Miami Injuries

Falcon137 · Post by **Falcon137** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 1:43 am

http://www.daytondailynews.com/s/conten ... amifb.html

Article about the Miami injury situation.

Zom · Post by **Zom** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 7:40 am

Ouch! That hurts. Not happy bunnies, I imagine. When injuries are so endemic, I suppose there might be scope to wonder about the fitness coach. Can't help thinking this is more like the mother of misfortune, though. It is the wrong kind of luck to tip the balance in favour of a title.

Redwingtom · Post by **Redwingtom** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 8:21 am

Sycaruse?????

The loss of the WR is big, but Raudabaugh for Kokal is pretty much a wash.

MarkL · Post by **MarkL** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 8:21 am

Zom wrote:Ouch! That hurts. Not happy bunnies, I imagine. When injuries are so endemic, I suppose there might be scope to wonder about the fitness coach. Can't help thinking this is more like the mother of misfortune, though. It is the wrong kind of luck to tip the balance in favour of a title.

I've been wondering that myself. I can understand a slew of injuries that they saw last year, as that could just be crappy luck, but to see that many injuries two years in a row makes me really wonder if the strength and conditioning program is not doing much good for all of these athletes.

redskins4ever · Post by **redskins4ever** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 8:58 am

I don't know how you prevent the rash of knee injuries we have had unless you go back to grass. This fake stuff is suppose to be really good, but now Im starting to wonder if it isn't the cause of all of the problems.

The strength and conditioning coach is a direct descendent of a guy who left for the Saints two or three years ago. Injuries happen, the knee ones you can't do a whole lot about. The back/neck/and shoulder injuries are the ones I worry about when it comes to conditioning and strength.

That said... we are getting back our #3 rb... but it really hasn't mattered who you put behind the line as they've been able to run pretty well.

Falcon137 · Post by **Falcon137** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 9:45 am

Field turf has been documented to have far less injuries than grass.

Falconfreak90 · Post by **Falconfreak90** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 9:48 am

redskins4ever wrote:That said... we are getting back our #3 rb... but it really hasn't mattered who you put behind the line as they've been able to run pretty well.

This is where BG needs to step it up on D. We need to lock down opposing running games or we could be in trouble. Kent runs pretty well, too.

Hopefully Coach Ward has a solid game plan for Saturday.

ffejfalcon · Post by **ffejfalcon** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 11:16 am

This will be a tough game for our beloved Falcons!! Miami at home, homecoming and from what I have seen a solid team. Hope our guys get some payback from the game last year......

redskins4ever · Post by **redskins4ever** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 3:04 pm

Falcon137 wrote:Field turf has been documented to have far less injuries than grass.

Care to site the study?

Just because it causes fewer injuries doesn't necessarily mean it is less likely to produce knee or ankle injuries.

In addition do you what sort of sample size you need to make a study like that valid? Sellers are going to make their product look as grand as possible, but the sort of knee injuries that have hit Miami the last two years, really has made me begin to wonder.

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 3:39 pm

redskins4ever wrote:
Falcon137 wrote:Field turf has been documented to have far less injuries than grass.
Care to site the study?

Just because it causes fewer injuries doesn't necessarily mean it is less likely to produce knee or ankle injuries.

In addition do you what sort of sample size you need to make a study like that valid? Sellers are going to make their product look as grand as possible, but the sort of knee injuries that have hit Miami the last two years, really has made me begin to wonder.

I've never found a study that showed it has far fewer injuries than grass.

When I was looking around (back when we were arguing for/against it on here) I found the consensus to be that it was far fewer injuries than astroturf, but about on par with natural grass.

I remember reading that the injuries were different types of injuries between the two surfaces, but I don't remember what the breakdown was.

I think you'll have a hard time finding data to back up the claim that it has fewer injuries than grass.

Peregrinner · Post by **Peregrinner** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:48 pm

I thought I remembered there being speculation that FieldTurf could lead to more ankle/knee type injuries, but that in overall injuries it was pretty much a draw between turf and grass. Aside from the speculation, I never saw any real proof one way or the other.

SicSic80 · Post by **SicSic80** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 6:57 pm

Falconfreak90 wrote:
redskins4ever wrote:That said... we are getting back our #3 rb... but it really hasn't mattered who you put behind the line as they've been able to run pretty well.
This is where BG needs to step it up on D. We need to lock down opposing running games or we could be in trouble. Kent runs pretty well, too.

Hopefully Coach Ward has a solid game plan for Saturday.

Freak - you hit the nail on the head......Miami's team passing stats rank dead last in the MAC. Our front seven MUST stop the run and then our secondary will take care of the rest.

Falcon137 · Post by **Falcon137** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 7:36 pm

I know it causes fewer overal injuries, ankles and knees you could be right. However, not knowing every injury and body part, I wouldnt go blaming the turf yet. I know Kokal's injury is to his shoulder. Is every other knee ankle?

Flipper · Post by **Flipper** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 7:43 pm

I think foot injuries are more prevalent on field turf...I never heard of a Lisfranc fracture until teams started playing on that stuff

Falcon137 · Post by **Falcon137** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 7:52 pm

redskins4ever wrote:
Falcon137 wrote:Field turf has been documented to have far less injuries than grass.
Care to site the study?

Just because it causes fewer injuries doesn't necessarily mean it is less likely to produce knee or ankle injuries.

In addition do you what sort of sample size you need to make a study like that valid? Sellers are going to make their product look as grand as possible, but the sort of knee injuries that have hit Miami the last two years, really has made me begin to wonder.

Here's your proof the actual numbers are towards the bottom....far less injuries overal the only ones slightly higher were hip and foot....

http://www.sportssafety.org/presentatio ... ral-grass/