky - where did you hear him personally say this ? - or was it really impersonally said by him to a broadcast interviewer and also heard by some of the rest of us?

yes or no rule on this is stiupid.

If Shepard is a week 1 starter opposite OBJ. The kid is a polished route runner, big time playmaker, super smart and all around great kid. He's got IT.

The other picks should start off as part of nickel or dime packages and STs.

and Richburg and the rest, then who?
The TC folklore has merit, but the lack of talent due to horrendous drafts and personnel decisions dictated who got PT in many instances.

Sloppy for a journalist.
Strike either "never" or "un" before fair.

I was confused at first wondering why he was contradicting his own opening statement.

than rookies starting week 1

Good trivia if you can guess the 5 players.

which rookie played and which didn't.....and when they did play, was it because of talent or necessity?

In comment 12974599 Ira said:

Quote:

and they contributed to a Super Bowl win. Without a strong draft class including Aaron Ross, Steve Smith, Ahmad Bradshaw and Kevin Boss, we probably wouldn't have won.

Actually, it was well documented at the time that late in the season Reese pressured Coughlin to start playing rookies, particularly Bradshaw.

Hopefully Sheppard can be worked in as oppose to forced in I 100% agree that letting them develop learn the playbook and watch . Then Either by injury or necessity let them get there reps and Hopefully push there way into the lineup .
Not Everyone is a OBJ he just a freak .
I'm really liking the Potential of Adams and Will Johnson to make up for not having a clear cut #2 Unless we pick up
a Vet along the way . I think McAdoo has enough in his tool box to keep the offense rolling .

In comment 12974639 Mason said:

Quote:

Good trivia if you can guess the 5 players.

Snee, Diehl, Pugh are three

started as a rookie too...disaster though.

In comment 12974661 Jay on the Island said:

Quote:

In comment 12974639 Mason said: Quote: Good trivia if you can guess the 5 players. Snee, Diehl, Pugh are three

Flowers as well, no?

Most coaches don't. Coughlin's mantra as a coach was don't beat yourself with mistakes. Rookies make mistakes. So he did not like to play them.

Citing HOF talents, such as OBJ and Eli, as a counter-example is idiotic. Every coach starts those guys.

I think the whole thing is overblown, but if you are looking for a difference with Coughlin and BM, Tom was maybe more likely to go with a veteran like Preston Parker, John Jerry or Brandon Merriweather over a younger player. He was not a guy who was going to sacrifice wins for player development.

So there is some truth in the idea TC was less likely to play rookies than your average coach. But I think it is much ado about nothing and completely overblown.

The thread is not your thoughts! It is lined with another writers comment about the subject of playing rookies.

You don't have the balls to give your opinion.

If you want to talk about the possibility of the Giants playing rookies why don't you discuss it?
Graziano on Coughlin/ McAdoo playing Rookies- what is your point?

Of Course he is going to play rookies - So what do we need you for?

GRAZIANO said they were playing the Rookies.

I see what you are saying -- why state someone else's well thought out reasoning - when instead you can state your opinion and remove all doubt about your stupidity -- eh?

I see how that is working for you -- and I''m not anxious to be like you

In comment 12974600 area junc said:

Quote:

i've heard coughlin say personally that he preferred to save rookies for later in the year. rookies can't last the whole NFL season. After 4 preseason games they hit "the wall" around week 8.

Did you "hear" this in the same way you heard the Davis deal is imminent???

rookies thing was over done.

The bigger issue with Coughlin, is that he just wasn't able to adapt to the limitations that the new CBA created. Gilbride too, his system was too complicated for players to learn. Before the CBA changes, Gilbride said his system took about 3 years for WRs to learn. Too long of a learning curve for the limited practice time these days.

Graziano is probably right. Girlie

getting an opportunity to play. I believe we have no choice but to start rookies, at several positions. The team had a 6-10 record. Most of the key positions on defense are open.
I still pull for Cooper Taylor at Safety.

In comment 12974760 Elite Mobster #32 said:

Quote:

Graziano is probably right. Girlie

I understand why you say that Mobster -- Why let a thoughtful piece about the Giants, that most of us here like to gobble up because it contains facts and theories about our favorite team, spoil your day when you can jack off to a series of supervised helmet conventions under your sheets, and shout at the big bad chopper every once and a while.

But this throws me a little because I think it sucks as an example:

Quote:

Coughlin was leaning on rookies lately not because of some philosophy shift but because he had no other choice. The roster was hollowed out. The draft picks from 2008 to 2012 hadn't developed. The rookies had to play. Kind of like in 2004, when Eli Manning started nine games and Chris Snee started 11. As rookies.

. Eli didn't *have* to play. That was a strategic choice for the future.

In comment 12974661 Jay on the Island said:

Quote:

In comment 12974639 Mason said: Quote: Good trivia if you can guess the 5 players. Snee, Diehl, Pugh are three

DD wasn't a rookie TC's first year. Fassel started him his rookie year.

Yup to the other two.

In comment 12974664 Jimmy Googs said:

Quote:

started as a rookie too...disaster though.

Nope. He played and subbed in for AB. He fumbled though.

In comment 12974680 bradshaw44 said:

Quote:

In comment 12974661 Jay on the Island said: Quote: In comment 12974639 Mason said: Quote: Good trivia if you can guess the 5 players. Snee, Diehl, Pugh are three Flowers as well, no?

Yup. Flowers is the 3rd OL rookie to start game 1 as a rookie for TC after Snee and Pugh.

Other rookie starter is the most obvious and recent. Landon Collins started all 16 games last season.

Other rookie starter was Greg Jones at MLB, who started in the place of Goff who was injured in the practice before the game.

In comment 12974739 gidiefor said:

Quote:

I see what you are saying -- why state someone else's well thought out reasoning - when instead you can state your opinion and remove all doubt about your stupidity -- eh? I see how that is working for you -- and I''m not anxious to be like you

LOL!

+1 gidie

So did Landon Collins.

In comment 12974690 Vanzetti said:

Quote:

Most coaches don't. Coughlin's mantra as a coach was don't beat yourself with mistakes. Rookies make mistakes. So he did not like to play them. Citing HOF talents, such as OBJ and Eli, as a counter-example is idiotic. Every coach starts those guys. I think the whole thing is overblown, but if you are looking for a difference with Coughlin and BM, Tom was maybe more likely to go with a veteran like Preston Parker, John Jerry or Brandon Merriweather over a younger player. He was not a guy who was going to sacrifice wins for player development. So there is some truth in the idea TC was less likely to play rookies than your average coach. But I think it is much ado about nothing and completely overblown.

Van, it wasn't just rookies that didn't get playing time, TC had "his guys" too.

For example, in 2013? the Giants had to go with Locklear at RT. He was doing surprisingly well there but when Diehl became healthy, Locklear was benched and Diehl damn near got Eli killed. (By this time, everyone except Coughlin knew Diehl was basically a statue.)

from time to time for Coughlin in certain areas, the lesser wasn't really all that much of a difference overall.

Many on BBI tend to overstate the impact the other player would have had if Coughlin went a different way (for example- playing Newhouse over Diehl, not playing Kuhn, etc.).

Since that last SB win, our roster really has sucked from players #15 thru #53 so lets keep things in perspective.

Coughlin was to start a rookie. In the case of Flowers, Collins, Richburg, Williams, Pugh, and even Cofield - all of these players were thrust into starting roles due to injuries and departures that depleted the depth at their positions. It would have been criminal for any head coach not to insert their (high) draft picks in those situations.

The real criticism of Coughlin has to do with the lack of opportunities that he gave his rookies/young players on game day when it wasn't a situation of necessity. It's clear that Coughlin didn't subscribe to the "go out there and let's see what you can do" approach to evaluating talent.

I think that's concerning when you think of the several instances in which the Giants as a team were struggling, a veteran was struggling, or a starter was hobbling around with an injury during the regular season. In many cases, there would have been no downside to letting a young player get on the field (for more than just a handful of snaps) - and this is primarily where Coughlin gets the reputation that he has about this issue.

In comment 12974595 endwerc said:

Quote:

Coughlin made good decisions.

Nice

but that he would not include a package of plays that would give rookies some plays to develop. Put something on the game tape for position coaches to review with rookies.

I would watch other teams that would have a package of plays for rookies and spot them during a game or when game got out of hand.

I would say why don't NY Giants' rookies see any reps, especially when the game was lost and there was not much time left on the clock.

The vets would continue to take hits that just were not called for. Was this punishment for poor "execution" ( translation: " players did NOT do what coaches told them !") ?

Much has been said, about the talent and I am with those that believe both coaches and front office contributed to last four years.

Starting this year and in the next two / three years there just maybe some clarity.

I will settle for more flexibility going forward and I like and have lots of respect for Coughlin.

Ok you elite mobster. Every comment you make shows more stupidity than the last. We have Collins berhe Jackson and the 2 thompsons and you " root" for never ever sees the fuckin field 1 nice hit in 3 seasons piece of shit about to be cut and injured again numb nuts dumb fuck cooper Taylor? How about any of the the other 5. Everything you have ever posted makes me angry. Fuck off don't post until your not a dumb fuck anymore.