[76lsjumb]

Now we're on to something!  Since it's been reported that Solomon Thomas' returning for next year is maybe 50/50, let's play one half of the game without him to see how our defense handles it.  And, of course, Ukropina is graduating & gone next year, so he sits for the whole game.

Kind of the football equivalent of Jenga...

UNC won't know what hit 'em!  ;D

[76lsjumb]

Now we're on to something!  Since it's been reported that Solomon Thomas' returning for next year is maybe 50/50, let's play one half of the game without him to see how our defense handles it.  And, of course, Ukropina is graduating & gone next year, so he sits for the whole game.

Kind of the football equivalent of Jenga...

UNC won't know what hit 'em!  ;D

[76lsjumb]

Now we're on to something!  Since it's been reported that Solomon Thomas' returning for next year is maybe 50/50, let's play one half of the game without him to see how our defense handles it.  And, of course, Ukropina is graduating & gone next year, so he sits for the whole game.

Kind of the football equivalent of Jenga...

UNC won't know what hit 'em!  ;D

[76lsjumb]

Now we're on to something!  Since it's been reported that Solomon Thomas' returning for next year is maybe 50/50, let's play one half of the game without him to see how our defense handles it.  And, of course, Ukropina is graduating & gone next year, so he sits for the whole game.

Kind of the football equivalent of Jenga...

UNC won't know what hit 'em!  ;D

[thunder_chik]

[quote author=Goose link=topic=16303.msg183660#msg183660 date=1482775555]
[quote author=DC 86 link=topic=16303.msg183652#msg183652 date=1482766408]
[quote author=CornFed link=topic=16303.msg183644#msg183644 date=1482736079]

But Goose, I am 100% convinced that he is NOT selflessly stepping aside to give his peers more reps.  That is delusional.

I don't see Goose making this claim anywhere in his post; he merely stated that the damage of McCaffrey not playing was minimal. Other players getting reps is a byproduct of his decision but nowhere did Goose list this as a motive.
[/quote]
Correct. I don't think he is doing this to help the team. He is doing this because he think it makes sense for him. I also think (perhaps incorrectly) that he evaluated the impact of his actions both on his image and on the team and decided that the negative effects were minimal, or at worst small enough to be morally acceptable to him. Some people do not agree, which is understandable. The more I look at it, the more I do.
[/quote]

If his decision is based on the risk of getting injured while performing his duties as a running back, and one accepts that there is such a risk, his not playing does not make that risk disappear, it simply transfers that risk to whomever now has to perform those duties.  Thus, CMAC is saying that, while he is not willing to assume that risk, he is fine with [presumably] Love now taking it on for all of those additional plays that Love will have to run in CMAC's absence.    In fact, with CMAC gone, the injury risk for Love probably increases, since he will presumably have to carry the ball more than he would have with CMAC playing, not only increasing the number of opportunities for injury, but also increasing the tiredness/wear and tear factor that could contribute to the severity of any injury. So there is that impact on the individual/teammate level.  Furthermore, on the team level, if an injury were to occur, rather than having CMAC, Love, and Scarlett available, the team now only has Love and Scarlett available -- on its face, that is a less favorable position to be in. 

And, looking at the longer term horizon, if the injury risk that he is presumably seeking to avoid is one that has hypothetical adverse career implications -- say, inability to play next season -- he is now transferring that risk to Love and to the team.  That is the flip side of the "this actually helps the team because it gives them a chance to preapre for next year" argument.  If you assume CMAC's decision is rational and justified because the risk of injury is real, how can you turn around and then assume that there is no risk [or even a lesser risk] of injury for the person replacing CMAC?  Whatever play he would have been injured on will now result in injury to the person replacing him on that play, unless the game plan is changed such that the play never happens. 

Of course, if the game plan is altered so that this hypothetical play never occurs, then it is likely that the team's chances will be adversely impacted, because you are now designing/running an offense that is compensating for not having its best player.
[/quote]

Why do I feel like this thread is starting to sound like a Star Trek time travel episode, with Spock and Kirk (or Tuvak and Janeway, if you prefer) arguing how the timeline might be affected if CMac were to play the Sun Bowl in a parallel universe?  ???
(Martyup, I wish I had your talent for imbedding video snippets...).

[thunder_chik]

[quote author=Goose link=topic=16303.msg183660#msg183660 date=1482775555]
[quote author=DC 86 link=topic=16303.msg183652#msg183652 date=1482766408]
[quote author=CornFed link=topic=16303.msg183644#msg183644 date=1482736079]

But Goose, I am 100% convinced that he is NOT selflessly stepping aside to give his peers more reps.  That is delusional.

I don't see Goose making this claim anywhere in his post; he merely stated that the damage of McCaffrey not playing was minimal. Other players getting reps is a byproduct of his decision but nowhere did Goose list this as a motive.
[/quote]
Correct. I don't think he is doing this to help the team. He is doing this because he think it makes sense for him. I also think (perhaps incorrectly) that he evaluated the impact of his actions both on his image and on the team and decided that the negative effects were minimal, or at worst small enough to be morally acceptable to him. Some people do not agree, which is understandable. The more I look at it, the more I do.
[/quote]

If his decision is based on the risk of getting injured while performing his duties as a running back, and one accepts that there is such a risk, his not playing does not make that risk disappear, it simply transfers that risk to whomever now has to perform those duties.  Thus, CMAC is saying that, while he is not willing to assume that risk, he is fine with [presumably] Love now taking it on for all of those additional plays that Love will have to run in CMAC's absence.    In fact, with CMAC gone, the injury risk for Love probably increases, since he will presumably have to carry the ball more than he would have with CMAC playing, not only increasing the number of opportunities for injury, but also increasing the tiredness/wear and tear factor that could contribute to the severity of any injury. So there is that impact on the individual/teammate level.  Furthermore, on the team level, if an injury were to occur, rather than having CMAC, Love, and Scarlett available, the team now only has Love and Scarlett available -- on its face, that is a less favorable position to be in. 

And, looking at the longer term horizon, if the injury risk that he is presumably seeking to avoid is one that has hypothetical adverse career implications -- say, inability to play next season -- he is now transferring that risk to Love and to the team.  That is the flip side of the "this actually helps the team because it gives them a chance to preapre for next year" argument.  If you assume CMAC's decision is rational and justified because the risk of injury is real, how can you turn around and then assume that there is no risk [or even a lesser risk] of injury for the person replacing CMAC?  Whatever play he would have been injured on will now result in injury to the person replacing him on that play, unless the game plan is changed such that the play never happens. 

Of course, if the game plan is altered so that this hypothetical play never occurs, then it is likely that the team's chances will be adversely impacted, because you are now designing/running an offense that is compensating for not having its best player.
[/quote]

Why do I feel like this thread is starting to sound like a Star Trek time travel episode, with Spock and Kirk (or Tuvak and Janeway, if you prefer) arguing how the timeline might be affected if CMac were to play the Sun Bowl in a parallel universe?  ???
(Martyup, I wish I had your talent for imbedding video snippets...).

[thunder_chik]

[quote author=Goose link=topic=16303.msg183660#msg183660 date=1482775555]
[quote author=DC 86 link=topic=16303.msg183652#msg183652 date=1482766408]
[quote author=CornFed link=topic=16303.msg183644#msg183644 date=1482736079]

But Goose, I am 100% convinced that he is NOT selflessly stepping aside to give his peers more reps.  That is delusional.

I don't see Goose making this claim anywhere in his post; he merely stated that the damage of McCaffrey not playing was minimal. Other players getting reps is a byproduct of his decision but nowhere did Goose list this as a motive.
[/quote]
Correct. I don't think he is doing this to help the team. He is doing this because he think it makes sense for him. I also think (perhaps incorrectly) that he evaluated the impact of his actions both on his image and on the team and decided that the negative effects were minimal, or at worst small enough to be morally acceptable to him. Some people do not agree, which is understandable. The more I look at it, the more I do.
[/quote]

If his decision is based on the risk of getting injured while performing his duties as a running back, and one accepts that there is such a risk, his not playing does not make that risk disappear, it simply transfers that risk to whomever now has to perform those duties.  Thus, CMAC is saying that, while he is not willing to assume that risk, he is fine with [presumably] Love now taking it on for all of those additional plays that Love will have to run in CMAC's absence.    In fact, with CMAC gone, the injury risk for Love probably increases, since he will presumably have to carry the ball more than he would have with CMAC playing, not only increasing the number of opportunities for injury, but also increasing the tiredness/wear and tear factor that could contribute to the severity of any injury. So there is that impact on the individual/teammate level.  Furthermore, on the team level, if an injury were to occur, rather than having CMAC, Love, and Scarlett available, the team now only has Love and Scarlett available -- on its face, that is a less favorable position to be in. 

And, looking at the longer term horizon, if the injury risk that he is presumably seeking to avoid is one that has hypothetical adverse career implications -- say, inability to play next season -- he is now transferring that risk to Love and to the team.  That is the flip side of the "this actually helps the team because it gives them a chance to preapre for next year" argument.  If you assume CMAC's decision is rational and justified because the risk of injury is real, how can you turn around and then assume that there is no risk [or even a lesser risk] of injury for the person replacing CMAC?  Whatever play he would have been injured on will now result in injury to the person replacing him on that play, unless the game plan is changed such that the play never happens. 

Of course, if the game plan is altered so that this hypothetical play never occurs, then it is likely that the team's chances will be adversely impacted, because you are now designing/running an offense that is compensating for not having its best player.
[/quote]

Why do I feel like this thread is starting to sound like a Star Trek time travel episode, with Spock and Kirk (or Tuvak and Janeway, if you prefer) arguing how the timeline might be affected if CMac were to play the Sun Bowl in a parallel universe?  ???
(Martyup, I wish I had your talent for imbedding video snippets...).

[thunder_chik]

[quote author=Goose link=topic=16303.msg183660#msg183660 date=1482775555]
[quote author=DC 86 link=topic=16303.msg183652#msg183652 date=1482766408]
[quote author=CornFed link=topic=16303.msg183644#msg183644 date=1482736079]

But Goose, I am 100% convinced that he is NOT selflessly stepping aside to give his peers more reps.  That is delusional.

I don't see Goose making this claim anywhere in his post; he merely stated that the damage of McCaffrey not playing was minimal. Other players getting reps is a byproduct of his decision but nowhere did Goose list this as a motive.
[/quote]
Correct. I don't think he is doing this to help the team. He is doing this because he think it makes sense for him. I also think (perhaps incorrectly) that he evaluated the impact of his actions both on his image and on the team and decided that the negative effects were minimal, or at worst small enough to be morally acceptable to him. Some people do not agree, which is understandable. The more I look at it, the more I do.
[/quote]

If his decision is based on the risk of getting injured while performing his duties as a running back, and one accepts that there is such a risk, his not playing does not make that risk disappear, it simply transfers that risk to whomever now has to perform those duties.  Thus, CMAC is saying that, while he is not willing to assume that risk, he is fine with [presumably] Love now taking it on for all of those additional plays that Love will have to run in CMAC's absence.    In fact, with CMAC gone, the injury risk for Love probably increases, since he will presumably have to carry the ball more than he would have with CMAC playing, not only increasing the number of opportunities for injury, but also increasing the tiredness/wear and tear factor that could contribute to the severity of any injury. So there is that impact on the individual/teammate level.  Furthermore, on the team level, if an injury were to occur, rather than having CMAC, Love, and Scarlett available, the team now only has Love and Scarlett available -- on its face, that is a less favorable position to be in. 

And, looking at the longer term horizon, if the injury risk that he is presumably seeking to avoid is one that has hypothetical adverse career implications -- say, inability to play next season -- he is now transferring that risk to Love and to the team.  That is the flip side of the "this actually helps the team because it gives them a chance to preapre for next year" argument.  If you assume CMAC's decision is rational and justified because the risk of injury is real, how can you turn around and then assume that there is no risk [or even a lesser risk] of injury for the person replacing CMAC?  Whatever play he would have been injured on will now result in injury to the person replacing him on that play, unless the game plan is changed such that the play never happens. 

Of course, if the game plan is altered so that this hypothetical play never occurs, then it is likely that the team's chances will be adversely impacted, because you are now designing/running an offense that is compensating for not having its best player.
[/quote]

Why do I feel like this thread is starting to sound like a Star Trek time travel episode, with Spock and Kirk (or Tuvak and Janeway, if you prefer) arguing how the timeline might be affected if CMac were to play the Sun Bowl in a parallel universe?  ???
(Martyup, I wish I had your talent for imbedding video snippets...).

[JJJ]

[quote author=Spiny_Norman link=topic=16303.msg183626#msg183626 date=1482705863]
In the 300+ messages in this thread, has anyone linked yet to the Sports Illustrated story on McCaffrey from last spring?  I re-read it on the airplane yesterday and several passages stood out including the one below. 

[McCaffrey's] tone changes, however, when it comes to concussions, about which he claims not to worry. "We know what we sign up for," he says, sitting outside Arbuckle. "I couldn't imagine not playing." He pauses. "I know it's a risk, but life's worth taking risks and doing what you love." 

It is hard to rationalize this person with the one who is sitting out Friday's game.  Maybe since then, football has changed from "something you love" to "my future career which will provide the income to allow me to do what I love."

http://www.si.com/college-football/2016/...hievements

I think this is part of what bothers me about CMac's decision. It just doesn't fit with what I thought I knew of CMac. The CMac that was marketed to us for the last three years -including the CMac who announced he would forego his senior season -- would not have made this decision to skip the bowl game.

Jaylon Smith, whose injury in the Fiesta Bowl and subsequent drop in the draft has been cited by some as the cautionary tale supporting CMac's decision, says he would make the same decision to play in the Fiesta Bowl even knowing what he knows now. He said he only lost money and he'd never get another chance to suit up and play with his ND teammates. Now *that* sentiment fits with the CMac who has been marketed to us the last three years.
[/quote]

I'm with Spiny Norman and SeattleTree on this, and I'd like to believe something (injury? tweak?) happened, but I've moved on.
I'm looking forward to the uninitiated being flabbergasted by how awesome BLove is on Dec 30.
#GoStanford

[JJJ]

[quote author=Spiny_Norman link=topic=16303.msg183626#msg183626 date=1482705863]
In the 300+ messages in this thread, has anyone linked yet to the Sports Illustrated story on McCaffrey from last spring?  I re-read it on the airplane yesterday and several passages stood out including the one below. 

[McCaffrey's] tone changes, however, when it comes to concussions, about which he claims not to worry. "We know what we sign up for," he says, sitting outside Arbuckle. "I couldn't imagine not playing." He pauses. "I know it's a risk, but life's worth taking risks and doing what you love." 

It is hard to rationalize this person with the one who is sitting out Friday's game.  Maybe since then, football has changed from "something you love" to "my future career which will provide the income to allow me to do what I love."

http://www.si.com/college-football/2016/...hievements

I think this is part of what bothers me about CMac's decision. It just doesn't fit with what I thought I knew of CMac. The CMac that was marketed to us for the last three years -including the CMac who announced he would forego his senior season -- would not have made this decision to skip the bowl game.

Jaylon Smith, whose injury in the Fiesta Bowl and subsequent drop in the draft has been cited by some as the cautionary tale supporting CMac's decision, says he would make the same decision to play in the Fiesta Bowl even knowing what he knows now. He said he only lost money and he'd never get another chance to suit up and play with his ND teammates. Now *that* sentiment fits with the CMac who has been marketed to us the last three years.
[/quote]

I'm with Spiny Norman and SeattleTree on this, and I'd like to believe something (injury? tweak?) happened, but I've moved on.
I'm looking forward to the uninitiated being flabbergasted by how awesome BLove is on Dec 30.
#GoStanford

[JJJ]

[quote author=Spiny_Norman link=topic=16303.msg183626#msg183626 date=1482705863]
In the 300+ messages in this thread, has anyone linked yet to the Sports Illustrated story on McCaffrey from last spring?  I re-read it on the airplane yesterday and several passages stood out including the one below. 

[McCaffrey's] tone changes, however, when it comes to concussions, about which he claims not to worry. "We know what we sign up for," he says, sitting outside Arbuckle. "I couldn't imagine not playing." He pauses. "I know it's a risk, but life's worth taking risks and doing what you love." 

It is hard to rationalize this person with the one who is sitting out Friday's game.  Maybe since then, football has changed from "something you love" to "my future career which will provide the income to allow me to do what I love."

http://www.si.com/college-football/2016/...hievements

I think this is part of what bothers me about CMac's decision. It just doesn't fit with what I thought I knew of CMac. The CMac that was marketed to us for the last three years -including the CMac who announced he would forego his senior season -- would not have made this decision to skip the bowl game.

Jaylon Smith, whose injury in the Fiesta Bowl and subsequent drop in the draft has been cited by some as the cautionary tale supporting CMac's decision, says he would make the same decision to play in the Fiesta Bowl even knowing what he knows now. He said he only lost money and he'd never get another chance to suit up and play with his ND teammates. Now *that* sentiment fits with the CMac who has been marketed to us the last three years.
[/quote]

I'm with Spiny Norman and SeattleTree on this, and I'd like to believe something (injury? tweak?) happened, but I've moved on.
I'm looking forward to the uninitiated being flabbergasted by how awesome BLove is on Dec 30.
#GoStanford

[JJJ]

[quote author=Spiny_Norman link=topic=16303.msg183626#msg183626 date=1482705863]
In the 300+ messages in this thread, has anyone linked yet to the Sports Illustrated story on McCaffrey from last spring?  I re-read it on the airplane yesterday and several passages stood out including the one below. 

[McCaffrey's] tone changes, however, when it comes to concussions, about which he claims not to worry. "We know what we sign up for," he says, sitting outside Arbuckle. "I couldn't imagine not playing." He pauses. "I know it's a risk, but life's worth taking risks and doing what you love." 

It is hard to rationalize this person with the one who is sitting out Friday's game.  Maybe since then, football has changed from "something you love" to "my future career which will provide the income to allow me to do what I love."

http://www.si.com/college-football/2016/...hievements

I think this is part of what bothers me about CMac's decision. It just doesn't fit with what I thought I knew of CMac. The CMac that was marketed to us for the last three years -including the CMac who announced he would forego his senior season -- would not have made this decision to skip the bowl game.

Jaylon Smith, whose injury in the Fiesta Bowl and subsequent drop in the draft has been cited by some as the cautionary tale supporting CMac's decision, says he would make the same decision to play in the Fiesta Bowl even knowing what he knows now. He said he only lost money and he'd never get another chance to suit up and play with his ND teammates. Now *that* sentiment fits with the CMac who has been marketed to us the last three years.
[/quote]

I'm with Spiny Norman and SeattleTree on this, and I'd like to believe something (injury? tweak?) happened, but I've moved on.
I'm looking forward to the uninitiated being flabbergasted by how awesome BLove is on Dec 30.
#GoStanford

[CornFed]

The King is dead!!!!!
Long live the King!!!!!!

[CornFed]

The King is dead!!!!!
Long live the King!!!!!!

[CornFed]

The King is dead!!!!!
Long live the King!!!!!!

[CornFed]

The King is dead!!!!!
Long live the King!!!!!!

[Mick]

[quote author=CornFed link=topic=16303.msg183644#msg183644 date=1482736079]

But Goose, I am 100% convinced that he is NOT selflessly stepping aside to give his peers more reps.  That is delusional.

I don't see Goose making this claim anywhere in his post; he merely stated that the damage of McCaffrey not playing was minimal. Other players getting reps is a byproduct of his decision but nowhere did Goose list this as a motive.
[/quote]


I don't think we've seen the extent of the damage yet.  If Christian is taken in the Top Ten and Stanford rolls 49-7 over NC, and there's some sort of public rapprochement, and there's no public condemnation, then we can say the damage is minimal.  Until then, let's just wait.

[Mick]

[quote author=CornFed link=topic=16303.msg183644#msg183644 date=1482736079]

But Goose, I am 100% convinced that he is NOT selflessly stepping aside to give his peers more reps.  That is delusional.

I don't see Goose making this claim anywhere in his post; he merely stated that the damage of McCaffrey not playing was minimal. Other players getting reps is a byproduct of his decision but nowhere did Goose list this as a motive.
[/quote]


I don't think we've seen the extent of the damage yet.  If Christian is taken in the Top Ten and Stanford rolls 49-7 over NC, and there's some sort of public rapprochement, and there's no public condemnation, then we can say the damage is minimal.  Until then, let's just wait.

[Mick]

[quote author=CornFed link=topic=16303.msg183644#msg183644 date=1482736079]

But Goose, I am 100% convinced that he is NOT selflessly stepping aside to give his peers more reps.  That is delusional.

I don't see Goose making this claim anywhere in his post; he merely stated that the damage of McCaffrey not playing was minimal. Other players getting reps is a byproduct of his decision but nowhere did Goose list this as a motive.
[/quote]


I don't think we've seen the extent of the damage yet.  If Christian is taken in the Top Ten and Stanford rolls 49-7 over NC, and there's some sort of public rapprochement, and there's no public condemnation, then we can say the damage is minimal.  Until then, let's just wait.

[Mick]

[quote author=CornFed link=topic=16303.msg183644#msg183644 date=1482736079]

But Goose, I am 100% convinced that he is NOT selflessly stepping aside to give his peers more reps.  That is delusional.

I don't see Goose making this claim anywhere in his post; he merely stated that the damage of McCaffrey not playing was minimal. Other players getting reps is a byproduct of his decision but nowhere did Goose list this as a motive.
[/quote]


I don't think we've seen the extent of the damage yet.  If Christian is taken in the Top Ten and Stanford rolls 49-7 over NC, and there's some sort of public rapprochement, and there's no public condemnation, then we can say the damage is minimal.  Until then, let's just wait.

[Bruce Wang]

I am excited for Bryce Love to be the featured back against the big state school from his home state. I hope he plays his best game yet.

[Bruce Wang]

I am excited for Bryce Love to be the featured back against the big state school from his home state. I hope he plays his best game yet.

[Bruce Wang]

I am excited for Bryce Love to be the featured back against the big state school from his home state. I hope he plays his best game yet.

[Bruce Wang]

I am excited for Bryce Love to be the featured back against the big state school from his home state. I hope he plays his best game yet.

[JohnR34231]

I am excited for Bryce Love to be the featured back against the big state school from his home state. I hope he plays his best game yet.

Don't we all? I hope issues like that get some mention during the game broadcast and that the announcers don't spend the entire time talking about CMac's decision to sit out the game, as I am afraid they will.

[JohnR34231]

I am excited for Bryce Love to be the featured back against the big state school from his home state. I hope he plays his best game yet.

Don't we all? I hope issues like that get some mention during the game broadcast and that the announcers don't spend the entire time talking about CMac's decision to sit out the game, as I am afraid they will.

[JohnR34231]

I am excited for Bryce Love to be the featured back against the big state school from his home state. I hope he plays his best game yet.

Don't we all? I hope issues like that get some mention during the game broadcast and that the announcers don't spend the entire time talking about CMac's decision to sit out the game, as I am afraid they will.

[JohnR34231]

I am excited for Bryce Love to be the featured back against the big state school from his home state. I hope he plays his best game yet.

Don't we all? I hope issues like that get some mention during the game broadcast and that the announcers don't spend the entire time talking about CMac's decision to sit out the game, as I am afraid they will.

[Hurlburt88]

does anyone know who will be announcing?  And if there are better radio options to stream? 

[Hurlburt88]

does anyone know who will be announcing?  And if there are better radio options to stream? 

[Hurlburt88]

does anyone know who will be announcing?  And if there are better radio options to stream? 

[Hurlburt88]

does anyone know who will be announcing?  And if there are better radio options to stream? 

[ChicagoCard]

does anyone know who will be announcing?  And if there are better radio options to stream?

I think Brad Nesslor, replacing Verne Lundquist, along with Gary Danielson on CBS.

[ChicagoCard]

does anyone know who will be announcing?  And if there are better radio options to stream?

I think Brad Nesslor, replacing Verne Lundquist, along with Gary Danielson on CBS.

[ChicagoCard]

does anyone know who will be announcing?  And if there are better radio options to stream?

I think Brad Nesslor, replacing Verne Lundquist, along with Gary Danielson on CBS.

[ChicagoCard]

does anyone know who will be announcing?  And if there are better radio options to stream?

I think Brad Nesslor, replacing Verne Lundquist, along with Gary Danielson on CBS.

[RedShift]

The viewpoint of NFLPA's President on this issue:
http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2016/12/22/nfl-d...mes-injury

[RedShift]

The viewpoint of NFLPA's President on this issue:
http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2016/12/22/nfl-d...mes-injury

[RedShift]

The viewpoint of NFLPA's President on this issue:
http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2016/12/22/nfl-d...mes-injury

[RedShift]

The viewpoint of NFLPA's President on this issue:
http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2016/12/22/nfl-d...mes-injury