Innocuous, Non-terrifying Injury Update re: Evans, Hill

Submitted by uncle leo on October 27th, 2016 at 8:37 AM

JH was just on 97.1 FM a few minutes ago.

Said Chris Evans practiced yesterday and didn't show any symptoms, will be re-evaluated today.

Didn't know but apparently Khalid Hill got hurt in the game last week. Would be looked at again today but should be good for Saturday.

[ED:BiSB - Modified title to avoid pant-pooping]

Comments

michgoblue

October 27th, 2016 at 10:15 AM ^

I hear what you are saying, but I think that he gets much of the same taste just by dressing, being at the game, sitting on the sidelines and playing the role of bench warmer (injury-variety, not ability-varietY).

The only thing that he misses by not playing is being on the receiving end of many called and not-called personal fouls, cheap shots, late hits, etc.  Coming off of a concussion, I am fine with us sitting him and rolling with Higdon (or even Peppers occasionally) as the speed back for one week unless absolutely necessary.

bluebyyou

October 27th, 2016 at 11:42 AM ^

As for Evans, even if he passes the concussion protcols, if he was actually unconscious after a hit and it sure looked like he was at the Stadium, I'd hold him out for another week.  It's a game and it's his life.

Maybe some of our MgoDocs could weigh in on what actually happens when you are hit hard enough to lose consciousness.

Venom7541

October 27th, 2016 at 10:36 AM ^

After all these years of below average running game, am I the only one that is still terrified the running game really isn't that good yet and will be exposed against a good defense. I know part of my problem is growing into adulthood in the 90's and being able to witness all the world class running backs of the time. Add the recent dark ages and I'm just really trigger shy to believe it's really a good run game.

I'm still feeling that way about the O line too, even when I've watched them consistently open monster holes. I'm usually extremely optomistic (I know I had to have spelled that wrong), But, I still have a shed of doubt it's all real.

BassDude138

October 27th, 2016 at 11:02 AM ^

I think the truth lies in between the two. I think they have looked better than what they actually are at times against some of the weaker competition, but not all of the teams so far have been scrubs obviously, and I don't think the running game is anywhere near as weak as it has been recently. Even against a good defense, the number of backs getting touches keeps everyone fresh for later in games, and the offensive scheme is good and balanced enough to keep teams honest.

1VaBlue1

October 27th, 2016 at 12:10 PM ^

Couple of things about the running game...  1) The actual RB's getting carries this year are arguably better than any other GROUP of backs UM has had in forever.  Individual talent stands on its own (Hart, one year of Fitz; etc).  But the combination of everyone that carries it this year is a mile in front of any other group of UM backs in 10 years, at least.

2) The OL...  We're all tempted to think that its still not that good.  We want to believe that the big rushing totals are because the other team sucks.  Some of that is true, but not most of it.  The fact is that the OL are pushing back the DL, and getting out to the second level.  And they're finding the 2nd level targets, not just running out there blindly.  That stuff is opponent agnostic.  And they're also doing it with complicated schemes and techniques - something we haven't seen performed competently for a decade.  

The running attack is real, its diverse, and its improving.  It put up ~5 yds/carry against UW, which is a solid top 10 defense.  It CRUSHED PSU - whose defense just beat OSU.  

What has MSU shown it can do to stop a competent offense?

This game is going to be a blow out, and it won't even be that close.

father fisch

October 27th, 2016 at 12:54 PM ^

Running game diversity.  Well put!

Having a great stable of backs who all bring a little something different has been wonderful.  And unlike the days of Bo (and I loved that man!), coaches today are more likely to pass to loosen up the defense.  As long as Wilton can keep throwing mid- to deep balls, this offense and group of backs will be just fine.

Venom7541

October 28th, 2016 at 10:16 AM ^

Are they that much better than everyone? Or are the teams that bad? Even the 2006 team didn't look nearly this good, but was the compitition better then? Then, 2006 ended with 2 losses. I think this is the greatest team since 1997, mabye even better, but the past decade has me a little nervouse and I'm never pessimistic.

On a side note. I'm not really sold on Wisconsin being all that good. I think they looked great against a few teams we thought were better that they were, but were those performances really that impressive as we look back now? The best the looked was against OSU in a loss.

This weekend, MSU will give it their game of the year and I believe still fall by at least 14, but more like 20.

Ni

October 27th, 2016 at 9:02 AM ^

I'm not sure if this is an appropriate comment, but I've been hearing some rumors about Hand, Foot, And Mouth disease making it's way through the team...I didn't even think adults could get this. I don't have a rivals account or anything, but a quick google search brought up an article from The Daily Illini saying that it's making its way around campus...

Is there any reason to be concerned here? Has anyone ever had this as an adult?

Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Ni

October 27th, 2016 at 9:16 AM ^

No - Again, neg away for the possibility of me giving credence to Sparty rumor mongering, but it's something that is floating around on the rival boards. Also, neg away for giving credence to the rival boards.

I quickly dismissed it until I search for hands, foot, and mouth disease. First article that came up was about the disease spreading through the Illini campus.

Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

mdoc

October 27th, 2016 at 9:17 AM ^

It's fairly common to hear about it spreading around toddler-age day care classes, and the symptoms can be pretty bad for them: rashes, blisters, etc. on the hands, feet, and mouth. Then of course they bring it home. The good news is that in adults, I believe it typically presents mild common cold symptoms, so it's probably nothing to get nervous about.

901 P

October 27th, 2016 at 9:26 AM ^

I'm not a member of Rivals or any other board but I also heard separately about hand, foot, and mouth disease making an appearance on campus and that at least one player had contracted it a couple of weeks ago. I have no idea how easily it spreads or how severe the symptoms are.  

Jeff

October 27th, 2016 at 9:48 AM ^

I actually got it worse than my 1 year old. He had little bumps all over but never acted sick at all. Then I got a rash all over my hands and arms and basically had a fever and no energy for a whole day. It was probably the sickest I had felt in 20 years. The next day I was at about 50% and then I felt fine after that although the bumps took a few more days to disappear.

michgoblue

October 27th, 2016 at 10:19 AM ^

What you are saying about the disease being less severe in adults is often true, but not always.  Each of my kids have had this, and they were very sick.  My wife and I contracted it one time - she had a few blisters, a scratchy throat (probably from a blister in her throat) and felt like she had a bad cold for 2 days.  I got it a bit worse - I felt like I had the flu for 2 days.  Either way, not devastating, but when you are playing football at the highest level, a minor thing like flu-like conditions can make a big difference.

Hopefully, this isn't a big deal, though.

michgoblue

October 27th, 2016 at 10:22 AM ^

Even if true, this wouldn't make a difference for HFM disease.  The flu shot only protects against the flu, and not any other ailments.  In fact, the flu shot doesn't even prevent against all flu as there are many strains of influenza.  The CDC, based on a ton of information, makes a predictive guess as to which 2-3 strains of influenze are likely to be most active in any given year, and the "flu shot" for that year protects against only those 2-3 strains.  If they guess correctly, the  the shot is largely effective at preventing the flu from spreading, but in certain years, they have guessed wrong, and the flu shot has been less effective.

/themoreyouknow

(Yes, I am bored at work today)