• You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.

Is honesty not acceptable?

goodnterribles

Regulators! Let's mount up.
5 Year Member
He's

9/12 passing so he's plenty capable. Maybe not the whole ball of wax but enough. And better than Martinez probably. The running game it's not even close....he's the far superior option there. In fact, on pass plays you could dumb it down to 1 or 2 reads and let him create from there. Martinez had little ability to avoid a pass rush or to make something out of a scramble.

Point is...you had a guy who was healthy and capable and you stuck with the gimp instead. Doesn't seem real smart to most people. Even if he doesn't take all 21 carries that Martinez had...getting him several series would have been wise.
He's plenty capable as a passer but can he handle the entire passing offense? It doesn't seem that way based on what he did when he was in there this year. And if that's true, I don't know if he would have done any better than AM did against that defense.
I like LM a lot and I think he has the potential to be a great QB. I just dont know if you put him in that situation.
 

goodnterribles

Regulators! Let's mount up.
5 Year Member
but thinking he would have taken a beating isn't the same as having that double standard they got you on.

saying they both probably could be managed a bit better than 21 carries a game is probably accurate.

but fair enough.
I don't disagree with that. My point was a few people thought Wandale's hip pointer was because of overuse running through the tackles. Which is silly.
Based on what we've seen from LM this year, the vast majority of plays are running plays. I think Iowa would have teed off on him. IMO, that's not a good spot to put him in.
 

winnerwinner

Recruit
2 Year Member
I don't disagree with that. My point was a few people thought Wandale's hip pointer was because of overuse running through the tackles. Which is silly.
Based on what we've seen from LM this year, the vast majority of plays are running plays. I think Iowa would have teed off on him. IMO, that's not a good spot to put him in.
making wandale run through the tackles as much as he did when we had a healthy mills was probably ill advised, but i get your point.
 

bilsker

Tom Osborne
15 Year Member
He's plenty capable as a passer but can he handle the entire passing offense? It doesn't seem that way based on what he did when he was in there this year. And if that's true, I don't know if he would have done any better than AM did against that defense.
I like LM a lot and I think he has the potential to be a great QB. I just dont know if you put him in that situation.
So instead we trot a QB out there that from what we are hearing was being held together by bailing wire and duct tape? A QB who could neither run nor pass effectively? If he was good enough to get major PT against Indiana then he was good enough to spell Martinez at least some against Iowa. Hell...did he even get any snaps at WR after having done so the week before?

It is what it is. He should not have been forced to blow 1 of his 4 games over 1 play and based on what we did see he probably should have played more extensively against Iowa. But he didn't. Just 1 game, just 1 season. Onward.
 

Bleed Red

Scout Team
5 Year Member
IU I believe. Vedral got hurt and he came in and was doing a great job and then got hurt.
OK, i thought he was banged up against Purdue and just not completely healthy against IU. They kind of run together there. Either way, no guarantee he survives 21 rushing attempts.
 

Bleed Red

Scout Team
5 Year Member
So instead we trot a QB out there that from what we are hearing was being held together by bailing wire and duct tape? A QB who could neither run nor pass effectively? If he was good enough to get major PT against Indiana then he was good enough to spell Martinez at least some against Iowa. Hell...did he even get any snaps at WR after having done so the week before?

It is what it is. He should not have been forced to blow 1 of his 4 games over 1 play and based on what we did see he probably should have played more extensively against Iowa. But he didn't. Just 1 game, just 1 season. Onward.
I'm glad you brought up that one play...for all of those saying SF is too hard on his players, i think he shielded LM admirably when it would have been very easy to say "LM shouldn't have run on the field in that situation, but he is young and eager".
 

Greatest Fan of All

The Legend
10 Year Member
I don't disagree with that. My point was a few people thought Wandale's hip pointer was because of overuse running through the tackles. Which is silly.
Based on what we've seen from LM this year, the vast majority of plays are running plays. I think Iowa would have teed off on him. IMO, that's not a good spot to put him in.
You still don't get it. People are concerned because Wandale is a very small guy and likely to get hurt. In fact, he's been hurt multiple times this year. That he was hurt repeatedly and, luckily, it didn't happen between the tackles, is even more proof that we should NOT be overusing him, whether the runs are inside or outside doesn't seem to matter with him...he is fragile.
 
Last edited:

solesrfr

Varsity
5 Year Member
Can we please stop with the idea of just because a player is smaller they are more susceptible to injury. It is more about usage/how many times they touch the rock.


There are two major exceptions to this trend. Heavier running backs exhibit lower injury rates than their lighter counterparts. This may be because of differences in the way heavier running backs are used. Our running back category included both halfbacks and fullbacks, so instead of an effect of weight we may simply be seeing that fullbacks or heavy halfbacks receive fewer carries and thus have fewer chances to get hurt. Supporting this hypothesis of "confounding by role" is a small negative correlation between weight and rush attempts among running backs in 2016 and 2017.
This preliminary analysis found that heavier players have higher injury rates after controlling for position. Because of the residual confounding by role present at least among running backs, a good next step would be to further control for usage and see if the association of higher weight with higher injury rates remains.


C
 
Last edited:

LarstheRed

Travel Squad
5 Year Member
Blah, blah, blah...just give it up, your argument is empty.
This is a great example of why you do what you do for a living, and savvy football people are making the decisions on our sidelines. Adrenaline took Luke as far as it could, then physical reality took over.
 

Oracle of Lincoln

Scout Team
5 Year Member
Luke, right now at least, doesn't seem to have as much of a grasp on the passing offense
Are you talking about the passing offense that was nearly nonexistent in the Iowa 2nd half? How could he have been a less of a threat? Luke had already completed a long pass that AM has missed all year. Sorry but your theories aren’t based in reality.
 
Last edited:

goodnterribles

Regulators! Let's mount up.
5 Year Member
Are you talking about the passing offense that was nearly nonexistent in the Iowa 2nd half? How could he have been a less of a threat? Luke had already completed a long pass that AM has missed all year. Sorry but your theories aren’t based in reality.
On a trick play. But of course you knew that.
 
Top