gopherbadgerman
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2009
- Messages
- 5,237
- Reaction score
- 2,456
- Points
- 113
He was horrible.Tyler was supposed to be very capable.
He was horrible.Tyler was supposed to be very capable.
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.
Ideally it’s 1-2-3 next year.This
Really tough to get a study.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.”
And show me the quotes from a RB who says the coach made me carry the ball too many times today.Show me the valid study statistic that proves 30+ carries one day a week is bad for a RB. Please.
Give Nubin more carries. Seemed to work against Michigan State well enough.What were we supposed to do today?
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.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
It's not a linear increase in the likelihood of injury. It's exponential.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%
You may be right, you may be wrong, but there's no proof that you are right.It's not a linear increase in the likelihood of injury. It's exponential.
Impossible to get "proof".You may be right, you may be wrong, but there's no proof that you are right.
When you make a claim and state it as fact, there should be evidence backing your claim. In your case, there isn't.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".
You're going to believe what you want to believeWhen you make a claim and state it as fact, there should be evidence backing your claim. In your case, there isn't.
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.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?
Can I at least make the assumption that you don't like it when our RB's get injured?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.
You don't think Nubin is good enough?This is correct
Would love a better backup RB to keep Taylor to sub 25 carries in all but a game or two next year though.
I don’t think Nubin has much yards after contact ability.You don't think Nubin is good enough?
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 hurtThe 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.
You don't see the huge problem with this analysis?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
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.
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.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
How about dividing by total number of offensive snaps, instead of by games?Go ahead. Be my guest and pull that together for us.
Taylor literally played in five games this year due to injuries, including the bowl game.I have no problem running a kid 35-40 times a game if it’s working. These kids are young and resilient.
If it's a close game, absolutely I believe PJ would run Taylor 30+ times.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.