Jaylen Raynor VLOG

[rosshm16]

I don't know if we've had an unusual number of total injuries in recent football seasons. Maybe it's a little high but I don't think dramatically so. The weirdness/unlikeliness has been in whole position-groups going down. We lost multiple kickers FFS.

How we won 11 games while trotting out walk-ons at linebacker against P4 opponents is a wonder. Football is a fickle game, a few key plays or key 50/50 calls can be the difference between a great season and disappointing one, wins-wise.

 

[MeowingCows]

Yeah, you're right, my bad. My point remains. The scheme puts the middle safety in harm's way too often.

It's not so much that it's "in harms way", the scheme puts our box safeties into super-high-usage situations. They're involved in practically every play -- it's a big key for making 3-3 stack work well. Box safeties/SS's are the utility players of every play. They took tons of hits and recorded tons of tackles. I've wondered in the past if the real issue was inadequate subbing at the position, but at the same time, it's a tough position to sub because you need that player to be exceptionally good.

 

[AuH2O]

It's not so much that it's "in harms way", the scheme puts our box safeties into super-high-usage situations. They're involved in practically every play -- it's a big key for making 3-3 stack work well. Box safeties/SS's are the utility players of every play. They took tons of hits and recorded tons of tackles. I've wondered in the past if the real issue was inadequate subbing at the position, but at the same time, it's a tough position to sub because you need that player to be exceptionally good.

I'd say in general any position that plays a traditional or something that is similar to a traditional SS is probably going to be a high injury risk, up there with RBs. It's just the reality for these positions that they are going to be having a lot of high-speed collisions with larger players. That's just the nature of the position in most schemes and at all levels, not just ISU. ISU might be an exaggerated version of that, but it's kind of a common theme in football.

 

[SolarGarlic]

It's not so much that it's "in harms way", the scheme puts our box safeties into super-high-usage situations. They're involved in practically every play -- it's a big key for making 3-3 stack work well. Box safeties/SS's are the utility players of every play. They took tons of hits and recorded tons of tackles. I've wondered in the past if the real issue was inadequate subbing at the position, but at the same time, it's a tough position to sub because you need that player to be exceptionally good.

In other words, harm's way.

 

[MeowingCows]

In other words, harm's way.

I think that's just "football". SS still takes many fewer hits than, say, linemen... but linemen tend to rotate in and out much more. The rotation is the key. Our chosen scheme makes it somewhat worse, but nobody anywhere is safe in that particular spot anymore.

 

[MeowingCows]

I'd say in general any position that plays a traditional or something that is similar to a traditional SS is probably going to be a high injury risk, up there with RBs. It's just the reality for these positions that they are going to be having a lot of high-speed collisions with larger players. That's just the nature of the position in most schemes and at all levels, not just ISU. ISU might be an exaggerated version of that, but it's kind of a common theme in football.

Definitely, at least the way football is nowadays. It's the natural result of putting more nickel-type personnel on the field way more often. That's not going away any time soon; to me, that says more load management at the position(s) is needed.

 

[SolarGarlic]

I think that's just "football". SS still takes many fewer hits than, say, linemen... but linemen tend to rotate in and out much more. The rotation is the key.

They are much smaller than lineman. Our safeties were often playing at the line of scrimmage and relied on to make the tackle, where linebackers traditionally make those plays. In the 3-3-5, our LB were plugging gaps to funnel the ball carrier to the downhill safety or corner.

It was just funny that you said "not really harm's way" and then proceeded to describe the exact definition of harm's way: a position of danger, risk, or potential injury.

 

[MeowingCows]

They are much smaller than lineman. Our safeties were often playing at the line of scrimmage and relied on to make the tackle, where linebackers traditionally make those plays. In the 3-3-5, our LB were plugging gaps to funnel the ball carrier to the downhill safety or corner.

It was just funny that you said "not really harm's way" and then proceeded to describe the exact definition of harm's way: a position of danger, risk, or potential injury.

Again, like, that's just football. Everyone takes hits. A lot. We've had a ton of LB injuries too over the years, to go with the safeties, but plugging up holes and otherwise just standing in coverage isn't quite as dangerous, right?

"Traditionally" is carrying a lot of weight here, as I said in this:

Definitely, at least the way football is nowadays. It's the natural result of putting more nickel-type personnel on the field way more often. That's not going away any time soon; to me, that says more load management at the position(s) is needed.

This problem is not at all unique to our stack scheme and it's not going away. Same issue in 3-2-6/dime schemes, same issue with 4-2-5, same issue with 4-3 or 3-4 in cases where a safety is subbed in for one of the LBs. It's the gradual change to more DBs being on the field, but someone still has to be responsible for taking the brunt of the frontal load. That's these guys, in any of those schemes. We have to put lighter guys in that position so they can cover both run and pass well.

I haven't seen a concrete answer from the staff yet (maybe I just missed it), but my guess based on how they rebuilt the D roster is that we're looking at a 4-2-5 base coming up. The SS in that scheme is doing practically the same job that he does in 3-3, so if you thought that was putting them in harm's way, I've got some bad news for you. It's coming again in very similar fashion.

 

[CycloneRulzzz]

Had a couple interactions with our QB1 last week. one was his getting ready to eat when I was on a 10 minute break. Basically just exchanged hey's.

Next night I was getting my to go box at the end of the night. He came up needing a to go box from the front of the house people but they were busy so I got to hand him a to go box.