Corey Taylor made me stop and think last night.
There are many positives about the training requirements and practice goals that players must meet to actually see the field in college. They learn lessons that last them a lifetime. Sacrifice. Mental concentration under stress. Teamwork. Coaches try to make us believe that they are coaching to teach these lessons. That's the line they give and the hook is the millions they make and dont share.
In some cases, mind set actually kills people, whether it is a player on the field at Maryland or a student manager clinging for his life and begging for help via twitter while on top of a riser in 25 mph winds at Notre Dame. Many of us have become desensitized to the brutality we know goes on. And if you've ever played any sport at any level where wins and pride actually matters, you come to miss being pushed to your physical limits when you have grown older.
We've raised our awareness of concussions and we've become accustomed to equipment, rule, and technique changes designed to better protect some of the players on the field, but certainly not all. But those changes are designed to protect players from the long term effects of CTE. They do not protect players from the immediate dangers of the game.
That's because, in the end, nothing can shield players from the brutality of game situations. This brutality has only increased as the average weight of a lineman has grown by 200 lbs since the basic rules were formulated. Not to mention the speed at which 220 lbs can hit you at the linebacker position after five years of scientifically monitored training and nutrition. "Pop" Warner never imagined Ed Oliver on the loose.
By the time the players are in college, they are presumed to be old enough to know the risks and they accept those risks in exchange for a bounty of benefits (but no pay). But last night made me wonder if this consent is coerced.
Perhaps not the insidious coercion that you see portrayed by coaches in movies like Varsity Blues or The Program. But a silent petit coercion that is born from a desire to win, to continue making millions, pride in a system considered proprietary, and a refusal to question the values the coaching staff was brought up in.
In short, yes the game is brutal, but what if an offensive system, or set of offensive game plans, is so flawed that it knowingly or unknowingly causes players injuries they would avoid if any other system or game plan was used.
In short, what if the Montgomery philosophy injures players, specifically running backs?
At what point do we recognize, if the administration and the staff refuse to do so, that this system may be hazardous to the immediate well being of the players being asked to run it.
First there was James Flanders, who was often injured when he played for Montgomery. We were down to a walk-on RB5 at one point in the 10-3 season due to injuries and a suspension. Then the injuries to DeAngelo Brewer, Taylor and Brooks last year. With Brooks down this game, Taylor was made to plunge into a line shortly after begging to exit the game, clearly exhausted, and basically unable to protect himself. We are all lucky he was not further injured on that play.
There's been some discussion in other threads that the coaching staff must not have seen him asking to come out and it was an honest mistake. But such an "honest mistake" was the product of a system that runs aims to run 40 to 60 running plays a game with little or no break between many of those runs. I want to believe that they did not know he was injured because I do not want to believe that they knew he was injured and forced him to play.
That means they likely did not see he was injured because they were more worried about snapping the ball and the tactics needed to exhaust the other team and win the game. Did they make an "honest mistake" because the system and tactics forced that outcome? Is the system itself an "honest mistake"?
At what point do people step in and suggest that we aren't looking at the larger picture? At a certain point, you begin not only to question the outcome of coaching decisions on player's short and long term health, but also the environment of coercion that prevented Corey Taylor from taking one knee and stopping that game.
Players want to play. They lie and play hurt. Simple fact. But they are also under tremendous pressure to play hurt to avoid losing the opportunity to play at all. They are expected to perform to retain their scholarship - a prize worth $300,000 these days. For a 20 year old, there is the pressure we all remember to avoid looking weak. For others, the most important part of playing through injury is not letting your friends down. Most players know that you train all year and only get 12 chances to play. You are not going to sit and lose the opportunity you worked for. For many, these coaches are the only authority figure they have respected in their lives and the only ones that offered them a chance to play big boy ball. Their parents drove long distances and are in the stands. And then a few play for the perks, the girls, etc. The perks are sparse on the bench.
Corey couldn't come out because there was no one else to do the job in that situation. He did his best. But the play call, the system, and his individual motivations coerced him into risking grave injury, at least from my viewpoint.
Boomer, a young inexperienced QB, could have refused to take a snap and protected his teammate. But he was doing what he was told in the time pressure created by the coaching staff. Even if he knew that Taylor was too hurt to go, it is unlikely a first time starter would risk benching for burning the final timeout with the team down and trying to drive. But Boomer doesnt snap that ball without a play being signaled in. The coaching staff could have and should have stopped that game. They should be operating in a manner that protects the players first. They should be the parent.
After three seasons of injuries not caused by single catastrophic plays, but the cumulative effects on several different player of a physical running attack being intentional employed at the point of exhaustion, it is becoming a fair question whether it is prudent for this to continue.
I started this season thinking that it was unwise to run 100 plays if 80 of them were productive and the other 20 lead to injuries and turnovers. I'm starting to think it is unethical to do so too.
Food for thought.
Thoughtful replies always appreciated.
There are many positives about the training requirements and practice goals that players must meet to actually see the field in college. They learn lessons that last them a lifetime. Sacrifice. Mental concentration under stress. Teamwork. Coaches try to make us believe that they are coaching to teach these lessons. That's the line they give and the hook is the millions they make and dont share.
In some cases, mind set actually kills people, whether it is a player on the field at Maryland or a student manager clinging for his life and begging for help via twitter while on top of a riser in 25 mph winds at Notre Dame. Many of us have become desensitized to the brutality we know goes on. And if you've ever played any sport at any level where wins and pride actually matters, you come to miss being pushed to your physical limits when you have grown older.
We've raised our awareness of concussions and we've become accustomed to equipment, rule, and technique changes designed to better protect some of the players on the field, but certainly not all. But those changes are designed to protect players from the long term effects of CTE. They do not protect players from the immediate dangers of the game.
That's because, in the end, nothing can shield players from the brutality of game situations. This brutality has only increased as the average weight of a lineman has grown by 200 lbs since the basic rules were formulated. Not to mention the speed at which 220 lbs can hit you at the linebacker position after five years of scientifically monitored training and nutrition. "Pop" Warner never imagined Ed Oliver on the loose.
By the time the players are in college, they are presumed to be old enough to know the risks and they accept those risks in exchange for a bounty of benefits (but no pay). But last night made me wonder if this consent is coerced.
Perhaps not the insidious coercion that you see portrayed by coaches in movies like Varsity Blues or The Program. But a silent petit coercion that is born from a desire to win, to continue making millions, pride in a system considered proprietary, and a refusal to question the values the coaching staff was brought up in.
In short, yes the game is brutal, but what if an offensive system, or set of offensive game plans, is so flawed that it knowingly or unknowingly causes players injuries they would avoid if any other system or game plan was used.
In short, what if the Montgomery philosophy injures players, specifically running backs?
At what point do we recognize, if the administration and the staff refuse to do so, that this system may be hazardous to the immediate well being of the players being asked to run it.
First there was James Flanders, who was often injured when he played for Montgomery. We were down to a walk-on RB5 at one point in the 10-3 season due to injuries and a suspension. Then the injuries to DeAngelo Brewer, Taylor and Brooks last year. With Brooks down this game, Taylor was made to plunge into a line shortly after begging to exit the game, clearly exhausted, and basically unable to protect himself. We are all lucky he was not further injured on that play.
There's been some discussion in other threads that the coaching staff must not have seen him asking to come out and it was an honest mistake. But such an "honest mistake" was the product of a system that runs aims to run 40 to 60 running plays a game with little or no break between many of those runs. I want to believe that they did not know he was injured because I do not want to believe that they knew he was injured and forced him to play.
That means they likely did not see he was injured because they were more worried about snapping the ball and the tactics needed to exhaust the other team and win the game. Did they make an "honest mistake" because the system and tactics forced that outcome? Is the system itself an "honest mistake"?
At what point do people step in and suggest that we aren't looking at the larger picture? At a certain point, you begin not only to question the outcome of coaching decisions on player's short and long term health, but also the environment of coercion that prevented Corey Taylor from taking one knee and stopping that game.
Players want to play. They lie and play hurt. Simple fact. But they are also under tremendous pressure to play hurt to avoid losing the opportunity to play at all. They are expected to perform to retain their scholarship - a prize worth $300,000 these days. For a 20 year old, there is the pressure we all remember to avoid looking weak. For others, the most important part of playing through injury is not letting your friends down. Most players know that you train all year and only get 12 chances to play. You are not going to sit and lose the opportunity you worked for. For many, these coaches are the only authority figure they have respected in their lives and the only ones that offered them a chance to play big boy ball. Their parents drove long distances and are in the stands. And then a few play for the perks, the girls, etc. The perks are sparse on the bench.
Corey couldn't come out because there was no one else to do the job in that situation. He did his best. But the play call, the system, and his individual motivations coerced him into risking grave injury, at least from my viewpoint.
Boomer, a young inexperienced QB, could have refused to take a snap and protected his teammate. But he was doing what he was told in the time pressure created by the coaching staff. Even if he knew that Taylor was too hurt to go, it is unlikely a first time starter would risk benching for burning the final timeout with the team down and trying to drive. But Boomer doesnt snap that ball without a play being signaled in. The coaching staff could have and should have stopped that game. They should be operating in a manner that protects the players first. They should be the parent.
After three seasons of injuries not caused by single catastrophic plays, but the cumulative effects on several different player of a physical running attack being intentional employed at the point of exhaustion, it is becoming a fair question whether it is prudent for this to continue.
I started this season thinking that it was unwise to run 100 plays if 80 of them were productive and the other 20 lead to injuries and turnovers. I'm starting to think it is unethical to do so too.
Food for thought.
Thoughtful replies always appreciated.
Last edited:
