Absence of Toussaint vs. Notre Dame

Submitted by MDave on September 13th, 2011 at 3:45 PM

Forgive me, but I don't believe I saw any similar topics during searches of the board, but here goes...

One glaring item that I saw missing from the ND game was Toussaint.  I believe I saw him in on a couple plays, but am not 100% sure of that.  I am sure that he didn't record a carry or catch though.  After a solid week (and a start for that matter) against WMU, I thought for sure he would be playing a decent bit.

This past week felt eerily like last year in regards to the running game against decent defenses.  Basically, if it isn't Denard, it isn't working.  The difference I felt this year was Toussaint. 

Smith = Loss or 2-3 yard gain

Shaw = running sideways or backward when he should have hit that hole a while ago

Hopkins = 1-2 yard gain or fumble

Anyone have any insight as to why Toussaint wasn't even given the ball once?  Was there an injury that I missed?

Comments

Brhino

September 13th, 2011 at 3:48 PM ^

He didn't play at all.  He was injured, but that wasn't announced before the game.  For better or worse, the Hoke staff is not putting out injury reports like the Rodriguez staff did.  They will answer a direct question about a player's health if asked, it seems, but they won't volunteer information about a hurt player.

BRCE

September 13th, 2011 at 6:55 PM ^

Carr put out a report that listed players as "will play," "will not play," "doubtful," "questionable," and "probable." That isn't all that different from percentages. This was done once into the season so the example of Henne starting an opener in place of Gutierrez is not relevant.

Your constant romanticism about "Fort Schembechler" is not only incredibly lame, it's not even all that informed.

 

Bando Calrissian

September 13th, 2011 at 7:10 PM ^

Grow up, man.

And I defy you to find a single injury report, itemized and broken down like that, put out by Lloyd Carr.  It was nothing like what Rodriguez was putting out.  It's a simple fact, nostalgia or not.  

It's not meant as a knock on Rodriguez, but rather as a point of comparison.  That's all.

MGoVillain

September 14th, 2011 at 2:11 AM ^

I remember some classic responses (and facial expressions) given by Carr when asked about injuries.  The man was not a fan of disclosing that information, this is a fact.  I for one like it.  When you're so detail oriented about even the injury report that probably means everything else is closely cared for as well.  

Fhshockey112002

September 13th, 2011 at 3:49 PM ^

In the Friday presser it was mentioned he was banged up.  It was later stated it was a shoulder and that he wouldn't play.  After the game Hoke said he should be fine this Saturday but they didn't want to push him back because they didn't see enough in practice.

ijohnb

September 13th, 2011 at 4:04 PM ^

and Fitz were both out entirely against ND?

Along the same lines, where is Cam Gordon and should I expect to see him anytime soon, and am I correct that it will be very unlikely that Wolfolk plays until at least Minnesota?

TRUEwolverine

September 13th, 2011 at 5:28 PM ^

I don't know if this is thread-worthy but I don't have enough points to make one anyways. If someone feels it's important feel free to make a thread out of it.

I saw Troy Woolfolk today on the diag. He has some sort of bandage on the lower half of his nose, which is why he caught my eye in the first place. My guess is that it is just a pretty bad cut and not a break.

He also has a cast on his right hand. I broke my hand a couple years ago, punching a wall -- no less, and had to wear a cast. Since it was a bad break my cast went to about three inches below my elbow. His looks to be two or three inches above his wrist which makes me think the injury isn't too serious. The good news is that he was walking quite fast without any signs of pain, so hopefully his ankle doesn't give him anymore trouble. 

michgoblue

September 13th, 2011 at 4:48 PM ^

"Smith = Loss or 2-3 yard gain"

I think you mean: "Smith = loss or 2-3 yard gain, coupled with awesome blocking for Denard on EVERY SINGLE PLAY, or awesome freaking run in the final minutes of one of the biggest games of the season during which he cut past and eluded 2 ND defenders that should have smashed him into the ground to get a huge TD that set up the most exciting final minute of play in Big House History."

 

profitgoblue

September 13th, 2011 at 5:24 PM ^

Call me crazy (don't actually do it, it'll hurt my feelings), but I think Vincent Smith should still be the starting back.  He's clearly still the most reliable.  He may not have top-end speed like the others but he's consistent and a known commodity.  Sometimes that is better than the wildcard with the bigger upside, especially one that starts but ends the day with negative yards rushing.

 

michgoblue

September 13th, 2011 at 8:08 PM ^

I kid , I kid.
<br>
<br>I totally agree with you. Smith is by far the most consistent. He is an awesome blocker and unlike Hopkins, he doesn't fumble. Sure, there are times when he gets between 0 and 3 yards, but there are also many times when he breaks loose for good gains. Finally, it just seems to me that Denard is way more effective when smith is in the game.

jmitch

September 13th, 2011 at 5:26 PM ^

Cox must really be in the dog house.  I thought with his style of running he would do well in this type of offense.  It's sad that he's not getting PT with the injuries and suspensions at the RB position.