ADVERTISEMENT

Anybody else think we have excessive substitutions?

westx

Well-Known Member
Dec 6, 2009
8,124
4,884
113
I don't really understand how the decision making process is to take out a starter and sub in a freshman or backup. I am not bashing Herman or the coordinators, but I think it is a legitimate point. Last year was last year and I just attributed it to finding players that really wanted it and seeing which players gelled. Of course this is barring injury on the field. If Brandon Jones won his position last year, this spring and in fall camp, why take him out and put a freshman in? There are so many factors that go into making a mistake and many times it is another team members fault as well. I can't get into who is in the secondary because we have somebody different every play it seems. Same goes for our running backs. Just leave Watson and Young in. It isn't necessary to bring in Porter or Ingram. Why must they put in a different running back each play. I don't see any other teams, college or pro, doing this. I believe it can be good on occasion if you have two even players and you want to see who emerges, but, I think overall, the way Herman/coaches are currently doing it is more harmful than good. If somebody wins there position outright, they aren't perfect and will have an off play. They can't be expected to play loose when this strategy is used excessively, instead they play insecure or not to F up. Just a rant in a sh*tty Saturday thus far.
 
Last year TH said that Drayton chose what running back gets to play. I think it is time to take that privilege away from him. I thought he was a great hire, but he just seems to pull our running back if they have too much momentum and are making plays.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Tower
Look, you fellas have forgotten more about football than I will ever know. So I kind of translate the substitution situation into terms I'm familiar with. Over-specialization. I see it in academia all the time. It's one reason why American students are so abysmal when it comes to history knowledge. We don't teach broad themes and general knowledge anymore. Instead, it is all about specialization. A few years ago I was doing some research on dissertation topics. I remember one dissertation being researched was something along the lines of "Pre-Columbian Lesbian Poets in Native Communities of the American Southwest". Seriously. I mean if someone obtains a PhD in that, they are going to be the freaking expert on it, but how big a demand is there for that kind of knowledge. Over-specialization. That person obtains a PhD and then they go on to teach. Only problem is they begin to filter everything they have to teach, through that specialty lens.

My point is, we seem to have specific plays for specific players. If you keep changing the playsets, you're going to wind up with players running in and out and no one is going to find a rhythm. Lord it would be nice to have an every down back again.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: clob94 and westx
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT