Oregon strength coach suspended for hospitalizations

[Hedgerunner]

http://www.cbssports.com/college-fo...ditioning-coach-amid-player-hospitalizations/

 

[Knucklehank1]

How long till "players are just soft these days" guy shows up?

 

[beantowncard]

Players are just soft these days.

 

[Rollem Cards]

There is no doubt there is a difference.

Before 1970 (approx) you didn't even get water breaks. Nobody died. Nobody went to the hospital, and we were out there in 98 degree heat and a dirt field, and a Bear Bryant player for a coach.

BUT....a "big" player was 230 lbs.

 

[Knucklehank1]

Players are just soft these days.

There it is

 

[KingHenry_X]

There it is

They are, and are only going to get softer with rules that are making the game less physical.

 

[Knucklehank1]

They are, and are only going to get softer with rules that are making the game less physical.

Lol. Players today are stronger and more physical than ever before hence the need to control the physicality.

 

[KingHenry_X]

Lol. Players today are stronger and more physical than ever before hence the need to control the physicality.

Service members also know the occupational risks of being blown up, shot or maimed. Yet they still volunteer. And they do so without fame or riches or even full scholarships. Yet we need to draw back the very thing that makes the sport attractive. I'm all for taking precautions once the injury is diagnosed, but changing the rules to avoid injury is BS. Players today may be bigger and stronger, but no way you can convince me more physical. Let me know when one of them cuts their own finger off on the sideline so that they can get back in the game.

 

[Knucklehank1]

Service members also know the occupational risks of being blown up, shot or maimed. Yet they still volunteer. And they do so without fame or riches or even full scholarships. Yet we need to draw back the very thing that makes the sport attractive. I'm all for taking precautions once the injury is diagnosed, but changing the rules to avoid injury is BS. Players today may be bigger and stronger, but no way you can convince me more physical. Let me know when one of them cuts their own finger off on the sideline so that they can get back in the game.

In the Civil War soldiers stood in lines and used fixed bayonets and would charge at the enemy - does that mean they were more brave? In the First World War soldiers sogged through trenches charging through no-mans land, did that mean they were tougher? Your military analogy was out of left field, but doesn't really work anyway.

Changing rules to limit injuries makes sense just as not charging with bayonets makes sense.

Based on the explosion in TV ratings it looks like the sport is still quite attractive.

 

[KingHenry_X]

In the Civil War soldiers stood in lines and used fixed bayonets and would charge at the enemy - does that mean they were more brave? In the First World War soldiers sogged through trenches charging through no-mans land, did that mean they were tougher?

Yes. Yes it does. It would be foolish to argue otherwise.

Changing rules to limit injuries makes sense just as not charging with bayonets makes sense.

We still fix bayonets for close-quarter battlefield combat and are trained to do so. Should we have to engage in that type of conflict, it would be necessary as it was in Vietnam, Korea and WWII. Engaging guerrilla fighters is an entirely different ballgame. So, the analogy - including your own - makes sense if you had the requisite knowledge of both scenarios.

Based on the explosion in TV ratings it looks like the sport is still quite attractive.

Wrong. Based on what data? The storyline all season has been "why have the rating for the NFL taken such a nosedive?"

 

[Knucklehank1]

The Super Bowl in 1975 (back when real tough guys played football) drew 56M viewers. Last year it drew 111M viewers. I could go on and on but the data won't support your idealizing of the good ole days argument.

 

[Cardinal Cash]

Yes. Yes it does. It would be foolish to argue otherwise.


We still fix bayonets for close-quarter battlefield combat and are trained to do so. Should we have to engage in that type of conflict, it would be necessary as it was in Vietnam, Korea and WWII. Engaging guerrilla fighters is an entirely different ballgame. So, the analogy - including your own - makes sense if you had the requisite knowledge of both scenarios.


Wrong. Based on what data? The storyline all season has been "why have the rating for the NFL taken such a nosedive?"

I think he was saying why would anyone in modern society stand in a line when there are clearly smarter and better ways to fight while minimizing casualty. It would be ignorant, not brave to fight this way. There is a difference between being brave and being ignorant. The world eventually figured out Guerilla warfare was the way to go and now drone warfare will be the way to go. Minimizing casualty on your side is only logical, not cowardly. Hence, we should try to minimize injury for the sake of the players because it is smart, not cowardly. I think he has you on the military analogy, but I agree with you that the game is getting too soft. It is drastically changing how physical the game is and that was clearly the most exciting part. Although the smart thing to do to preserve the talent on the field would be to minimize their risk of injury.

 

[Rollem Cards]

I'm curious if the SB will take a hit in viewers this year, or will the SB parties, and commercials, trump the apathy.

I already have no interest in the game. (But I would like for anybody beat Pitt or NE)

 

[KingHenry_X]

The Super Bowl in 1975 (back when real tough guys played football) drew 56M viewers. Last year it drew 111M viewers. I could go on and on but the data won't support your idealizing of the good ole days argument.

So, you are comparing TV ratings, 40 years ago, prior to cable television or the internet to today? As if we had comparible populations or means of mass marketing. Good point. Were the stadiums and suites smaller then too captain obvious?

Are you implying that because the sport is more visible 40 years later to wider audiences, that the players are tougher? Again, when a player today cuts off his own finger so that he can get back into the game, you let me know.

 

[KingHenry_X]

I think he was saying why would anyone in modern society stand in a line when there are clearly smarter and better ways to fight while minimizing casualty. It would be ignorant, not brave to fight this way. There is a difference between being brave and being ignorant. The world eventually figured out Guerilla warfare was the way to go and now drone warfare will be the way to go. Minimizing casualty on your side is only logical, not cowardly. Hence, we should try to minimize injury for the sake of the players because it is smart, not cowardly. I think he has you on the military analogy, but I agree with you that the game is getting too soft. It is drastically changing how physical the game is and that was clearly the most exciting part. Although the smart thing to do to preserve the talent on the field would be to minimize their risk of injury.

Cash, I'm a Marine veteran with 3 tours in OIF and two in OEF. You sure you want to have this debate with me?

 

[Cardinal Cash]

Cash, I'm a Marine veteran with 3 tours in OIF and two in OEF. You sure you want to have this debate with me?

Thank you for your service. What I say definitely doesnt hold much water in this debate, but I think that the way the army has changed its style of fighting since the civil war has changed for good reason. Those who fight for our country now are no less brave than the ones who fought then. That's all I will say.

 

[Knucklehank1]

Cash, I'm a Marine veteran with 3 tours in OIF and two in OEF. You sure you want to have this debate with me?

Thank you for your service.

And I played 4 years college football, but that doesn't mean you can't engage in a debate about football with me.

 

[Knucklehank1]

So, you are comparing TV ratings, 40 years ago, prior to cable television or the internet to today? As if we had comparible populations or means of mass marketing. Good point. Were the stadiums and suites smaller then too captain obvious?

Are you implying that because the sport is more visible 40 years later to wider audiences, that the players are tougher? Again, when a player today cuts off his own finger so that he can get back into the game, you let me know.

What time frame do you want to compare? You are the one that said the appeal of the game was declining because it was getting soft. If you are going to make that statement then back it up with some data. Just cause Ronnie Lott cut off his finger doesn't prove any points (although I will say he was A badass and someone I admired as I played safety as well)

 

[KingHenry_X]

Thank you for your service.

And I played 4 years college football, but that doesn't mean you can't engage in a debate about football with me.

Wasn't talking to you Hank, and the debate in question is Cash's assumption that use of bayonets or large-scale infantry battle has no place in modern warfare. Believe me, should we ever go to war with an actual organized power of equal strength, this would indeed be the case.

And I myself and millions of others would willingly admit that soldiers who faced certain death on the battlefields of the civil war, the trenches of WWI, the beaches of the Euro and Pacific campaigns, the ice of Korea, and the Jungles of Vietnam were both braver and tougher. That is respect. They earned that.

But both of you are trying to distract from the point: Rules are taking the physicality out of the game of football. Physicality is the #1 draw to the game of football. The strategy of the game is what most of us who love the game love. But it is the physicality of the game that draws.

As I said before, I am all for medical protocols to protect a player from coming back too soon. But these rules like "targeting" which are being overly enforced are taking away from the game. If it is obvious that one player is attempting to injure or harm another player, call unnecessary roughness.

 

[Cardinal Cash]

Wasn't talking to you Hank, and the debate in question is Cash's assumption that use of bayonets or large-scale infantry battle has no place in modern warfare. Believe me, should we ever go to war with an actual organized power of equal strength, this would indeed be the case.

And I myself and millions of others would willingly admit that soldiers who faced certain death on the battlefields of the civil war, the trenches of WWI, the beaches of the Euro and Pacific campaigns, the ice of Korea, and the Jungles of Vietnam were both braver and tougher. That is respect. They earned that.

But both of you are trying to distract from the point: Rules are taking the physicality out of the game of football. Physicality is the #1 draw to the game of football. The strategy of the game is what most of us who love the game love. But it is the physicality of the game that draws.

As I said before, I am all for medical protocols to protect a player from coming back too soon. But these rules like "targeting" which are being overly enforced are taking away from the game. If it is obvious that one player is attempting to injure or harm another player, call unnecessary roughness.

I wasn't debating the bayonets I was debating the lining up and shooting at each other and how it would not be wise to do that in today's time. I am in agreement that the game is not as great for fans with targeting. I just see why it is a rule. To protect players.

 

[Rollem Cards]

Physicality is the #1 draw to the game of football. But it is the physicality of the game that draws.

This.

Ask NASCAR what happened when they became "civilized". When they banned "rubbing", fighting, and "gamesmanship". Add to that all the whiny little beeches they call drivers, and there ya go.

They now have thousands of empty seats disguised as fans.

Seeing the error of their ways, they tried to go back to the way it was, but it was too late. They lost me and thousands of others.

Have you ever wondered why the NFL DOESN'T have a targeting rule?

People pay to see players, not the Refs.

 

[KingHenry_X]

I wasn't debating the bayonets I was debating the lining up and shooting at each other and how it would not be wise to do that in today's time. I am in agreement that the game is not as great for fans with targeting. I just see why it is a rule. To protect players.

Read again what I wrote, and not what you wanted to read. Large. Scale. Infantry. Battle.

 

[Cardinal Cash]

Read again what I wrote, and not what you wanted to read. Large. Scale. Infantry. Battle.

Just asking purely out of curiosity but what are some noteworthy "Battles" if you will in which there were mass casualties on an open field in which the US army and The Taliban, Al Queda, ISIS or whatever marched out to meet each other with bugles and drummer boys? I don't want to appear sarcastic, but what I mean when I say that war has changed is clearly being lost in your head as well. You can have the last word.

 

[beantowncard]

They are, and are only going to get softer with rules that are making the game less physical.

Ok, here are my rules change suggestions to make the game safer

1. Change the substitution rules back so that players have to go both ways. This will cause players to train more for endurance and less for short, violent bursts of power. In other words, they'll get smaller. Less mass = less violent collisions.
2. Go back to a soft helmet with no face mask. Players will turn their heads when tackling and have fewer head collisions. Helmets won't be used as weapons.
3. Take away the ability of O linemen to use their hands. They will have go back to being blockers, not sumo wrestlers. Another downsize move.

That would also simplify officiating somewhat, and improve the flow of the games.
There-I fixed it.

 

[KingHenry_X]

Just asking purely out of curiosity but what are some noteworthy "Battles" if you will in which there were mass casualties on an open field in which the US army and The Taliban, Al Queda, ISIS or whatever marched out to meet each other with bugles and drummer boys? I don't want to appear sarcastic, but what I mean when I say that war has changed is clearly being lost in your head as well. You can have the last word.

Again you are hearing what you want to hear and imagining something that you have very little knowledge of. Did you miss the part about how large scale infantry battles would become necessary should we go to war with a nation of equal to greater strength - such as Russia or China? Do you think that war with an established and trained military would be the same as engaging The Taliban or ISIS? You think you are being cute or funny with your quip about bugles and drummer boys. You are a college kid with zero experience in this subject stating what type of warfare is relevant in todays world.

Maybe I can simplify it for you since you're struggling with the distinctions:
The mention of bayonets started this conversation, stating their being obsolete.
Were bayonets used in the Civil War? Yes. Were they used in both World Wars? Yes. Were they used in Vietnam? Yes. Are service rifles still equiped to fix bayonets? Yes. Are service members still issued bayonets? Yes. Are service members still trained to use bayonets? Yes. Would battlefield tactics today be similar to those used in the civil war in a battle between two forces meeting at corps strength (several divisions)? Yes. Battlefield tactics used by Sherman and Grant in the civil war were not developed on the fly. They were learned through study at the United States Military Academy which go back to the times of Aleksandr the Great, and many other military innovators throughout time. The tactics and strategies for infantry have changed little over the last 4000 years. They only thing that has changed is advancement in weaponry. And no matter if it is rocks and spears or arrows or cannonballs or mortars or rockets or tanks and close air support...two large forces advancing upon each other will eventually meet and require close quarter combat, to which the bayonet is necessary.

So despite what you think you know by playing Call of Duty on your Xbox, you don't know. Sometimes battles are waged in city streets, sometimes they are fought in the mountains, and sometimes they are fought between two massive forces on the battlefield. The latter hasn't happened recently because we have been engaged in guerrilla warfare with cowards, but it doesn't make that obsolete.
You have this image in your head of two forces standing in line shooting at each other, but that is not only inaccurate, but dismissive of the tactics employed by the commanders of those battles. Commanders today, in the Civil War, the crusades, etc. will still use wedges and flanks to divide and conquer. That is why certain football plays carry those names. They are similar concepts that are relevant no matter the time or the technology.

 

[Cardinal Cash]

Again you are hearing what you want to hear and imagining something that you have very little knowledge of. Did you miss the part about how large scale infantry battles would become necessary should we go to war with a nation of equal to greater strength - such as Russia or China? Do you think that war with an established and trained military would be the same as engaging The Taliban or ISIS? You think you are being cute or funny with your quip about bugles and drummer boys. You are a college kid with zero experience in this subject stating what type of warfare is relevant in todays world.

Maybe I can simplify it for you since you're struggling with the distinctions:
The mention of bayonets started this conversation, stating their being obsolete.
Were bayonets used in the Civil War? Yes. Were they used in both World Wars? Yes. Were they used in Vietnam? Yes. Are service rifles still equiped to fix bayonets? Yes. Are service members still issued bayonets? Yes. Are service members still trained to use bayonets? Yes. Would battlefield tactics today be similar to those used in the civil war in a battle between two forces meeting at corps strength (several divisions)? Yes. Battlefield tactics used by Sherman and Grant in the civil war were not developed on the fly. They were learned through study at the United States Military Academy which go back to the times of Aleksandr the Great, and many other military innovators throughout time. The tactics and strategies for infantry have changed little over the last 4000 years. They only thing that has changed is advancement in weaponry. And no matter if it is rocks and spears or arrows or cannonballs or mortars or rockets or tanks and close air support...two large forces advancing upon each other will eventually meet and require close quarter combat, to which the bayonet is necessary.

So despite what you think you know by playing Call of Duty on your Xbox, you don't know. Sometimes battles are waged in city streets, sometimes they are fought in the mountains, and sometimes they are fought between two massive forces on the battlefield. The latter hasn't happened recently because we have been engaged in guerrilla warfare with cowards, but it doesn't make that obsolete.
You have this image in your head of two forces standing in line shooting at each other, but that is not only inaccurate, but dismissive of the tactics employed by the commanders of those battles. Commanders today, in the Civil War, the crusades, etc. will still use wedges and flanks to divide and conquer. That is why certain football plays carry those names. They are similar concepts that are relevant no matter the time or the technology.

Alright the matter is finished. You make many good points. I guess my revolutionary war and civil war history was not as detailed as it needed to be. I thought it was a little less strategic and more rigid in nature than infantry techniques used in the world wars and in modern times. It's not my field of study so i'll trust you on that.