True2tRA Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 This seems foolish to say. Especially with all of our injuries... I mean, everyone's all on board now saying "They need to hit more in practice!" until we lose 2 guys before a big game. Then everyone would say "they need to be smart! Don't injure players DURING practice!" There's no right answer, but the best is what everyone is doing. And that is less contact during the practice week. Everyone does it for a reason... I said the same thing. With all the injuries the staff has to be leery of this. Damon comes from an era of Nebraska football that had depth to spare at every position for the most part. Quote Link to comment
Enhance Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 Ok, legitimate question time: how much does the extent of live hitting actually matter in practice in relation to injuries and on-field performance? Now, before anyone fires off, here's why I bring it up. We all know there are limitations to how often teams can have full padded practices. NCAA rules. Every team is limited. How do we know for a fact that what Nebraska is doing is any different than other teams nationwide? What are we missing? Why do so many people say we need to hit more but just leave it at that? Furthermore, did OSU battle serious injury problems during MR's tenure? One could rationally assume he's carried over similar practice techniques. Clearly, we are suffering from just a ridiculous amount of injuries, so ridiculous that people are wondering why. But, people thought the same thing under BP, that we weren't doing live hitting enough. Now, they're thinking about it under MR. I just want a clearer picture here other than 'yeah, if we hit more in practice we'd all be OK,' or something along those lines. Quote Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 Trying to catch up on watching the game for the first time and all the radio reaction from this weekend... Boy, DB sounds pissed at Cav during the first segment of their show from this morning. Doesn't believe we can't possibly field more capable players on the OL than the no-sub lineup we've been trotting out. I've been an adamant supporter of this staff, but some of the personnel decisions, from OL to RB to DB, have been flat out mind-boggling. I don't get it. Quote Link to comment
GBRedneck Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 I believe no-contact practices lead to more injuries during games. In practice, they should be doing full-contact tackling drills. Under supervision, there is little chance of injury. Thud-up-only in scrimmage situations is fine. The unkowns involved there with guys potentially getting rolled from behind or from the side can cause unnecessary injuries. But zero contact in practice leads to more of those injury situations in live games. Quote Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 OK....an someone provide some type of actual valid report saying we have absolutely zero contact in practice? Quote Link to comment
cm husker Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 OK....an someone provide some type of actual valid report saying we have absolutely zero contact in practice? I would be shocked (and disbelieving) if told that we had zero contact. I would bet that the lines go full contact, but nothing on the ground (e.g., cut blocking). The scout d probably goes to a fit, except on QB. I would hope that our D is going to a fit most of the time but works in some full contact for a few sessions a week. It's tough, though. Beyond pure "injury" a lot of folks can get "hurt" doing that. By mid season everyone is hurt and recovery time is needed during the week. on the flipside, I agree with the above that contact in practice conditions players better so that htey are less prone to injury at game speed. It's unfortunately that the NCAA has restricted practice so much in the name of injury prevention. I think, like so many of their regulations, it's having an opposite effect. Quote Link to comment
GBRedneck Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 If you'll notice, no one claimed we currently have zero contact in practices. However, we do not have full contact at practices. Quote Link to comment
True2tRA Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 Trying to catch up on watching the game for the first time and all the radio reaction from this weekend... Boy, DB sounds pissed at Cav during the first segment of their show from this morning. Doesn't believe we can't possibly field more capable players on the OL than the no-sub lineup we've been trotting out. I've been an adamant supporter of this staff, but some of the personnel decisions, from OL to RB to DB, have been flat out mind-boggling. I don't get it. That's what is shocking to me. I don't care about rotatin offensive linemen, that's a Husker fan thing, that's not a normal occurrence in football. Chemistry and familiarity are extremely important to an offensive lines success. If subbing a guy in completely destroys that chemistry and ruins any chance of success than that is disappointing. We need to get a few other guys going and we needed to a Lon time ago. I know it's easier said than done, but the way this group looks, it needs to be done. Get someone else in there and get them some reps. I don't expect these coaches to suddenly have everyone playing at a higher level than they ever have before, but the accountability and lack of change is somewhat frustrating. It's even more disappointing if the depth is just truly that horrible behind these starting five. Quote Link to comment
Enhance Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 But, to what extent do we not have contact? How does that compare to other schools? What was it like under Riley at OSU, and did he have these sheer numbers of injuries there? I realize we may not be able to answer these questions right now, but I still would like to know. There are (obviously) great teams in this country playing under the same practice restrictions we are. That leaves three options: either they're all cheaters, we actually don't hit as much as we could in practice or we're just going through a fluke number of injuries. Quote Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 If you'll notice, no one claimed we currently have zero contact in practices. However, we do not have full contact at practices. Ummmmm...... I believe no-contact practices lead to more injuries during games. In practice, they should be doing full-contact tackling drills. Under supervision, there is little chance of injury. Thud-up-only in scrimmage situations is fine. The unkowns involved there with guys potentially getting rolled from behind or from the side can cause unnecessary injuries. But zero contact in practice leads to more of those injury situations in live games. 1 Quote Link to comment
ScottyIce Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 Man, I feel like I could be the 3rd wheel on the DB & Sharpe radio show. I'm always on point with these guys. Carry on with your chatter about contact vs non-contact. #toomanyinjuriestoproperlydoanythingyouwanttoactuallydojudgelateronitwhenwearehealthiergoodluckreadingthishashtag 1 Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.