Playing injured player question

[kwcat]

Your right, there is a ton of information that I don't have. So explain why when backups are put in, for instance for Kirk in BC/g last year and for Na'a this year they sure look better.

Unfortunately 99.9% of fans can only make judgements based on what we see on field. And i can't understand the above along with a number of other examples. So please enlighten


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

and as i said....as a fan i can't be the one to "enlighten". if you're looking to be enlightened you'd have to talk to ash or members of his staff personally. i'm just a fan making guesses like all of you. the difference is i don't claim to have the answers and have admitted that only the coaches and players truly know the ins and outs of this squad.

but my GUESS is that ash and his guys wouldn't knowingly play crappy hurt starters ahead of all world backups just for fun. and i give them the benefit of the doubt that they are not so clueless that they have no idea they are playing such inferior players when it's so obvious watching from the stands that our backups are so much better.

To a point I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt as I believe that most fans are, but there comes a point were the doubt gets too great to ignore or explain away with "the coaches have more information". For myself the doubt has not just come out of thin air but rather from stats and re-watching games. I know that coaches have more info but they are not omnipotent and they may have tendencies and habits that sway their decisions too. Yeah every coach plays hurt starters over their backups but I believe we do it to a greater extreme and would like to see that tendency inched back to putting in the backups sooner and more often. I believe that existing stats would show that to be a good move and if tried sooner and more often in the future would give good results. Its a Money Ball kind of thing.

In agreeing with part of what you are saying. I think as a season progresses the team as a whole benefits with getting # 2's in with more frequency gaining experience in case they are needed as season progresses. And the kind experience that is real, not garbage time. Even if its just a series or two where the player can have an opportunity to get over the shock of contact and get some on film constructive criticism.

[77matcat]

Your right, there is a ton of information that I don't have. So explain why when backups are put in, for instance for Kirk in BC/g last year and for Na'a this year they sure look better.

Unfortunately 99.9% of fans can only make judgements based on what we see on field. And i can't understand the above along with a number of other examples. So please enlighten


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

and as i said....as a fan i can't be the one to "enlighten". if you're looking to be enlightened you'd have to talk to ash or members of his staff personally. i'm just a fan making guesses like all of you. the difference is i don't claim to have the answers and have admitted that only the coaches and players truly know the ins and outs of this squad.

but my GUESS is that ash and his guys wouldn't knowingly play crappy hurt starters ahead of all world backups just for fun. and i give them the benefit of the doubt that they are not so clueless that they have no idea they are playing such inferior players when it's so obvious watching from the stands that our backups are so much better.

Love

Not sure if you just keep missing this or just choose to ignore, but please explain why in my examples and many more cases do the back up perform better????

It's these types of real out comes that compel folks to question WTF is going on. So if the coaches have a ton more data points and still miss the target what is going on.

It's the results on the field that beg the questions asked. So are the coaches looking at a lot more data and just making poor decisions????


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ilovethecats]

Love

Not sure if you just keep missing this or just choose to ignore, but please explain why in my examples and many more cases do the back up perform better????

It's these types of real out comes that compel folks to question WTF is going on. So if the coaches have a ton more data points and still miss the target what is going on.

It's the results on the field that beg the questions asked. So are the coaches looking at a lot more data and just making poor decisions????

not ignoring and don't think i'm missing anything either. sure, there have been times throughout the year that i thought our backups played really well. but with so much going on throughout the game, i don't think we as fans can say without a doubt that there have been many cases where the backups are so much better. we don't have the data in my opinion.

what if a backup practiced like ****** all week and failed to grasp the gameplan for the upcoming opponent. but come gametime we see this player make some nice plays. it's so easy for us to assume they are better. add in the fact that sometimes as fans and readers of a messageboard we allow perception to become reality. if we read all week about how bad Na is and how he has no business on the field, we begin watching him like he can't do anything right and his backup like he can do very little wrong. and for the record i agree that Na took a step back after injury but if you watched you saw that he kept improving as the season progressed.

so i guess i would answer your question with a question. do you have the numbers and data to back up your claims that we had backups routinely out-preforming starters all season? i'm not talking about a kid getting an opportunity to play and looking good at times. that is what a backup is supposed to do. i mean, do you have knowledge that very injured starters were still given the nod to start despite the fact that his backup not only routinely played much better, but also had the same grasp of the offense/defense and displayed the same attitude and commitment to winning as the player he backed up? because i have first-hand knowledge that we had a couple kids who would have seen more action had their attitude been better and in a couple cases had they been able to limit mental mistakes throughout weekly practices that drove the coaches nuts.

as i was trying to point out...there is FAR more to the makeup and performance of a team then the 3 hours we watch them play on saturdays...

honestly this particular thread is similar to some of the coach-hiring threads over on egriz. people are convinced that their AD and prez are morons and botching the hire of a new coach. they are convinced they are taking way too much time and it's a sign of not having a clue and couldn't be a sign of being thorough. one poster claimed the fact that they are having three interviews with applicants is a sign that they are just lost in a huge mess because they should know who their guy is after just one interview. forget the fact that 3 interviews and often more is pretty much the standard when hiring a coach...in this case they are convinced the guys actually making the decisions are morons. in reality, the chances are good that both the prez and AD know what they want in a coach, know how important this hire is for the university, they want to be as meticulous as possible, and they likely know just what they are doing. they have far more info then even the biggest "insider" claims to have, and they are not going to make their decisions based on messageboard overreaction.

[77matcat]

Posting from phone so no thesis.

Believe I gave you three specific individuals and games off of top of my head. Don't have a book of notes, with others but they exist.

If you are telling me that the backups that would start for them had a bad attitude the week before, I would say given the past practice and the probability that they would start even though they knew they were at that point the better player, I would respond with wellllllll what do you expect.

Sorry. I know there is a lot I don't know but something just isn't right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk