They are trying to win. Even if injury in part a consideration it is still a different look when prior not working. Against Penn State we just rolled over and continued doing the same thing And did he even tried to shake it up. If you trying to win you try every Avenue you can. It's amazing how in the flood era if it's not working in the beginning, then all is lost. There's no attempt to analyze the situation and change it up to see if you have a hot hand.. Hopefully today we try to win – based on the circumstances of the game, not what was planned on Sunday through Friday
Indiana down to scores and replaces it's quarterback
- Thread starter ru-baby
- Start date
The starter was out sudfeld. Understood backup dinged but change made.
Either way my agenda is to try to win based on game changes not prior game plan ,which has been a recurring issue. If the backup absolutely couldnt go then thqts a different scenario but doesnt change the need to operate based on game situations.
Either way my agenda is to try to win based on game changes not prior game plan ,which has been a recurring issue. If the backup absolutely couldnt go then thqts a different scenario but doesnt change the need to operate based on game situations.
Sudfield dressed up, it was probably a game time decision whether he played or not. There's a good chance he's back next week. I don't know about their starting RB though. I don't know what his injury is. It should be noted that he was leading the NCAA in rushing yards before he was injured.
Let me try to break this down for you. Their #1, Sudfield, was out today with an injury. He did not play today. Their #2 was their starter today. He got hurt. They had to put in their #3, who was today's backup. They had no choice...getting their #2 (today's starter) hurt was not part of their winning strategy. Follow?
Yea he was injured last week against OSU just like Sudfeld. He had an ankle injury IIRC. I thought he was 2nd in rushing after Fournette, either way though still very good.
The agenda of trying to win based on circumstances? Uh ok. Sure. The premise was the same if you a tually understood the point.
If I was to be as knee jerk as you I gather your agenda is to clearly protect flood even to the expense of Rutgers. Those usually alleging "agendas" are those with their own foremost. How about best for rutgers as agenda rather than placing current stakeholders above the institution.
If I was to be as knee jerk as you I gather your agenda is to clearly protect flood even to the expense of Rutgers. Those usually alleging "agendas" are those with their own foremost. How about best for rutgers as agenda rather than placing current stakeholders above the institution.
Agenda to protect Flood by pointing out Indiana's #2 QB was thee starter today because of an injury to their #1 QB and then pointing out the QB change you brought up was made because the starting ( but #2) QB was injured and they had to bring in the #3 who was the back-up today.
Sounds like you are mad because you were corrected and your agenda failed.
I think the agenda , you're complaining about, was wanting the the true facts known and not allowing the QB change Indiana made to be misinterpreted as just changing QBs because the Hoosier HC felt the starter wasn't doing a good enough job.
...and there will be some special ruling where Tevin Colemam and 3 of his NFL teammates will also be allowed to play for that week only.
Joe P.
