The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Posted: **Thu Dec 13, 2012 2:11 pm**

Perfectly realistic to me.

Posted: **Thu Dec 13, 2012 2:14 pm**

WOW! ... just boggles the mind :shock:

Posted: **Thu Dec 13, 2012 2:20 pm**

What in what I have said boggles your mind? Players bitch about safety and then you get guys launching themsevles head first into RGIII's head like the Falcon game, the Eagle game and last weeks Raven game. They obviously dont' care about safety, every time it is mentioned they say how weak the game is becoming because of safety concerns, but then they want to sue the league later after they've blown all their money and say someone should have made the game safer. My points are pretty clear and easy to look up if you desire.

Posted: **Thu Dec 13, 2012 2:24 pm**

SkinsJock wrote::shock: WOW! ... just boggles the mind

LOL. I think I'm done with this one.

Posted: **Thu Dec 13, 2012 2:37 pm**

I don't blame you

I'm like Brandon Banks - I'm outa here :lol:

Posted: **Fri Dec 14, 2012 7:26 pm**

riggofan wrote:
FLWSkin wrote:Not to be too grumpy, but someone could get paralysed on any play. If everyone is that worried about it, eliminate football all together.

What kind of logic is that? People still die in car accidents, so why wear seat belts at all? Come on, man.

Kickoffs account for 6% of all NFL plays, but they account for 17% of all those most serious injuries. That's ridiculously disproportionate. If you can cut down the risk of somebody getting paralysed by 20% with minimal impact on the game, you don't think that is worth at least considering with an open mind?

Link please for your stats!

I haven't been able to find ANY stats that show that the KO is a statistically higher injury rate. Not saying you pulled that out of the air (or under your seat), but I haven't been able to find any.

Posted: **Fri Dec 14, 2012 8:02 pm**

skinsfan#33 wrote:
riggofan wrote:
FLWSkin wrote:Not to be too grumpy, but someone could get paralysed on any play. If everyone is that worried about it, eliminate football all together.

What kind of logic is that? People still die in car accidents, so why wear seat belts at all? Come on, man.

Kickoffs account for 6% of all NFL plays, but they account for 17% of all those most serious injuries. That's ridiculously disproportionate. If you can cut down the risk of somebody getting paralysed by 20% with minimal impact on the game, you don't think that is worth at least considering with an open mind?

Link please for your stats!

I haven't been able to find ANY stats that show that the KO is a statistically higher injury rate. Not saying you pulled that out of the air (or under your seat), but I haven't been able to find any.

Me neither. I'm trying to remember a guy getting concussed on a KO.

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2011/09 ... educe.html

Excerpt:

Further, looking back at the graph above, it appears that over the past few years, injury rates on kickoffs are in line with those on run and pass plays. In fact, in 2008 and 2009 the kickoff injury rates were lower than for typical scrimmage plays. Getting rid of the two-minute warning in the first half, a gimmick that only allows extra commercials, would have a similar injury-reducing effect just by reducing the number of pass and run plays.

DarthMonk

Posted: **Fri Dec 14, 2012 8:13 pm**

DarthMonk wrote:Getting rid of the two-minute warning in the first half, a gimmick that only allows extra commercials, would have a similar injury-reducing effect just by reducing the number of pass and run plays.

Are guys getting injured during commercials now?

Posted: **Fri Dec 14, 2012 8:18 pm**

Deadskins wrote:
DarthMonk wrote:Getting rid of the two-minute warning in the first half, a gimmick that only allows extra commercials, would have a similar injury-reducing effect just by reducing the number of pass and run plays.

Are guys getting injured during commercials now?

I was quoting an article. I think without the two minute warning fewer plays are run. It's an extra time out. It amounts to a few hundred plays a year.

Posted: **Tue Dec 18, 2012 9:23 am**

As promised, I am once again bringing this thread back.

I don't think we will ever see him again.

Posted: **Tue Dec 18, 2012 10:03 am**

let it go, please

Posted: **Tue Dec 18, 2012 10:08 am**

SkinsJock wrote::shock: let it go, please

That's what he's been saying... "let him go" he didn't say please though.

He bumps the tread but doesn't add anything to it, that not like ATX but then I figured it out... he's doing to this thread what he says Banks does for the Redskins.

Posted: **Tue Dec 18, 2012 11:48 am**

DarthMonk wrote:
skinsfan#33 wrote:I haven't been able to find ANY stats that show that the KO is a statistically higher injury rate. Not saying you pulled that out of the air (or under your seat), but I haven't been able to find any.

Me neither. I'm trying to remember a guy getting concussed on a KO.

Hey sorry guys I missed your posts asking where I got those stats. Here is the link from nfl.com:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap100000 ... l-kickoffs

Schiano's idea wasn't one that came off the top of his head. He researched it during his tenure at Rutgers. He was coaching the Scarlet Knights when one of his players, Eric LeGrand, suffered a severe spinal injury on a kickoff in 2010.

"One of the things that when I was researching, I think it was like, in the old kickoff rules, 17 percent of the catastrophic injuries happened on kickoffs, yet it's only about 6 percent of the plays in the game," Schiano said. "Well, that is disproportionate. Things like that are the reasons that led me there, but obviously it's a personal thing with me because of Eric LeGrand."

Posted: **Tue Dec 18, 2012 5:16 pm**

1niksder wrote:
SkinsJock wrote::shock: let it go, please

That's what he's been saying... "let him go" he didn't say please though.

He bumps the tread but doesn't add anything to it, that not like ATX but then I figured it out... he's doing to this thread what he says Banks does for the Redskins.

Fine...

The absence of Brandon Banks IMO has drastically helped the team. Crawford and Paul are doing just fine back there. Our special teams is playing great on both sides. Danny Smith WAS NOT the issue, Brandon Banks was. Considering I was probably the most outspoken board member in regards to getting rid of Banks, I feel as though it was appropriate to bring it up again, and again. Call it gloating because I am as well :wink:

Posted: **Tue Dec 18, 2012 9:12 pm**

ATX_Skins wrote:
1niksder wrote:
SkinsJock wrote::shock: let it go, please

That's what he's been saying... "let him go" he didn't say please though.

He bumps the tread but doesn't add anything to it, that not like ATX but then I figured it out... he's doing to this thread what he says Banks does for the Redskins.

Fine...

The absence of Brandon Banks IMO has drastically helped the team. Crawford and Paul are doing just fine back there. Our special teams is playing great on both sides. Danny Smith WAS NOT the issue, Brandon Banks was. Considering I was probably the most outspoken board member in regards to getting rid of Banks, I feel as though it was appropriate to bring it up again, and again. Call it gloating because I am as well

other than that one return that was blocked outstanding, I see nothing different. What do you consider "drastically"?

Posted: **Tue Dec 18, 2012 9:55 pm**

skinsfan#33 wrote:
ATX_Skins wrote:
1niksder wrote:
SkinsJock wrote::shock: let it go, please

That's what he's been saying... "let him go" he didn't say please though.

He bumps the tread but doesn't add anything to it, that not like ATX but then I figured it out... he's doing to this thread what he says Banks does for the Redskins.

Fine...

The absence of Brandon Banks IMO has drastically helped the team. Crawford and Paul are doing just fine back there. Our special teams is playing great on both sides. Danny Smith WAS NOT the issue, Brandon Banks was. Considering I was probably the most outspoken board member in regards to getting rid of Banks, I feel as though it was appropriate to bring it up again, and again. Call it gloating because I am as well

other than that one return that was blocked outstanding, I see nothing different. What do you consider "drastically"?

Maybe this:

BB in 2012:

26 PRs, 6.7 avg.

Last 2 Weeks:

5 PRs, 23.6 avg.

Subtract the TD and it's 4 PRs for a 13.6 avg.

There is also the obvious decision making on KR.

Posted: **Tue Dec 18, 2012 10:09 pm**

While I am not a bb hater......i have just never seen his value displayed in meaningful games in the past two seasons. He is speedy, but he does not appear to me to be a playmaker for us. Crawford on pr's, so far, has been better than bb this season. Paul we could argue about, but paul can play te and make an impact whereas bb does not make an impact at wr.

Think bb will be gone next season.....

Posted: **Tue Dec 18, 2012 11:38 pm**

rskin72 wrote:but paul can play te

Really? When's he gonna start showing it? :twisted:

Posted: **Wed Dec 19, 2012 10:13 am**

Deadskins wrote:
rskin72 wrote:"but paul can play te"

Really? When's he gonna start showing it?

sometimes ... you crack me up :lol:

Posted: **Wed Dec 19, 2012 10:45 am**

Deadskins wrote:
rskin72 wrote:but paul can play te

Really? When's he gonna start showing it?

Exactly Paul drops WAY TOO MANY BALLS and he was a receiver?? Whenever the ball is thrown to him I have a reasonable expectation he drops it. Sometimes I don't think Niles Paul could catch a cold........... :oops:

Posted: **Wed Dec 19, 2012 11:13 am**

SkinsJock wrote:
Deadskins wrote:
rskin72 wrote:"but paul can play te"

Really? When's he gonna start showing it?

sometimes ... you crack me up

I aims to please.

Posted: **Wed Dec 19, 2012 11:20 am**

.. and Hank always almost drops it. He be the juggler. Likes to stumble too. Wuddup?

The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Brandon Banks - The Wide Receiver