That's exactly what I think of too. Lots of people around me said "Why wasn't he playing the whole game?"[cat_bracket] wrote:I don't think of Newell as a backup running back. I think of the So. Utah game and how the coaches left Kirk and Johnson in when they were limping around and didn't give him a carry until the fourth quarter and he got to the hole quickly (the first RB to do so all game) and scored from 13 yards out, but he didn't get another carry in the game.
27(1) days and counting
Moderators: rtb, kmax, SonomaCat
- Sotallytober
- BobcatNation Letterman
- Posts: 303
- Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 10:43 am
- Location: Billings, MT
Re: 43(17) days and counting
- catgrad05
- Member # Retired
- Posts: 2393
- Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 9:51 am
- Location: North Central Montna
Re: 43(17) days and counting
I was saying the same thing at home. I could not believe that we were not using our backups at all that game. Especially when both Newell and Brekke had done well with the limited opportunities that they were given last year.Sotallytober wrote:That's exactly what I think of too. Lots of people around me said "Why wasn't he playing the whole game?"[cat_bracket] wrote:I don't think of Newell as a backup running back. I think of the So. Utah game and how the coaches left Kirk and Johnson in when they were limping around and didn't give him a carry until the fourth quarter and he got to the hole quickly (the first RB to do so all game) and scored from 13 yards out, but he didn't get another carry in the game.
- catatac
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 8930
- Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 1:37 pm
Re: 43(17) days and counting
Agree. This is one area where I really disagreed with that decision. In fact I think I even remember Ash or at least some coach commenting about how they earned it and deserved to play. Yes, but are you sure that was giving us the best opportunity to win the game? I don't think so.catgrad05 wrote:I was saying the same thing at home. I could not believe that we were not using our backups at all that game. Especially when both Newell and Brekke had done well with the limited opportunities that they were given last year.Sotallytober wrote:That's exactly what I think of too. Lots of people around me said "Why wasn't he playing the whole game?"[cat_bracket] wrote:I don't think of Newell as a backup running back. I think of the So. Utah game and how the coaches left Kirk and Johnson in when they were limping around and didn't give him a carry until the fourth quarter and he got to the hole quickly (the first RB to do so all game) and scored from 13 yards out, but he didn't get another carry in the game.
Great time to be a BOBCAT!
- codecat
- Member # Retired
- Posts: 2656
- Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 1:38 pm
- Location: Laurel
Re: 43(17) days and counting
Count me in on that one - was a question I had stored for coach Odems but will probably never know the reason now since he is gone. Although some will strongly disagree, I felt the same way that Bleskin should have been in for McGhee a few times late in the season too.catatac wrote:Agree. This is one area where I really disagreed with that decision. In fact I think I even remember Ash or at least some coach commenting about how they earned it and deserved to play. Yes, but are you sure that was giving us the best opportunity to win the game? I don't think so.catgrad05 wrote:I was saying the same thing at home. I could not believe that we were not using our backups at all that game. Especially when both Newell and Brekke had done well with the limited opportunities that they were given last year.Sotallytober wrote:That's exactly what I think of too. Lots of people around me said "Why wasn't he playing the whole game?"[cat_bracket] wrote:I don't think of Newell as a backup running back. I think of the So. Utah game and how the coaches left Kirk and Johnson in when they were limping around and didn't give him a carry until the fourth quarter and he got to the hole quickly (the first RB to do so all game) and scored from 13 yards out, but he didn't get another carry in the game.
London Bridge is falling down, falling down, falling down, London Bridge is falling down, Bye-Bye Fauci!
-
- 1st Team All-BobcatNation
- Posts: 1993
- Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 4:13 pm
Re: 43(17) days and counting
I am of the opinion (although I'm probably a minority of one) that we should have at least 2 two's in the game all the time - just rotating which ones are in - in order to give them the experience to have them become one and a half's and eventually 1s. Might prevent some drop off when the #1 gets hurt, too.codecat wrote:Count me in on that one - was a question I had stored for coach Odems but will probably never know the reason now since he is gone. Although some will strongly disagree, I felt the same way that Bleskin should have been in for McGhee a few times late in the season too.catatac wrote:Agree. This is one area where I really disagreed with that decision. In fact I think I even remember Ash or at least some coach commenting about how they earned it and deserved to play. Yes, but are you sure that was giving us the best opportunity to win the game? I don't think so.catgrad05 wrote:I was saying the same thing at home. I could not believe that we were not using our backups at all that game. Especially when both Newell and Brekke had done well with the limited opportunities that they were given last year.Sotallytober wrote:That's exactly what I think of too. Lots of people around me said "Why wasn't he playing the whole game?"[cat_bracket] wrote:I don't think of Newell as a backup running back. I think of the So. Utah game and how the coaches left Kirk and Johnson in when they were limping around and didn't give him a carry until the fourth quarter and he got to the hole quickly (the first RB to do so all game) and scored from 13 yards out, but he didn't get another carry in the game.
Can't make up my mind as to which is better - 55-21 or 48-14.
-
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 8620
- Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:04 am
- Location: Great Falls MT
Re: 43(17) days and counting
I agree...having quality depth isn't really much of an asset, if the coaching staff is unwilling to utilize it. That's why I tend to disagree with those who place all/most of the blame for our late season collapse on injuries. On the one hand you have to respect Ash for his loyalty, and I know it would have been difficult to bench D-Mac and/or Kirk late in the season, particularly in Cat-Griz, but sometimes you have to do what you have to do.codecat wrote:Count me in on that one - was a question I had stored for coach Odems but will probably never know the reason now since he is gone. Although some will strongly disagree, I felt the same way that Bleskin should have been in for McGhee a few times late in the season too.catatac wrote:Agree. This is one area where I really disagreed with that decision. In fact I think I even remember Ash or at least some coach commenting about how they earned it and deserved to play. Yes, but are you sure that was giving us the best opportunity to win the game? I don't think so.catgrad05 wrote:I was saying the same thing at home. I could not believe that we were not using our backups at all that game. Especially when both Newell and Brekke had done well with the limited opportunities that they were given last year.Sotallytober wrote:That's exactly what I think of too. Lots of people around me said "Why wasn't he playing the whole game?"[cat_bracket] wrote:I don't think of Newell as a backup running back. I think of the So. Utah game and how the coaches left Kirk and Johnson in when they were limping around and didn't give him a carry until the fourth quarter and he got to the hole quickly (the first RB to do so all game) and scored from 13 yards out, but he didn't get another carry in the game.
- catdaddy7
- BobcatNation Team Captain
- Posts: 716
- Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2012 11:01 am
Re: 43(17) days and counting
Careful, I made mention of this late in the season last year and some people viewed it as blasphemy. I'll say it again, if your #1 is hurting and is notJohn K wrote:I agree...having quality depth isn't really much of an asset, if the coaching staff is unwilling to utilize it. That's why I tend to disagree with those who place all/most of the blame for our late season collapse on injuries. On the one hand you have to respect Ash for his loyalty, and I know it would have been difficult to bench D-Mac and/or Kirk late in the season, particularly in Cat-Griz, but sometimes you have to do what you have to do.codecat wrote:Count me in on that one - was a question I had stored for coach Odems but will probably never know the reason now since he is gone. Although some will strongly disagree, I felt the same way that Bleskin should have been in for McGhee a few times late in the season too.catatac wrote:Agree. This is one area where I really disagreed with that decision. In fact I think I even remember Ash or at least some coach commenting about how they earned it and deserved to play. Yes, but are you sure that was giving us the best opportunity to win the game? I don't think so.catgrad05 wrote:I was saying the same thing at home. I could not believe that we were not using our backups at all that game. Especially when both Newell and Brekke had done well with the limited opportunities that they were given last year.Sotallytober wrote:That's exactly what I think of too. Lots of people around me said "Why wasn't he playing the whole game?"[cat_bracket] wrote:I don't think of Newell as a backup running back. I think of the So. Utah game and how the coaches left Kirk and Johnson in when they were limping around and didn't give him a carry until the fourth quarter and he got to the hole quickly (the first RB to do so all game) and scored from 13 yards out, but he didn't get another carry in the game.
up to speed, you owe it to the rest of the team to play the next guy in line even if if it's your posterboy.
Thank God there's Hockey this year .........
- Hi-Line Bobcat
- BobcatNation Hall of Famer
- Posts: 3287
- Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 1:11 pm
- Location: Billings, MT
Re: 43(17) days and counting
I would bet my left nut if Ash said that he definitely didn't mean it in the context you just used it. Even in the big sky level you play your best players, or else you won't last long. When someone does something good in a limited role that doesn't necessarily mean they should automatically get playing time. The guys that were playing were consistent and given the same opportunities in spring ball, practices, etc shined more consistently. I bet that is how he wanted whomever he told that to, to take it.catatac wrote:Agree. This is one area where I really disagreed with that decision. In fact I think I even remember Ash or at least some coach commenting about how they earned it and deserved to play. Yes, but are you sure that was giving us the best opportunity to win the game? I don't think so.catgrad05 wrote:I was saying the same thing at home. I could not believe that we were not using our backups at all that game. Especially when both Newell and Brekke had done well with the limited opportunities that they were given last year.Sotallytober wrote:That's exactly what I think of too. Lots of people around me said "Why wasn't he playing the whole game?"[cat_bracket] wrote:I don't think of Newell as a backup running back. I think of the So. Utah game and how the coaches left Kirk and Johnson in when they were limping around and didn't give him a carry until the fourth quarter and he got to the hole quickly (the first RB to do so all game) and scored from 13 yards out, but he didn't get another carry in the game.
Having said that I'm real excited to see Newell, Brekke, Young, Bleskin/Prukop, Thomas, Na'a play this year.
If your left, you aren’t right.
-
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 8620
- Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:04 am
- Location: Great Falls MT
Re: 43(17) days and counting
Under normal circumstances, I'd agree with you. Obviously D-Mac and Kirk earned their starting roles. But late in the season, if they were injured severely enough so as to significantly impact their performance (which appeared to be the case), and if a team has quality backups (which we did IMO), then maybe the backups should have been given more playing time.Hi-Line Bobcat wrote:I would bet my left nut if Ash said that he definitely didn't mean it in the context you just used it. Even in the big sky level you play your best players, or else you won't last long. When someone does something good in a limited role that doesn't necessarily mean they should automatically get playing time. The guys that were playing were consistent and given the same opportunities in spring ball, practices, etc shined more consistently. I bet that is how he wanted whomever he told that to, to take it.catatac wrote:Agree. This is one area where I really disagreed with that decision. In fact I think I even remember Ash or at least some coach commenting about how they earned it and deserved to play. Yes, but are you sure that was giving us the best opportunity to win the game? I don't think so.catgrad05 wrote:I was saying the same thing at home. I could not believe that we were not using our backups at all that game. Especially when both Newell and Brekke had done well with the limited opportunities that they were given last year.Sotallytober wrote:That's exactly what I think of too. Lots of people around me said "Why wasn't he playing the whole game?"[cat_bracket] wrote:I don't think of Newell as a backup running back. I think of the So. Utah game and how the coaches left Kirk and Johnson in when they were limping around and didn't give him a carry until the fourth quarter and he got to the hole quickly (the first RB to do so all game) and scored from 13 yards out, but he didn't get another carry in the game.
Having said that I'm real excited to see Newell, Brekke, Young, Bleskin/Prukop, Thomas, Na'a play this year.
-
- 1st Team All-BobcatNation
- Posts: 1993
- Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 4:13 pm
Re: 43(17) days and counting
And, haven't the stars over the years been quoted as saying they would rather have the team win than them have individual stats, etc.John K wrote: Under normal circumstances, I'd agree with you. Obviously D-Mac and Kirk earned their starting roles. But late in the season, if they were injured severely enough so as to significantly impact their performance (which appeared to be the case), and if a team has quality backups (which we did IMO), then maybe the backups should have been given more playing time.
Can't make up my mind as to which is better - 55-21 or 48-14.
- Hi-Line Bobcat
- BobcatNation Hall of Famer
- Posts: 3287
- Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 1:11 pm
- Location: Billings, MT
Re: 43(17) days and counting
That's assuming that the back ups would of came in and done better. Just because they were banged up doesn't mean they weren't still more efficient than their backups. Long story short I find it hard to believe in this day and age a coach wouldn't play a better player over another, that's why I think they were still in.John K wrote:Under normal circumstances, I'd agree with you. Obviously D-Mac and Kirk earned their starting roles. But late in the season, if they were injured severely enough so as to significantly impact their performance (which appeared to be the case), and if a team has quality backups (which we did IMO), then maybe the backups should have been given more playing time.Hi-Line Bobcat wrote:I would bet my left nut if Ash said that he definitely didn't mean it in the context you just used it. Even in the big sky level you play your best players, or else you won't last long. When someone does something good in a limited role that doesn't necessarily mean they should automatically get playing time. The guys that were playing were consistent and given the same opportunities in spring ball, practices, etc shined more consistently. I bet that is how he wanted whomever he told that to, to take it.catatac wrote:Agree. This is one area where I really disagreed with that decision. In fact I think I even remember Ash or at least some coach commenting about how they earned it and deserved to play. Yes, but are you sure that was giving us the best opportunity to win the game? I don't think so.catgrad05 wrote:I was saying the same thing at home. I could not believe that we were not using our backups at all that game. Especially when both Newell and Brekke had done well with the limited opportunities that they were given last year.Sotallytober wrote:That's exactly what I think of too. Lots of people around me said "Why wasn't he playing the whole game?"[cat_bracket] wrote:I don't think of Newell as a backup running back. I think of the So. Utah game and how the coaches left Kirk and Johnson in when they were limping around and didn't give him a carry until the fourth quarter and he got to the hole quickly (the first RB to do so all game) and scored from 13 yards out, but he didn't get another carry in the game.
Having said that I'm real excited to see Newell, Brekke, Young, Bleskin/Prukop, Thomas, Na'a play this year.
If your left, you aren’t right.
-
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 8620
- Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:04 am
- Location: Great Falls MT
Re: 43(17) days and counting
Obviously, none of us will ever know that for sure. I tend to believe Ash may have simply been being loyal to two players who had contributed so much to the program over the last four seasons. That win or lose, he felt they deserved to be on the field during those final two games, and that it would have been unfair to them to have the fate of their senior season resting in the hands of other players. I'm not going to be overly critical of him for that..it's understandable and admirable to a certain degree. But with the way our offense struggled in those final two games, I think he owed it to all the other players in the program, to give Brekke/Newell and maybe even Bleskin a chance, to see if they could have given the offense a spark.Hi-Line Bobcat wrote:That's assuming that the back ups would of came in and done better. Just because they were banged up doesn't mean they weren't still more efficient than their backups. Long story short I find it hard to believe in this day and age a coach wouldn't play a better player over another, that's why I think they were still in.John K wrote:Under normal circumstances, I'd agree with you. Obviously D-Mac and Kirk earned their starting roles. But late in the season, if they were injured severely enough so as to significantly impact their performance (which appeared to be the case), and if a team has quality backups (which we did IMO), then maybe the backups should have been given more playing time.Hi-Line Bobcat wrote:I would bet my left nut if Ash said that he definitely didn't mean it in the context you just used it. Even in the big sky level you play your best players, or else you won't last long. When someone does something good in a limited role that doesn't necessarily mean they should automatically get playing time. The guys that were playing were consistent and given the same opportunities in spring ball, practices, etc shined more consistently. I bet that is how he wanted whomever he told that to, to take it.catatac wrote:Agree. This is one area where I really disagreed with that decision. In fact I think I even remember Ash or at least some coach commenting about how they earned it and deserved to play. Yes, but are you sure that was giving us the best opportunity to win the game? I don't think so.catgrad05 wrote:I was saying the same thing at home. I could not believe that we were not using our backups at all that game. Especially when both Newell and Brekke had done well with the limited opportunities that they were given last year.Sotallytober wrote:That's exactly what I think of too. Lots of people around me said "Why wasn't he playing the whole game?"[cat_bracket] wrote:I don't think of Newell as a backup running back. I think of the So. Utah game and how the coaches left Kirk and Johnson in when they were limping around and didn't give him a carry until the fourth quarter and he got to the hole quickly (the first RB to do so all game) and scored from 13 yards out, but he didn't get another carry in the game.
Having said that I'm real excited to see Newell, Brekke, Young, Bleskin/Prukop, Thomas, Na'a play this year.
- codecat
- Member # Retired
- Posts: 2656
- Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 1:38 pm
- Location: Laurel
Re: 43(17) days and counting
Out of curiosity, do you have any information as to whether Ash made this decision, whether the position coached did, or if it was a consensus thing between the two of them?John K wrote:Obviously, none of us will ever know that for sure. I tend to believe Ash may have simply been being loyal to two players who had contributed so much to the program over the last four seasons. That win or lose, he felt they deserved to be on the field during those final two games, and that it would have been unfair to them to have the fate of their senior season resting in the hands of other players. I'm not going to be overly critical of him for that..it's understandable and admirable to a certain degree. But with the way our offense struggled in those final two games, I think he owed it to all the other players in the program, to give Brekke/Newell and maybe even Bleskin a chance, to see if they could have given the offense a spark.Hi-Line Bobcat wrote:That's assuming that the back ups would of came in and done better. Just because they were banged up doesn't mean they weren't still more efficient than their backups. Long story short I find it hard to believe in this day and age a coach wouldn't play a better player over another, that's why I think they were still in.John K wrote:Under normal circumstances, I'd agree with you. Obviously D-Mac and Kirk earned their starting roles. But late in the season, if they were injured severely enough so as to significantly impact their performance (which appeared to be the case), and if a team has quality backups (which we did IMO), then maybe the backups should have been given more playing time.Hi-Line Bobcat wrote:I would bet my left nut if Ash said that he definitely didn't mean it in the context you just used it. Even in the big sky level you play your best players, or else you won't last long. When someone does something good in a limited role that doesn't necessarily mean they should automatically get playing time. The guys that were playing were consistent and given the same opportunities in spring ball, practices, etc shined more consistently. I bet that is how he wanted whomever he told that to, to take it.catatac wrote:Agree. This is one area where I really disagreed with that decision. In fact I think I even remember Ash or at least some coach commenting about how they earned it and deserved to play. Yes, but are you sure that was giving us the best opportunity to win the game? I don't think so.catgrad05 wrote:I was saying the same thing at home. I could not believe that we were not using our backups at all that game. Especially when both Newell and Brekke had done well with the limited opportunities that they were given last year.Sotallytober wrote:That's exactly what I think of too. Lots of people around me said "Why wasn't he playing the whole game?"[cat_bracket] wrote:I don't think of Newell as a backup running back. I think of the So. Utah game and how the coaches left Kirk and Johnson in when they were limping around and didn't give him a carry until the fourth quarter and he got to the hole quickly (the first RB to do so all game) and scored from 13 yards out, but he didn't get another carry in the game.
Having said that I'm real excited to see Newell, Brekke, Young, Bleskin/Prukop, Thomas, Na'a play this year.
London Bridge is falling down, falling down, falling down, London Bridge is falling down, Bye-Bye Fauci!
-
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 8620
- Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:04 am
- Location: Great Falls MT
Re: 43(17) days and counting
I have no idea, although I would tend to believe that Ash probably made the final call, after consulting with the position coaches. That's just complete speculation though.codecat wrote:Out of curiosity, do you have any information as to whether Ash made this decision, whether the position coached did, or if it was a consensus thing between the two of them?John K wrote:Obviously, none of us will ever know that for sure. I tend to believe Ash may have simply been being loyal to two players who had contributed so much to the program over the last four seasons. That win or lose, he felt they deserved to be on the field during those final two games, and that it would have been unfair to them to have the fate of their senior season resting in the hands of other players. I'm not going to be overly critical of him for that..it's understandable and admirable to a certain degree. But with the way our offense struggled in those final two games, I think he owed it to all the other players in the program, to give Brekke/Newell and maybe even Bleskin a chance, to see if they could have given the offense a spark.Hi-Line Bobcat wrote:That's assuming that the back ups would of came in and done better. Just because they were banged up doesn't mean they weren't still more efficient than their backups. Long story short I find it hard to believe in this day and age a coach wouldn't play a better player over another, that's why I think they were still in.John K wrote:Under normal circumstances, I'd agree with you. Obviously D-Mac and Kirk earned their starting roles. But late in the season, if they were injured severely enough so as to significantly impact their performance (which appeared to be the case), and if a team has quality backups (which we did IMO), then maybe the backups should have been given more playing time.Hi-Line Bobcat wrote:I would bet my left nut if Ash said that he definitely didn't mean it in the context you just used it. Even in the big sky level you play your best players, or else you won't last long. When someone does something good in a limited role that doesn't necessarily mean they should automatically get playing time. The guys that were playing were consistent and given the same opportunities in spring ball, practices, etc shined more consistently. I bet that is how he wanted whomever he told that to, to take it.catatac wrote:Agree. This is one area where I really disagreed with that decision. In fact I think I even remember Ash or at least some coach commenting about how they earned it and deserved to play. Yes, but are you sure that was giving us the best opportunity to win the game? I don't think so.catgrad05 wrote:I was saying the same thing at home. I could not believe that we were not using our backups at all that game. Especially when both Newell and Brekke had done well with the limited opportunities that they were given last year.Sotallytober wrote:That's exactly what I think of too. Lots of people around me said "Why wasn't he playing the whole game?"[cat_bracket] wrote:I don't think of Newell as a backup running back. I think of the So. Utah game and how the coaches left Kirk and Johnson in when they were limping around and didn't give him a carry until the fourth quarter and he got to the hole quickly (the first RB to do so all game) and scored from 13 yards out, but he didn't get another carry in the game.
Having said that I'm real excited to see Newell, Brekke, Young, Bleskin/Prukop, Thomas, Na'a play this year.
- codecat
- Member # Retired
- Posts: 2656
- Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 1:38 pm
- Location: Laurel
Re: 43(17) days and counting
Thanks, I always wondered just how much latitude he gives the position coaches - that will be a question to ask him some day. I do know that by his own admission, he restricted Cramsey offensively (mutual I think) based on the personnel's strong/weak suits.John K wrote:I have no idea, although I would tend to believe that Ash probably made the final call, after consulting with the position coaches. That's just complete speculation though.codecat wrote:Out of curiosity, do you have any information as to whether Ash made this decision, whether the position coached did, or if it was a consensus thing between the two of them?John K wrote:Obviously, none of us will ever know that for sure. I tend to believe Ash may have simply been being loyal to two players who had contributed so much to the program over the last four seasons. That win or lose, he felt they deserved to be on the field during those final two games, and that it would have been unfair to them to have the fate of their senior season resting in the hands of other players. I'm not going to be overly critical of him for that..it's understandable and admirable to a certain degree. But with the way our offense struggled in those final two games, I think he owed it to all the other players in the program, to give Brekke/Newell and maybe even Bleskin a chance, to see if they could have given the offense a spark.Hi-Line Bobcat wrote:That's assuming that the back ups would of came in and done better. Just because they were banged up doesn't mean they weren't still more efficient than their backups. Long story short I find it hard to believe in this day and age a coach wouldn't play a better player over another, that's why I think they were still in.John K wrote:Under normal circumstances, I'd agree with you. Obviously D-Mac and Kirk earned their starting roles. But late in the season, if they were injured severely enough so as to significantly impact their performance (which appeared to be the case), and if a team has quality backups (which we did IMO), then maybe the backups should have been given more playing time.Hi-Line Bobcat wrote:I would bet my left nut if Ash said that he definitely didn't mean it in the context you just used it. Even in the big sky level you play your best players, or else you won't last long. When someone does something good in a limited role that doesn't necessarily mean they should automatically get playing time. The guys that were playing were consistent and given the same opportunities in spring ball, practices, etc shined more consistently. I bet that is how he wanted whomever he told that to, to take it.catatac wrote:Agree. This is one area where I really disagreed with that decision. In fact I think I even remember Ash or at least some coach commenting about how they earned it and deserved to play. Yes, but are you sure that was giving us the best opportunity to win the game? I don't think so.catgrad05 wrote:I was saying the same thing at home. I could not believe that we were not using our backups at all that game. Especially when both Newell and Brekke had done well with the limited opportunities that they were given last year.Sotallytober wrote:That's exactly what I think of too. Lots of people around me said "Why wasn't he playing the whole game?"[cat_bracket] wrote:I don't think of Newell as a backup running back. I think of the So. Utah game and how the coaches left Kirk and Johnson in when they were limping around and didn't give him a carry until the fourth quarter and he got to the hole quickly (the first RB to do so all game) and scored from 13 yards out, but he didn't get another carry in the game.
Having said that I'm real excited to see Newell, Brekke, Young, Bleskin/Prukop, Thomas, Na'a play this year.
London Bridge is falling down, falling down, falling down, London Bridge is falling down, Bye-Bye Fauci!
-
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 19075
- Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 6:16 am
- Location: An endless run of moguls
Re: 42(16) days and counting
42 - Trevan Timmer: an intriguing player whose stock was on the rise before an injury during his senior year of HS. It'll be interesting to follow his development after redshirting in 2013.
(16) - Cole Moore: the senior captain is one of the most interesting stories on the football team and is a testament to the length MSU coaches go to find players. Born in England, went to multiple high schools across the U.S., and recently returned from Portugal to work on a new home with Habitat for Humanity for a family recently removed from a domestically violent situation. Moore is a linchpin at LB in MSU's defense where he has to be versatile enough to cover WRs regularly. He was second on the team in INTs and pass breakups.
(16) - Cole Moore: the senior captain is one of the most interesting stories on the football team and is a testament to the length MSU coaches go to find players. Born in England, went to multiple high schools across the U.S., and recently returned from Portugal to work on a new home with Habitat for Humanity for a family recently removed from a domestically violent situation. Moore is a linchpin at LB in MSU's defense where he has to be versatile enough to cover WRs regularly. He was second on the team in INTs and pass breakups.
MSU - 15 team National Champions (most recent 2021); 57 individual National Champions (most recent 2023).
toM StUber
toM StUber
-
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 8620
- Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:04 am
- Location: Great Falls MT
Re: 43(17) days and counting
I have no idea, although I would tend to believe that Ash probably made the final call, after consulting with the position coaches. That's just complete speculation though.[/quote]codecat wrote:Out of curiosity, do you have any information as to whether Ash made this decision, whether the position coached did, or if it was a consensus thing between the two of them?
Thanks, I always wondered just how much latitude he gives the position coaches - that will be a question to ask him some day. I do know that by his own admission, he restricted Cramsey offensively (mutual I think) based on the personnel's strong/weak suits.[/quote]
Please don't take my word as gospel on that. My comments were just total speculation. But it seems logical that Ash would consult with an injured player's position coach before making any final decisions regarding whether that particular player can/should play, or how much he should play.
-
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 5869
- Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 10:35 am
- Location: RNC Headquarters
Re: 42(16) days and counting
There's been some talk of big egos on last years team. I don't know any of the players well enough to say which players those are, but I'm wondering how much sway they have over the coaches, if any. I hate to think that an injured player that talks TEAM all day would tell the coach he's OK to go back in when he's hurt.
- allcat
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 8688
- Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:13 pm
- Location: 90 miles from Nirvana (Bobcat Stadium)
Re: 42(16) days and counting
I think most kids that are starters don't want to lose their spot, and they think they can play through it. It is up to the coaches to sit them down, not the kid.[cat_bracket] wrote:There's been some talk of big egos on last years team. I don't know any of the players well enough to say which players those are, but I'm wondering how much sway they have over the coaches, if any. I hate to think that an injured player that talks TEAM all day would tell the coach he's OK to go back in when he's hurt.
Geezer. Part Bionic,. Part Iconic
-
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 8620
- Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:04 am
- Location: Great Falls MT
Re: 42(16) days and counting
I agree. We generally praise players who are willing to "play through pain", and we respect players who always want to be on the field, even if they're nicked up or nursing minor injuries. We want players who are competitive, and competitive people are going to feel like they're still better than the next guy, even if they're not 100%. Some fans were critical of Foster last season, because he had to come out for at least a few plays, once or twice in every game.allcat wrote:I think most kids that are starters don't want to lose their spot, and they think they can play through it. It is up to the coaches to sit them down, not the kid.[cat_bracket] wrote:There's been some talk of big egos on last years team. I don't know any of the players well enough to say which players those are, but I'm wondering how much sway they have over the coaches, if any. I hate to think that an injured player that talks TEAM all day would tell the coach he's OK to go back in when he's hurt.