What did we learn? NIU Edition

[Husker in WI]

6 minutes ago, JeffKinney87 said:

 

I understand what you are saying, but some of that thinking is beginning to be challenged.  It may seem counter-intuitive, but think of a pitcher throwing fewer pitches...that should lead to fewer injuries right?  Less stress on his arm...etc.  Instead injuries have begun to explode, even though every precaution has been taken to make these athletes train, practice, and play with less risk.  

 

Like I said before I am no expert, but I know there is a school of thought that says having your QB be protected in practice, training, and games will make the QB more fragile, and more prone to injury, because they AREN'T stressing their bodies to make them stronger and more resilient.  Like I said I am no expert, but it does make sense to me based on some of the things I have seen.  

 

Again just my 2 cents

 

A high number of pitches is still correlated to increased injury risk. Hard to prove, but most people believe the increased injuries in pitchers is due to throwing max effort more, and just pushing the limits of what the human arm can do. Startes never used to throw max effort, becuase their goal was to complete the game. Now they do, almost every pitch.

 

Anecdotally, I would say that while the past had more of the cheap shots and ultra violent hits from some pretty lax rules, the average tackle collision was much less violent than the average tackle today. There's nothing you can really do to decrease the violence of a normal tackle at this point outside of sliding or getting out of bounds (unlike baseball, where theoretically the pitcher can throw with ~90% effort instead of 100%), but in both cases you can limit the overall number of stressers. Pitch counts in baseball, not calling excessive numbers of QB runs in football. 

[JeffKinney87]

1 minute ago, runningblind said:

That school of thought is reasonable, I don't know the science either, but I am simply saying I think an offense that has a QB run basically more than 4-5 times per game is a bad idea for a lot of reasons.  Injuries being one of them, concussions, etc. I don't think it works in this age of defenses and at the speed at which the game is now played.  I think the age of the running QB has passed. 

 

Your opinion is reasonable as well.  I hope for no injuries regardless!

 

[Red Five]

1 minute ago, JeffKinney87 said:

 

I understand what you are saying, but some of that thinking is beginning to be challenged.  It may seem counter-intuitive, but think of a pitcher throwing fewer pitches...that should lead to fewer injuries right?  Less stress on his arm...etc.  Instead injuries have begun to explode, even though every precaution has been taken to make these athletes train, practice, and play with less risk.  

 

Like I said before I am no expert, but I know there is a school of thought that says having your QB be protected in practice, training, and games will make the QB more fragile, and more prone to injury, because they AREN'T stressing their bodies to make them stronger and more resilient.  Like I said I am no expert, but it does make sense to me based on some of the things I have seen.  

 

Again just my 2 cents

 

baseball pitcher <> football player

 

Pitchers are training their body to do one specific movement over and over and over.

 

Football players are running into each other at different speeds and from different angles multiple times per game.  Sure you can absorb hits, but at some point your body is going to "break" if you keep doing it.

 

Also, there are serious long term health concerns with football.  Sure these kids are getting a free education and some NIL now (they still are making a very small fraction of the revenue they bring in to the schools), but they are putting their bodies on the line for the enjoyment of people who wear red shirts on Saturdays.  I know multiple guys in their 40s who played in college who have health problems that no 40 year old should.  (Two friends who played D3 are getting hip replacements in the next year due to the wear and tear of football.)  So I don't have a problem with the new football thinking of limiting hits.

[JeffKinney87]

1 minute ago, Husker in WI said:

 

A high number of pitches is still correlated to increased injury risk. Hard to prove, but most people believe the increased injuries in pitchers due to throwing max effort more, and just pushing the limits of what the human arm can do. 

 

Anecdotally, I would say that while the past had more of the cheap shots and ultra violent hits from some pretty lax rules, the average tackle collision was much less violent than the average tackle today. There's nothing you can really do to decrease the violence of a normal tackle at this point outside of sliding or getting out of bounds (unlike baseball, where theoretically the pitcher can throw with ~90% effort instead of 100%), but in both cases you can limit the overall number of stressers. Pitch counts in baseball, not calling excessive numbers of QB runs in football. 

Without making this a baseball discussion, I agree with you in the bolded.  I would just say that I think the reason pitchers don't throw complete games anymore, is because they aren't stressing their body in games, practice, and training to accomplish this feat, instead they are working on max velocity.  In the same way our QBs are not stressing their body in games, practice, and training/conditioning to run the ball with authority, and consequently they can't.  

 

I also agree that in both football and baseball there are a multiplicity of reasons for increased injuries, but I do think the fragile athlete mentality plays a part.

 

With that said, I think I have side-tracked this forum enough with my crazy opinions.  I honestly just wanted to comment on the anti-fragility training that is starting to be talked about in strength and conditioning programs.  I think it is key in reversing our upward trending injuries.  

 

That said, I will pipe down now.

 

[BigRedBuster]

12 minutes ago, Husker in WI said:

 

A high number of pitches is still correlated to increased injury risk. Hard to prove, but most people believe the increased injuries in pitchers is due to throwing max effort more, and just pushing the limits of what the human arm can do. Startes never used to throw max effort, becuase their goal was to complete the game. Now they do, almost every pitch.

 

Anecdotally, I would say that while the past had more of the cheap shots and ultra violent hits from some pretty lax rules, the average tackle collision was much less violent than the average tackle today. There's nothing you can really do to decrease the violence of a normal tackle at this point outside of sliding or getting out of bounds (unlike baseball, where theoretically the pitcher can throw with ~90% effort instead of 100%), but in both cases you can limit the overall number of stressers. Pitch counts in baseball, not calling excessive numbers of QB runs in football. 

Yes.

 

It used to be that if a pitcher could throw 98mph, you might see it a few times per game to get a really difficult strikeout.  Now, you see starters throwing up in that range all the time.

 

As for football, it seems like there is a very high number of (at least lower body injuries) that aren't caused by violent hits.  It's because their body was twisted in a certain way or cleats get stuck in the turf...etc.  Like the injury to Gabe.  That didn't seem like an overly violent tackle.  His body must have just landed wrong somehow.

[Guy Chamberlin]

22 minutes ago, Husker in WI said:

 

 

Purdy is still here! Wondering how much of him being the #3 is health, and how much is just knowing we'll need the QB run game that Haarberg is better equipped to handle.

 

I don't think any other program wanted him, and he has no room to argue his #3 status. He looked pretty awful last season. 

[JeffKinney87]

7 minutes ago, Red Five said:

 

baseball pitcher <> football player

 

Pitchers are training their body to do one specific movement over and over and over.

 

Football players are running into each other at different speeds and from different angles multiple times per game.  Sure you can absorb hits, but at some point your body is going to "break" if you keep doing it.

 

Also, there are serious long term health concerns with football.  Sure these kids are getting a free education and some NIL now (they still are making a very small fraction of the revenue they bring in to the schools), but they are putting their bodies on the line for the enjoyment of people who wear red shirts on Saturdays.  I know multiple guys in their 40s who played in college who have health problems that no 40 year old should.  (Two friends who played D3 are getting hip replacements in the next year due to the wear and tear of football.)  So I don't have a problem with the new football thinking of limiting hits.

 

I agree that they aren't equivalent.  I was just trying to give a baseball  example that most people recognize, and because I played baseball in high school, so that is a lot easier for me to understand.  

 

Regarding the bolded, I absolutely agree that injuries can be devastating to athletes and their families.  The proponents of the anti-fragile athlete may be absolutely wrong, to be honest I am not an expert and I do not know whether or not they are right, but they are certainly putting forward their point of view to prevent injuries.  They are not going around saying, BE TOUGHER, they are trying to implement programs that actually make your body more resilient, and have less of a chance of suffering injuries. 

 

I am new, and may not have made that clear in my post.  Either way, like I said above, my intention was not to hi-jack the topic, and I will butt out now.  

[MyBloodIsRed16]

25 minutes ago, Husker in WI said:

 

A high number of pitches is still correlated to increased injury risk. Hard to prove, but most people believe the increased injuries in pitchers is due to throwing max effort more, and just pushing the limits of what the human arm can do. Startes never used to throw max effort, becuase their goal was to complete the game. Now they do, almost every pitch.

 

Anecdotally, I would say that while the past had more of the cheap shots and ultra violent hits from some pretty lax rules, the average tackle collision was much less violent than the average tackle today. There's nothing you can really do to decrease the violence of a normal tackle at this point outside of sliding or getting out of bounds (unlike baseball, where theoretically the pitcher can throw with ~90% effort instead of 100%), but in both cases you can limit the overall number of stressers. Pitch counts in baseball, not calling excessive numbers of QB runs in football. 

Tell that to Nolan Ryan.  Obviously there we a bunch called but a lot of runs came on called pass plays in which he just took off running. 

[Mavric]

3 hours ago, Undone said:

Agreed there for sure.

 

I just think it might be like a "Husker fan fiction" type of narrative to really believe the Minnesota game is that much different with Haarberg in there. Anything is possible but my main point is that the game was totally winnable with Sims.

 

In a situation where we got shut out or where we weren't winning with 6:00 left to go in the game, yeah, I'd be entertaining that hypothetical heavily.

 

Now, the Colorado game? It wasn't winnable with Sims. And I hope that our coaching staff sees this and evaluates the QB situation very carefully because of it.

 

I mean ... I can't see how you CAN'T say that you'd expect a different outcome with a different QB.  Yes, the false start put us in that position.  But the INT in the end zone is one of the worst throws you'll ever see a QB make.  That's pretty bad for the average high school quarterback.  Even if he just throws that ball into the fifth row, we very likely win that game, as we (likely) would have gotten a field goal and then don't need to even be throwing the ball when he threw the last INT.  And even with the first INT, the last one was still an incredibly poor decision.  Maybe a different QB makes the same mistake but it's not a big leap to think maybe they wouldn't have.

 

I do agree that it's a pretty big assumption to think we would have won the Colorado game.  Really the only way that theory goes is how much it might have changed the game if we were up 7-10 points at half time instead of down (because of the turnovers).  They might have change how the second half was played and led to a closer game.  But that's a lot of hypotheticals. 

[Husker in WI]

8 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

I don't think any other program wanted him, and he has no room to argue his #3 status. He looked pretty awful last season. 

 

I thought he was turning a corner against Michigan last year until he got hurt, although 6/12 for 56 yards and 5 carries for 39 isn't lighting up the stat sheet. He looked lost the week before though for sure. Just pointing out that they said the backups with experience transferred, and apparently they just mean Smothers. Who I don't think would be better than Haarberg at this point.

[RedDenver]

1 minute ago, Mavric said:

 

I mean ... I can't see how you CAN'T say that you'd expect a different outcome with a different QB.  Yes, the false start put us in that position.  But the INT in the end zone is one of the worst throws you'll ever see a QB make.  That's pretty bad for the average high school quarterback.  Even if he just throws that ball into the fifth row, we very likely win that game, as we (likely) would have gotten a field goal and then don't need to even be throwing the ball when he threw the last INT.  And even with the first INT, the last one was still an incredibly poor decision.  Maybe a different QB makes the same mistake but it's not a big leap to think maybe they wouldn't have.

I agree with not assuming a different QB would make the same INT mistake. But it's reasonable to wonder whether a different QB would have gotten the team in a position to score in the first place.

[Mavric]

2 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

I agree with not assuming a different QB would make the same INT mistake. But it's reasonable to wonder whether a different QB would have gotten the team in a position to score in the first place.

 

I guess I don't think assuming another QB could at least get us 10 points in a game is all that much of an assumption.

[admo]

3 hours ago, JeffKinney87 said:

 

I agree 100% with the bolded!  In almost every sport (especially baseball) they are doing more and more to create a "fragile" athlete.  This is always sold as a way to prevent injuries, but after 10-20 years of this mentality, the injuries are not being reduced at all, in fact in some sports they've gone sky high.  We also tend to have a lot of non-contact injuries now compared to in the past.  You cannot wrap these guys in bubble-wrap.  In a chaotic world, the best you can do is train them to be able to not only handle adversity, toughness, and injury, but train them to be resilient in the sense that the likelihood of injury is lower overall.  

 

This is mainly done (I am no expert) through training and conditioning programs, and in the type of practice you encourage.  

 

This is pure speculation, but I would guess most of the quarterbacks getting injured today is due to sacks rather than "running hard through opponents".  Please see more from a physical trainer Sal Marinello, I like on the "Coach and Kernan" (baseball) podcast.

 

Just my two cents.

 

https://coachsalm.substack.com/

 

 

 

I recall back in the day of football, players used to protect themselves with Thigh Pads, Knee Pads, Neck Rolls, Elbow pads, Hip pads, tailbone pads and Shoulder pads.  And they wore Cage Masks. 

 

These days the pants are above the knee.  They protect their hands with gloves.  And there is a shoulder pad thing I suppose they wear.  I don't know about the knee brace the lineman wear, but.... for the sake of speed and tight uniforms, today's players are less protected for brutal contact and collision hits.    

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, JeffKinney87 said:

 

I understand what you are saying, but some of that thinking is beginning to be challenged.  It may seem counter-intuitive, but think of a pitcher throwing fewer pitches...that should lead to fewer injuries right?  Less stress on his arm...etc.  Instead injuries have begun to explode, even though every precaution has been taken to make these athletes train, practice, and play with less risk.  

 

Like I said before I am no expert, but I know there is a school of thought that says having your QB be protected in practice, training, and games will make the QB more fragile, and more prone to injury, because they AREN'T stressing their bodies to make them stronger and more resilient.  Like I said I am no expert, but it does make sense to me based on some of the things I have seen.  

 

Again just my 2 cents

Pitching injuries have been exploding because of the constant max effort training/tendencies of todays pitchers and the ligaments can’t hold up over time with that constant stress.   Add to that the overuse/max energy in travel ball/HS it’s just a matter of when for a lot of the kids not if.  
 

If they NU QB’s are leading the team or near the lead in rushing attempts over the course of the year, I’m guessing they will miss more game time like Sims currently is.  NU can’t really afford to have any more injuries at the QB position and field an effective offense.  
 

If HH continues to get 15 carries a game, he will need to learn when to effectively slide and save his body.  

[JJ Husker]

4 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

 NU can’t really afford to have any more injuries at the QB position and field an effective offense.  
 

 

TBF, I’m not sure how effective of an offense we were fielding before any injuries