Will the next starting RB please step up?

The last one directly refers to fatigue.
Of course. More reps causes more fatigue. The unanswered question is if more fatigue causes more (severe) injuries.

The wording of it wasn't exactly saying it does.
 

Not to be contradictory, but...

-------

BobLoblaw, post #88:

"I really worry about Bucko's abilities to break tackles on runs 15-20 in a game. I hope Bucko stays fresh (~15 carries per game). I really worry that if Bucko gets 30 and Ky gets 5, we're in serious trouble."

I equate "stays fresh" to "avoids becoming fatigued".

BobLoblaw, Post #97:

"Could it have happened to a completely fresh player? Sure. It happens all the time. But it also happens considerably more often with someone after a ton of reps."

Again, "fresh" seems to imply the lack of fatigue.

BobLoblaw, Post #106:

"When you're looking at workload, you need to look at (1) total carries; and (2) carries per game. You need to look at both of them, both of them lead to fatigue and injuries."

------

So, at least on poster was proposing fatigue as a factor in injuries.
Oh yeah, I think fatigue absolutely plays a factor in injuries. The only other people who agree with me are all of the NFL coaches and GMs and most of the college coaches. Fatigue absolutely is a factor in injuries.
 

Is that higher than the average population? Do you think maybe people who are tired might be more prone to make mistakes while running (overcut, overjump, etc.). Or just no impact whatsoever?
More than zero effect, if talking any injury.

The more difficult question to tease out (likely, I'm guessing) is when you just consider severe injuries.
 

That’s an interesting article. It doesn’t explain why running backs have more injuries of that variety than linemen, linebackers, and D backs who play more reps than most running backs
 

Is that higher than the average population? Do you think maybe people who are tired might be more prone to make mistakes while running (overcut, overjump, etc.). Or just no impact whatsoever?
No question. That doesn’t mean that mo’s injury was caused by getting 30 Carries. Which was the original point you disputed

Do you think Mo was more tired against Ohio state because he had a high Carries per game in 2020?
 


Oh yeah, I think fatigue absolutely plays a factor in injuries. The only other people who agree with me are all of the NFL coaches and GMs and most of the college coaches. Fatigue absolutely is a factor in injuries.
I think if you actually looked at the data (to whatever extent it exists) on, say, Achilles ruptures .... it wouldn't be anywhere near obvious that they tend to occur more on the person's 30-40th carry in a game. The real world is often never so neat and tidy.

But, would be interesting to see what the data would actually say.
 

He was trying to argue that Ron Dayne taking 1200 Carries was a lighter workload than Mo taking 500 because he took 1.5 more per game. An equally ridiculous comparison
Again, you brought up Ron Dayne to try to make a point and it was an atrocious point. It ONLY made my point that Mo has a higher workload than even the people YOU cherry picked.

Carries per game is a really good way to measure workload. It's probably the standard. I've said it now 11 times, it's both - - total carries and carries per game. You're right, Mo's total carries won't even sniff Dayne's total carries. A big part of that is because of a COVID year and because we ran him until he was injured this year. So you're right, because Mo keeps getting injured, his total carries isn't going to be very good. But there wasn't a single season of Ron Dayne's career that he carried the ball as much as Mo last year.

The fact that you're refusing or incapable of understanding that it is a balance of at least two factors (total carries and carries per game) is just strange.
 

That’s an interesting article. It doesn’t explain why running backs have more injuries of that variety than linemen, linebackers, and D backs who play more reps than most running backs
Common sense should answer that one for you. They get tackled more. It's a more dangerous activity.
 

Common sense should answer that one for you. They get tackled more. It's a more dangerous activity.
OL and DL smash into each other every play. Sometimes RB don't even hit anyone on a play.
 




I think if you actually looked at the data (to whatever extent it exists) on, say, Achilles ruptures .... it wouldn't be anywhere near obvious that they tend to occur more on the person's 30-40th carry in a game. The real world is often never so neat and tidy.

But, would be interesting to see what the data would actually say.
I posted it for soccer players, the data shows they have more noncontact injuries when they are more fatigued.
 

Again, you brought up Ron Dayne to try to make a point and it was an atrocious point. It ONLY made my point that Mo has a higher workload than even the people YOU cherry picked.

Carries per game is a really good way to measure workload. It's probably the standard. I've said it now 11 times, it's both - - total carries and carries per game. You're right, Mo's total carries won't even sniff Dayne's total carries. A big part of that is because of a COVID year and because we ran him until he was injured this year. So you're right, because Mo keeps getting injured, his total carries isn't going to be very good. But there wasn't a single season of Ron Dayne's career that he carried the ball as much as Mo last year.

The fact that you're refusing or incapable of understanding that it is a balance of at least two factors (total carries and carries per game) is just strange.
I do understand that. You vastly overrate Carries per game in your estimation of workload. What percent of injuries to running backs happen in the 4th quarter?
 

The article is about non contact injuries

as was my comment

Wasn't Mo's injury a non-contact injury? If I recall, he took a long step and sort of over-extended. Maybe I'm wrong about that.
 



Wasn't Mo's injury a non-contact injury? If I recall, he took a long step and sort of over-extended. Maybe I'm wrong about that.
Yes

I mean there was contact on the play but it’s not what caused the injury
 

I think if you actually looked at the data (to whatever extent it exists) on, say, Achilles ruptures .... it wouldn't be anywhere near obvious that they tend to occur more on the person's 30-40th carry in a game. The real world is often never so neat and tidy.

But, would be interesting to see what the data would actually say.

Wouldn't it be possible to argue that a "warmed-up" player (meaning one who had already carried the ball) might be less likely to sustain certain types of injuries than a player coming into a game "cold"?
 

I posted it for soccer players, the data shows they have more noncontact injuries when they are more fatigued.
But I'm talking about severe injuries, not just any injury.

Since the subject is Mo and his Achilles rupture (I believe it was ...), that specifically is what I'm interested in.


To rupture a tendon that large ... is going to take a lot of force. Once could argue that the leg muscles are better able to apply such force if they are not fatigued.
 


Wouldn't it be possible to argue that a "warmed-up" player (meaning one who had already carried the ball) might be less likely to sustain certain types of injuries than a player coming into a game "cold"?
That would probably make sense. Then again, I don't know that tendons/ligaments can actually achieve the same "warming" effect as a muscle. I think that's mainly to do with bloodflow, and I don't think blood actually flows (well) through joint tissue?
 

No question. That doesn’t mean that mo’s injury was caused by getting 30 Carries. Which was the original point you disputed

Do you think Mo was more tired against Ohio state because he had a high Carries per game in 2020?

Quote me where I said Mo's injuries were caused by 30 carries. LOL. I have said countless times in this thread, Mo could have gotten hurt if he was 100% healthy, no one has any idea what could have been.

I'll find them for you, because you won't be able to find anything even close.

Quote 1: "There was no reason for Mo to have as many carries as he was getting especially when your backup is as competent as Potts."

Quote 2: This is my response to YOU saing there is zero chance it had anything to do with it. Which is obviously dumb. "I think a player playing 15 games of football is considerably more likely to tear their achilles than a player who plays 1 game."

All I said is that overworking a player increases their *****CHANCE****** of getting injured. I would never pretend to argue that anyone could know with 100% certainty that 30 carries in 3 quarters caused the injury. You pretended to know that, not me.

Again, I have no idea if Mo gets hurt against Ohio State if he had a more normal workload in 2020 but neither do you. It's impossible to know. The difference is that I don't pretend to know.
 

Contact injuries vs. non-contact injuries; that's another interesting facet in this discussion.

Mo's injury did not seem to have been caused by contact. We don't know much about Trey's situation, as to whether it was caused by contact.
 

That would probably make sense. Then again, I don't know that tendons/ligaments can actually achieve the same "warming" effect as a muscle. I think that's mainly to do with bloodflow, and I don't think blood actually flows (well) through joint tissue?

I don't know either. I'm not a doctor — although I have played one on TV.
 

Quote me where I said Mo's injuries were caused by 30 carries. LOL. I have said countless times in this thread, Mo could have gotten hurt if he was 100% healthy, no one has any idea what could have been.

I'll find them for you, because you won't be able to find anything even close.

Quote 1: "There was no reason for Mo to have as many carries as he was getting especially when your backup is as competent as Potts."

Quote 2: This is my response to YOU saing there is zero chance it had anything to do with it. Which is obviously dumb. "I think a player playing 15 games of football is considerably more likely to tear their achilles than a player who plays 1 game."

All I said is that overworking a player increases their *****CHANCE****** of getting injured. I would never pretend to argue that anyone could know with 100% certainty that 30 carries in 3 quarters caused the injury. You pretended to know that, not me.

Again, I have no idea if Mo gets hurt against Ohio State if he had a more normal workload in 2020 but neither do you. It's impossible to know. The difference is that I don't pretend to know.
Quote me where I said it had zero to do with it

I never said that. You are reading stuff that isn’t there. I said saying his workload caused it is conjecture. It is.
I never said that there is zero chance in contributed.

You likely don’t disagree with me at all. And you are arguing with me anyways.
 

More than zero effect, if talking any injury.

The more difficult question to tease out (likely, I'm guessing) is when you just consider severe injuries.
I would also add which injuries as well. A rb with a high workload may get winded or tired legs by the end of the day but what injuries do tired legs lead to exactly?. A lineman that is tired will use poor form that can directly cause more injuries but I'm not so sure you can draw those directly to tired legs in a rb.
 

And if you have a % chance of injury on every play the more plays you run the higher chance of injury. Not due to overuse, but just due to the law of large numbers.
This is the key. The chance of a RB getting hurt is basically the same on every running play. It can happen on carry 1 and it could happen on carry 30. So until someone can definitively prove that a RB is more likely to get hurt once they cross a certain number of carries in a game this whole argument is pointless.

More plays = more chances to get hurt but the odds per play stay the same.

Teams manage workload when they have RBs with similar capabilities in order to keep both guys fresh and hopefully more able to be effective late in the game. Mo was a rare case where he seemed to get stronger as the game went on so they gave him lots of carries. Kind of a throwback to the old days when teams had one star back who was the workhorse.
 

This is the key. The chance of a RB getting hurt is basically the same on every running play. It can happen on carry 1 and it could happen on carry 30. So until someone can definitively prove that a RB is more likely to get hurt once they cross a certain number of carries in a game this whole argument is pointless.

More plays = more chances to get hurt but the odds per play stay the same.

Teams manage workload when they have RBs with similar capabilities in order to keep both guys fresh and hopefully more able to be effective late in the game. Mo was a rare case where he seemed to get stronger as the game went on so they gave him lots of carries. Kind of a throwback to the old days when teams had one star back who was the workhorse.
I mean it might, but there is no proof of this
 

All I said is that overworking a player increases their *****CHANCE****** of getting injured. I would never pretend to argue that anyone could know with 100% certainty that 30 carries in 3 quarters caused the injury. You pretended to know that, not me.

I agree with your basic premise, that it might be wise to spread the carries out more.

But I think your use of the word "overworking" is a bit heavy-handed. How do we determine the cutoff line between a back having the correct number of carries and a back who has been "overworked"?

If a back gets hurt on his 25th carry, are we certain he had been "overworked", and that that is what caused the injury?

What is our conclusion, then, if a back gets hurt on his 20th carry, or his 18th, or his 15th?
 

Contact injuries vs. non-contact injuries; that's another interesting facet in this discussion.

Mo's injury did not seem to have been caused by contact. We don't know much about Trey's situation, as to whether it was caused by contact.
It was caused from him sticking his foot into the ground and driving hard with that leg. It was too much for the tendon, and it snapped.


But, why was that particular time any different than all the hundreds (thousands) of times before, where it didn't do that?

Mysteries of life
 

This is the key. The chance of a RB getting hurt is basically the same on every running play. It can happen on carry 1 and it could happen on carry 30. So until someone can definitively prove that a RB is more likely to get hurt once they cross a certain number of carries in a game this whole argument is pointless.

More plays = more chances to get hurt but the odds per play stay the same.

Teams manage workload when they have RBs with similar capabilities in order to keep both guys fresh and hopefully more able to be effective late in the game. Mo was a rare case where he seemed to get stronger as the game went on so they gave him lots of carries. Kind of a throwback to the old days when teams had one star back who was the workhorse.

This, to me, is an extremely smart post. Very good points. And Mo did always seem to get stronger as the game wore on and the carries piled up.
 

I agree with your basic premise, that it might be wise to spread the carries out more.

But I think your use of the word "overworking" is a bit heavy-handed. How do when determine the cutoff line between a back having the correct number of carries and a back who has been "overworked"?

If a back gets hurt on his 25th carry, are we certain he had been "overworked", and that that is what caused the injury?

What is our conclusion, then, if a back gets hurt on his 20th carry, or his 18th, or his 15th?
It's never going to be an exact science and reasonable people can disagree. I don't really have an exact pitch count and it's likely different for different people. I would think of handing the running backs similar to how you'd handle a pitching staff. It's never going to be exact.

I probably would have put Mo on around a 20 carry pitch count (~250-260 for the full season). Ideally, With Potts, it probably would have been 15-20. With Bucko, I'm probably more like 12-15. It depends on the person. Would it have prevented injuries? Surely not, it's a violent position. Do I think it would help reduce the chance of injury? Most likely.
 

This is the key. The chance of a RB getting hurt is basically the same on every running play. It can happen on carry 1 and it could happen on carry 30. So until someone can definitively prove that a RB is more likely to get hurt once they cross a certain number of carries in a game this whole argument is pointless.

More plays = more chances to get hurt but the odds per play stay the same.

Teams manage workload when they have RBs with similar capabilities in order to keep both guys fresh and hopefully more able to be effective late in the game. Mo was a rare case where he seemed to get stronger as the game went on so they gave him lots of carries. Kind of a throwback to the old days when teams had one star back who was the workhorse.
You're saying something definitively and then demanding people to prove the opposite point. I get that is your opinion that carry 30 is the same as carry 1 and I would never the audacity to say "prove to me that this is the point". I think we just disagree. Neither of us can prove that point.

With the Gophers, we do not spread around the ball. We've now lost two starting RBs this year (both of whom were getting a ton of carries). It could certainly be a coincidence. I am not pretending that is the proof that you're demanding.

I believe that fatigue increases the chance that someone gets injured. You do not. So, I guess that's where this debate ends. Agree to disagree.
 




Top Bottom