A few tv commentators, newspapers
thought we were going to be a contender this
year, which had the fans even more hopeful
Injuries killed that
Injuries to your top players an excuse or no? I think the D it hurts tremendously.
- Thread starter SBP
- Start date
thought we were going to be a contender this
year, which had the fans even more hopeful
Injuries killed that
Injuries suck but they are part of the game. I read that UCLA had more than a 1/3 of their scholarship athletes out for our game and 1/4 out for the season. Take into account it is a first year head coach and a new staff. That is way more to overcome than what we are up against
Yes, I already posted that RU is not a good team because of depth
And yes, all teams have injuries, the good teams don’t fall apart
Those people are being ridiculous about that, IMO. The RUFB coaching challenge is, by all evidence, an extremely difficult challenge for any coach, quite obviously including Schiano.
At one time, when he was winning with OSU, if someone like Urban Meyer became our HC (not saying he ever would, just saying hypothetically), then he could've elevated the program through very rapid recruiting just based on his success at OSU. 4 and 5 star recruits would flock to him.
Now, in the NIL era, it's up to the fanbase to recruit superstar players. The coach and name-recognition would still help of course. But these days, it's mostly money talks and BS walks. Even winning a lot would only help so much without the NIL to pay the players who might suddenly give RUFB attention that didn't before.
So, to win in the Big Ten without lots of NIL money to get the best recruits, we have to have a coach that can do more with less. And so far, 5 years into his second stint, GS has not done really done that. He might've done pretty well this season had we stayed mostly healthy. But we didn't stay healthy so we'll never know. All we do know is that our depth is not good enough.
He might still build enough quality depth along the OL and DL eventually. But it's gonna take several more years, at least. And he might never build enough quality depth. Nobody knows.
It's possible that a much more offensive-minded coach with better game-day abilities than GS could come here and out-scheme some of our more-talented opponents. Some coaches seem to be able to do that here and there. GS has never been that guy. So perhaps, if GS cannot get it done, the next move should be to look for one of those offensive-minded HCs with some success at doing more with less.
True. But those folks are just guessing, like everyone else. It might be fun to let them generate some hope and excitment. But, to my way of thinking, it always makes sense to heavily temper one's unrealistic expectations despite what the self-proclaimed experts might say.
But don't they?
Yes, elite teams can survive the number of defensive starter injuries we have and continue to be pretty good, although it probably knocks them out of the playoff picture any season it happens.
But for non-elite teams, especially non-elite Big Ten teams who don't regularly have winning conference records year in and year out, do they actually remain "good" in seasons where they have the same number of serious injuries to their defensive starters?
I'm skeptical. I think that's a narrative some like to talk about. But it's based on elite teams whose quality and depth starts out vastly superior to ours, so their second teams are still pretty good. For teams at our level (never having had a winning record in the Big Ten), how many experience our number of injuries to critical players, as early in the season as us, and remain good for that season?
I bet it's pretty rare, if it every happens at all. I think it'll take both several more games plus really good luck in terms of not having more injuries for our team to improve this season. And that's only if they don't all check out due to the bad games in the interim.
Yeah, and they’ve been struggling so far this season, not winning a game until playing another injury-depleted team, and even then not by all that much.
And are their injuries to key starters or to players who wouldn’t be playing anyway? Ours are almost all to key players, leaders on defense.
I’m not making excuses. Why would I since I have no agenda to support here (I neither love nor hate GS). I’m just being realistic.
I’m being realistic also. People using injuries as an excuse is not the only issue. Every team is beat up or injured at this point in the season to a degree. Teams need to overcome adversities. If UCLA played our schedule they would not have only had 1 win. Going to guess they would have the same or better. Where do you think we would be if we had UCLA’s schedule? I see similar results or maybe one more win.
We were having issues prior to “many of these key players”. But it doesn’t matter if UCLA’s injuries are to key personnel. You can’t conduct a practice with greater than 30% of your roster out for the year.
I’m not blaming the players. As Schiano said he and the staff have to do a better job preparing the team.
There's a reason the starters were starters and the backups were backups. Thrusting the backups into starting roles, and the third string into the backup roll, is going to have a negative effect.
Especially as that happens more and more, and you have fewer and fewer starters.
Running with a lot of reserves also reduces the complexity of what you can do on defense and makes you more vanilla.
There are a lot of default minutes being played right now on defense... guys on the field for snaps because there just isn't anyone else.
2006 was a fantastic year in part because we had so few injuries at key positions.
Especially as that happens more and more, and you have fewer and fewer starters.
Running with a lot of reserves also reduces the complexity of what you can do on defense and makes you more vanilla.
There are a lot of default minutes being played right now on defense... guys on the field for snaps because there just isn't anyone else.
2006 was a fantastic year in part because we had so few injuries at key positions.
None of that excuses guys wide open due to missed assignments, shoddy tackling and overall lack of effort. Thats what we’ve seen and it’s unacceptable no matter who you put on the field.
The second and third string guys you refer to are all we’re gonna have next year and they should be further along than they are now.
Next year is looking even uglier than this one.
Unless we start a lot of true freshmen or find some dinero for significant portal acquisitions....or both.
Our D played 3 good quarters vs VTech and one good half vs Nebraska ... not sure what you've been watching. Washington in particular torched us but we were bailed out by their dumb-ass penalties.
2006 we had very experienced and and smart linebacking corp who could read their keys and do a fantastic job of anticipating where the play was heading. Our guys today are going through a learning curve, and I’ll leave it at that.
Most important was that we had virtually no injuries. I think the only injury we really had that year was Shawn Tucker. Cohesive offensive line with strong fullback and tight end play, all healthy. The entire defense, all healthy.
That campaign would have gone much differently if we had lost Devraun Thompson, Quinteto Frierson, Courtney Greene. Ramel Meekins, Clark Harris, Brian Leonard and Pedro Sosa for the season.
Injuries are part of the game, and depth helps cover when key player goes down. "Next man up" works well when the rest are helping cover for that player... But you can't keep soaking personnel losses and expect there not to be drop off.
The depth certainly isn't ready right now, but we also have to call on depth much much more than we ever thought would be necessary.
We can cover for 1 or 2 losses. Having to cover for 5+ losses is very difficult, but we’re doing the best we can.
Up through the Nebraska game, the D was pretty good. Against Wisconsin, our D players were dropping like flies and the more defensive starters we lost, the worse the D played. Which is perfectly understandable.
We were never a team with depth behind our starters, except at RB (not any more). Recruiting picked up the past year or so. But prior to that, it was not so great and it seems a lot of those recruits are a miss.
And it absolutely matters if the injured players are actually players that see game time or not. Ours were all starters. Nobody has listed where all these injured UCLA players were on the depth chart, or if they were largely players who never played anyway. Either way, there's an impact. But it's ridiculous to say that the loss of starters is no worse than the loss of players who never play anyway.
As for blame, I'm not blaming anybody. What value is there in me, or you or any of us doing that? None. Just because everybody does it doesn't make it a worthwhile thing to do.
We never had that much depth. Sure, we should have more depth.
But then I should be the best looking human on the planet. I should be the wealthiest. I should be hung like a right whale (look it up).
And now, I should be shutting up, so I will. 😀
I am not saying injuries are not part of the problem. I am saying they can’t “be the excuse.”UCLA was without greater than 35% of their scholarship athletes with a 1st year head coach and looked more prepared than we did. They came out with a game plan and executed. We did not until it was too late. The team needs to be better prepared. We should not be spotting the other team a 7-14 point lead before we can counter their attack. We should not be spotting the other team 7-14 points before we start being aggressive on offense. This is a systemic problem that we have seen many times over.
Being out for season tough enough. Just as much of an issue not knowing till game time who is ready to go. Who does coach give first team reps to. I swear some of the blown coverage is players not used to working with each other all week.
I don't really see that. Most the people who support GS still rooted for RU when it was Flood and Ash...but recognize there was less to root for. Only the most hardcore trolls say those are better. And I see the pro-GS people supporting RU and the school generally.
IIRC you posted when you graduated and it was around when I did...in our lives it's only been successful with him. Of course, do I think it could be successful with someone else? Sure. Is that person in a rush to come here? That is a different story.
If you hold teams to 23 and 14 points the D did its job, period. That didn't happen the last two weeks. Had the D been at the level of the first 5 games we would have won Saturday.
Our defense looked more uncomfortable than DeShaun Foster speaking at preseason Big 10 media day! (took me two days to come up with that line)
Similar threads
