PDA

View Full Version : Does the team multiple "crossover" philosophy


CloakNNNdagger
08-17-2009, 07:15 AM
put players at undue high risk for injury. Many key players are being "hybridized" to wear many hats........multiple positions and STs.

You wonder if the jack-of-all trades approach plus "suicide squad" exposure lends itself to not learning positions well (which is a protective factor in itself). Advantages of this approach are theoretical, greater potential exposure to injury is real.

Texans_Chick
08-17-2009, 07:56 AM
I dunno know. Football causes injuries. You have to have some crossover guys doing ST because gameday rosters are small.

So what you are saying is Rex Grossman hurt himself because he was being both a quarterback and a sucky quarterback?

TimeKiller
08-17-2009, 09:15 AM
So what you are saying is Rex Grossman hurt himself because he was being both a quarterback and a sucky quarterback?

Are you trying to say that Rex Grossman hurt himself because he sucks?


CND, I wouldn't say it makes any risks of football greater...maybe just in that the more a player is on the field, the more possibilities there are for him to get hurt. But if a guy is playing 30 snaps at C I'd say his risk is no more severe than if he played 30 snaps as a special teamer, TE, FB, Long-snapper combo. 30 snaps is 30 snaps.

Fox
08-17-2009, 09:16 AM
I feel, at least by what our FO and staff are emphasizing, that the game seems to be moving towards players who are able to fill multiple rolls because of the said constraints placed by the relatively small roster. Combine that with the games natural progression towards bigger, faster, stronger athletes and it definitely can't be helping the walking wounded tally.

And then you have the NFL trying to curtail the injuries by penalizing tackling. :sarcasm:

TimeKiller
08-17-2009, 09:35 AM
And then you have the NFL trying to curtail the injuries by penalizing tackling. :sarcasm:


I get your point about the wussification of the game but...

take Joel Dressen for example now. Hyperextended knee on a play where he got open enough enough to catch the ball but knew the hit was coming. The defender came in gunning for his knee and frankly, I have no intentions of re-watching anything close to that UofH WR who a-splode his knee on the cart in the back of the endzone. Or when TJ bent his knee over Green's face, that looked awful. Tom Brady's injury basically changed what plane lineman are legally allowed to touch the QB. So nothing low on a guy standing still, why are guys allowed to dive at a TE's knees in motion who is looking behind him? why not change the rule to include everyone, not just the golden boy?

El Tejano
08-17-2009, 09:40 AM
There was someone who commented about this on the Casey article on the Chron's website. His argument was that Zac Diles got injured because he was practicing Special Teams. However, Zac Diles' injury was while he was running down field. There was no contact involved. Just a freak injury.

CloakNNNdagger
08-17-2009, 09:51 AM
I dunno know. Football causes injuries. You have to have some crossover guys doing ST because gameday rosters are small.

So what you are saying is Rex Grossman hurt himself because he was being both a quarterback and a sucky quarterback?


I guess, what I'm concerned about are players like Casey put on the field at a myriad of positions. Part of learning to minimize your chances of getting injured is developing an expertice, learning the fine details and all of the esoteric aspects of the position (which, of course differs from position to position). This, if nothing else, becomes much more difficult when you're playing many positions.

Fox
08-17-2009, 11:21 AM
I get your point about the wussification of the game but...

take Joel Dressen for example now. Hyperextended knee on a play where he got open enough enough to catch the ball but knew the hit was coming. The defender came in gunning for his knee and frankly, I have no intentions of re-watching anything close to that UofH WR who a-splode his knee on the cart in the back of the endzone. Or when TJ bent his knee over Green's face, that looked awful. Tom Brady's injury basically changed what plane lineman are legally allowed to touch the QB. So nothing low on a guy standing still, why are guys allowed to dive at a TE's knees in motion who is looking behind him? why not change the rule to include everyone, not just the golden boy?

Nah, I agree with you to a large extent, hence the sarcasm. Especially the rules to prevent going for an opposing player's knees under any circumstance, I'm down with that. It's the rule changes like the new "Hines Ward" rule that I feel, while well intentioned, have the potential to change the physical nature of the game for better or worse.

NitroGSXR
08-17-2009, 11:41 AM
Are you trying to say that Rex Grossman hurt himself because he sucks?


CND, I wouldn't say it makes any risks of football greater...maybe just in that the more a player is on the field, the more possibilities there are for him to get hurt. But if a guy is playing 30 snaps at C I'd say his risk is no more severe than if he played 30 snaps as a special teamer, TE, FB, Long-snapper combo. 30 snaps is 30 snaps.

I believe there's a higher chance of injury playing special teams merely because of the momentum these guys are achieving as a result of running full blast in the open field to be met by the opponent who's also running full blast in the open. I have no data to back this up or anything like that. It just appears to be the case to me at a glance.

Blake
08-17-2009, 12:11 PM
Players need to be able to play more than 1 position. Besides QB, kicker, punter.

Fox
08-17-2009, 12:16 PM
Players need to be able to play more than 1 position. Besides QB, kicker, punter.

Well, maybe even QB's.. Doug Flutie anyone? jk.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1550377/posts

:shades:

b0ng
08-17-2009, 12:25 PM
Players need to be able to play more than 1 position. Besides QB, kicker, punter.

George Blanda thinks that is crap..

El Tejano
08-17-2009, 12:30 PM
What about the WR from New England who played DB also.

painekiller
08-17-2009, 12:44 PM
Injuries have always been a part of the game, period. Back in the 60's they had 45 man rosters, and IRs that allowed guys to be reactivated during the season. The new IR rules suck, and the roster is not big enough for the all specialist.

Injuries happen, and we have wussified everyone.

Lynn Dickey broke his hip. Gayle Sayers blew out his knee, Joe Namath blew out his knees many times. Dick Butkus could not practice for years his knees where so bad.

The reason we think there is more is two fold, one we are still not a real deep team, where getting there, but we are not solid top to bottom yet. 2nd with the internet we have so much more news available to us. And because of fantasy football you pay more attention to all the teams. Injuries have been the norm in football.

TK_Gamer
08-17-2009, 01:01 PM
I think a hit on your knees will injure you about the same no matter what position you play or how much, just as a 250 to 300 pound guy falling on your knee will injure you no matter what. I think you get conditioned as a football player and you learn about the physics of large people colliding and try to minimize the risks just by being in good shape and not standing around in traffic situations. but ...I think 75% of all sports injuries are accidents that have little or no chance of being avoided, ie bad luck.

Carr Bombed
08-17-2009, 01:38 PM
I don't think it has anything to do with players being versatile....the Pats have had some of the most versatile rosters this decade and everything seems to have worked out for them. I'd chalk it up to just plain ol' bad luck.

TimeKiller
08-17-2009, 03:24 PM
Nah, I agree with you to a large extent, hence the sarcasm. Especially the rules to prevent going for an opposing player's knees under any circumstance, I'm down with that. It's the rule changes like the new "Hines Ward" rule that I feel, while well intentioned, have the potential to change the physical nature of the game for better or worse.

Oh snap, the Hines Ward rule is bogus on a bagel.

I believe there's a higher chance of injury playing special teams merely because of the momentum these guys are achieving as a result of running full blast in the open field to be met by the opponent who's also running full blast in the open. I have no data to back this up or anything like that. It just appears to be the case to me at a glance.

9 guys. 6'3'' ish 300ish pounds who have the objective of crashing, pushing, snarling and throwing each other about for an hour? Glance again. It's football and dangerous is dangerous.

Players need to be able to play more than 1 position. Besides QB, kicker, punter.
To that, have there ever been kicker/punter crossovers? Seems like the 2 positions would lend themselves quite well to 1 guy. I mean really, how much of a difference is there?

ChampionTexan
08-17-2009, 03:34 PM
I guess, what I'm concerned about are players like Casey put on the field at a myriad of positions. Part of learning to minimize your chances of getting injured is developing an expertice, learning the fine details and all of the esoteric aspects of the position (which, of course differs from position to position). This, if nothing else, becomes much more difficult when you're playing many positions.

It's not like we're asking them to play Linebacker one day, and go skiing or work on an oil rig the next.

To a large extent, football is football, and unless you are a special talent, you're very likely to need to be able to play special teams or multiple positions at some point in your career. Seems like there should be quite a bit of that "Injury minimization" knowledge that translates from one position on the football field to another (as opposed to a ski slope or an oil rig in which case it might not).

Specnatz
08-17-2009, 03:40 PM
put players at undue high risk for injury. Many key players are being "hybridized" to wear many hats........multiple positions and STs.

You wonder if the jack-of-all trades approach plus "suicide squad" exposure lends itself to not learning positions well (which is a protective factor in itself). Advantages of this approach are theoretical, greater potential exposure to injury is real.

You forget, back in the day players not only played offense but they played defense, and had winter jobs.

Deon played baseball and football (Defense and Special Teams) and I do not recall him getting hurt very much.

Spike
08-17-2009, 03:48 PM
I am not sure what is causing the other - Are players getting injured because they are playing more than one position, or are players getting asked to play multiple positions because others are getting injured?

I would argue the second - which is certainly the case now with Casey. Absent the injury to the back-up FB, I don't think the coaches intended Casey to work too much at that spot now. Clearly, the staff must be comfortable that Casey can handle the additional work.

I don't know that it will work accross the board (certainly now switching guys between offense and defense like the old days), but having guys that can step in and play more than one position gives a team flexibility with limited rosters.

badboy
08-17-2009, 04:01 PM
On an angle different than injuries, it is interesting to note that while football wants players to do more than one thing and do them well, baseball has become a game of the specialist. You may have a guy who can play more than one position, but not many on the roster.

CloakNNNdagger
08-17-2009, 09:09 PM
You forget, back in the day players not only played offense but they played defense, and had winter jobs.

Deon played baseball and football (Defense and Special Teams) and I do not recall him getting hurt very much.

Just to put things in perspective. Back in the early days of football when non-platooning was the rule (playing both sides), game length was was 60 minutes............BUT, like the sport from which it developed, rugby, there were no time outs. Therefore, the amount of time the ball was actually in play was estimated to be only about 15 minutes.