IMO reason for our troubles!

[dressedcheeseside]

Also, Skov is a senior. There isn't time for him to learn on the job. If we have to play a bback that needs time and experience to adjust to the role and get to the level we need, it makes no sense for it to be the senior who won't be here next year.

Synjyn Days got way better as the season progressed last year. He fumbled, he tried to hurtle everybody, when he learned just to make one cut to daylight, he took off. Skov can make similar adjustments within the season. I'm sure glad we didn't give up on Synjyn last year because he struggled early.

 

[Skeptic]

I am less concerned with those who aren't playing than those who are.

 

[lv20gt]

Synjyn Days got way better as the season progressed last year. He fumbled, he tried to hurtle everybody, when he learned just to make one cut to daylight, he took off. Skov can make similar adjustments within the season. I'm sure glad we didn't give up on Synjyn last year because he struggled early.

He had 16 carries in 7 games. Skov has had 2 games of rushing more than 16 times each. Days' first game as a starter he had 110 yards on 5.0 ypc against ACC competition. His second he had 147 on 6.1 ypc. Skov has 60 carries already. Days didn't get 60 carries until the 9th game of the season. Days wasn't struggling early. He just wasn't playing.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

He had 16 carries in 7 games. Skov has had 2 games of rushing more than 16 times each. Days' first game as a starter he had 110 yards on 5.0 ypc against ACC competition. His second he had 147 on 6.1 ypc. Skov has 60 carries already. Days didn't get 60 carries until the 9th game of the season. Days wasn't struggling early. He just wasn't playing.

OK, you're right, I just checked. I guess I was remembering the year before. I distinctly remembering him having issues holding onto the ball and trying to hurdle guys at the point of contact, I guess that was at Aback.

Still, it's hard to compare when you look at the hot mess we have on the OL and on the edge this year. Put Skov on last year's team and in the same games where Synjyn racked up his yards and I bet he does much better. Maybe not as good as Synjyn, but he does much better. My point is I highly doubt if any of our other backs presented a better chance to succeed, they'd be riding the pine. CPJ wants to win, do you think for a minute he's not gonna play the guy he thinks gives us the best chance to do just that?

I don't want to take lumps right now training up a freshman if he doesn't give us the best chance to win. If Marshall is the over all better back right now, I'm all for it.

 

[4NatlChmps]

Lol....click on profile then select ignore from the pop up box
I'm not missing my troll at all

thanks, Whsky.....I learned you could only see the ignore feature on computer version, not the weaker TapTalk iphone version.....I am now free of #idiot_babble

 

[UgaBlows]

If only we could block them out of the chatroom

 

[AE 87]

If only we could block them out of the chatroom

Ignore them in the forum, and you don't see them in the chat. You just have to wonder for a moment to whom others are reacting.

 

[B Lifsey]

If only we could block them out of the chatroom

I'm pretty sure I was not seeing chat comments from someone I'd ignored in the past. This was last season so I might be remembering wrong.

 

[lv20gt]

My point is I highly doubt if any of our other backs presented a better chance to succeed, they'd be riding the pine. CPJ wants to win, do you think for a minute he's not gonna play the guy he thinks gives us the best chance to do just that?

I don't want to take lumps right now training up a freshman if he doesn't give us the best chance to win. If Marshall is the over all better back right now, I'm all for it.

CPJ is not omniscient. He is fully capable, and shown, that he can make mistakes in judging who gives us the best chance to win. And even if Skov gives us a marginally better chance to win this year, getting Marshall experience now will give us a better chance to win next year. And so Johnson absolutely needs to weigh whatever slight benefit playing Skov might bring this year, against the benefit of getting Marshall experience will bring in the following years. And keep in mind that through 4 games there is no reason to believe that playing Marshall more would have lead to fewer wins.

And you may not want to spend time training up a freshman, but I don't want to spend time training up a senior who, by the time he's trained, won't be here. Unless Skov is clearly the superior back, which I see no reason to think he is, then Marshall, or Allen, should be playing.

 

[AE 87]

CPJ is not omniscient. He is fully capable, and shown, that he can make mistakes in judging who gives us the best chance to win. And even if Skov gives us a marginally better chance to win this year, getting Marshall experience now will give us a better chance to win next year. And so Johnson absolutely needs to weigh whatever slight benefit playing Skov might bring this year, against the benefit of getting Marshall experience will bring in the following years. And keep in mind that through 4 games there is no reason to believe that playing Marshall more would have lead to fewer wins.

And you may not want to spend time training up a freshman, but I don't want to spend time training up a senior who, by the time he's trained, won't be here. Unless Skov is clearly the superior back, which I see no reason to think he is, then Marshall, or Allen, should be playing.

Assuming you're right, you're right. However, an alternative perspective is that you always play the people you feel will give you the best chance to win that game, not sacrifice today's game for future games.

 

[DvilleJacket]

Marshall is going to be great but I think coach is worried bout ball security.

 

[AE 87]

Marshall is going to be great but I think coach is worried bout ball security.

I think he also said blocking.

 

[lv20gt]

Assuming you're right, you're right. However, an alternative perspective is that you always play the people you feel will give you the best chance to win that game, not sacrifice today's game for future games.

And no coach actually follows that perspective. It's why back ups and third stringers play in blow outs. Whatever small increase in winning today that playing the starters more would bring isn't worth the long term benefit of resting the starters and getting experience for the back ups.

 

[AE 87]

And no coach actually follows that perspective. It's why back ups and third stringers play in blow outs. Whatever small increase in winning today that playing the starters more would bring isn't worth the long term benefit of resting the starters and getting experience for the back ups.

I'm not sure you understood what I meant by "win that game." I meant ending the game with more points than the other team.

So, in blow-outs, you can play back-ups and third stringers because playing them won't hurt your chances of ending the game with more points. If playing the back-ups and third stringers somehow begin to allow the other team back into the game, then they put the starters back in. I actually think practically every coach follows this perspective.

 

[lv20gt]

So, in blow-outs, you can play back-ups and third stringers because playing them won't hurt your chances of ending the game with more points. If playing the back-ups and third stringers somehow begin to allow the other team back into the game, then they put the starters back in. I actually think practically every coach follows this perspective.

Wait, how does playing the back ups not hurt your chances at winning the game? Even if it is hurting your chance by .000001% it's still hurting it.

You said the perspective was to ALWAYS play those players that give the best chance to win that game. Playing back ups in games that are blow outs doesn't follow that because even if it's a slightly worse chance, it's still a worse chance. It's just the long term benefits outweigh the marginal short term benefits. Hence playing the back ups make sense, but it's still playing for the future.

 

[AE 87]

Wait, how does playing the back ups not hurt your chances at winning the game? Even if it is hurting your chance by .000001% it's still hurting it.

You said the perspective was to ALWAYS play those players that give the best chance to win that game. Playing back ups in games that are blow outs doesn't follow that because even if it's a slightly worse chance, it's still a worse chance. It's just the long term benefits outweigh the marginal short term benefits. Hence playing the back ups make sense, but it's still playing for the future.

LOL

Pro tip: when you have to control what I mean by what I say in order to undermine my point, you don't have a rational argument

If you actually want to have a rational conversation and don't understand my point, ask questions

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

My post was mostly about the issues we could (not) have seen. As far as snoddy, that's just what I thought they would do. I haven't payed attention enough to who is playing at aback to know if he's played more often than previous top a backs. I do know that he hasn't gotten significantly more carries, but that doesn't mean he wasn't on the field.



Same with Skov. Those were my thoughts coming in with a bit of analysis of what has happened to show that those problems are a reality. Also, Skov is a senior. There isn't time for him to learn on the job. If we have to play a bback that needs time and experience to adjust to the role and get to the level we need, it makes no sense for it to be the senior who won't be here next year. At the very least, playing Marshall, or Allen, will help us in future seasons. I see no advantages to playing Skov because the primary advantage he had was strength, but that hasn't translated to production up the middle.

RE Snoddy....If you aren't paying enough attention to know who is even in the game you might want to withhold your conjective criticism.

re Skov....The advantage is that is who coach thinks gives us the best chance to start (or at least who he thought gave that to us). You are correct, he is not all knowing. But he does know a helluva lot more about football, his scheme, and his players than either you or I could pretend to. Your logic just doesn't compute to me. Seems you are willing to concede defeat in the rest of our games this year in order th have a chance at a better record next year. I bet our seniors this year are glad coach isn't ready to flush the season in this way. It seems like a "give up" mentality.

 

[lv20gt]

LOL

Pro tip: when you have to control what I mean by what I say in order to undermine my point, you don't have a rational argument

If you actually want to have a rational conversation and don't understand my point, ask questions

You're the one using absolutes bud. You said the perspective is to ALWAYS do one thing. I showed that coaches often do the exact opposite thing showing that coaches don't follow that perspective of ALWAYS doing one thing. I'm not controlling what you meant, I'm arguing against what you said. If you didn't mean always as strictly always, you shouldn't have used the word. However the entire basis of your perspective differing than what I was arguing relies on it being a strict absolute, otherwise you concede that sometime you do play for the future.

Seems you are willing to concede defeat in the rest of our games this year in order th have a chance at a better record next year.

Tell me how playing Marshall is conceding defeat? Oh wait, it's not, and you're arguing a strawman. The truth is that playing Marshall/Allen has the benefit of helping us next year, and playing Skov doesn't. If Skov were actually helping us win, or even playing to anywhere near an average level for Bbacks under Johnson you'd have an argument that he's helping us this year. Unfortunately we aren't winning, and he isn't playing anywhere near that level. So tell me, outside of an appeal to authority fallacy what reason do we have for believing Skov gives us a better chance to win than Marshall or Allen?

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

@lv20gt
And just what are you basing your talent evaluation on??? Are you at practices watching??? Is it based on in game performance? If so what games?? Alcorn? I agree M. Marshall has a ton of star potential. Doesn't mean he's currently better than Skov and I doubt you have more than your own naked eye evaluation of ability to validate your opinion.

Skov has scored the majority of our touchdowns. Against ND and Duke he was more of a bright spot than most. Vs Duke he ran 19 times for 75 yds, a 3.9 yd average....pretty close to 4 even with shoddy blocking! He had a long run of 11. MM ran 5 times for 14 yds, a 2.8 yd average. He had a long run of 8yds.

But don't let facts stand in your way.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

I can respect those that see the potential of MM and desire to see him more. I'm actually in that boat also. What I have little stomach for is targeting single players and condemning them individually for our woes based on pure opinion....that I doubt is based on much football experience or expertise.