good gamesmanship.
What do you think happens every time he runs between the tackles? The rationale behind that has never resonated with me. Football players play football. Every time they line up and snap the ball there is a very real risk of injury. As long as DS is in the game and being used, its an acceptable risk.I don't like it. Why place your potential star RB in a situation where he can get completely clobbered?
Sorry . . . . but when was the last time you remember a punter with a catastrophic injury. When your biggest injury concern is whether you will pull a hammy in your kicking leg on a cold day, the bullseye just isn't there.i'm in the 'this is a stupid idea' category. punters already have a big bulls-eye on their jersey after the returner catches the ball and tries to do something with it. the punter is fair game once the return is on, is he not? it's just a stupid risk. and sorry, but isn't our punter still matt dilallo? it's our field goal unit that will suck big-time this year, not our punting.
at least we won't have to worry about it till our game against eastern washington. i don't suspect we will have a fourth down until then.
What do you think happens every time he runs between the tackles? The rationale behind that has never resonated with me. Football players play football. Every time they line up and snap the ball there is a very real risk of injury. As long as DS is in the game and being used, its an acceptable risk.
Isn't that taking a dive in what-the-rest-of-the-world-calls-football?
Not going to get into a pissing match about punters. Can you name one who suffered a serious injury in the last two years? Better yet, can you name one? As a lineman I have a healthy and experience-nurtured disregard and lack of respect for the "obvious" risks faced by punters. The risk back there is no greater than the risk up front every snap. Actually, you are right, they aren't comparable situations. The punter is a hell of lot safer back there and I've got the scars to prove it.There is a huge difference. When he is running the ball he is looking up field and can prepare for the hit. Obviously there is still risk.
When he is punting the ball, he is standing on one leg with his other leg extending forward. That is no position to be taking a hit. It seems obvious to me that they aren't comparable situations.
Not going to get into a pissing match about punters. Can you name one who suffered a serious injury in the last two years? Better yet, can you name one? As a lineman I have a healthy and experience-nurtured disregard and lack of respect for the "obvious" risks faced by punters. The risk back there is no greater than the risk up front every snap. Actually, you are right, they aren't comparable situations. The punter is a hell of lot safer back there and I've got the scars to prove it.
When he is punting the ball, he is standing on one leg with his other leg extending forward. That is no position to be taking a hit. It seems obvious to me that they aren't comparable situations.
Not going to get into a pissing match about punters. Can you name one who suffered a serious injury in the last two years? Better yet, can you name one? As a lineman I have a healthy and experience-nurtured disregard and lack of respect for the "obvious" risks faced by punters. The risk back there is no greater than the risk up front every snap. Actually, you are right, they aren't comparable situations. The punter is a hell of lot safer back there and I've got the scars to prove it.
Especially becuase your supposed to hit him in scenario 1 but in number 2 you aren't allowed to and its a 15 yard penalty.
Not going to get into a pissing match about punters. Can you name one who suffered a serious injury in the last two years? Better yet, can you name one? As a lineman I have a healthy and experience-nurtured disregard and lack of respect for the "obvious" risks faced by punters. The risk back there is no greater than the risk up front every snap. Actually, you are right, they aren't comparable situations. The punter is a hell of lot safer back there and I've got the scars to prove it.
http://www.buffzone.com/blogs/buffzone-sports/2008/jul/22/scott/
"Hawkins said he might put Scott back to punt at times this season and going forward in his career because of the problems it will cause opponents. Of course, Scott will have to prove he can be an effective punter in those situations for the move to have maximum impact on punt return teams."
Here's an IDEA, solder can run for a big guy,let him return punts!
Here's another idea, scott is a RB leave alone. Have players actually play their positions. What a concept!
This post brought to you by.....kai maiava
The Wizz punted, he did it all. Scott can be the next Wizz!
The other thing to consider is this, you OL are expecting and prepared for the other team to take shots at you. You can generally do a decent job of protecting yourself and also retaliating for any shenanigans. The punter has to focus on kicking and can't really do much to protect themselves from cheap shots. Not that they are usually worried about that. However, if you put, arguably, the best player on your entire roster back there the other team is going to have more incentive to take a run at him...15 yard penalty or not. Yes, teams can take shots at him when he's playing RB, but like I said, he's more prepared for that and he can do a good job of protecting himself and giving a bit of punishment of his own to the tackler (i.e. Walter Payton).
I would be absolutely shocked if this idea ever comes to fruition. Seems like a cheap tactic to light some fire under DiLallo. You can never take what a football coach says to the media at face value because about 75% of it is pure, unadulterated bull****.
I'm pretty sure he is still going to play RB.
No .
Yeah, no ****.
I find it pretty stupid myself.
Good thing football hasn't changed much in the last 70 years.:wink2:
I find it pretty stupid myself.