Opinion: Forcier should sit this week out
Given he has a mild concussion, not to mention the shoulder injury, I think the coaches should strongly consider holding Forcier out of practice and this week's game, and in my mind they shouldn't just consider it, they should do it. Set an example for high school and youth coaches that concussions aren't to be treated lightly. Let Tate recover (with the side benefit that maybe a week of non-use will help his shoulder some as well) and bring him back next week for Penn State week. Michigan shouldn't need him to beat Delaware State, Robinson could use the work, but most of all, there's no reason to risk Tate's future health.
Please read the Gladwell piece linked in the mgolicious (Football, Dog Fighting, and Brain Damage). I think everyone needs to see it.
October 13th, 2009 at 12:31 PM ^
Agreed. The Gladwell article is an eye opener. The mental conditions these football players sustain due to football are just abhorrent. That's the rub - we love football, but we don't have to live with the consequences. I fear for what Troy Aikman and Steve Young will have to deal with mentally when they are in their 50s and 60s.
On to Tate, there is no reason he should play this weekend. He should be allowed 13 days to heal his body (so, too, should Minor and Brown). Michigan, with the talent on the field, should be able to defeat Delaware State with Jack Kennedy handing the ball off 80 times on Saturday.
October 13th, 2009 at 1:32 PM ^
and I'm stumped as to what the solution is. I was reading a similar article on motorcycle helmets and the ratings of them, and their conclusion was "There's only so much deceleration you can do in a given distance, so plan for the most common accident, rather than the worst case." Now, for football, it's not that simple. On my motorcycle, I'm doing everything I can to avoid hitting my head on the pavement, but football is designed around close contact. Eliminating that is hard to impossible.
About the only solution I can see is going back to the Gerald Ford era uniforms and get rid of helmets altogether. That would make the players more aware of being injured, and unlikely to hit heads intentionally.
October 13th, 2009 at 4:24 PM ^
I think having external padding (which a couple of NFL players wore in the 1990s) on helmets would help. Making helmets with a hard plastic exterior doesn't really make sense when they often end up colliding into each other. External foam padding would disperse the impact of a collision considerably more. And you can never go wrong with additional padding.
October 13th, 2009 at 12:31 PM ^
dude's brains are more important than any football game.
October 13th, 2009 at 2:15 PM ^
If Forcier is not healthy he should not play even if it were against PSU. But if he is he should use this game to prepare for PSU. They all need the work no matter the opponent. We all know that they cannot underestimate anyone. They need to get in there and dominate. I say Denard get's at least 50% of the snaps in this game. He definetly needs the work after that INT!
October 13th, 2009 at 12:32 PM ^
I think the team physicians and trainers know a lot more about the medical issues than we do, so I wouldn't presume to advise them on whether Forcier should play vs. Delaware State.
Regardless of whether he plays, I do believe we're going to see quite a bit of Denard Robinson.
October 13th, 2009 at 12:34 PM ^
It's been proven over and over that team doctors often routinely make the wrong call in this situation.
October 13th, 2009 at 12:36 PM ^
There's no way Tim Tebow should have been playing football last Saturday night. I understand that Tebow's father thought his son was healthy because millions of fans were praying for his son, but he still should have sat.
October 13th, 2009 at 12:40 PM ^
Whatever the doctors' record may be, I am hard pressed to believe that fans are better at it.
October 13th, 2009 at 1:09 PM ^
do not work for free, for the most part. The University of Florida undoubtedly wrote a check to cover the cost of Tebow's medical care.
Tebow playing and winning made a good story. Holding him out hindered Florida's chances of winning. Urban Meyer said early last week, essentially, that "HEY DOC. IF YOU CLEAR TEBOW HE IS PLAYING."
Given the circumstances, what doctor, who undoubtedly wants the Gators' business in the future, would've held Tebow out?
October 13th, 2009 at 2:29 PM ^
The doctor's obligation is to the patient not the team. I understand your thinking, but doctors are pretty explicitly told what to do in this exact situation.
October 14th, 2009 at 2:32 AM ^
and financial incentive are misaligned. that's what's being pointed out.
October 13th, 2009 at 1:24 PM ^
While you are obviously right to say that your average Joe in the stands knows less about the medical implications of a concussion than the team doctors, I think we have seen that there is still a lot of uncertainty with this type of injury and no one can yet predict the long term implications for the health of the athlete. And I don’t think many people here are trying to claim that they do know more. It seems to me that I many people are simply trying to say that when dealing with unknown factors that can seriously impact the long term health of an 18 year old kid, it is best to come down on the safe side.
It's something I agree with. Regardless of whether it was Delaware State or another team, allowing him to rest and heal is the most important thing in this situation. To that point, I thought that Meyer set a terrible example by letting Tebow play. Considering he was experiencing symptoms the entire preceding week and was a game time decision, there is no reason he should have stepped onto the field. I'm hoping that RR takes the opposite route and rests Tate out of precaution even if he is feeling fine.
October 13th, 2009 at 12:43 PM ^
Team Dr.'s and trainers have a vested interest in the team so thinking they always give the proper unbiased medical advise to coaches and players is not likely the case.
I am a MD (cardiologist, not neurologist) and any concussion, whether mild or severe have long term effects, some that don't show up for years. If I were asked my medical opinion (which I obviously haven't been, but still) I would say sit him out of practice and the game.
October 13th, 2009 at 12:34 PM ^
I agree. I don't think that there is a reason good enough to risk Tate suffering further injury in this contest. If we can't beat Del. State with Denard than we have serious issues. Give Tate time to heal mentally and physically. If he can go into the penn state game healthy and fresh I think we have a good chance at an upset. Also, this will get Denard some much needed experience that would go along way if Tate goes down for an extended period. Denard has all the tools, he just needs game time experience so he can learn how to manage the game and the pressure and he won't get that in practice or in the 4 or 5 snaps he takes in the games. I hope he starts and goes the distance....and looks good doing it.
October 13th, 2009 at 12:36 PM ^
This is a game Sheridan could comfortably win, with the talent and pieces around him.
October 13th, 2009 at 12:36 PM ^
Just watched the 60 Minutes on concussions on CBS...
Tate should sit vs. DelSt (a 1-3 FCS team and hardly the horrible risk that AppSt was), even the Messiah couldn't read a week after he got his concussion. I'd much rather have fully rested Tate, CBrown, and Molk back for PSU. IMO, we should put Denard in there and have him either run that last TD scoring drive offense or have him throw to get him comfortable and not throwing ridiculous interceptions...
October 13th, 2009 at 12:39 PM ^
if we were playing Penn State this week and not next? Fortunately we don't have to answer that question.
October 13th, 2009 at 12:42 PM ^
Great point. I highly doubt this would be as easily of an opinion as the OP presents, which lends itself to a certain hypocrisy.
October 13th, 2009 at 12:46 PM ^
Both Threet and McGuffie missed games against quality opponents (like OSU) because of concussions. I'd hope that if the questions were Tate's health vs. beating OSU, people would choose Tate's health.
October 13th, 2009 at 12:52 PM ^
but I believe they were not cleared by doctors to play. I think the OP implied that Tate should not play even if he is cleared. If the doctors say he can't play, then yes it's a no-brainer (oops no pun intended).
October 13th, 2009 at 6:26 PM ^
No brainer...
I don't know why that's so funny but it is.
October 13th, 2009 at 1:11 PM ^
Hey, you brought up quality opponents, don't forget Threet had to sit against the LOLphers last year too!
In regards to your last comment, unfortunately, you know what the answer to that question would be for a majority of football fanbases.
October 13th, 2009 at 12:51 PM ^
Decisions like this always come down to a risk-reward dilemma for someone to make. The reward is much larger against a Penn State, but hopefully whoever's making the decision realizes that the if the player shouldn't be playing, the risk of his health is much greater than a single W.
October 13th, 2009 at 12:44 PM ^
I'd prefer to see our guys not risk their brains regardless of who we are playing - we have backups who can play, and while I'm sure holding Forcier out against Penn State would hurt our chances of winning, whatever, it's just a game in the grand scheme of things. The fact that it's Delaware State this week to me just makes the decision that much more of an obvious one.
October 13th, 2009 at 1:03 PM ^
i'd still say sit him if it was against PSU, personally.
October 13th, 2009 at 1:19 PM ^
Touche. It's easy for everyone to talk about the "right decision" and setting an example for high schoolers when we're playing Delaware State.
Also, people had better wake up. This game could lead to an embarrassment much worse than the App. State debacle if we take the Hornets for granted.
I'd go with the usual lineup and move to backups if/when we break the 17-point-lead barrier. NO PLAYING WITH CONCUSSIONS. If Tate has a concussion, I'd go 50/50 with D-Rob and Sheridan. Believe it or not, I think Sheridan has better eyes for the field than Shoelace right now. Denard isn't seeing things evolve, like receivers getting wide open before he lofts the ball in the air 500-style.
D-Rob is about as good as Sheridan was last year, only he has crazy speed. He'll be a monster threat for us one day, but that day isn't 10/17/09.
Sincerely,
World Police
What would you do
If you were asked to give up your body for football?
What would you do
If asked to make the ultimate sacrifice
Would you think about all them people
Who gave up everything they had?
Would you think about all them Steve Youngs
And would you start to feel bad?
Winning isn't free
It costs Molks and Tates and Minors
And if they don't all chip in
They'll never pay that bill
Winning isn't free
No, there's a hefty fuckin' fee.
And if you don't throw in your buck 'o five
Who will?
October 13th, 2009 at 1:24 PM ^
I started with tl;dr, then moved to incredulity, then agreement, then sadness, then relief.
Well done. You ran the gamut there.
October 13th, 2009 at 12:41 PM ^
Basically the same thing without OMG EYEBLACK messages.
http://www.everydayshouldbesaturday.com/2009/09/27/a-brief-note-on-tim-…
October 13th, 2009 at 12:45 PM ^
I agree.
But if they're going to put him in, I hope they put him in a sort of max-protect and let him work on his reads without getting beat up. Tell him if the pressure starts to come just chuck it.
October 13th, 2009 at 12:49 PM ^
But Tate hasn't listened and tries to make something out of nothing. That mentality is fun to watch as a fan, but is one of the main contributors to him taking so many hits.
October 13th, 2009 at 12:52 PM ^
Yeah, so maybe another week on the sidelines would help provide him with a little perspective. It's all speculation around here, but it's interesting to watch his development and maturation even though we don't really know what's going on inside his head (besides the cerebral jostling).
October 13th, 2009 at 2:57 PM ^
easier said than done. kids tend to think they're invincible. football players - and tate - in particular.
October 13th, 2009 at 12:50 PM ^
While I never want anyone to get hurt, I think we have a unique opportunity this week which we should take advantage of. Normally, a coach handles young QBs very carefully, as that position seems more sensitive to injured egos than the others. That makes it hard to get your backup QB serious practice or laying time, as it can leave your starter looking over his shoulder. (Thankfully, Tate and Denard seem to be handling this situation fine, so I am speaking in generalities.)
But, now Coach has an excuse to keep Forcier out for a whole week, giving Denard every 1st-team snap in practice and the whole game. And it's a game against a team, as said above, we should be able to beat with 80 Kennedy-to-Shaw handoffs, if necessary. So here's a chance to really prepare Denard, give him some great practice and game-time work, all without much effect upon Forcier's ego (if that's even an issue).
So, I'd prefer to see Tate sit for the week. If I see him for more than a quarter on Saturday, I'll be bummed.
October 13th, 2009 at 12:57 PM ^
Even if Tate is cleared to play and starts, I doubt you see him play much beyond the first quarter and do much more than handoff or play action pass. If he ad libs and scrambles, I'll bet he gets yanked immediately. Hopefully, by the start of the 2nd quarter, we have a couple TD lead and Denard can come in for some quality reps.
October 13th, 2009 at 1:21 PM ^
and youth football. The reason why i say that is youth football you have to have a doctors ok to play again. The youth team that i coach for just had a kid come back from a very nasty concussion after 2 weeks after being cleared. i think the coaches know more than any of us do along with their doctors, so lets let them decided.
October 13th, 2009 at 1:30 PM ^
I doubt the concussion is that serious, more of a bell rung type of thing. That being said, I agree that if there is any risk to his health, then he should not play.
Whether he is "injured" or not I wouldn't want him to play more than a half of the game. Even the half that he is in I'd like him to rotate series with Denard.
We should be able to win this game handily with or without Tate.
October 13th, 2009 at 1:51 PM ^
I think the lesson is that you assume every concussion is serious. Or simply - concussions are unqualifiably serious. And as for the half a game thing, I would say that he has roughly just as much of a chance getting his bell re-rung on one play as another - no matter the type of play due to contingencies such as fumbles, bad snaps, etc.
October 13th, 2009 at 2:03 PM ^
I agree and disagree. Yes, concussions are very serious, but I also do not think a mild concussion shouldn't keep you out very long. I mean how much can you shelter and protect players? I hope that doesn't sound insensitive or ridiculous, but if he is medically cleared and wants to play then he should be allow to play.
October 13th, 2009 at 2:34 PM ^
I was thinking the same thing. At what point can we trust the Dr's to say he's alright? I know people think the Dr's care about the success of the Michigan football team but you can't seriously believe they care more about the possible success in 1 game over their medical integrity can you (not you, other people)?
There is a chance on every single play and even in practice, as we saw with Carlos, that you can get an injury that keeps you out of the game - at some point the Dr's ok and the evidence from the practice field (decision making etc etc) have to be enough to let them back on the field. I know a second concussion is very, very bad and it only gets worse from there but is there a point where we force people to sit out forever despite what the Dr's say because we don't want the concussion to happen on our watch? I'm just curious where the line is.
October 13th, 2009 at 2:02 PM ^
I'd give him headphones and a clipboard and let him watch a full game from the sidelines this week; something he hasn't done. D Rob and Sheridan are prepared to run the offense this week.
Would my answer be different if the opponent were Penn St? I think not; seems like I went through a similar mental exercise two years ago when Henne was injured against Oregon. Mallet started against ND and PSU and won both. It seems sometimes that adversity brings out the best in a team; knowing that the leader will be sidelined causes increased focus during practice and in the game.
Would my answer be different if the opponent were Penn St? I think not; seems like I went through a similar mental exercise two years ago when Henne was injured against Oregon. Mallet started against ND and PSU and won both. It seems sometimes that adversity brings out the best in a team; knowing that the leader will be sidelined causes increased focus during practice and in the game.
October 13th, 2009 at 2:47 PM ^
It might have been here, or it could have been one of the papers down here, but I do remember reading or hearing an opinion that Urban Meyer blew it on Saturday night by playing Tim Tebow. Why? Because he could have sat in the living room of every recruit for the rest of his caoching career and told his parents that thet well-being of not only Tim Tebow, but any player, including their son, is more important than winning a football game. And he obviously would have had proof that he had "put his money where his mouth was."
RR has the same opportunity this week. And there is no way Denard Robinson loses to Delaware State. As I posted in other threads, and many have posted in this thread, I would rest him because of the shoulder and concussion. Play it safe on the concussion and let the shoulder get a little bit better for the rest of the season.
October 13th, 2009 at 2:57 PM ^
Is pretty damn disturbing. I wonder if I'll feel obligated to give up watching football someday. That would really, really suck.
(A side note: as someone who's had 3 concussions: thanks for making we worry about tau and dementia, Malcolm.)
October 13th, 2009 at 3:02 PM ^
This is not a bad idea. Let Tate practice in the Red non-contact jersey so he gets his reps to stay sharp...but put Robinson in there to start and have Nick Sheridan back him up.
Dont get too fancy, run the ball, win the game and then prep for Penn State.
October 13th, 2009 at 4:03 PM ^
Tate should sit this one out. He needs to be as close
to %100 for PSU as possible. He needs to rehab and work
the shoulder, I had an AC joint injury and it is not
only painful, the shoulder fatigues easily. He should get
the inflammation out. Getting banged around won't help.
October 13th, 2009 at 4:36 PM ^
There really is no such thing as a minor concussion. It's a serious injury. Honestly, you could make a case that he should be out for a few weeks, but at the least, he should be given a 7-10 days off.
October 13th, 2009 at 6:34 PM ^
Honestly, I don't really understand what this argument is about.
No matter who we're playing:
- If he isn't medically cleared to play, obviously he shouldn't.
- If he is medically cleared to play, why not play him? If a doctor thinks he's able to play and not be at increased medical risk, why wouldn't he? If he shouldn't be playing, for medical reasons, it's incumbent upon the doctor to say so... we as fans aren't in any sort of position to second guess the doctor, who has specialized knowledge most of us lack, and familiarity w/ Tate's case that all of us lack.... To say that he should be held out even if medically cleared, to make a statement to HS players is honestly silly. Doing what is right when it needs to be done is what makes a statement. Doing something that doesn't need to be done just to make a statement ends up ringing hollow.
From a non-medical standpoint, and a strictly football standpoint, I think Denard should start and Tate and Denard should split the reps about 50-50, plus or minus 5-10%. That's a good way to show some confidence in Denard, give Tate some rest, but also not put too much pressure on Denard.
October 13th, 2009 at 7:38 PM ^
If the requirement for medical cleareance is that a player must be operating at 100%, the field would look pretty different on Saturdays. I think the premise of the debate is whether Tate should sit presuming he is medically cleared, but somewhere less than 100%.
If Tate is cleared to play at 80% health (however you quantify that) with no increased medical risk, as you put it, it still may be unwise to play him for the reasons addressed throughout this thread.
I mean no offense whatsoever by this response, but am merely attempting to articulate what I believe this argument to be about.
October 13th, 2009 at 8:50 PM ^
E-PINION
October 17th, 2009 at 10:18 PM ^
Basically did sit it out!