Phil Steele on Cal in his 2018 Preview

5,431 Views | 18 Replies | Last: 5 yr ago by 71Bear
BearGreg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
As always, Phil out data's and out analyzes all the other preview publications. While I find some of his conclusions dubious, there's much in here to like.

Some tidbits on the Bears:

  • On his experience chart (looks at multiple facets around returning experience), Cal is the 2nd most experienced team in the Pac 12, just behind UW and 18th nationally
  • Cal's schedule finished last year as the 6th most difficult nationally. Steele projects our schedule to be far easier at 49th in 2018
  • Cal ranks 11th nationally under his most improved team analysis
Bear19
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Looks like enough wins to lock down a Bowl appearance.
Bear 19
GivemTheAxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearGreg said:

As always, Phil out data's and out analyzes all the other preview publications. While I find some of his conclusions dubious, there's much in here to like.

Some tidbits on the Bears:

  • On his experience chart (looks at multiple facets around returning experience), Cal is the 2nd most experienced team in the Pac 12, just behind UW and 18th nationally
  • Cal's schedule finished last year as the 6th most difficult nationally. Steele projects our schedule to be far easier at 49th in 2018
  • Cal ranks 11th nationally under his most improved team analysis


I have always liked PS even though I tend to get lost in all the data he provides.
PS prizes experience and usually he is correct.
Unfortunately In the late JT years Cal often underperformed in those years PS had predicted a successful season based upon our experience.
IMO that was due to poor coaching and not as much on poor predicting.
I look forward to reading his entire report.
tequila4kapp
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I haven't followed it that closely for several years but Steele used to be the guy who did the best job assessing teams. Hopefully that holds true.
71Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearGreg said:

As always, Phil out data's and out analyzes all the other preview publications. While I find some of his conclusions dubious, there's much in here to like.

Some tidbits on the Bears:

  • On his experience chart (looks at multiple facets around returning experience), Cal is the 2nd most experienced team in the Pac 12, just behind UW and 18th nationally
  • Cal's schedule finished last year as the 6th most difficult nationally. Steele projects our schedule to be far easier at 49th in 2018
  • Cal ranks 11th nationally under his most improved team analysis

re: the schedule...

The only difference is substituting BYU for Mississippi, switching FCS opponents and the reversal of the conference home/road games. How does that equate to a drop of 43 spots? Quite frankly, I think last year the schedule was far easier than 6th toughest (both Carolina and Mississippi were flops and the conference was weak overall - as we saw in the bowl season). 49th sounds right for this year but I think last year warranted a spot in the 40's as well.

Note: Sagarin had Cal listed as 40th toughest schedule at the end of last season.
kad02002
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Just out of curiosity, did this preview take into account the Stovall and Robertson transfers?
golden sloth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
In my 15 years of following college football closely, I've learned to take bowl season results very lightly. There are so many different factors that come into play that the results are mostly meaningless and don't reflect the true quality of teams or conferences. They are exhibition games, and should be treated as such.
Nasal Mucus Goldenbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearGreg said:

While I find some of his conclusions dubious...
Which of his conclusions are dubious?


UCBerkGrad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The dubious ones
tequila4kapp
How long do you want to ignore this user?
71Bear said:

BearGreg said:

As always, Phil out data's and out analyzes all the other preview publications. While I find some of his conclusions dubious, there's much in here to like.

Some tidbits on the Bears:

  • On his experience chart (looks at multiple facets around returning experience), Cal is the 2nd most experienced team in the Pac 12, just behind UW and 18th nationally
  • Cal's schedule finished last year as the 6th most difficult nationally. Steele projects our schedule to be far easier at 49th in 2018
  • Cal ranks 11th nationally under his most improved team analysis

re: the schedule...

The only difference is substituting BYU for Mississippi, switching FCS opponents and the reversal of the conference home/road games. How does that equate to a drop of 43 spots? Quite frankly, I think last year the schedule was far easier than 6th toughest (both Carolina and Mississippi were flops and the conference was weak overall - as we saw in the bowl season). 49th sounds right for this year but I think last year warranted a spot in the 40's as well.

Note: Sagarin had Cal listed as 40th toughest schedule at the end of last season.
Because the quality of each team changes each year.
heartofthebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think Oregon will be much tougher this year as will Furd, Arizona and North Carolina.
However, Colorado, WSU and OSU will be softer. So, it's a wash.

In the end, as is always the case, the teams and Cal's season will hinge more on team health than anything, something that no prognosticator, including PS has been able to put into metrics.

Cal, without Devante Downs was a different team last year.
Oregon, without Justin Hebert, was a different team.
USC had a ton of injuries last year.

Recently Cal has not been able to have a season where their most impactful defensive players have gone a full season healthy.

As for PS, if you read the first page of his magazine, he admitted that he fell off last year, finishing close to the bottom in accuracy amongst the top football preview annual publications. To me, he overemphasizes his original PS# player rankings when he predicts his depth charts and his team/unit strengths. He underemphasizes the walk-ons and over all experience.

He has Justin Wilcox + staff ranked tied for the 9th best coaching staff in the conference. That seems a bit harsh when 3 staffs (ASU, OSU, UCLA) haven't even played a game yet.

I used to worship PS until I started trying to do my own metrics. I realized that injuries are probably one of the greatest determining factors in the world of NCAA football and therefore it would be too difficult to provide accurate prediction. Although you can put together metrics based on injury history etc., Phil has not done that. And, like I said, he has his biases.

I do respect the amount of work he has put into his magazine and he has set the standard. But I no longer rely on him and probably will not waste my money on his overpriced magazine next year.
Rushinbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
heartofthebear said:

I think Oregon will be much tougher this year as will Furd, Arizona and North Carolina.
However, Colorado, WSU and OSU will be softer. So, it's a wash.

In the end, as is always the case, the teams and Cal's season will hinge more on team health than anything, something that no prognosticator, including PS has been able to put into metrics.

Cal, without Devante Downs was a different team last year.
Oregon, without Justin Hebert, was a different team.
USC had a ton of injuries last year.

Recently Cal has not been able to have a season where their most impactful defensive players have gone a full season healthy.

As for PS, if you read the first page of his magazine, he admitted that he fell off last year, finishing close to the bottom in accuracy amongst the top football preview annual publications. To me, he overemphasizes his original PS# player rankings when he predicts his depth charts and his team/unit strengths. He underemphasizes the walk-ons and over all experience.

He has Justin Wilcox + staff ranked tied for the 9th best coaching staff in the conference. That seems a bit harsh when 3 staffs (ASU, OSU, UCLA) haven't even played a game yet.

I used to worship PS until I started trying to do my own metrics. I realized that injuries are probably one of the greatest determining factors in the world of NCAA football and therefore it would be too difficult to provide accurate prediction. Although you can put together metrics based on injury history etc., Phil has not done that. And, like I said, he has his biases.

I do respect the amount of work he has put into his magazine and he has set the standard. But I no longer rely on him and probably will not waste my money on his overpriced magazine next year.
Is there any correlation between age/class and injuries? Always wondered if older/physically mature players get hurt less often.

OTOH, there is robustness - kids who come in better put together, naturally. You can see it in Ala, Bucks, Penn St., Texas (old days and maybe rebuilding). Those kids hit harder and don't seem to get injured as much. Seems to me, anyway. My guess is a connective tissue thing.
LTbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
heartofthebear said:

I think Oregon will be much tougher this year as will Furd, Arizona and North Carolina.
However, Colorado, WSU and OSU will be softer. So, it's a wash.

In the end, as is always the case, the teams and Cal's season will hinge more on team health than anything, something that no prognosticator, including PS has been able to put into metrics.

Cal, without Devante Downs was a different team last year.
Oregon, without Justin Hebert, was a different team.
USC had a ton of injuries last year.

Recently Cal has not been able to have a season where their most impactful defensive players have gone a full season healthy.

As for PS, if you read the first page of his magazine, he admitted that he fell off last year, finishing close to the bottom in accuracy amongst the top football preview annual publications. To me, he overemphasizes his original PS# player rankings when he predicts his depth charts and his team/unit strengths. He underemphasizes the walk-ons and over all experience.

He has Justin Wilcox + staff ranked tied for the 9th best coaching staff in the conference. That seems a bit harsh when 3 staffs (ASU, OSU, UCLA) haven't even played a game yet.

I used to worship PS until I started trying to do my own metrics. I realized that injuries are probably one of the greatest determining factors in the world of NCAA football and therefore it would be too difficult to provide accurate prediction. Although you can put together metrics based on injury history etc., Phil has not done that. And, like I said, he has his biases.

I do respect the amount of work he has put into his magazine and he has set the standard. But I no longer rely on him and probably will not waste my money on his overpriced magazine next year.
I'm not sure UNC will improve that much. Definitely disagree about Colorado - they lost their RB but added a stout grad transfer, their QB will have a full season of starts under his belt, the defense has a full season under their new system, and Phil Steele actually has them as the #4 most improved team.
heartofthebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LTbear said:

heartofthebear said:

I think Oregon will be much tougher this year as will Furd, Arizona and North Carolina.
However, Colorado, WSU and OSU will be softer. So, it's a wash.

In the end, as is always the case, the teams and Cal's season will hinge more on team health than anything, something that no prognosticator, including PS has been able to put into metrics.

Cal, without Devante Downs was a different team last year.
Oregon, without Justin Hebert, was a different team.
USC had a ton of injuries last year.

Recently Cal has not been able to have a season where their most impactful defensive players have gone a full season healthy.

As for PS, if you read the first page of his magazine, he admitted that he fell off last year, finishing close to the bottom in accuracy amongst the top football preview annual publications. To me, he overemphasizes his original PS# player rankings when he predicts his depth charts and his team/unit strengths. He underemphasizes the walk-ons and over all experience.

He has Justin Wilcox + staff ranked tied for the 9th best coaching staff in the conference. That seems a bit harsh when 3 staffs (ASU, OSU, UCLA) haven't even played a game yet.

I used to worship PS until I started trying to do my own metrics. I realized that injuries are probably one of the greatest determining factors in the world of NCAA football and therefore it would be too difficult to provide accurate prediction. Although you can put together metrics based on injury history etc., Phil has not done that. And, like I said, he has his biases.

I do respect the amount of work he has put into his magazine and he has set the standard. But I no longer rely on him and probably will not waste my money on his overpriced magazine next year.
I'm not sure UNC will improve that much. Definitely disagree about Colorado - they lost their RB but added a stout grad transfer, their QB will have a full season of starts under his belt, the defense has a full season under their new system, and Phil Steele actually has them as the #4 most improved team.
You may be right about Colorado.
It seems an annual tradition now for Cal to play a big game for bowl eligibility at the end of the year without it being the big game. BYU, UCLA, ASU and now Colorado. It is too bad that the scheduling gods usually set game time for 7:30 on what is inevitably a pretty cold and miserable day. Attendance is usually pretty low as a result. But these games have been pretty entertaining.
heartofthebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rushinbear said:

heartofthebear said:

I think Oregon will be much tougher this year as will Furd, Arizona and North Carolina.
However, Colorado, WSU and OSU will be softer. So, it's a wash.

In the end, as is always the case, the teams and Cal's season will hinge more on team health than anything, something that no prognosticator, including PS has been able to put into metrics.

Cal, without Devante Downs was a different team last year.
Oregon, without Justin Hebert, was a different team.
USC had a ton of injuries last year.

Recently Cal has not been able to have a season where their most impactful defensive players have gone a full season healthy.

As for PS, if you read the first page of his magazine, he admitted that he fell off last year, finishing close to the bottom in accuracy amongst the top football preview annual publications. To me, he overemphasizes his original PS# player rankings when he predicts his depth charts and his team/unit strengths. He underemphasizes the walk-ons and over all experience.

He has Justin Wilcox + staff ranked tied for the 9th best coaching staff in the conference. That seems a bit harsh when 3 staffs (ASU, OSU, UCLA) haven't even played a game yet.

I used to worship PS until I started trying to do my own metrics. I realized that injuries are probably one of the greatest determining factors in the world of NCAA football and therefore it would be too difficult to provide accurate prediction. Although you can put together metrics based on injury history etc., Phil has not done that. And, like I said, he has his biases.

I do respect the amount of work he has put into his magazine and he has set the standard. But I no longer rely on him and probably will not waste my money on his overpriced magazine next year.
Is there any correlation between age/class and injuries? Always wondered if older/physically mature players get hurt less often.

OTOH, there is robustness - kids who come in better put together, naturally. You can see it in Ala, Bucks, Penn St., Texas (old days and maybe rebuilding). Those kids hit harder and don't seem to get injured as much. Seems to me, anyway. My guess is a connective tissue thing.
I don't know about college football. But the SF Giants have been beset with injuries all year and it doesn't seem to matter about age or experience.

I do think football injuries have something to do with intensity of play and maybe with intelligent coordination of squads. If it is a close game, for example and it is 3rd down and short late in the game, there is going to be some intensity on that play and maybe a greater chance of injury. I also think that when players on defenses and offenses know their assignments they tend to make more sure and practiced bodily movements. This could also help them avoid injuries.

But it is a bit of speculation. I think injury history can be somewhat relevant as a metric for having future injuries. But again it is not an exact science.
Nasal Mucus Goldenbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This is the first time I've heard of PS underemphasizing experience. Is "over all" experience different from game playing experience? Perhaps just as important as (in some years, more important than) future injuries is quality depth to cover for inevitable injuries (quality depth is prob easier to predict than injuries given game playing experience and the addition of some rare sure-thing prep/jc superstars).

Quote:

The dubious ones


heartofthebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Nasal Mucus Goldenbear said:

This is the first time I've heard of PS underemphasizing experience. Is "over all" experience different from game playing experience? Perhaps just as important as (in some years, more important than) future injuries is quality depth to cover for inevitable injuries (quality depth is prob easier to predict than injuries given game playing experience and the addition of some rare sure-thing prep/jc superstars).

Quote:

The dubious ones



depth is important and measurable, but we had depth at LB last year but were not the same when Downs went down. USC has all kinds of depth every year but they could not recover from the shear number of injuries they had last year.

Also, there are times when injuries hit the same position over and over wiping out whatever depth there is. For some reason, this happens quite frequently and has happened at Cal. For example Cal had their secondary wiped out a few years back. They had their DL position hit hard at one time 2 years ago. I think under JT one year the RB position was hit hard.

The point is that injuries, at least right now, are not predictable and yet they impact the game significantly which reduces the effectiveness of guys like PS.

Potentially PS or others could develop a metric that could have significant predictive value when it comes to injuries. The way to do that is to look at the archives and see if any data relating to injuries proves to have significant predictive value from year to year. This is actually the way he developed many of his current metrics. At some number or value, all data becomes significant. For example turnovers become important when there are enough of them or when there is a certain margin. PS studies what that threshold is when such things actually have predictive value.

A similar study could be done to see what injury data, if any, has had predictive value. For example, a team that has x number of injuries to starters in year 1 may not be likely to have less injuries the following year, but a team that has y number of injuries is likely to have less injuries the following year. That threshold could be one of several data points that go into a predictive metric regarding injuries and their impact.

On the issue of experience and PS: He does quite a lot on experience, but I don't think he values it as much as "talent" according to his PS number and I disagree with that. I also think it throws off his depth charts.
Rushinbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
heartofthebear said:

Nasal Mucus Goldenbear said:

This is the first time I've heard of PS underemphasizing experience. Is "over all" experience different from game playing experience? Perhaps just as important as (in some years, more important than) future injuries is quality depth to cover for inevitable injuries (quality depth is prob easier to predict than injuries given game playing experience and the addition of some rare sure-thing prep/jc superstars).

Quote:

The dubious ones



depth is important and measurable, but we had depth at LB last year but were not the same when Downs went down. USC has all kinds of depth every year but they could not recover from the shear number of injuries they had last year.

Also, there are times when injuries hit the same position over and over wiping out whatever depth there is. For some reason, this happens quite frequently and has happened at Cal. For example Cal had their secondary wiped out a few years back. They had their DL position hit hard at one time 2 years ago. I think under JT one year the RB position was hit hard.

The point is that injuries, at least right now, are not predictable and yet they impact the game significantly which reduces the effectiveness of guys like PS.

Potentially PS or others could develop a metric that could have significant predictive value when it comes to injuries. The way to do that is to look at the archives and see if any data relating to injuries proves to have significant predictive value from year to year. This is actually the way he developed many of his current metrics. At some number or value, all data becomes significant. For example turnovers become important when there are enough of them or when there is a certain margin. PS studies what that threshold is when such things actually have predictive value.

A similar study could be done to see what injury data, if any, has had predictive value. For example, a team that has x number of injuries to starters in year 1 may not be likely to have less injuries the following year, but a team that has y number of injuries is likely to have less injuries the following year. That threshold could be one of several data points that go into a predictive metric regarding injuries and their impact.

On the issue of experience and PS: He does quite a lot on experience, but I don't think he values it as much as "talent" according to his PS number and I disagree with that. I also think it throws off his depth charts.
This is what I was alluding to when I used the term "robust." When you recruit, you want guys who have everything and, since we're rarely going to get those guys, you compromise on the various factors. I think we concede on robustness usually before any of the others. We get guys who are great except for a major hs injury (if not for that, would they have come?). We get guys who are slender for their positions and then put on serious weight during their careers (do they have the frame to withstand the pounding?).

I don't think it's a stat thing, except for outlying years. Whatever our average # of injuries is, there are reasons for those stats. The law of averages doesn't affect you when you have a relatively consistent pattern, whether many or few.

I don't think it's a training thing, either, although I don't see the point in training for the Olympics when you're going to try to beat the opposing player to a pulp. Maybe flexibility. However, I was stuck on a lifting plateau once and read about the SHW lifter, Alexeyev. He was stuck and added middle distance running and he powered through it. So, I tried it and it worked for me too, both in strength and weight added. So, what do I know.

I really think it's natural frame and connective tissue. You got a guy with tendons like hawsers and you gotta think there'll be less of a chance for him to get dinged.
heartofthebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rushinbear said:

heartofthebear said:

Nasal Mucus Goldenbear said:

This is the first time I've heard of PS underemphasizing experience. Is "over all" experience different from game playing experience? Perhaps just as important as (in some years, more important than) future injuries is quality depth to cover for inevitable injuries (quality depth is prob easier to predict than injuries given game playing experience and the addition of some rare sure-thing prep/jc superstars).

Quote:

The dubious ones



depth is important and measurable, but we had depth at LB last year but were not the same when Downs went down. USC has all kinds of depth every year but they could not recover from the shear number of injuries they had last year.

Also, there are times when injuries hit the same position over and over wiping out whatever depth there is. For some reason, this happens quite frequently and has happened at Cal. For example Cal had their secondary wiped out a few years back. They had their DL position hit hard at one time 2 years ago. I think under JT one year the RB position was hit hard.

The point is that injuries, at least right now, are not predictable and yet they impact the game significantly which reduces the effectiveness of guys like PS.

Potentially PS or others could develop a metric that could have significant predictive value when it comes to injuries. The way to do that is to look at the archives and see if any data relating to injuries proves to have significant predictive value from year to year. This is actually the way he developed many of his current metrics. At some number or value, all data becomes significant. For example turnovers become important when there are enough of them or when there is a certain margin. PS studies what that threshold is when such things actually have predictive value.

A similar study could be done to see what injury data, if any, has had predictive value. For example, a team that has x number of injuries to starters in year 1 may not be likely to have less injuries the following year, but a team that has y number of injuries is likely to have less injuries the following year. That threshold could be one of several data points that go into a predictive metric regarding injuries and their impact.

On the issue of experience and PS: He does quite a lot on experience, but I don't think he values it as much as "talent" according to his PS number and I disagree with that. I also think it throws off his depth charts.
This is what I was alluding to when I used the term "robust." When you recruit, you want guys who have everything and, since we're rarely going to get those guys, you compromise on the various factors. I think we concede on robustness usually before any of the others. We get guys who are great except for a major hs injury (if not for that, would they have come?). We get guys who are slender for their positions and then put on serious weight during their careers (do they have the frame to withstand the pounding?).

I don't think it's a stat thing, except for outlying years. Whatever our average # of injuries is, there are reasons for those stats. The law of averages doesn't affect you when you have a relatively consistent pattern, whether many or few.

I don't think it's a training thing, either, although I don't see the point in training for the Olympics when you're going to try to beat the opposing player to a pulp. Maybe flexibility. However, I was stuck on a lifting plateau once and read about the SHW lifter, Alexeyev. He was stuck and added middle distance running and he powered through it. So, I tried it and it worked for me too, both in strength and weight added. So, what do I know.

I really think it's natural frame and connective tissue. You got a guy with tendons like hawsers and you gotta think there'll be less of a chance for him to get dinged.
injuries could be more situational than genetic. You are taught to ratchet up your intensity on 3rd and 4th down and in the 4th quarter. It would be interesting to see if more injuries occur at these times.

We do know that the NCAA is concerned about the number of injuries on kick offs. It is enough so that they have changed the rules several times. To me, this suggests that injuries are at least somewhat related to situations. It seems that the concern on KOs is the relative speed and therefore impact intensity. That goes back to the idea that intensity could be both situational and also related to injuries. Maybe, for example, teams that play more close games have more intense situations and therefore more injuries. It is something that could be researched and PS knows how to do that kind of research.

PS does acknowledge the significant impact of injuries. On page 4 of his magazine, paragraph 2, column 2, he makes the argument against extending the playoff to more than 4 teams. He says that the longer the season goes on, the more teams suffer "attrition" (IOW injuries). And he says that people wants to see the best teams with the best players win rather than teams that stay the healthiest, implying that the best players are not necessarily the players who stay the healthiest.

I think the best players are often injured because they play with more intensity. I think of Avery Sebastian or Ruben Foster as prime examples. I am worried about Patrick Laird for the same reason.

In any case, I think a metric could be developed that at least has some minimal predictive value (at least 60% accuracy) and maybe more study would refine it to something that could make PS and his magazine truly state of the art as a predictive tool.

71Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
heartofthebear said:

Rushinbear said:

heartofthebear said:

Nasal Mucus Goldenbear said:

This is the first time I've heard of PS underemphasizing experience. Is "over all" experience different from game playing experience? Perhaps just as important as (in some years, more important than) future injuries is quality depth to cover for inevitable injuries (quality depth is prob easier to predict than injuries given game playing experience and the addition of some rare sure-thing prep/jc superstars).

Quote:

The dubious ones



depth is important and measurable, but we had depth at LB last year but were not the same when Downs went down. USC has all kinds of depth every year but they could not recover from the shear number of injuries they had last year.

Also, there are times when injuries hit the same position over and over wiping out whatever depth there is. For some reason, this happens quite frequently and has happened at Cal. For example Cal had their secondary wiped out a few years back. They had their DL position hit hard at one time 2 years ago. I think under JT one year the RB position was hit hard.

The point is that injuries, at least right now, are not predictable and yet they impact the game significantly which reduces the effectiveness of guys like PS.

Potentially PS or others could develop a metric that could have significant predictive value when it comes to injuries. The way to do that is to look at the archives and see if any data relating to injuries proves to have significant predictive value from year to year. This is actually the way he developed many of his current metrics. At some number or value, all data becomes significant. For example turnovers become important when there are enough of them or when there is a certain margin. PS studies what that threshold is when such things actually have predictive value.

A similar study could be done to see what injury data, if any, has had predictive value. For example, a team that has x number of injuries to starters in year 1 may not be likely to have less injuries the following year, but a team that has y number of injuries is likely to have less injuries the following year. That threshold could be one of several data points that go into a predictive metric regarding injuries and their impact.

On the issue of experience and PS: He does quite a lot on experience, but I don't think he values it as much as "talent" according to his PS number and I disagree with that. I also think it throws off his depth charts.
This is what I was alluding to when I used the term "robust." When you recruit, you want guys who have everything and, since we're rarely going to get those guys, you compromise on the various factors. I think we concede on robustness usually before any of the others. We get guys who are great except for a major hs injury (if not for that, would they have come?). We get guys who are slender for their positions and then put on serious weight during their careers (do they have the frame to withstand the pounding?).

I don't think it's a stat thing, except for outlying years. Whatever our average # of injuries is, there are reasons for those stats. The law of averages doesn't affect you when you have a relatively consistent pattern, whether many or few.

I don't think it's a training thing, either, although I don't see the point in training for the Olympics when you're going to try to beat the opposing player to a pulp. Maybe flexibility. However, I was stuck on a lifting plateau once and read about the SHW lifter, Alexeyev. He was stuck and added middle distance running and he powered through it. So, I tried it and it worked for me too, both in strength and weight added. So, what do I know.

I really think it's natural frame and connective tissue. You got a guy with tendons like hawsers and you gotta think there'll be less of a chance for him to get dinged.
injuries could be more situational than genetic. You are taught to ratchet up your intensity on 3rd and 4th down and in the 4th quarter. It would be interesting to see if more injuries occur at these times.

We do know that the NCAA is concerned about the number of injuries on kick offs. It is enough so that they have changed the rules several times. To me, this suggests that injuries are at least somewhat related to situations. It seems that the concern on KOs is the relative speed and therefore impact intensity. That goes back to the idea that intensity could be both situational and also related to injuries. Maybe, for example, teams that play more close games have more intense situations and therefore more injuries. It is something that could be researched and PS knows how to do that kind of research.

PS does acknowledge the significant impact of injuries. On page 4 of his magazine, paragraph 2, column 2, he makes the argument against extending the playoff to more than 4 teams. He says that the longer the season goes on, the more teams suffer "attrition" (IOW injuries). And he says that people wants to see the best teams with the best players win rather than teams that stay the healthiest, implying that the best players are not necessarily the players who stay the healthiest.

I think the best players are often injured because they play with more intensity. I think of Avery Sebastian or Ruben Foster as prime examples. I am worried about Patrick Laird for the same reason.

In any case, I think a metric could be developed that at least has some minimal predictive value (at least 60% accuracy) and maybe more study would refine it to something that could make PS and his magazine truly state of the art as a predictive tool.


re: Foster....

I read an article (applicable to every defensive footballer) recently that addressed the issues regarding his injuries. The essence was that the injuries were caused primarily by poor tackling technique. The SF coaching staff plans to work with him regarding better body position. Tackling is more than knocking a guy down. It is being in the right position and taking the correct angle before engaging the ball carrier.
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.