|
Post by atownbeaver on Nov 13, 2017 14:12:18 GMT -8
You say that with such authority. He's back at practice and throwing again already. He's unlikely to play this season but I wouldn't write him off next season just yet. I doubt very much the university insurance company will clear putting him at risk of permanent paralysis. There is no reason to assume his injury, that did not require stabilization or surgery, puts him at any kind of heightened risk. It is possible there could be issues with stenosis depending on a number of factors, but that is pretty doubtful. His thoracic spine fracture was either a transverse process fracture or a compression fracture... neither result in loss of integrity to the spinal canal. If it did, we'd know about it because he would of had surgery. Both heal without surgery 95% of the time. Nobody has any details, but since he wasn't in a major brace, just a standard neck brace for a couple days, and is back with the team doing light throwing, zero evidence supports any kind of increase risk notion. His spine will heal on its own in about 3 months. Jake remains unsure about football, but that is also from a mental aspect. He may or may not choose to play again, after such a traumatic incident. But the injury itself does not put him at any increase risk and theoretically he could be out there for spring ball. His very significant concussion that left him unconscious for over a minute is a bigger concern to his future. That and having to withdraw from classes for fall term to heal may create academic issues.
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Nov 13, 2017 14:12:29 GMT -8
Just curious if that's your gut feeling, or you have any better information to come to that conclusion. My son and I were talking about it yesterday, and I have read that he's back at practice, no contact obviously, but getting back to it and wants to play again. It's based on my experience working with people with spinal cord injuries. He broke his back. One bad hit in that location, he's a paraplegic. Well, that certainly would not be worth any possible gain he would get by playing again. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Nov 13, 2017 14:30:39 GMT -8
It's based on my experience working with people with spinal cord injuries. He broke his back. One bad hit in that location, he's a paraplegic. Well, that certainly would not be worth any possible gain he would get by playing again. Thanks. Except, as mentioned above, there was no cord injury or anything related to the cord or canal. Explained well enough above. If there was significant damage he not be back by now, nor allowed on the field to even throw for fun.
|
|
|
Post by jdogge on Nov 13, 2017 14:58:51 GMT -8
I doubt very much the university insurance company will clear putting him at risk of permanent paralysis. There is no reason to assume his injury, that did not require stabilization or surgery, puts him at any kind of heightened risk. It is possible there could be issues with stenosis depending on a number of factors, but that is pretty doubtful. His thoracic spine fracture was either a transverse process fracture or a compression fracture... neither result in loss of integrity to the spinal canal. If it did, we'd know about it because he would of had surgery. Both heal without surgery 95% of the time. Nobody has any details, but since he wasn't in a major brace, just a standard neck brace for a couple days, and is back with the team doing light throwing, zero evidence supports any kind of increase risk notion. His spine will heal on its own in about 3 months. Jake remains unsure about football, but that is also from a mental aspect. He may or may not choose to play again, after such a traumatic incident. But the injury itself does not put him at any increase risk and theoretically he could be out there for spring ball. His very significant concussion that left him unconscious for over a minute is a bigger concern to his future. That and having to withdraw from classes for fall term to heal may create academic issues. Much of what you say is correct except -- he is a higher risk of a more significant injury at the same location. But, Jake may want to play; the next coach may want him to play; his doctor may clear him to play; but the University's insurer may veto the medical clearance. Covering him would go to a committee of doctors who will determine if he plays. My experience with athletes with back injuries convinces me that he won't be back. That said -- if he is cleared and returns and suffers no ill effects from either his broken back or concussion -- I will be as happy as a clam in Lincoln city mud.
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Nov 13, 2017 14:59:04 GMT -8
Well, that certainly would not be worth any possible gain he would get by playing again. Thanks. Except, as mentioned above, there was no cord injury or anything related to the cord or canal. Explained well enough above. If there was significant damage he not be back by now, nor allowed on the field to even throw for fun. If/then. I'm not speculating one way or another.
|
|
|
Post by jdogge on Nov 13, 2017 15:00:48 GMT -8
Except, as mentioned above, there was no cord injury or anything related to the cord or canal. Explained well enough above. If there was significant damage he not be back by now, nor allowed on the field to even throw for fun. If/then. I'm not speculating one way or another. My post activated baseball's contrarian gene. You know? The one where he feels compelled and qualified to render an opinion on anything and everything.
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Nov 13, 2017 16:36:35 GMT -8
That and having to withdraw from classes for fall term to heal may create academic issues.
============================
If he has withdrawn from classes, then he is ineligible for intercollegiate competition, and should not even be practicing with the team.
|
|
|
Post by beavsaregood on Nov 13, 2017 21:48:34 GMT -8
Great article in SI's latest issue on how Alvarez built Wisconsin Football through "mining" recruits within WI. From day 1, he made sure Michigan and Michigan State won't poach in-state recruits. He made it a priority to keep recruits in state. He also instituted the walk-on program that produced many great players. I think the next Oregon State HC should strengthen the walk-on program and definitely recruit in-state recruits. As said earlier by another poster, Oregon State will be competing with Oregon for the in-state recruits. That's definitely a difference versus Wisky, as they are the only P5 program within Wisconsin. Also, WI has more recruits v. OR. I think the next coach at Oregon State has to recruit HARD in California. They need to make it a priority. It's a huge recruiting state in Oregon State's region. Of course recruit the home state, HI, and the western region, but, CA needs to be a priority. OLs and DLs are a priority position to recruit as it takes time to develop physically and mentally. I also hope new Oregon State leader focuses on speed in regards to their recruits. So, that template from WI is great. I just think Oregon State's will be different in regards to recruiting. I hope the next HC will recruit CA and the western region for some speed. Oregon State needs to get all of the talent it can in Oregon and lock down Hawai'i and the Pacific. The team with the most Hawaiians on the roster outside of Hawai'i is Oregon State. That must continue. Honestly, I basically like what Andersen was doing, recruiting-wise. He recruited California, Hawai'i, and Texas hard and was also starting to pull recruits from the Southeast, as well. I think that the next staff should take a good hard look and consider retaining Cory Hall in some capacity, as well as Chad Kauha'aha'a and Telly Lockette. Agree. I definitely want that Hawaiian pipeline. I just want to make sure that the next coach recruits CA. CA is kinda like OSU's backyard. There is too much talent there and they need to make sure they have relationships and a presence at high schools in NoCal and SoCal. California/Oregon has to be the core. Then, Hawaii. Then, a few from WA, AZ, and NV. TX and FLA are great, too. Maybe we'll get couple from those states. The reason why I say this is that I'm looking at the first two classes under CGA and there are very few recruits from CA. That is alarming. I know you get the best talent available and they may come from anywhere , but, still, CA is right under the state of Oregon. A lot of talent in CA. The largest population as a state. I am not sure if there was/is a great recruiter for the state of CA. Maybe it's Cory Hall. Really need a strong presence in CA. I look at Riley's past classes and I see many, many CA recruits and Oregon recruits. Hawaiian pipeline of course. A couple WA and AZ recruits. Maybe a couple OK, TX, and/or LA recruits. That's a Riley class more or less.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2017 10:49:18 GMT -8
no. Lane Kiffin is the model. Lightning strike offense. Throw the ball well enough to score points and get O recruits and at least appear dangerous. Wisconsin has proximity to midwest olinemen recruiting hotbeds. O state will easier time getting hotshlt qbs ( Dukart) for example than linemen. At least in the short term. Need a guerrilla attack to get some wins. Have to stop the incessant losing as soon as possible. The longer the p12 winless streak goes on, the deeper the grave becomes. Yes beavs need a bandaid quick fix. Lane Kiffin should be the target or somebody like him. Of course this approach has many drawbacks but the long term rebuild option was already squanderered by the guy from, oh yeah, Wisconsin. First, if Wisky's model was so easy more teams would be doing it. How many OL does anyone think want to walk on, bulk up on their own dime, to hopefully play someday. At Wisky it's been a tradition and fueled by accessibility to more talented OL than the state of Oregon produces in 5 years... or more. OSU needs to actually get scholly OL and DL that can play 3 deep before a walk on program is a worry. There is nothing that prevents you from doing both. You have 20 preferred walk on spots that you should be using (not too mention being able to add more after the 1st game). A focus on OL with those numbers makes sense. You have to start doing it in order for it to become a tradition. As for how many are willing spend their own money to do it. I think you can find 2-3 per year that would take their shot at walking on in the PAC 12 over FCS or D2 opportunities. Greyshirt and redshirt them and you can turn a relatively low level prospect into a player if they have the body for it. As I said, I personally went to high school 2 guys whose best offers were D2 and walked on at UO after a greyshirt year. One ended up playing TE in the NFL for 6 years, the other started at Center for 3 years at UO. It can be done.
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Nov 14, 2017 11:24:03 GMT -8
Maybe the one on the left.
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Nov 14, 2017 12:43:35 GMT -8
That and having to withdraw from classes for fall term to heal may create academic issues. ============================ If he has withdrawn from classes, then he is ineligible for intercollegiate competition, and should not even be practicing with the team. False. All he has to do is apply for a progress towards degree waiver based on medical hardship. the NCAA allows for medical related withdrawal without losing eligibility. A broken spine should be a sufficient excuse. I should mention it is unclear that he officially withdrew, he was quoted as saying he could not attend the first few weeks of school. he could of remained enrolled in classes and worked out issues with the professors. Lastly, throwing lightly on the side is not practicing with the team, it is rehabilitation with the trainers.
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Nov 14, 2017 15:24:25 GMT -8
First, if Wisky's model was so easy more teams would be doing it. How many OL does anyone think want to walk on, bulk up on their own dime, to hopefully play someday. At Wisky it's been a tradition and fueled by accessibility to more talented OL than the state of Oregon produces in 5 years... or more. OSU needs to actually get scholly OL and DL that can play 3 deep before a walk on program is a worry. There is nothing that prevents you from doing both. You have 20 preferred walk on spots that you should be using (not too mention being able to add more after the 1st game). A focus on OL with those numbers makes sense. You have to start doing it in order for it to become a tradition. As for how many are willing spend their own money to do it. I think you can find 2-3 per year that would take their shot at walking on in the PAC 12 over FCS or D2 opportunities. Greyshirt and redshirt them and you can turn a relatively low level prospect into a player if they have the body for it. As I said, I personally went to high school 2 guys whose best offers were D2 and walked on at UO after a greyshirt year. One ended up playing TE in the NFL for 6 years, the other started at Center for 3 years at UO. It can be done. Actually the point being made is not a theoretical one... but actuality. We don't have OL/DL on scholarship that are talented enough and with depth to worry about a walk on OL program. Oregon does not have 20 OL in a recruiting season let alone get all of them. OL from out of state are not going to likely pay out of state tuition to walk on to OSU until there is a tradition of great OL play and sending guys to the next level. So yes... there is a reason... several.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2017 17:39:24 GMT -8
There is nothing that prevents you from doing both. You have 20 preferred walk on spots that you should be using (not too mention being able to add more after the 1st game). A focus on OL with those numbers makes sense. You have to start doing it in order for it to become a tradition. As for how many are willing spend their own money to do it. I think you can find 2-3 per year that would take their shot at walking on in the PAC 12 over FCS or D2 opportunities. Greyshirt and redshirt them and you can turn a relatively low level prospect into a player if they have the body for it. As I said, I personally went to high school 2 guys whose best offers were D2 and walked on at UO after a greyshirt year. One ended up playing TE in the NFL for 6 years, the other started at Center for 3 years at UO. It can be done. Actually the point being made is not a theoretical one... but actuality. We don't have OL/DL on scholarship that are talented enough and with depth to worry about a walk on OL program. Oregon does not have 20 OL in a recruiting season let alone get all of them. OL from out of state are not going to likely pay out of state tuition to walk on to OSU until there is a tradition of great OL play and sending guys to the next level. So yes... there is a reason... several. Who said anything about getting 20 OL in one recruiting season? I said 2-3 walk ons, not 20. The 20 is how many spots you have total. Not what you would get in 1 year. And there are workarounds to paying out of state tuition. I know when I was in school (and I have not looked, it may have changed) out of state students from most western states could go to OSU for not more than 150% of in state tuition as part of the Western University Exchange program. But even if that isn't an option anymore I am talking about finding 2-3 kids with the size to develop. That is doable even in Oregon. Frankly, I don't understand why the scholarship depth has any connection to what you do with a walk on program. If anything struggling to find quality lineman that are worthy of a scholarship should be all the more reason to focus on developing walk ons at that position. If you could get a bunch of studs every season you'd have no need to use the walk on program at that position.
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Nov 14, 2017 17:55:51 GMT -8
False. All he has to do is apply for a progress towards degree waiver based on medical hardship. the NCAA allows for medical related withdrawal without losing eligibility. A broken spine should be a sufficient excuse.
==========================
If he has withdrawn from school, as you said, he is not eligible to play again this season. You can't play if you are not taking at least nine academic hours, which you obviously cannot do if you're not enrolled in school. Luton is not listed as being enrolled in school this term.
A progress toward graduation waiver would apply to next year, when, as a fifth-year senior, he would need to have completed 80% of his degree requirements. He could get a waiver from that rquirement because the injury forced him to miss a term of school.
Although he was injured in Game 4, he might not be eligible for a medical hardship for a 6th year (2019) because he redshirted a year at Idaho.
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Nov 14, 2017 18:37:58 GMT -8
Actually the point being made is not a theoretical one... but actuality. We don't have OL/DL on scholarship that are talented enough and with depth to worry about a walk on OL program. Oregon does not have 20 OL in a recruiting season let alone get all of them. OL from out of state are not going to likely pay out of state tuition to walk on to OSU until there is a tradition of great OL play and sending guys to the next level. So yes... there is a reason... several. Who said anything about getting 20 OL in one recruiting season? I said 2-3 walk ons, not 20. The 20 is how many spots you have total. Not what you would get in 1 year. And there are workarounds to paying out of state tuition. I know when I was in school (and I have not looked, it may have changed) out of state students from most western states could go to OSU for not more than 150% of in state tuition as part of the Western University Exchange program. But even if that isn't an option anymore I am talking about finding 2-3 kids with the size to develop. That is doable even in Oregon. Frankly, I don't understand why the scholarship depth has any connection to what you do with a walk on program. If anything struggling to find quality lineman that are worthy of a scholarship should be all the more reason to focus on developing walk ons at that position. If you could get a bunch of studs every season you'd have no need to use the walk on program at that position. My point is that until we have 15-20 scholly OL developing the walking on is not as big of deal. I believe we may have 2-3 walk on OL now, but that is hard to track. So basically I'm just saying lets worry about upgrading and filling the scholly OL. I'm betting over half of the scholly guys we have would be walk ons at most top 50-60 type (bowl teams) schools. In fact were we not supposed to have 2 or 3 JCs come in ready this year? Are they RS? Wasted year? Just no good? Of course that leads into actually having a OL coach. Woods is the worst we've had in quite a while.
|
|