Playing injured player question

[wapiti]

Hindsight is often 20/20, but why do coaches often play an injured starter over a healthy backup?
We saw this last year with McGhee and this year with Prukop and Bleskin.
The backup was more than capable of playing well, but the coach went with the injured starter, why?

I have heard of this at many levels of play across the state and the nation, not just here at MSU.
To me it seems as though a healty backup player would be better than an injured starter. Especially if the backup has shown to be more than capable.

[RickRund]

Hindsight is often 20/20, but why do coaches often play an injured starter over a healthy backup?
We saw this last year with McGhee and this year with Prukop and Bleskin.
The backup was more than capable of playing well, but the coach went with the injured starter, why?

I have heard of this at many levels of play across the state and the nation, not just here at MSU.
To me it seems as though a healty backup player would be better than an injured starter. Especially if the backup has shown to be more than capable.

Can't answer your question other than blind loyalty.....
Na'a can be added to the list.

[ilovethecats]

Hindsight is often 20/20, but why do coaches often play an injured starter over a healthy backup?
We saw this last year with McGhee and this year with Prukop and Bleskin.
The backup was more than capable of playing well, but the coach went with the injured starter, why?

I have heard of this at many levels of play across the state and the nation, not just here at MSU.
To me it seems as though a healty backup player would be better than an injured starter. Especially if the backup has shown to be more than capable.

Can't answer your question other than blind loyalty.....
Na'a can be added to the list.

that and the fact that we fans never have any idea the actually severity of injuries or how well the backup has been performing...

[wbtfg]

Hindsight is often 20/20, but why do coaches often play an injured starter over a healthy backup?
We saw this last year with McGhee and this year with Prukop and Bleskin.
The backup was more than capable of playing well, but the coach went with the injured starter, why?

I have heard of this at many levels of play across the state and the nation, not just here at MSU.
To me it seems as though a healty backup player would be better than an injured starter. Especially if the backup has shown to be more than capable.

Can't answer your question other than blind loyalty.....
Na'a can be added to the list.

that and the fact that we fans never have any idea the actually severity of injuries or how well the backup has been performing...

This

[91catAlum]

Hindsight is often 20/20, but why do coaches often play an injured starter over a healthy backup?
We saw this last year with McGhee and this year with Prukop and Bleskin.
The backup was more than capable of playing well, but the coach went with the injured starter, why?

I have heard of this at many levels of play across the state and the nation, not just here at MSU.
To me it seems as though a healty backup player would be better than an injured starter. Especially if the backup has shown to be more than capable.

Can't answer your question other than blind loyalty.....
Na'a can be added to the list.

that and the fact that we fans never have any idea the actually severity of injuries or how well the backup has been performing...

But a lot of times we have seen the backup play. McQueary looked more than capable when he finally got in Cat griz, and Prukop was obviously not healthy the next week, but played (and we lost). Rhett Young looked capable in spot duty over the last two seasons, while Na'a could barely run or tackle but always played. Brekke and Newell looked good last year when they finally got in the SUU game too late. DMac hurt his knee bad in the SUU game but never missed a snap in that game (which we lost) or Cat griz the next week which we lost.

[ilovethecats]

Hindsight is often 20/20, but why do coaches often play an injured starter over a healthy backup?
We saw this last year with McGhee and this year with Prukop and Bleskin.
The backup was more than capable of playing well, but the coach went with the injured starter, why?

I have heard of this at many levels of play across the state and the nation, not just here at MSU.
To me it seems as though a healty backup player would be better than an injured starter. Especially if the backup has shown to be more than capable.

Can't answer your question other than blind loyalty.....
Na'a can be added to the list.

that and the fact that we fans never have any idea the actually severity of injuries or how well the backup has been performing...

But a lot of times we have seen the backup play. McQueary looked more than capable when he finally got in Cat griz, and Prukop was obviously not healthy the next week, but played (and we lost). Rhett Young looked capable in spot duty over the last two seasons, while Na'a could barely run or tackle but always played. Brekke and Newell looked good last year when they finally got in the SUU game too late. DMac hurt his knee bad in the SUU game but never missed a snap in that game (which we lost) or Cat griz the next week which we lost.

all true. but there was likely many games in which our starters were playing injured and the coaches knew but we fans had no idea. and they played fine. long story short...this is why ash and staff make great money making these very difficult decisions. but i can say with some certainty that these guys will ALWAYS play the kid who they think gives them the best shot to win. unlike us....their actual livelihood is on the line and not just messageboard cred...

[91catAlum]

Hindsight is often 20/20, but why do coaches often play an injured starter over a healthy backup?
We saw this last year with McGhee and this year with Prukop and Bleskin.
The backup was more than capable of playing well, but the coach went with the injured starter, why?

I have heard of this at many levels of play across the state and the nation, not just here at MSU.
To me it seems as though a healty backup player would be better than an injured starter. Especially if the backup has shown to be more than capable.

Can't answer your question other than blind loyalty.....
Na'a can be added to the list.

that and the fact that we fans never have any idea the actually severity of injuries or how well the backup has been performing...

But a lot of times we have seen the backup play. McQueary looked more than capable when he finally got in Cat griz, and Prukop was obviously not healthy the next week, but played (and we lost). Rhett Young looked capable in spot duty over the last two seasons, while Na'a could barely run or tackle but always played. Brekke and Newell looked good last year when they finally got in the SUU game too late. DMac hurt his knee bad in the SUU game but never missed a snap in that game (which we lost) or Cat griz the next week which we lost.

all true. but there was likely many games in which our starters were playing injured and the coaches knew but we fans had no idea. and they played fine. long story short...this is why ash and staff make great money making these very difficult decisions. but i can say with some certainty that these guys will ALWAYS play the kid who they think gives them the best shot to win. unlike us....their actual livelihood is on the line and not just messageboard cred...

Ya, good points. Sometimes it's just hard to see as fans.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

[77matcat]

Add Kirk to the list for playing injured in cat griz.

So......../ Ya but......when their backups are put in they seem to do better. IMHO Newell did when he replaced Cody in Cat griz. If I recall correctly believe he scored a TD. So it's hard for me to buy into loves assertion. Just feels like kumbaya.

Has to be demoralizing to rest of team.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GoldstoneCat]

Hindsight is often 20/20, but why do coaches often play an injured starter over a healthy backup?
We saw this last year with McGhee and this year with Prukop and Bleskin.
The backup was more than capable of playing well, but the coach went with the injured starter, why?

I have heard of this at many levels of play across the state and the nation, not just here at MSU.
To me it seems as though a healty backup player would be better than an injured starter. Especially if the backup has shown to be more than capable.

Can't answer your question other than blind loyalty.....
Na'a can be added to the list.

that and the fact that we fans never have any idea the actually severity of injuries or how well the backup has been performing...

But a lot of times we have seen the backup play. McQueary looked more than capable when he finally got in Cat griz, and Prukop was obviously not healthy the next week, but played (and we lost). Rhett Young looked capable in spot duty over the last two seasons, while Na'a could barely run or tackle but always played. Brekke and Newell looked good last year when they finally got in the SUU game too late. DMac hurt his knee bad in the SUU game but never missed a snap in that game (which we lost) or Cat griz the next week which we lost.

Final score: 47-40. Game time temperature: 1 degree. It snowed about 4 inches during that game. I'm just telling you all this in case you've forgotten what the conditions were like that game. And we scored 40 with Prukop playing. As I've said before on here, 40 at home in those conditions should be enough to win 100 out of 100 times. Prukop playing is in no way the reason we lost that game, and I have a hard time believing that a kid in his first college start in that weather could have led the offense to 40 points, especially against SDSU, that was a legit team. I could take your point from a few other examples, but starting Prukop at 75 to 80% that day was the best opportunity for us to win the game.

[91catAlum]

Hindsight is often 20/20, but why do coaches often play an injured starter over a healthy backup?
We saw this last year with McGhee and this year with Prukop and Bleskin.
The backup was more than capable of playing well, but the coach went with the injured starter, why?

I have heard of this at many levels of play across the state and the nation, not just here at MSU.
To me it seems as though a healty backup player would be better than an injured starter. Especially if the backup has shown to be more than capable.

Can't answer your question other than blind loyalty.....
Na'a can be added to the list.

that and the fact that we fans never have any idea the actually severity of injuries or how well the backup has been performing...

But a lot of times we have seen the backup play. McQueary looked more than capable when he finally got in Cat griz, and Prukop was obviously not healthy the next week, but played (and we lost). Rhett Young looked capable in spot duty over the last two seasons, while Na'a could barely run or tackle but always played. Brekke and Newell looked good last year when they finally got in the SUU game too late. DMac hurt his knee bad in the SUU game but never missed a snap in that game (which we lost) or Cat griz the next week which we lost.

Final score: 47-40. Game time temperature: 1 degree. It snowed about 4 inches during that game. I'm just telling you all this in case you've forgotten what the conditions were like that game. And we scored 40 with Prukop playing. As I've said before on here, 40 at home in those conditions should be enough to win 100 out of 100 times. Prukop playing is in no way the reason we lost that game, and I have a hard time believing that a kid in his first college start in that weather could have led the offense to 40 points, especially against SDSU, that was a legit team. I could take your point from a few other examples, but starting Prukop at 75 to 80% that day was the best opportunity for us to win the game.

Agree 100% that 40 should win the game, I'm not at all blaming the QB for the loss. My point was that it's another example where we didn't gain anything by playing the injured starter over the healthy backup.

[codecat]

Hindsight is often 20/20, but why do coaches often play an injured starter over a healthy backup?
We saw this last year with McGhee and this year with Prukop and Bleskin.
The backup was more than capable of playing well, but the coach went with the injured starter, why?

I have heard of this at many levels of play across the state and the nation, not just here at MSU.
To me it seems as though a healty backup player would be better than an injured starter. Especially if the backup has shown to be more than capable.

Can't answer your question other than blind loyalty.....
Na'a can be added to the list.

that and the fact that we fans never have any idea the actually severity of injuries or how well the backup has been performing...

But a lot of times we have seen the backup play. McQueary looked more than capable when he finally got in Cat griz, and Prukop was obviously not healthy the next week, but played (and we lost). Rhett Young looked capable in spot duty over the last two seasons, while Na'a could barely run or tackle but always played. Brekke and Newell looked good last year when they finally got in the SUU game too late. DMac hurt his knee bad in the SUU game but never missed a snap in that game (which we lost) or Cat griz the next week which we lost.

all true. but there was likely many games in which our starters were playing injured and the coaches knew but we fans had no idea. and they played fine. long story short...this is why ash and staff make great money making these very difficult decisions. but i can say with some certainty that these guys will ALWAYS play the kid who they think gives them the best shot to win. unlike us....their actual livelihood is on the line and not just messageboard cred...

Well said iltc, in other words the coaches have information which we don't have (i.e. severity of injury, medical opinion, danger for the player, and how the player is grading out comparatively among other things).

[GoldstoneCat]

Hindsight is often 20/20, but why do coaches often play an injured starter over a healthy backup?
We saw this last year with McGhee and this year with Prukop and Bleskin.
The backup was more than capable of playing well, but the coach went with the injured starter, why?

I have heard of this at many levels of play across the state and the nation, not just here at MSU.
To me it seems as though a healty backup player would be better than an injured starter. Especially if the backup has shown to be more than capable.

Can't answer your question other than blind loyalty.....
Na'a can be added to the list.

that and the fact that we fans never have any idea the actually severity of injuries or how well the backup has been performing...

But a lot of times we have seen the backup play. McQueary looked more than capable when he finally got in Cat griz, and Prukop was obviously not healthy the next week, but played (and we lost). Rhett Young looked capable in spot duty over the last two seasons, while Na'a could barely run or tackle but always played. Brekke and Newell looked good last year when they finally got in the SUU game too late. DMac hurt his knee bad in the SUU game but never missed a snap in that game (which we lost) or Cat griz the next week which we lost.

Final score: 47-40. Game time temperature: 1 degree. It snowed about 4 inches during that game. I'm just telling you all this in case you've forgotten what the conditions were like that game. And we scored 40 with Prukop playing. As I've said before on here, 40 at home in those conditions should be enough to win 100 out of 100 times. Prukop playing is in no way the reason we lost that game, and I have a hard time believing that a kid in his first college start in that weather could have led the offense to 40 points, especially against SDSU, that was a legit team. I could take your point from a few other examples, but starting Prukop at 75 to 80% that day was the best opportunity for us to win the game.

Agree 100% that 40 should win the game, I'm not at all blaming the QB for the loss. My point was that it's another example where we didn't gain anything by playing the injured starter over the healthy backup.

OK, I see your point now, that makes sense in a way. We didn't win by playing the injured player, so it wasn't worth it. I would argue that we had a chance to win that game, and a big reason why was because Prukop was able to play. If we make 2 or 3 more plays (the dropped pick 6), a stop here, recover the onside, etc. we could very well have won, so my argument is that because Dakota played, that directly resulted in an opportunity to win. Hard to say whether Quinn would have done the same, better, or worse, but the guy who was named our starter gave us a chance to win, so I felt like the decision to play him was correct.

[catatac]

I can see both sides to this. Hindsight is always 20\20, but if we would have started Prukop in Cat\Griz.... even if he was only 70% or whatever.... the outcome would have been different. We may have still lost, in which case we'd be sitting here saying, "Wow, Ash is an idiot. He knew Prukop was only at 70% - he should have let Bleskin start."

[KittieKop]

I can see both sides to this. Hindsight is always 20\20, but if we would have started Prukop in Cat\Griz.... even if he was only 70% or whatever.... the outcome would have been different. We may have still lost, in which case we'd be sitting here saying, "Wow, Ash is an idiot. He knew Prukop was only at 70% - he should have let Bleskin start."

^^^^This^^^^

[91catAlum]

I can see both sides to this. Hindsight is always 20\20, but if we would have started Prukop in Cat\Griz.... even if he was only 70% or whatever.... the outcome would have been different. We may have still lost, in which case we'd be sitting here saying, "Wow, Ash is an idiot. He knew Prukop was only at 70% - he should have let Bleskin start."

True, good point.

[ilovethecats]

Add Kirk to the list for playing injured in cat griz.

So......../ Ya but......when their backups are put in they seem to do better. IMHO Newell did when he replaced Cody in Cat griz. If I recall correctly believe he scored a TD. So it's hard for me to buy into loves assertion. Just feels like kumbaya.

Has to be demoralizing to rest of team.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

not kumbaya at all. I'm just stating what should be a pretty obvious fact is that as much as some like to pretend their in the know...we as fans have no clue what is going on with the team. we don't know how bad our players are hurt. we don't know who's been playing well in practice or their grasp of their positions. we don't know if a starter is light years ahead of his backup or just barely good enough to beat his backup for playing time.

and it would only be demoralizing to a team if a coach is knowingly playing very hurt players ahead of very quality backups for no reason at all. if prukop was 50% and Quinn had been lighting the world on fire and for no reason at all ash went with the obvious worse player then yes...other players would be upset. I'm skeptical this is the case. I'd say more than likely is that over the course of this season prukop made it clear he was our best player at qb. and our staff decided that even at 80% he gave us the best chance to win. this is likely the case with all starters that are banged up.

fortunately for us we have the luxury of coaching after the game is over and making the very obvious decisions of who should have been playing and who should have been sitting.

and while I'm too old now to be friends with any players, I am friends with several of the coaches and at no point have I gotten the impression they were demoralized because we clearly played injured players instead of their stud backups...

[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

[ilovethecats]

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.

[kwcat]

I can see both sides to this. Hindsight is always 20\20, but if we would have started Prukop in Cat\Griz.... even if he was only 70% or whatever.... the outcome would have been different. We may have still lost, in which case we'd be sitting here saying, "Wow, Ash is an idiot. He knew Prukop was only at 70% - he should have let Bleskin start."

So you're saying the old "damned if you do! damned if you don't"

A good example in my daily world is having employees. For different reasons they all try to make decisions based upon different reasons ranging from ego and laziness to getting the job done in a proficient and profitable manner. The one thing they may mostly have in common is the lack of information to make the correct decision. We try to avoid wrong decisions by informing each one with goals and objectives in mind. However these goals and objectives often get lost in translation or lack of attention by one or more parties.
My point is, we are all human and make mistakes for various aforementioned reasons. We all judge ourselves on our intentions and others by their actions or results.
As to football and coaching, decisions were made based on information we, the fans, didn't and probably don't still have. As much as the engineers especially don't like this (sorry if you're the exception), some of these decisions are made on hunches come game time. Some right some wrong.

We'll never know if results good have been worse or better.

With an engineering background and an analytical personality I have an admiration for those that can make hard decisions on the fly without endless meetings, discussions, and data. Then withstand public scrutiny weeks later from all that may or may not know more back when the decision was made.

[Joe Bobcat]

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.