Chicago Fanatics Message Board :: View topic - Who is the next player to skip a meaningless Bowl Game?

Boilermaker Rick wrote:

conns7901 wrote:

Nothing is impossible. It is just not feasible. The coach is paid millions of dollars to win games. He is not going to handcuff himself with a set number of carries throughout a game or season. It will also not protect the player as they will be used much more in the games that are against better and likely more physical teams.

He will if he wants to win. They do it all the time in early season games or in blowouts. Once again, a carries limit is not some foreign concept. You also don't seem to grasp the concept that less carries = less chance of injury. Why do you think these guys are sitting out the bowl game?

If a coach is given the choice of having a guy sit out or a carries limit he will choose the carries limit. You seem to think players are going to sit out and not play football for 18 months and the NFL won't care.

The problem you run into is if you have a highly talented bunch of starters, and no depth, you are going to be losing games if you have them on play limits. And how do you defend that in the press -- you could have gone 9-2, but because your RB only wants to carry 150 times a season and your DB only wants to come in on 3rd down passing situations, you have to put weaker players in and go 7-4? The difference between the Rose Bowl and the Motor City Bowl. I guess you could try to say this would help recruiting as you are permitting players to save themselves for the NFL, but unless you are already an established coach, you don't have too much time before winning becomes expected and you are cut loose for too many 6 and 7 win seasons.

Author:	conns7901 [ Tue Dec 20, 2016 9:50 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Who is the next player to skip a meaningless Bowl Game?
Boilermaker Rick wrote: If a coach is given the choice of having a guy sit out or a carries limit he will choose the carries limit. You seem to think players are going to sit out and not play football for 18 months and the NFL won't care. No I stated there is a better chance of a player sitting out then a self imposed carry limit for a healthy player. Coaches will not let a player dictate to them a carry limit. They will also not handcuff themselves by giving a healthy rb a carry limit. It is about more than just one player with them and will lead to team dysfunction.

Author:	Brick [ Wed Dec 21, 2016 6:19 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Who is the next player to skip a meaningless Bowl Game?
newper wrote: Boilermaker Rick wrote: conns7901 wrote: Nothing is impossible. It is just not feasible. The coach is paid millions of dollars to win games. He is not going to handcuff himself with a set number of carries throughout a game or season. It will also not protect the player as they will be used much more in the games that are against better and likely more physical teams. He will if he wants to win. They do it all the time in early season games or in blowouts. Once again, a carries limit is not some foreign concept. You also don't seem to grasp the concept that less carries = less chance of injury. Why do you think these guys are sitting out the bowl game? If a coach is given the choice of having a guy sit out or a carries limit he will choose the carries limit. You seem to think players are going to sit out and not play football for 18 months and the NFL won't care. The problem you run into is if you have a highly talented bunch of starters, and no depth, you are going to be losing games if you have them on play limits. And how do you defend that in the press -- you could have gone 9-2, but because your RB only wants to carry 150 times a season and your DB only wants to come in on 3rd down passing situations, you have to put weaker players in and go 7-4? The difference between the Rose Bowl and the Motor City Bowl. I guess you could try to say this would help recruiting as you are permitting players to save themselves for the NFL, but unless you are already an established coach, you don't have too much time before winning becomes expected and you are cut loose for too many 6 and 7 win seasons. You make it known at the start of the season. This is also for the true elites. LSU has 3 running backs every year who can rush for big yards. Limiting carries for a junior year isn't a big deal. It's better than conns suggestion that players will sit at home for 18 months. That's bad for everyone.

Author:	Urlacher's missing neck [ Fri Dec 30, 2016 10:57 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Who is the next player to skip a meaningless Bowl Game?
Jake Butt wishes he jumped on this bandwagon. He was probably a 1st round pick but who knows now. Hopefully he just dislocated his patella.

Author:	312player [ Thu Jan 05, 2017 10:40 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Who is the next player to skip a meaningless Bowl Game?
I heard Butt has a 2 million insurance policy if he got hurt and doesn't get drafted in the first round. Heard that on Defalco~Jurkovich show, they also said this is his 2nd knee surgery at Michigan.. Angelo would be all over this guy but I'm hoping Pace takes a pass, wouldn't waste a 5th rounder on him.

Chicago Fanatics Message Board http://chicagofanatics.com/

Who is the next player to skip a meaningless Bowl Game? http://chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=101&t=104042	Page 2 of 2

Page 2 of 2	All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/