Leidner to Start Against Rutgers

Donate To GopherHole
MaroonGold1 said:
I would say a severe brain injury is plenty of reason to at least debate. Especially with the opponent they are playing
Click to expand...

What is it you think the concussion protocol is for?
 

Section2 said:
What is it you think the concussion protocol is for?
Click to expand...

To make sure he is symptom free. Do you have any research backing up the moment he passes a few stress tests his brain is fully healed and not more susceptible to further injury?
 


I suppose it's not quite the same as ankle injury you're worried about re-aggravating, but I still think it's safer to give him an extra week.
 

He practiced every day this week and passed protocol. I don't think a HS player would be treated any different. Once they pass protocol they are free to play.

Mitch wants to play, sure he might get on some practice squad in the future, but he is only thinking about finishing his college career.

Iowa 14 - Rutgers 7
Iowa 14 - Gophers 7
 


MaroonGold1 said:
13-33, 166 yard, 0 TD's, 2 INT's, and a QBR... wait for it... wait for it... 8.2!

I mean if we're just using last game numbers as a barometer, make sure you don't leave that out.
Click to expand...

Wasn't really the point. Some people were saying last week's performance proves Rhoda is better than Leidner. Some even said Rhoda was a big reason the team won. I think he did a fine job for his first start but some people (not you) just dislike Leidner so much that they were going to say Rhoda was better no matter what.
 

GophersInIowa said:
Wasn't really the point. Some people were saying last week's performance proves Rhoda is better than Leidner. Some even said Rhoda was a big reason the team won. I think he did a fine job for his first start but some people (not you) just dislike Leidner so much that they were going to say Rhoda was better no matter what.
Click to expand...


All I did was reply to a nonsensical post that simply listed Rhoda's numbers, with the QB numbers from the week before which were signifcantly worse.
 

MaroonGold1 said:
To make sure he is symptom free. Do you have any research backing up the moment he passes a few stress tests his brain is fully healed and not more susceptible to further injury?
Click to expand...

you don't think the concussion protocol does that? of course it does. University doctors make the call, and I'm quite certain it's not a slapdash, he's probably good. The brain is healed when it's healed. I'm sure there's ample research which led to the protocol, and it's probably erring on the side of caution. This is a very high profile problem with football at all levels, I think your concerns are bunk.
 




GophersInIowa said:
Wasn't really the point. Some people were saying last week's performance proves Rhoda is better than Leidner. Some even said Rhoda was a big reason the team won. I think he did a fine job for his first start but some people (not you) just dislike Leidner so much that they were going to say Rhoda was better no matter what.
Click to expand...

I like Leidner very much as a QB and I'm glad he's back but he seem to make very critical mistakes, like throwing a int int the red zone... Did Rhoda do that ???
 

MaroonGold1 said:
To make sure he is symptom free. Do you have any research backing up the moment he passes a few stress tests his brain is fully healed and not more susceptible to further injury?
Click to expand...

Do you have any research backing up the moment he passes a few stress tests that his brain is NOT fully healed and IS susceptible to further injury?
 

Deckergopher said:
I like Leidner very much as a QB and I'm glad he's back but he seem to make very critical mistakes, like throwing a int int the red zone... Did Rhoda do that ???
Click to expand...

Mitch has thrown 1 or 2 more red zone passes than Rhoda, if that matters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Here's a question I can't answer - were Leidner's stats/performance against IA impacted by the concussion? I know he didn't display visible symptoms until after the game, but you have to wonder whether his head was really clear and he was making good decisions. In a close game, where 1 play can make a difference, it's fair to speculate whether a completely healthy Leidner might have been able to make a play to help win the game. As someone who has watched him play a lot of games, he didn't look right in the second half.

One could argue that, for a fair comparison, we need to have numbers from Rhoda playing in a game after receiving a concussion, and compare those to Leidner's numbers from Iowa.
 



Bayfieldgopher said:
Huh? You play you best and most experienced players. RU is not a gimmee game. I hope our guys don't think that way.

Put ML out there and hope it results in a W. Then play the #2's if we can.
Click to expand...

AMEN. This line of "don't risk injury" thinking is dumb. Why stop at the QB? Let's bench more starters to avoid injury because it is just Rutgers. Why did we play them during NC at all? Maybe if the team improves enough we can get to the point where we only play our best players 2 or 3 games a year!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Spoofin said:
AMEN. This line of "don't risk injury" thinking is dumb. Why stop at the QB? Let's bench more starters to avoid injury because it is just Rutgers. Why did we play them during NC at all? Maybe if the team improves enough we can get to the point where we only play our best players 2 or 3 games a year!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The Gophers should also rest Brooks because his foot might still be sore.
 

GopherWeatherGuy said:
The Gophers should also rest Brooks because his foot might still be sore.
Click to expand...

Yep. Lingen, Still, Rallis, Calhoun, Coughlin also need to rest. I don't care if the doctors have cleared them to play - they could get reinjured and it's just Rutgers. Didn't Jack Lynn have the flu a couple weeks ago? Sit this one out young man.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Spoofin said:
AMEN. This line of "don't risk injury" thinking is dumb. Why stop at the QB? Let's bench more starters to avoid injury because it is just Rutgers. Why did we play them during NC at all? Maybe if the team improves enough we can get to the point where we only play our best players 2 or 3 games a year!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That is what I was getting at in my post earlier. The protocol may not be perfect, but if you doubt it, then the slope becomes quite slippery.

Also, if you bench Leidner for the cupcake games because he might take a cheap shot and get injured, don't you think the "good" teams like Nebraska and WI won't do the same?
 

short ornery norwegian said:
Here's a question I can't answer - were Leidner's stats/performance against IA impacted by the concussion? I know he didn't display visible symptoms until after the game, but you have to wonder whether his head was really clear and he was making good decisions. In a close game, where 1 play can make a difference, it's fair to speculate whether a completely healthy Leidner might have been able to make a play to help win the game. As someone who has watched him play a lot of games, he didn't look right in the second half.

One could argue that, for a fair comparison, we need to have numbers from Rhoda playing in a game after receiving a concussion, and compare those to Leidner's numbers from Iowa.
Click to expand...

Well the hit happened in the 2nd half. At halftime he was 3-11 for 39 yards and a pick
 

We all know that high school, college and pro football have had major problems with ignoring concussions and concussions themselves for decades. Probably played with guys who "had their bell rung" and should have been shut down but weren't.

Football has finally instituted concussion protocols. Most (all?) FBS schools now even have a "spotter" and a medical staff that's suppose to monitor the player's health without a Head Coach interfering.

That is probably violated at many schools but here? Every thread about Gopher Football problems whines about how the Administration isn't "supportive" enough of football and it's head coach. Many posters whine about how the Administration does whatever they can to try and torpedo the program at every turn.

Now we've got a player who played a big chunk of the 2nd half against Iowa WITH an undiagnosed concussion, arguably costing them the game, but who after meeting with the doctors, was shut down. He's passed every protocol, he wants to play, the Coach says he may/will play and we have posters who see all kinds of things wrong with it.

So when did we miss Minnesota becoming a football factory?
 

GopherWeatherGuy said:
Do you have any research backing up the moment he passes a few stress tests that his brain is NOT fully healed and IS susceptible to further injury?
Click to expand...

There is ample evidence that a brain that is not fully healed is more susceptible to re-injury . From the CDC


While you are healing, you should be very careful to avoid doing anything that could cause a bump, blow, or jolt to the head or body. On rare occasions, receiving another concussion before the brain has healed can result in brain swelling, permanent brain damage, and even death, particularly among children and teens.

No one knows when the brain his fully healed. From the NCAA

It is noteworthy that all return-to-play guidelines are consensus-based and have not been validated by evidence-based studies

He's a 22 year old kid, who might give the Gophers a 95% chance of winning Saturday instead of a 93% chance with Rhoda. But this is a heck of thing to debate and mock, everyone
 

MaroonGold1 said:
There is ample evidence that a brain that is not fully healed is more susceptible to re-injury . From the CDC


While you are healing, you should be very careful to avoid doing anything that could cause a bump, blow, or jolt to the head or body. On rare occasions, receiving another concussion before the brain has healed can result in brain swelling, permanent brain damage, and even death, particularly among children and teens.

No one knows when the brain his fully healed. From the NCAA

It is noteworthy that all return-to-play guidelines are consensus-based and have not been validated by evidence-based studies

He's a 22 year old kid, who might give the Gophers a 95% chance of winning Saturday instead of a 93% chance with Rhoda. But this is a heck of thing to debate and mock, everyone
Click to expand...

Players today understand the risks with concussions more than players of any previous time. There is evidence that shows you are more likely to receive another concussion once you've already had one. But that risk is there whether it has been a few weeks, few months, or a few years.

Based on the fact that no one knows when, you could make the argument that once you've had one concussion, you should probably quit playing football.

But there are protocols in place and if Leidner has been cleared by the doctors, understands the risks, and wants to play, then I have no problem with him playing.
 

GopherWeatherGuy said:
Players today understand the risks with concussions more than players of any previous time. There is evidence that shows you are more likely to receive another concussion once you've already had one. But that risk is there whether it has been a few weeks, few months, or a few years.

Based on the fact that no one knows when, you could make the argument that once you've had one concussion, you should probably quit playing football.

But there are protocols in place and if Leidner has been cleared by the doctors, understands the risks, and wants to play, then I have no problem with him playing.
Click to expand...

Of course you have no problem with it. You want the Gophers to win and think they have a better chance if he plays. Just call it like it is.

The mocking on this thread, and "there should be 0 argument, he cleared protocol today, he plays" is just absurd.

He has practiced 2 times since the Iowa game, and was playing pretty poorly before the injury. Maybe it's not the worst idea in the world to let him see a game from a different view, up in the press box or on the sidelines with a headset on. I'll go as far as to call this game loser proof. What would be the downside in this? Cuz the upside would be Mitch gets an extra week to heal and Rhoda who is going to be in the mix to start the 2017 Opener gets another game experience. He's a hit away from having to go to Lincoln and Madison as the starter.
 

Given the black cloud that seems to hover over Gopher athletics, the odds of Leidner getting a second concussion have to be exponentially higher than normal. Every true fan knows this. The coaches have not been around long enough to truly appreciate the voodoo curse placed on our beloved rodents.
Why tempt fate? Play Rhoda and if we are losing throw in the #1 draft pick. If not give him another week to get healthy. Do I need to place a restrainting order to protect Mitch from himself?
 

short ornery norwegian said:
Here's a question I can't answer - were Leidner's stats/performance against IA impacted by the concussion? I know he didn't display visible symptoms until after the game, but you have to wonder whether his head was really clear and he was making good decisions. In a close game, where 1 play can make a difference, it's fair to speculate whether a completely healthy Leidner might have been able to make a play to help win the game. As someone who has watched him play a lot of games, he didn't look right in the second half.

One could argue that, for a fair comparison, we need to have numbers from Rhoda playing in a game after receiving a concussion, and compare those to Leidner's numbers from Iowa.
Click to expand...

After the game Claeys, when asked about the illegal procedure penalties said they "were all on Mitch". Said for some reason Mitch wanted to go before anybody else was ready. It's just hard to believe that a QB with a concussion was making the right decisions after he got it. Starting with the decision to keep playing.
 

MaroonGold1 said:
Of course you have no problem with it. You want the Gophers to win and think they have a better chance if he plays. Just call it like it is.

The mocking on this thread, and "there should be 0 argument, he cleared protocol today, he plays" is just absurd.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with Rhoda playing either because I'm 99% sure they'll win either way.

Why would I, or anyone else have a problem with Leidner playing if he's been medically cleared and he wants to play? He's an adult and that's his decision, not anyone else's.
 

MaroonGold1 said:
Of course you have no problem with it. You want the Gophers to win and think they have a better chance if he plays. Just call it like it is.

The mocking on this thread, and "there should be 0 argument, he cleared protocol today, he plays" is just absurd.
Click to expand...

I actually don't want him to start. I'd rather he back up Rhoda, and if the team struggles, Mitch can come off the bench.

There should be zero argument on whether a player cleared to play should be able to play. If you don't like the process, make your case, but I doubt you have more knowledge than University doctors. We have a plan in place to deal with concussions, it IS based on evidence and research, and the only counter evidence you've provided is an increased in susceptibility to a concussion when you've already had one. Guess what, that doesn't change if he sits out this game.
 

Section2 said:
There should be zero argument on whether a player cleared to play should be able to play. If you don't like the process, make your case, but I doubt you have more knowledge than University doctors. We have a plan in place to deal with concussions, it IS based on evidence and research, .
Click to expand...

Brain injury research when it comes to sports is still very much a field that is a moving target.

I don't think we're down to the point where there is "zero argument" about anything on that topic..
 

Section2 said:
I actually don't want him to start. I'd rather he back up Rhoda, and if the team struggles, Mitch can come off the bench.

There should be zero argument on whether a player cleared to play should be able to play. If you don't like the process, make your case, but I doubt you have more knowledge than University doctors. We have a plan in place to deal with concussions, it IS based on evidence and research, and the only counter evidence you've provided is an increased in susceptibility to a concussion when you've already had one. Guess what, that doesn't change if he sits out this game.
Click to expand...

I never once said he shouldn't be allowed to play. I said I would start Rhoda, and think they should. I am not arguing that they don't have the right to play him as he has passed the protocol.
 

MaroonGold1 said:
Of course you have no problem with it. You want the Gophers to win and think they have a better chance if he plays. Just call it like it is.

The mocking on this thread, and "there should be 0 argument, he cleared protocol today, he plays" is just absurd.
Click to expand...

This translate to: "Unlike myself, anybody who doesn't support my position wants to cripple Mitch for life just to get a better chance to beat Rutgers."

You ignore or "mock" anyone or anything that doesn't agree with your decision, here's a more direct approach and it's coming from a guy who doesn't think Leidner should play unless it becomes necessary: stop it.
 

GopherWeatherGuy said:
I have no problem with Rhoda playing either because I'm 99% sure they'll win either way.

Why would I, or anyone else have a problem with Leidner playing if he's been medically cleared and he wants to play? He's an adult and that's his decision, not anyone else's.
Click to expand...

The coach selects the starting QB for a game, not the player. So it's not actually his decision.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom