Rushing Leaders

Donate To GopherHole
Bob_Loblaw said:
Evidently, yes. You know those little things running and tackling on your television, those are real human beings. So sometimes things that help you win a football game aren't good for those actual human beings.
Click to expand...

Football is very, very hard on human bodies. I think we can all agree on that.
 







RememberMurray said:
You're saying you could see that "no way he was at his best" late in the Maryland game, but the coaching staff were apparently oblivious to that fact?

Shame on them, then.
Click to expand...

Not the point I was trying to make at all but I think you probably know that and are just in the mood to argue with people about this topic.

There is a reason you see most teams employing more of a committee approach at the RB position where there might be a featured back but they also spread the carries around to take some of the wear and tear off the main guy. And the reality is that the Maryland game was an outlier even with Fleck where they just didn't give the ball to anyone else outside of just the 3 carries to Potts and 1 for Green. I am sure they had their reasons for only giving it to Mo but it is not what they usually do.

I for one like the distribution we have seen in the other two games much better, Pots/Wiley/Green with 10+ carries with the rest going to Mo. Would be willing to bet that is the kind of distribution we will continue to see unless injuries prevent it (may have been the case against Maryland).
 

No pitch limit on Mo. Depends on the situation. In games where we need him to rush 35-40 times, so be it. In those games, Mo is not only our key offensive player, he is one of our key defensive players—he is keeping an opposing offense, which might be overwhelming our young defense, off the field and running down the clock. Iowa might be one of those games where we need to rely on Mo all game. My only thought was that in situations in which we don’t actually need to expose Mo to injury in the 4th Q to win—say, the Illinois game—there are very rational, team-oriented, injury-avoidance and player-development reasons to use our number 2 and 3 RBs in the later stages of the game.
 




tikited said:
Kent Kitzmann disagrees with you...
Click to expand...

I don't really base my opinions on those Kent Kitzmann. However, Kitzmann ran the ball a total of 151 times that year in 11 games, Mo is more than doubling that output at a time where players are bigger, faster, and stronger.

Kitzmann also played sparingly in the following year due to injuries.

So, yeah. . .
 


Bob_Loblaw said:
I don't really base my opinions on those Kent Kitzmann. However, Kitzmann ran the ball a total of 151 times that year in 11 games, Mo is more than doubling that output at a time where players are bigger, faster, and stronger.

Kitzmann also played sparingly in the following year due to injuries.

So, yeah. . .
Click to expand...
It was a joke based on the huge amount of carries he had way back when (record that maybe still holds?).
 

RememberMurray said:
Yeah. Maybe those extra 10 carries per game will destroy Mo.

I don't know, though; he doesn't appear to be too fragile — at least not to my eyes.
Click to expand...
Not my point, which you clearly know. Taylor as an example in this case goes counter to the point your are trying to make.
 



PMWinSTP said:
Not my point, which you clearly know. Taylor as an example in this case goes counter to the point your are trying to make.
Click to expand...

How does it "go counter", exactly? And if concern on your part about those extra 10 carries isn't your point, then I'm not sure what it is you're trying to say.

Are you concerned about Mo having too many carries, or not?
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom