We open as an 11.5 point favorite. They were down to their 3rd string qb in Boise the other night, so I'm not sure who will be starting for them in Tulsa this weekend.
New Mexico
- Thread starter goldenhurricane2
- Start date
I suspect 9 days is sufficient to get him through the concussion protocol so I expect to see numero uno.
Did you see the hit that took the QB out? He probably still has no idea where he is. Sad thing is, that DL missed the rest of that game and that is all...Brubaker is going to have to sit out on a bogus targeting call where his arm made contact with the QBs neck while Brubaker is being grabbed and yanked and shoved. Does anyone know what targeting is anymore? The kid from Boise should miss a minimum of 3 games. He launched and his intent was to injure.
Hopefully TU is appealing Brubaker's targeting ejection and can get it rescinded. I'm all for making sure QBs and defenseless players are protected from careless hits, but this one was pretty ridiculous.
So was their qb that got knocked out their starter or backup? For some reason I thought they had already lost their starter and were down to their backup when he got knocked out.
The starter got knocked out and the backup was already injured so the third stringer had to come in the game.
Looks like New Mexico is planning to start the 3rd stringer as the two others are still both in the concussion protocol.
He should be safe with us. Hardly hit a quarterback yet.
They said the starter is definitely out for this Saturday and the back-up is touch and go but they are preparing for life without him.
I generally hate the targeting penalty, but this was an easy call for the refs. Textbook example of what not to do...
Vicious Hit...Mr. Butkus would be proud !I generally hate the targeting penalty, but this was an easy call for the refs. Textbook example of what not to do...
Easy to see, he didn't even try to go for the body. Went straight for the head.I generally hate the targeting penalty, but this was an easy call for the refs. Textbook example of what not to do...
That hit would have the same bone-jarring effect if he lowered his shoulder and ran through his sternum. RIght now the UNM QB has a pile of oatmeal for a brain because this kid went head hunting.
He got a concussion. He'll be ok. The OL and DL who hit head to head every play just by nature of the sport are much worse off than a QB with a concussion.
I'm not disputing you on that at all. Well maybe the point about he has a concussion but will be OK...Austin Collie never fully recovered from his concussion issues well enough to continue playing. Danny Amendola is now predisposed to concussions (after the 1st one you are more prone to suffer future concussions). The fact that UNM ruled the QB out of the game already without seeing how he progresses means that this one was pretty serious. Watching the kid not being able to walk...pretty serious. Remember, studies show that the effects of concussions are cumulative, not singular and independent, in nature. He will never be the same.
On your point of OL and DL-there are probably a ton of concussions that go undiagnosed within those player groups as the symptoms and signs may not be overt until after the individual has suffered from many small concussions.
I've had 5(insert joke about how it explains a lot). He will be fine provided he doesn't go out and get another concussion tomorrow. It's a short term problem like having the flu. His OL and DL pals that have been playing football since 5th grade.....they will be the ones with CTE. Sure if you have a lot of them there can be longer term issues, but the long term brain injury risk is the sport itself. The focus on concussions and targeting is mostly just for show to make us feel better about a sport that causes brain damage with or without concussions.
I really don't want to get on my concussion soap box (steps onto soap box):
For starters - you don't know that he will be OK. While I'm not totally on the freak out train regarding concussions, brain injuries are weird. 80-90% of the time people recover in 7-10 days. the other 10-20% have mixed recovery times and mixed results. The more concussions you have, the more they think you are at risk. (FWIW, I've been hospitalized 3 times with "I have no idea what's going on" level of concussions, with no lasting affects that I know of). So hopefully this illegal hit disrupts the game, knocks a key player out for a couple of weeks, and increases his risk for future brain injuries... and that's "all."
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/07/concussion-recovery-blood-test/399767/
Second, and most on point here I think, there is little that can be done on the field to prevent the head banging in the line. The same goes for tackling a ball carrier who can defend himself or a myriad of other hits. Football is a collision sport, other than better equipment or trying to stop it from being a collision sport - there is a certain level of risk that is going to be involved. But there are certain hits that aren't needed; they increase the risk and add nothing to the game (namely: clipping, illegal chop blocks, low late hits on the QB, and targeting).
Again, when a corner back lays into a receiver and gets called for targeting I'm the guy most likely to argue that he was just trying to make a play. Even when its one of our guys that gets laid out. But in some instances it seems a strong and effective hit could be laid without launching into the other guys head. I get why the rule is there, I get that it is a judgment call, but I usually don't like it. In the above instance, I was OK with it.
This one I'm on the fence about. To me it looks like the defender is trying to lay a shoulder into Jackson and make sure he goes down. The play moves faster than anticipated and head to head contact results. Bad outcome, but there was a reason to go for a clean play. I think by the rule, this is targeting... same result if the tacklers head was up?
This one looks like a hard block to me, leading with the shoulder. A brutal hit for sure, but he didn't seem to "target" the head or neck area:
Not sure it is so difficult. Tackle with your face mask up. Do not flex the neck down as you go in with the shoulder. All of the videos you show are targeting in my book but the Lamb one is the weakest. He never hit him with his helmet and was a shoulder blow below the players head; but if you look at it again you will see his helmet crown is coming forward. Lead with face mask and both players are more protected.
To talk about concussions being no big deal is really silly.
I see dangerous hits where the helmet is led with every game with no penalties. Simply call those plays penalties and it will be cleared up. Protect the blocker/tackler and the player getting hit.
To talk about concussions being no big deal is really silly.
I see dangerous hits where the helmet is led with every game with no penalties. Simply call those plays penalties and it will be cleared up. Protect the blocker/tackler and the player getting hit.
Bru's was the weakest. He didn't even hit Woodside with his helmet. They've obviously emphasized hits to the head this year with any part of the body.
I agree on Brus as the weakest. Was not even commenting on that one but rather on the other three in the thread. Regardless, it is good thing to protect players from hits to the head. I all for calling a penalty for a hit to the head but The targeting penalty has gotten out of hand. The disqualification/suspension should be kept for the viscous hits like the first one in this thread where the NM qb its taken out.
Like it matters who they play at qb.....hell, put me in there....I could pitch a tent, build a campfire, and charcoal some burgers before our defense ever got to me....good for at least a dozen td's on first down!!! And I'm almost 70 years old!!!!!
Nuke Knew Messico!!!
Nuke Knew Messico!!!
Fine the coaches $25K for every targeting and dock the whole staff a day of telephone and text contact with recruits for every disqualification and these problems will go away tomorrow.,
That's not what was said, but you know that. An individual concussion is usually not serious. Several over a short period, of course that's serious. The point was that the freakout over concussions has been a bit over the top when you consider that concussions aren't really the cause of what they're worried about. Outlawing "targeting" will do almost nothing to address the long term problem.
Last edited:
Correct...somewhat. The problem is not the number of diagnosed concussions, but the number of smaller ones an individual may suffer that go undiagnosed because there are no overt symptoms. Some studies theorize that kids age 10 and younger suffer mini-concussions just through jumping up and down repeatedly on a trampoline. The brain doesn't fill the brain cavity of the skull and the motion can create a repeated "bumped head" but internally. This is the concern of starting youth football at such an early age. The repeated collisions with other players whether helmet to helmet or not, creates the same "rattle" effect.
Redskin is right though, a lot of these rules are reactionary to lawsuits later on that the organizations didn't do enough to protect players and their long term health. US Soccer changed it's heading rules for youth players as a reaction to a lawsuit it lost. The problem is not the headers, its the collisions with elbows and other heads when players go up for headers. Now, because of the new rules, coaches for kids under the age of 12 can't actually practice headers or teach kids how to do them correctly.
You are correct. If they were actually serious they would be ordered to contact every recruit they have had contact with that year who has not yet signed a letter of intent and inform them that the coach hasn’t taught or disciplined his players properly resulting in the team being penalized and the safety of his players being put at risk.
I see this as a win. I'm just hoping we can come out of the game with all of our Defensive Linemen in good shape to go up against a good Navy triple option where they will all be needed. (Monty also mentioned that a rising Tulane is running some form of an option in his press conference, so that makes the D-Line's health even more paramount to any chances of success going forward)
Yes, I have observed Tulane run the option. You don't need to rely on our coach's statements on that. They actually ran it against OU. The trick is if you get them down a couple of possessions, they have to throw. And wow.
I'm just looking forward to seeing us get back on track...
Last edited:
I think Navy is a bit overrated this season, based on their recent past. Will be interesting to see how we do against them.(making an assumption about a win vs New Mexico)
I actually knew their coach was installing an option offense when he got hired but he didn't have all the pieces yet so it wasn't a full option offense last year when we played them.
I don't watch Tulane and I certainly don't watch OU if I can help it so I didn't know to what degree they were using it until Monty mentioned remaining cognizant about it. Thanks for that though.
Remember, the Navy game last year was an anomaly in terms of TU's game plan against them. Every other team we tried to run the ball down their throats. In the Navy game, we threw the ball downfield...a lot. Navy had matchup problems with our WRs. We threw the ball on 1st down more than I remember in any other game last year. Navy's DL are a bit undersized because of Navy service restrictions. Navy is just an interesting dynamic. The way they win is they don't make mental mistakes and they are near flawless in their offensive execution because of their discipline.
However, if that is the game plan going into the Navy game next week because Monty sees the same philosophical deficiency he did last year, it will really test President.
Tulane's option is more similar to the crazy stuff New Mexico runs versus what you see from Navy, Air Force, and Georgia Tech.
Getting that 3rd or 4th down stop against Navy is always tough because they rarely have negative yards and they can usually pound out 2.5 to 3 yards a carry against pretty much any defense they face. I think the turnover battle is supremely important against them. We have to make them commit a fumble or two (BEFORE THE FINAL WHISTLE...grumble..grumble...forward progress my ass...)
Similar threads
