snoscythe wrote:

I don't see where this idea that kick returners are hurt more than any other ball carrier comes from. Yeah, Collie got hurt last year at Tulsa, but he didn't take any big hits that he wouldn't expect on any given reception. I think looking at one game last season and painting with such a broad brush is the wrong assumption.

Special teams under Bronco are, and always have been, on a volunteer basis. Evidently Austin wants to return kicks, and there is no argument that he is our most dynamic returner as thing stand currently. There is not truth to the assumption that returners get hurt more than any other receiver. The hits they take returning a punt are the same as the hits they get on crossing routes, so if we are looking to protect Austin, we should not let him return kicks, not let him run crossing routes, wear O-Line knee braces, and run immediately out of bounds after every catch.

This is football, and people are going to get hurt. You do what you can in practice and scrimmages to protect your #1 guys, but come game time you put the best players in the best position to succeed and play the game. If you have a problem with that, the New York Times has some fare for you.

Hey Sno, I have no idea what the actual stats are on likelihood of injury, but it just stands to reason that you're more likely to get hurt in a dogpile than a 1-on-1. Swimming upstream against 11 defenders is a much dicier proposition than going mano-a-mano when you've already burned past the other 10.

And enjoyment from your early 20th century NYT article aside, letting a kid play a position just because he wants to isn't a good enough reason--even if he's good at it. You wouldn't let your best financial analyst work the stock room if they want because it's taking away from their time to do what they do best. If there's a good chance that letting a player return punts will keep them from producing in their more valued role (and I think you can argue that there is), then you're not using assets efficiently. Comparative advantage and opportunity cost.

I tend to side with snoscythe on this one. Curtis Brown was the main kick return guy two years ago and he was fine, even with all the reps he got at running back as well. So I don't see a big problem with this. And who can blame Collie for volunteering on both PRs and KRs? Didn't he have almost 300 all-purpose yards in that Tulsa game last year?
Besides, if Collie gets hurt, yeah our game will take a hit as one of the best players will be sidelined, but it's not like he doesn't have talent to back him up (remember last year?).
I'm kinda surprised most of you guys don't believe that Bronco's seamless system management would leave us in good enough condition to be just fine should Collie get injured...

Good point about Curtis. He was a very, very durable back.

And I agree with you about Mendenhall's system having people ready to step in should someone go down. So maybe a better question is: do we think there's more depth (a bigger gap in ability to execute on game day) between Collie and the next-best returner and Collie and the next-best receiver.

It's clear that Mendenhall is very concerned about keeping his people healthy, at least in practices. It's a tough call on how to keep your best players on the field for the most amount of time in a game.

snoscythe wrote:

I don't see where this idea that kick returners are hurt more than any other ball carrier comes from. Yeah, Collie got hurt last year at Tulsa, but he didn't take any big hits that he wouldn't expect on any given reception. I think looking at one game last season and painting with such a broad brush is the wrong assumption.

Special teams under Bronco are, and always have been, on a volunteer basis. Evidently Austin wants to return kicks, and there is no argument that he is our most dynamic returner as thing stand currently. There is not truth to the assumption that returners get hurt more than any other receiver. The hits they take returning a punt are the same as the hits they get on crossing routes, so if we are looking to protect Austin, we should not let him return kicks, not let him run crossing routes, wear O-Line knee braces, and run immediately out of bounds after every catch.

This is football, and people are going to get hurt. You do what you can in practice and scrimmages to protect your #1 guys, but come game time you put the best players in the best position to succeed and play the game. If you have a problem with that, the New York Times has some fare for you.

I agree with Sno. I bet that on a per play basis, special teams have a much greater impact on the outcome of a game than all other plays from scrimmage. As such, I think the best players should be playing on special teams. Frank Beamer's Virginia Tech teams always seem to come up with game changing plays on special teams no doubt because he plays many offensive and defensive starters on special teams.

I really hope JJ gets a chance to work in to that position. Just a feeling, but I think he is going to be pure majic when he gets that ball in his hands.

Conosticator wrote:

Hansanity wrote:

By the way, who is our punt returner? Unga?

No, Fui. Didn't you get the memo? :cheer:

I think it should either be Fui, Jesse TaFUI, or Nate Hartung returning punts.

Can't believe nobody picked up on your sarcasm...