Will the next starting RB please step up?

Donate To GopherHole


Bob_Loblaw said:
Which number is off? I didn't really give any. Which specific numbers are you referring to?

I simply said that his numbers in 2017 and 2018 were way off because he was injured. He was injured in both of those seasons. In 2019, I might be off. He might not have been injured. I do think 2019 was by far our best usage of our RBs, so that could certainly be.

I still don't see how this is a counter to my point. In every season but 2019, we have had pretty catastrophic injuries to our RB room.

If you think Fleck's done a nice job handling the workload of our RBs (specifically in the last two years), then you and I disagree. It's okay. I am a fan of Fleck, but I hate the way he handles our RBs. I can't imagine someone pointing to all the other seasons where the RB room was decimated by injuries is going to change my mind on that.
Click to expand...
Almost every team, every year, has significant injuries to running backs. It is the most dangerous job in the game. NFL running backs have an average expectancy of playing 5 or 6 years.
 

Dakota2 said:
Miles on a car is not a good analogy. Football injuries are situational and highly unpredictable, much the same as a deer jumping in front of your new car as your driving home from the dealership.
Click to expand...
Correct.
mo isn’t some warn out car. He was in the first game of the year in the best shape of his life: hadn’t taken a hit since December. Didn’t get hurt because of a hit. Got hurt because his tendon couldn’t hold the power his muscles he was exerting.

Not lifting in the off-season would have been more preventative of that type of injury than taking 40 fewer Carries in 2020
 

FWIW -- went back and looked at a few years of Mason's top rushing teams

2002
Terry Jackson III 239 att - att per game 18.4
Thomas Tapeh 181 att - 13.9

2003
Marion Barber III 207 - 15.9
Laurence Maroney 162 - 12.5
Thomas Tapeh 119 - 9.2
(Asad Abdul-Kaliq) 88

2004
M. Barber 3 - 231 - 19.3
L. Maroney 217 - 18.1
(next down to Cupito with 29)

2005
L. Maroney 281 - 25.5
G. Russell 186 - 15.5
A. Pinnix 78
 


Dakota2 said:
Almost every team, every year, has significant injuries to running backs. It is the most dangerous job in the game. NFL running backs have an average expectancy of playing 5 or 6 years.
Click to expand...
Sure and you should do what you can to minimize it - - like not have RBs who lead the entire nation in carries.
 

Some guy said:
You’re right. Mo’s injury is directly related to 30 Carries and 202 Carries in 7 games. No player who had that many Carries has ever stayed healthy, no player has ever gotten injured with few Carries. Few running backs run for 30 against Ohio state because they’ll definitely get hurt, not because Ohio state is usually winning which prevents

Literally the only thing I’m arguing in this thread is there is no proof that his injury was due to too many Carries. So I’m not going to argue anymore. I’ll wait for you to post proof (there is none) that this was due to his 2020 workload and having 30 carries against Ohio state.
Click to expand...
I never said it was directly related, that's not how workload management works. Of course someone can be injured on their very first carry of their entire career.

You asked me if Mo's workload was uncommon, and it was. Yes, it was extremely uncommon.
You asked me if 30 carries against Ohio State is uncommon, and YES, it is extremely uncommon.

As to your last point, that's fine, you're arguing it with horrific points. I never once said that you can directly tie a specific injury to specific workload. But it's pretty clear that most coaches try to reduce the number of carries per running back to significantly lower workload than Fleck. That's crystal clear. Why do you suppose they do that?
 


Some guy said:
Didn’t get hurt because of a hit. Got hurt because his tendon couldn’t hold the power his muscles he was exerting.
Click to expand...

The article I posted came to the conclusion, based on data, that for professional soccer players noncontact injury risk does go up with fatigue. Let's see some data to back up your assumption.
 



Dakota2 said:
Miles on a car is not a good analogy. Football injuries are situational and highly unpredictable, much the same as a deer jumping in front of your new car as your driving home from the dealership.
Click to expand...
It's not really my analogy, it's used by pretty much every GM in the NFL (and clearly by college coaches who restrict carries significantly more than Fleck).

Who do you think hits deer more often? Someone who drives 400 miles per day or the person who drives 4 miles per day? It's a completely random scenario.

My point is that total reps (like total miles) clearly matter. They aren't the only thing that matters but they do matter.
 

Dakota2 said:
Almost every team, every year, has significant injuries to running backs. It is the most dangerous job in the game. NFL running backs have an average expectancy of playing 5 or 6 years.
Click to expand...
You are actually about double the actual NFL career length for Running backs. The average NFL career is just over 3 years the average Running Back career is even lower than that.
 

The best way to avoid football injuries is to stop playing football. Make it illegal. Heck, I think I remember reading somewhere that Teddy Roosevelt thought it was too dangerous and wanted to ban the sport of college football.

FACT: Football is a brutal sport. Players get injured frequently. Running backs seem to be especially vulnerable to injury.

Therefore, I'm not opposed to spreading out the carries. I'm just not sure it is a stone cold, cut and dried, surefire remedy to injuries to running backs.

I'm a little bit skeptical of the whole 'injuries caused by fatigue' thing, as well. Football is a sport with very intense, but very brief bursts of activity followed by longer periods of jogging back to the huddle, huddling up, waiting for the next play to come in, TV timeouts, coach's timeouts, penalties being walked off, measurements for first downs, official reviews, halftime break, end of quarter break, and on and on. Not to mention the fact that a running back isn't even on the field when his team is on defense. To me, it seems like a healthy, athletic young man should get plenty of time to recharge and recover during the normal course of events in any football game.

I get it that some people here feel really, really strongly about this whole "Fleck overuses his bell cow runner, and it causes injuries" narrative, but I think there's at least a chance that we're making a mountain out of a mole hill.
 

MNVCGUY said:
Go back to your post where you laid things out in 2017, 2018, and 2019 then go back and look at my post with Smith's information and tell me if you can see any areas where your take on those seasons might have been a bit off.

I wouldn't mind seeing the Gophers spread the carries out more but I disagree that Fleck's usage of the RB's has led to a higher number of injuries at that position over the years he has been our coach.

RBs get hurt....a lot....that is why you need depth at that position. Hell Mason had his famous "Pair and a Spare" quote that gets brought up.
Click to expand...
So, you can't point to a number that I have wrong. Please point to a number that I posted that was incorrect.

Now, as to where my take might have been off. How many times do I have to admit it? You quoted me literally saying "In 2019, I might be off". So yes, I might have been off in 2019. I thought Rodney missed portions of games due to injuries and being banged up, but I could certainly be wrong. I now have told where I might be off three times in this paragraph, hopefully that's enough. Now, I would really love for you to point me to a number where I was off.


As to your last point, yep, RB's get hurt. I get that. Why the F do you think I'm advocating for better management of the number of touches? If you don't believe Fleck's management of our RBs creates a higher risk for injury, then why would you want Fleck to spread the ball around more? If Mo's your best player and handing off the ball to him more than anyone in the country doesn't elevate the risk of injury, why would you want the ball spread out more?
 



RememberMurray said:
The best way to avoid football injuries is to stop playing football. Make it illegal. Heck, I think I remember reading somewhere that Teddy Roosevelt thought it was too dangerous and wanted to ban the sport of college football.

FACT: Football is a brutal sport. Players get injured frequently. Running backs seem to be especially vulnerable to injury.

Therefore, I'm not opposed to spreading out the carries. I'm just not sure it is a stone cold, cut and dried, surefire remedy to injuries to running backs.

I'm a little bit skeptical of the whole 'injuries caused by fatigue' thing, as well. Football is a sport with very intense, but very brief bursts of activity followed by longer periods of jogging back to the huddle, huddling up, waiting for the next play to come in, TV timeouts, coach's timeouts, penalties being walked off, measurements for first downs, official reviews, halftime break, end of quarter break, and on and on. Not to mention the fact that a running back isn't even on the field when his team is on defense. To me, it seems like a healthy, athletic young man should get plenty of time to recharge and recover during the normal course of events in any football game.

I get it that some people here feel really, really strongly about this whole "Fleck overuses his bell cow runner, and it causes injuries" narrative, but I think there's at least a chance that we're making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Click to expand...

No one, in the history of time, has ever claimed it was. Ever.
 

RememberMurray said:
Football is a brutal sport. Players get injured frequently. Running backs seem to be especially vulnerable to injury.

Therefore, I'm not opposed to spreading out the carries. I'm just not sure it is a stone cold, cut and dried, surefire remedy to injuries to running backs.
Click to expand...

For noncontact injuries like Mo's it probably reduces the risk. And the risk was probably exasperated by the fact that is was the first game of the season. I hear even Pro players say it takes playing real games to get in game shape.
 

MNVCGUY said:
You are actually about double the actual NFL career length for Running backs. The average NFL career is just over 3 years the average Running Back career is even lower than that.
Click to expand...
It's almost like "mileage" is a real thing.
 

RememberMurray said:
To me, it seems like a healthy, athletic young man should get plenty of time to recharge and recover during the normal course of events in any football game.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone thinks or is proposing that severe injuries occur because of muscle fatigue.

Rather, they're (somewhat) random, so the more carries you have just increases your odds of sustaining a severe injury.
 

Some guy said:
I’ve already agreed with you on that point. I’ve said multiple times in this thread they don’t spread it around enough.

I’ve also said his injury wasn’t from taking 26 Carries against wisconsin last year instead of 14
Click to expand...

If you don't think it increases the likelihood that someone gets hurt, why would you care how much they spread it around?
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
I never said it was directly related, that's not how workload management works. Of course someone can be injured on their very first carry of their entire career.

You asked me if Mo's workload was uncommon, and it was. Yes, it was extremely uncommon.
You asked me if 30 carries against Ohio State is uncommon, and YES, it is extremely uncommon.

As to your last point, that's fine, you're arguing it with horrific points. I never once said that you can directly tie a specific injury to specific workload. But it's pretty clear that most coaches try to reduce the number of carries per running back to significantly lower workload than Fleck. That's crystal clear. Why do you suppose they do that?
Click to expand...
It’s literally what you originally responded to and argued about me saying. I said it’s conjecture to say 25% fewer Caries would’ve avoided
Some guy said:
There is absolutely zero way to say giving Mo 25% fewer Carries would’ve prevented his injury

That’s pure conjecture


I too think they should mix backs more. Especially early in the season. But it’s a big jump to say Mo would still be playing if he had 18 Carries per game instead of whatever he had.
He got injured the first game of the year
Click to expand...
Bob_Loblaw said:
Why? The more miles on a car the more likely it is that weird things happen. I'm not blaming Fleck, but this is especially true the less fresh a player is.

I think a player playing 15 games of football is considerably more likely to tear their achilles than a player who plays 1 game.

Reps matter.
Click to expand...


as for why coaches mix running backs. Because they are smart. And it keeps them fresh. And if you have an injury another one is ready to go. 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. And, I believe runner run more effectively when they are fresh. So I agree with you.

I also wish the coaches treated bad opponents like the Super Bowl so they get a big lead and can rest guys for the same reason. All these games playing Miami of Ohio in close games gives players unnecessary reps.
 


Bob_Loblaw said:
It's not really my analogy, it's used by pretty much every GM in the NFL (and clearly by college coaches who restrict carries significantly more than Fleck).

Who do you think hits deer more often? Someone who drives 400 miles per day or the person who drives 4 miles per day? It's a completely random scenario.

My point is that total reps (like total miles) clearly matter. They aren't the only thing that matters but they do matter.
Click to expand...
Hitting a deer literally contradicts your own analogy.
you said he broke down because he was overused.
Hitting a deer has nothing to do with the condition of the car.
 

Wally said:
Rediculous comparison, explain how that is in any way relevant to anything?
Click to expand...
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
 

MplsGopher said:
I don't think anyone thinks or is proposing that severe injuries occur because of muscle fatigue.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:

Wally said:
The article I posted came to the conclusion, based on data, that for professional soccer players noncontact injury risk does go up with fatigue. Let's see some data to back up your assumption.
Click to expand...
Could you re-link me. I didn’t see link? In this thread or another?


10% of runners need Achilles repair at some point in their life. Of course it is an over use injury. It’s not an over “got-hit” injury. It’s an over cut. Over jumped, over ran Injury. All this wear and tear happens during non contact off-season workouts too.
 

Some guy said:
Could you re-link me. I didn’t see link? In this thread or another?


10% of runners need Achilles repair at some point in their life. Of course it is an over use injury. It’s not an over “got-hit” injury. It’s an over cut. Over jumped, over ran Injury. All this wear and tear happens during non contact off-season workouts too.
Click to expand...

Not to mention repetitions at practice during the week.
 

Wally said:
In possibly the most comprehensive injury incidence study in male
professional soccer players Ekstrand et al. (2011) reported data for 7 con-
secutive seasons from the first team squads of 23 squads selected by
UEFA. Based on hours of athlete exposure the data suggests that injury
incidence in this population is 8 injuries per 1,000 hours of exposure and
was significantly greater during match play compared with training. Im-
portantly, the findings demonstrate an increasing injury tendency with
time in both the first and second halves of matches. This would suggest
that injury rates are higher when players are more fatigued towards the
end of match play.
www.researchgate.net

(PDF) The influence of fatigue on injury risk in male youth soccer

PDF | The incidence of non-contact injuries in youth sport is high and poses significant personal, social and economic burden on players and clubs. In... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate
www.researchgate.net www.researchgate.net
Click to expand...
 

RememberMurray said:
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.
Click to expand...
The first post is just talking about football performance.

Last two possibly.
 


Some guy said:
Hitting a deer literally contradicts your own analogy.
you said he broke down because he was overused.
Hitting a deer has nothing to do with the condition of the car.
Click to expand...
Hitting a deer wasn't my analogy. . . lol.

Who hits the deer more often? The guy driving 400 miles per day or the guy driving 4? I'll give you a hint, the answer is the person driving 400 miler per day. It's because it not only increases your chances (pure number of reps) but it also because of wear and tear on the car (worse breaks, maybe worse lights) if you're driving 400 miles per day, you're more likely to have to drive at night and you're also fatigued from driving.

Again, for the 10th time, it's both. It's total reps and reps per game.
 

Some guy said:
Could you re-link me. I didn’t see link? In this thread or another?


10% of runners need Achilles repair at some point in their life. Of course it is an over use injury. It’s not an over “got-hit” injury. It’s an over cut. Over jumped, over ran Injury. All this wear and tear happens during non contact off-season workouts too.
Click to expand...
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?
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom