Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Redskins Forums > Redskins Locker Room


Backup center discussion

Redskins Locker Room


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-09-2008, 02:27 PM   #31
RG Glee
 
Schneed10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Newtown Square, PA
Age: 35
Posts: 8,304
re: Backup center discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by BDBohnzie View Post
Quotable...

It's still too early to worry about this. If we're into the 3rd Preseason game with no C backup that isn't named Jon Jansen, then you worry. But I have the impression that Buges is doing this because the Skins did not get him the depth he needs to go into Training Camp...
Then by that logic, until the backup C situation changes, we have reason to be worried about it for the start of the season.
Schneed10 is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 06-09-2008, 02:49 PM   #32
Swearinger
 
GMScud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Age: 36
Posts: 12,623
re: Backup center discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneed10 View Post
OK. But using the Law of Averages to say we're due for an injury-free season is bad reasoning, just making sure that kind of reasoning isn't creeping in here.

The Law of Averages says we should have an "average" injury season. Last year's ravage is in the past, and has no bearing on this year. We're not due for an injury-free year any more than we're due to repeat the ravage.

You're right in saying it's dumb luck. But that's why they call it "dumb" luck. It can't even itself out.

What we're really saying here is that last year we had an abnormally high number of games missed along the line. Chances are we won't have to endure that again, as it was a pretty rare event to be that ravaged. But that doesn't mean we should be injury free. The law of averages states that we should have an "average" number of games missed along the line.
Well, I never said we were due for a totally injury-free season. But I think the chance of repeating the rash of injuries in consecutive seasons is much more remote than just randomly have one such season. The Law of Averages talks about random events evening things out. I simply said that given how ravaged we were last season, it would be that much more unlikely for it to occur again. And the Law of Averages agrees with that, as an "average" amount of injuries this year would mean far less than last year for us.
__________________
Insert witty signature here
GMScud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2008, 02:54 PM   #33
The Starter
 
redsk1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,351
re: Backup center discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kope65 View Post
This might not be about Rabach at all. Mebbie Heyer has become the RT, and that is why JJ is now backing up at center.
Doubtful, although Heyer did a serviceable job he's no Jon Jansen. Our oline got killed much of the year last year.
redsk1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2008, 02:56 PM   #34
‎\m/
 
Mattyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 41
Posts: 81,855
re: Backup center discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kope65 View Post
This might not be about Rabach at all. Mebbie Heyer has become the RT, and that is why JJ is now backing up at center.
Right.

So now Heyer has secretly beaten out Jansen before training camp even starts and Jansen has been bumped over to center.

Please.

__________________
Support The Warpath! | Warpath Shop
Mattyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2008, 03:07 PM   #35
Registered User
 
firstdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: chesapeake, va
Age: 50
Posts: 15,818
re: Backup center discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by BDBohnzie View Post
Quotable...

It's still too early to worry about this. If we're into the 3rd Preseason game with no C backup that isn't named Jon Jansen, then you worry. But I have the impression that Buges is doing this because the Skins did not get him the depth he needs to go into Training Camp...
Well on the Riggo show Buges was very happy with the line and with its depth. I'm still thinking we end up with a backup center on the pratice sq. and Jansen would only take the center job if an injury occured durn a game. Heck it coud be they want someone ready if a back up center was to get injured. Just about all positions you have a plain A, B and C with Jon as plan C. I'm sure after June cuts there will be a few decent centers looking for work.
firstdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2008, 03:13 PM   #36
RG Glee
 
Schneed10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Newtown Square, PA
Age: 35
Posts: 8,304
re: Backup center discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by firstdown View Post
Well on the Riggo show Buges was very happy with the line and with its depth. I'm still thinking we end up with a backup center on the pratice sq. and Jansen would only take the center job if an injury occured durn a game. Heck it coud be they want someone ready if a back up center was to get injured. Just about all positions you have a plain A, B and C with Jon as plan C. I'm sure after June cuts there will be a few decent centers looking for work.
Yeah but I've never seen Buges every say something bad about his line, ever. He's always 100% supportive of them. Can't say it means a lot.
Schneed10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2008, 03:18 PM   #37
RG Glee
 
Schneed10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Newtown Square, PA
Age: 35
Posts: 8,304
re: Backup center discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by GMScud View Post
Well, I never said we were due for a totally injury-free season. But I think the chance of repeating the rash of injuries in consecutive seasons is much more remote than just randomly have one such season. The Law of Averages talks about random events evening things out. I simply said that given how ravaged we were last season, it would be that much more unlikely for it to occur again. And the Law of Averages agrees with that, as an "average" amount of injuries this year would mean far less than last year for us.
You, sir, are a subscriber to the gambler's fallacy. Out of respect for all things Warpath, I refuse to down THAT road again. But I will ask you this:

If you flip a coin and it lands on heads, what is the likelihood that it will land on heads on the NEXT flip?

If you answered anything other than 50%, you'd be wrong.

The fact that an event just occurred does nothing to change the probability of it occurring in the future.

You're right in saying that the probability of having two injury-ravaged seasons in a row is much lower than having one. But that's not the issue: the issue is will this ONE season coming up in 2008 be injury-ravaged? We're not looking at two at the same time, we're looking at one season. We're looking at the NEXT coin flip. What happened last season has no bearing, the odds remain the same.

The law of averages states that things even out. This does tend to be true, but only over TIME with large enough samples. Meaning if you look at the Skins over the next 30 seasons or so, we'll approach the average number of games missed. But we're talking about one season, about one coin flip. The odds remain the same.

The fact that we got so injured last year does not help us, nor does it hurt us, going into this season.
Schneed10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2008, 03:25 PM   #38
Special Teams
 
Ade Jimoh Fan Club's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 410
re: Backup center discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneed10 View Post

You're right in saying that the probability of having two injury-ravaged seasons in a row is much lower than having one. But that's not the issue: the issue is will this ONE season coming up in 2008 be injury-ravaged? We're not looking at two at the same time, we're looking at one season. We're looking at the NEXT coin flip. What happened last season has no bearing, the odds remain the same.
Please note in the official warpath records that this is the first time I have ever disagreed with the very astute Schneedster.

However, I would argue that coming off an injury-ravaged year makes us MORE probable to have another one, since injuries are known to have set-backs and/or cause new injuries to occur.

It's like once you have heat-stroke, you're exponentially more likely to have it again. Once you're injured, you've very likely to be injured again.

By my math, the odds are 72.9% that we'll not have an injury-filled year. My cousin Vinny the Clam from Vegas confirmed this to be accurate.

I'm not happy about it, but the numbers don't lie.

Last edited by Ade Jimoh Fan Club; 06-09-2008 at 03:27 PM.
Ade Jimoh Fan Club is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2008, 04:05 PM   #39
Swearinger
 
GMScud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Age: 36
Posts: 12,623
re: Backup center discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneed10 View Post
You, sir, are a subscriber to the gambler's fallacy. Out of respect for all things Warpath, I refuse to down THAT road again. But I will ask you this:

If you flip a coin and it lands on heads, what is the likelihood that it will land on heads on the NEXT flip?

If you answered anything other than 50%, you'd be wrong.

The fact that an event just occurred does nothing to change the probability of it occurring in the future.

You're right in saying that the probability of having two injury-ravaged seasons in a row is much lower than having one. But that's not the issue: the issue is will this ONE season coming up in 2008 be injury-ravaged? We're not looking at two at the same time, we're looking at one season. We're looking at the NEXT coin flip. What happened last season has no bearing, the odds remain the same.

The law of averages states that things even out. This does tend to be true, but only over TIME with large enough samples. Meaning if you look at the Skins over the next 30 seasons or so, we'll approach the average number of games missed. But we're talking about one season, about one coin flip. The odds remain the same.

The fact that we got so injured last year does not help us, nor does it hurt us, going into this season.
That's really all I was trying to say all along. And like I said, if we have an "average" injury season, it will be far less than last season. Maybe '07 was evening out how healthy we stayed in '05 when we won 11 games (including playoffs). I wasn't trying to imply we'd be injury-free in '08 because of '07. But the Law of Averages is in our favor in the health department compared to last season.

As far as the gambler's fallacy, I guess it's a good thing I don't bet. I understand what you mean as far as probabilities are concerned. I'm not trying to take the Warpath down a road of flawed logic or anything. Trust me, I'm not that complicated.
__________________
Insert witty signature here
GMScud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2008, 04:09 PM   #40
RG Glee
 
Schneed10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Newtown Square, PA
Age: 35
Posts: 8,304
re: Backup center discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ade Jimoh Fan Club View Post
Please note in the official warpath records that this is the first time I have ever disagreed with the very astute Schneedster.

However, I would argue that coming off an injury-ravaged year makes us MORE probable to have another one, since injuries are known to have set-backs and/or cause new injuries to occur.

It's like once you have heat-stroke, you're exponentially more likely to have it again. Once you're injured, you've very likely to be injured again.

By my math, the odds are 72.9% that we'll not have an injury-filled year. My cousin Vinny the Clam from Vegas confirmed this to be accurate.

I'm not happy about it, but the numbers don't lie.
Yeah you're actually correct about this, because my argument is purely academic and mathematic in nature. It assumes that the onset of injury is entirely random. This of course is not true, as players like Rocky McIntosh who have degenerative knee conditions are certainly more susceptible to injury. So yeah, some lines are going to be more injury-prone than others.

But we're talking about the Redskins here, all of whom have shown an ability to play through a lot of pain and have been largely injury-free. I would argue that Jansen's two devastating injuries (achilles, then the ankle last year) were both freakish in nature and are in no way indicative of an injury trend. Last year, someone flat out rolled up on his ankle and turned it 90 degrees sideways, that would have broken even the most bionic of ankles. I can't recall RT ever having a triceps problem before last season, and I can't recall him missing much time for us before that. Rabach and Samuels have been on the field a ton the last few years.

So in my football opinion, I think the Skins have a decent chance at staying healthy this year, because by and large I think they're very durable. Broken bones tend to heal stronger than they were before a break, good news for Jansen. And RT has more than enough time to deal with the triceps. But from a purely academic standpoint, we're no more or less likely to stay healthy because of last year's debacle. Last year has nothing to do with this year from a mathematical standpoint, and from a football/medical standpoint, I think the guys are healed up enough to get back to being their durable selves.
Schneed10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2008, 04:12 PM   #41
RG Glee
 
Schneed10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Newtown Square, PA
Age: 35
Posts: 8,304
re: Backup center discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by GMScud View Post
That's really all I was trying to say all along. And like I said, if we have an "average" injury season, it will be far less than last season. Maybe '07 was evening out how healthy we stayed in '05 when we won 11 games (including playoffs). I wasn't trying to imply we'd be injury-free in '08 because of '07. But the Law of Averages is in our favor in the health department compared to last season.

As far as the gambler's fallacy, I guess it's a good thing I don't bet. I understand what you mean as far as probabilities are concerned. I'm not trying to take the Warpath down a road of flawed logic or anything. Trust me, I'm not that complicated.
OK yeah I think we're on the same page. It's just the math and probabilities discussion wandered into my area of expertise, so I went apeschneed on it. My bad.

Here's to the Skins staying healthy and mauling D-linemen in 2008. Let's just pray a little harder for Rabach.

Last edited by Schneed10; 06-09-2008 at 04:13 PM.
Schneed10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2008, 04:22 PM   #42
Swearinger
 
GMScud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Age: 36
Posts: 12,623
re: Backup center discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneed10 View Post
OK yeah I think we're on the same page. It's just the math and probabilities discussion wandered into my area of expertise, so I went apeschneed on it. My bad.

Here's to the Skins staying healthy and mauling D-linemen in 2008. Let's just pray a little harder for Rabach.
Apeschneed on it... LOL! Good stuff.

Cheers man. And yes, Rabach's health is one of the most important things for our team this year.
__________________
Insert witty signature here
GMScud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2008, 12:42 AM   #43
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 26
Posts: 15,994
re: Backup center discussion

Angry's 5 best lineman argument makes some sense. However, though Heyer has the makings of a solid RT prospect, I don't think we can consider him in the same class as the veteran starters. Therefore, if Rabach got hurt, we would obviously play the best four linemen, and a sub.

By moving Jansen off of RT, we are opening up a potential hole on the offensive line much greater than the Center position would be. Having a good RT is more important than having a good C, and as we saw, we could lose the ability to run to one side or the other if we don't have a battle-tested tackle.

I think Schneed might be over-exaggerating the problems that Jansen would have as a Center -- If he's healthy, he should do fine, height shouldn't be an issue. But with the relative fungibility of NFL Centers, it would make more sense to have a competition and find a guy who you feel most comfortable to back up Rabach, then to stretch your team thin at the tackle position in trying to back up your Center.

Not to mention, if no one is getting reps at Center in practice besides Jansen and Rabach, this creates a really bad situation if/when Jansen goes down. Now, you have Heyer in at RT, but no one besides Rabach would even be able to handle Center in a game, and that could be disastrous.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2008, 09:45 AM   #44
Special Teams
 
Miller101's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 362
re: Backup center discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattyk72 View Post
Right.

So now Heyer has secretly beaten out Jansen before training camp even starts and Jansen has been bumped over to center.

Please.

I don't know about all that now. Heyer did a great job last year as a rookie. If something happened to Rabach then move Jansen over there and let Heyer step in at Right Tackle for a little bit. I don't think Heyer has taken the job from Jansen, but he's more than capable of playing it if something happened.

Heck, if this did happen I could see Buges running 50 gut a few more times a game.
Miller101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2008, 10:29 AM   #45
Registered User
 
firstdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: chesapeake, va
Age: 50
Posts: 15,818
re: Backup center discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012 View Post
Angry's 5 best lineman argument makes some sense. However, though Heyer has the makings of a solid RT prospect, I don't think we can consider him in the same class as the veteran starters. Therefore, if Rabach got hurt, we would obviously play the best four linemen, and a sub.

By moving Jansen off of RT, we are opening up a potential hole on the offensive line much greater than the Center position would be. Having a good RT is more important than having a good C, and as we saw, we could lose the ability to run to one side or the other if we don't have a battle-tested tackle.

I think Schneed might be over-exaggerating the problems that Jansen would have as a Center -- If he's healthy, he should do fine, height shouldn't be an issue. But with the relative fungibility of NFL Centers, it would make more sense to have a competition and find a guy who you feel most comfortable to back up Rabach, then to stretch your team thin at the tackle position in trying to back up your Center.

Not to mention, if no one is getting reps at Center in practice besides Jansen and Rabach, this creates a really bad situation if/when Jansen goes down. Now, you have Heyer in at RT, but no one besides Rabach would even be able to handle Center in a game, and that could be disastrous.
Didn't we have a game either last year or the prior year where our C went down and the othe teamd D just expoled right through the middle of our line? Buge said on the Riggo show that heyer is playing both RT & LT and has really improved over the past year. From the way he was talking Heyer will play a bigger role in the ine this year and has come into camp around 330 and is probably the strongest man on the team. I hope this is true because it will have been a great find for our team.
firstdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.37101 seconds with 9 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25