Does PJ Fleck run his running backs into the ground?

Does he?

  • Yes

    Votes: 107 79.3%

  • No

    Votes: 26 19.3%

  • Its balanced

    Votes: 2 1.5%
  • Total voters
    135
Donate To GopherHole

Dakota2 said:
Taylor’s totals all need to be divided by five, not six games. His first college game he had one carry. Divided by five gives a realistic measure of what he did this year.
Click to expand...

No. His stats are already inflated enough by not playing in some of the toughest games of the year.
 

Jeesuz, people. Calm down. You all think Taylor, or any other RB, will be consistently getting 30+ carries against the likes of Michigan, OSU, Iowa, Wisconsin, Nebraska, PSU, Illinois, etc.? Ain't gonna happen. Taylor got the heaviest loads this year against subpar defenses.
 

30 or 40 years ago, it was the norm to carry the ball 25 times a game. Now it's too much. Pretty soon, it will be flag football.
 



hello-world said:
Alright so I adamantly believe that running RBs too many times in a game leads to injuries based on anecdotes and personal feelings. However, best data I can find says you are right and I am wrong: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5347429/

“NFL RBs with a high number of carries are not placed at greater risk of injury or worsened performance during the subsequent season. These RBs may be generally less injury prone compared with other NFL RBs.”
Click to expand...
Really tough to get a study.

Running backs who are less likely to get injured are also more likely to get more carries.


I actually don’t think 30th carry is more unsafe than 22nd carry. But I will say the law of large numbers applies and so giving a guy 400 carries instead of 300 probably leads to like a 33% increased chance of injury all else being equal
 

highwayman said:
Show me the valid study statistic that proves 30+ carries one day a week is bad for a RB. Please.
Click to expand...
And show me the quotes from a RB who says the coach made me carry the ball too many times today.
Many RB's say they get better with more carries...they pick up defensive tendencies and exploit them. They get in a rhythm. Generally you hear they prefer being a workhorse. They relish the responsibility and the opportunity to lead the team.

And it is 2023...he's getting paid to carry the ball. In order to get paid more money he needs to gain more yards.

Let's alternate QB's so they don't get hurt....it's mis-placed concern how many carries a RB gets.
The concern is....how effective is he?
 
Last edited:





Some guy said:
Really tough to get a study.

Running backs who are less likely to get injured are also more likely to get more carries.


I actually don’t think 30th carry is more unsafe than 22nd carry. But I will say the law of large numbers applies and so giving a guy 400 carries instead of 300 probably leads to like a 33% increased chance of injury all else being equal
Click to expand...
The big question is though, if there is a less than 1% chance of getting injured with 300 carries, is it that big of a deal to add 33% to that. If the risk goes from 0.5% to 0.7% I don't know if I'd sweat that as a coach or RB.
 

Word said:
The big question is though, if there is a less than 1% chance of getting injured with 300 carries, is it that big of a deal to add 33% to that. If the risk goes from 0.5% to 0.7%
Click to expand...
It's not a linear increase in the likelihood of injury. It's exponential.
 


Gophers1992 said:
You may be right, you may be wrong, but there's no proof that you are right.
Click to expand...
Impossible to get "proof".

What running back is going to sign up for a study to be in the group that gets extra carries to see how soon it takes for a season, if not career, ending injury to occur?

Short of that study, people like you can always claim there isn't sufficient "proof".
 



MplsGopher said:
Impossible to get "proof".

What running back is going to sign up for a study to be in the group that gets extra carries to see how soon it takes for a season, if not career, ending injury to occur?

Short of that study, people like you can always claim there isn't sufficient "proof".
Click to expand...
When you make a claim and state it as fact, there should be evidence backing your claim. In your case, there isn't.
 


Regardless, the point is this:

if there was a study, an actual study, and it proved that it was exponential .... you'd still be like "So??"

I don't believe you'd change your thinking. Am I wrong?
 

MplsGopher said:
Regardless, the point is this:

if there was a study, an actual study, and it proved that it was exponential .... you'd still be like "So??"

I don't believe you'd change your thinking. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...
I don't have a thought one way or the other, that's my whole point. I simply said there's no evidence to support your claim. There's nothing that definitively states that increased workload doesn't increase injury chances either, but I'm not trying to make that claim.
 

Gophers1992 said:
I don't have a thought one way or the other, that's my whole point. I simply said there's no evidence to support your claim. There's nothing that definitively states that increased workload doesn't increase injury chances either, but I'm not trying to make that claim.
Click to expand...
Can I at least make the assumption that you don't like it when our RB's get injured?
 


Maybe Taylor's deal with DTA pays him "per carry,"
 


Word said:
The big question is though, if there is a less than 1% chance of getting injured with 300 carries, is it that big of a deal to add 33% to that. If the risk goes from 0.5% to 0.7% I don't know if I'd sweat that as a coach or RB.
Click to expand...
I agree HOWEVER if you give one guy 35 touches a game and he does get injured it is a lot more significant injury for the offense than if a guy with 20 touches a game gets hurt
 

Panthadad2 said:
It looks to me like this is what the top running backs in the country do. The workload probably depends a lot on how strong the bench is and how close the games are.

View attachment 29189
Click to expand...
You don't see the huge problem with this analysis?

If Taylor gets one carry in game number 4 in the first drive, and then comes out with a sore hammy (or whatever), that massively pulls down his average attempts per game.

That glosses over way too much.

Need something more equivalent to how basketball tracks minutes.
 

MplsGopher said:
You don't see the huge problem with this analysis?

If Taylor gets one carry in game number 4 in the first drive, and then comes out with a sore hammy (or whatever), that massively pulls down his average attempts per game.

That glosses over way too much.

Need something more equivalent to how basketball tracks minutes.
Click to expand...

Go ahead. Be my guest and pull that together for us.
 

Some guy said:
I don’t think Nubin has much yards after contact ability.
I think he’s a fine third back
Seems to see it well at least
Click to expand...
I think he's a great #2. He's a more punishing runner than Taylor. For someone who really was not an RB out of HS, his learning curve was quick.
 

Panthadad2 said:
Go ahead. Be my guest and pull that together for us.
Click to expand...
How about dividing by total number of offensive snaps, instead of by games?

Are you aware of any place that easily has that data? I am not. Not sure if it is out there to be had.
 

I have no problem running a kid 35-40 times a game if it’s working. These kids are young and resilient. Heck, I’ve seen nfl backs get that type of workload and be fine. It’s nice to have someone available to spell them once in a while but if he’s the bell cow and he’s racking up the yards then keep feeding him.
 

CentralGopher said:
I have no problem running a kid 35-40 times a game if it’s working. These kids are young and resilient.
Click to expand...
Taylor literally played in five games this year due to injuries, including the bowl game.

Can't make it up
 

Given circumstances of yesterday's game (workload for the season, no game next week, in his hometown & QB situation) had really had no issue Taylor getting 30+ carries against Bowling Green.

I am sure he wanted to get as much on tape for his next stop, whenever and wherever that is. Hopefully it's for the 2026 NFL Draft.

Two thoughts though:

- My opinion, RBs only have so much tread on the tires, whether it's used up in HS, College or Pro.

- Sure would have been nice if Taylor had been able to play in the late stages of the the Northwestern game as well as Illinois, when all they needed was a 1st down or 2 to salt away victories. I think at minimum they would have been 7-5 if he had remained healthy, perhaps could have been a difference maker against Wisconsin, too.

I have no idea if it was the number of carries that caused his injury in the first place, just lamenting what could have been.
 

Panthadad2 said:
Jeesuz, people. Calm down. You all think Taylor, or any other RB, will be consistently getting 30+ carries against the likes of Michigan, OSU, Iowa, Wisconsin, Nebraska, PSU, Illinois, etc.? Ain't gonna happen. Taylor got the heaviest loads this year against subpar defenses.
Click to expand...
If it's a close game, absolutely I believe PJ would run Taylor 30+ times.

Let's look at how he used Mo, and I'll only put it against good teams.
2022:
Penn State - 30 carries
Nebraska - 32 carries
Iowa - 39 carries

2021:
Ohio State - 31 carries (injured to start 4th quarter). He would have been over 40 carries in this game if he stayed healthy.

2020:
Iowa - 33 carries


If you look back at how Mo was used in 2020-2022, the only thing that stopped him from getting 30+ carries was the game circumstances and/or injuries. If it was a close game or we were winning by a lot, regardless of opponent, Mo was going to get 30+ carries.

So far, it looks like PJ plans on using Taylor the same way.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom