| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
iPwn
Joined: 10 Oct 2009
Posts: 36248
Location: Stand United
|
 Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 6:31 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| FirstDownFaulk wrote: | | The point is.....INJURIES HAPPEN and you never know when or to whom they're going to occur. |
Yeah.... Which is why you don't play your star players when the outcome is no longer in question.
The rate of injury on any given play is [x]. For each snap that a player plays, his risk of injury increases 1x. If you can play a player for 30 snaps, and place his risk of injury at 30x without changing your chances of winning, why would you play them 40 plays or even 31, and raise their risk to 40x or 31x, respectively? You never know when they're going to strike, but by limiting opportunities, you reduce the risk.
_________________
 | samgurl775 wrote: | | It's alright iPwn, you're my #1. |
| EliteTexan80 wrote: | | I AM TRYING TO BE PWNY! AND I AM NOT! AND THIS VEXES ME SORE!!! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bbllstr22
Joined: 08 Jan 2007
Posts: 6349
Location: Hell. The only place where the devil's advocate can reside.
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 6:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| iPwn wrote: | | FirstDownFaulk wrote: | | The point is.....INJURIES HAPPEN and you never know when or to whom they're going to occur. |
Yeah.... Which is why you don't play your star players when the outcome is no longer in question.
The rate of injury on any given play is [x]. For each snap that a player plays, his risk of injury increases 1x. If you can play a player for 30 snaps, and place his risk of injury at 30x without changing your chances of winning, why would you play them 40 plays or even 31, and raise their risk to 40x or 31x, respectively? You never know when they're going to strike, but by limiting opportunities, you reduce the risk. |
I'm just glad these guys aren't in Risk Management for those Fortune 500 companies.
_________________
Reggie Wayne for HOF
Career---------968 receptions (10th), 13063 yards (14th), 78 TDs (24th)
Playoffs--------92 receptions (2nd), 1242 yards (4th), 9 TDs (7th) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WesWelker
Joined: 01 Dec 2007
Posts: 81
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 3:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| I wonder who is smarter? Posters on footballs future, or the greatest head coach of all time? I am leading towards the latter for some reason. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChazStandard
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Posts: 2168
Location: The bandwagon, hop on up!
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 3:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Let's try putting it this way: a team can only dress 46 guys at over a dozen positions. Most teams go in with 7/8 OL and 2/3 TEs, and you need 8 of them on the PAT unit. 8 people out of a group of (at most) 11 which includes 7 starters means at least 4 starters have to be out there. Now, the Pats had three injured OLs already (Mankins, Connoly were inactive and Vollmer was hurt in-game), but are getting deeper at TE (Aaron was coming back, Shiancoe is getting fit), so it was really the only option.
That added to the fact it was total freak injury means this should really be put to bed.
_________________
| ConnPatFan wrote: | | We always assumed BB was playing chess...In fact he is playing Monopoly, and can now put up hotels on Rutgers Secondary. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
UofMfan909
Joined: 14 Feb 2007
Posts: 23028
Location: Michigan
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| WesWelker wrote: | | I wonder who is smarter? Posters on footballs future, or the greatest head coach of all time? I am leading towards the latter for some reason. |
What does Vince Lombardi have to do with this?
Someone needs to explain how it was a good idea for Gronk to be in the game at that point. Until then, it's still, obviously, an awful decision.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WesWelker
Joined: 01 Dec 2007
Posts: 81
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| UofMfan909 wrote: | | WesWelker wrote: | | I wonder who is smarter? Posters on footballs future, or the greatest head coach of all time? I am leading towards the latter for some reason. |
What does Vince Lombardi have to do with this?
Someone needs to explain how it was a good idea for Gronk to be in the game at that point. Until then, it's still, obviously, an awful decision. |
That's cute. Look at the post above you. He wins. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FirstDownFaulk
Joined: 25 Jul 2010
Posts: 2998
Location: New York
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 4:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| UofMfan909 wrote: | | WesWelker wrote: | | I wonder who is smarter? Posters on footballs future, or the greatest head coach of all time? I am leading towards the latter for some reason. |
What does Vince Lombardi have to do with this?
Someone needs to explain how it was a good idea for Gronk to be in the game at that point. Until then, it's still, obviously, an awful decision. |
It's not a matter of whether or not it was a good decision based on an outcome we all know. The chance of injury is less than a chance of a blown assignment by a backup....that's the point. As I've said a hundred times already, hindsight is 20/20 and we all KNOW that he was injured on the play, but you can't play this game with assumptions that players are going to get hurt.
He was in there because he's the best man for the job. Period. Question the decision all you want but you're in no position to do so.
_________________
Stevan Ridley, Att: 225, Yds: 1010, Y/A: 4.0, TD:9
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shockey1979
Joined: 02 Sep 2005
Posts: 18419
Location: RI/MA
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| FirstDownFaulk wrote: |
He was in there because he's the best man for the job. Period. Question the decision all you want but you're in no position to do so. |
So why do most traditional coaches pull their essential players when up that big late in games? Obviously the starters are always going to be the "best man for the job" since they are...you know...the starters. Why ever pull them at all?
_________________
A lion roars in the darkness only he holds the key. A light to free me from my burden and grant me life eternally |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mco65
Joined: 04 Feb 2011
Posts: 534
Location: US
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2012 4:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Shockey1979 wrote: | | FirstDownFaulk wrote: |
He was in there because he's the best man for the job. Period. Question the decision all you want but you're in no position to do so. |
So why do most traditional coaches pull their essential players when up that big late in games? Obviously the starters are always going to be the "best man for the job" since they are...you know...the starters. Why ever pull them at all? |
uh..
so they DON'T GET INJURED during MEANINGLESS times of the game?
If Gronk had been injured catching a TD pass this late in the game I could see the gripe but he was injured on a PAT.. something BB probably never even 2nd guessed him being in the game.. he is ALWAYS on the PAT team.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
