Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tidestalker" data-source="post: 1418397" data-attributes="member: 21333">I've been really impressed with some of what appears to be a difference in approach with the strength &amp; conditioning over the last 2 years.It sounds like the Clemson beat down was the end of the Cochran era, and brought the new regime in 2 years ago.Is it fair to question whether or not there needs to be some adjustments made following this season's rash of injuries?&nbsp; Particularly the speedy/quick skill guys at WR (both stud WR's going down with non-contact ACL's), and of course the depleted RB position.&nbsp; Then there were CB &amp; OLB's in drought throughout the year as well.Personally I think it's more about bad luck - But if we were to continue seeing the same issues into next year, especially with skill guys - Would that change the approach?&nbsp; Gains are great, but we all know what the best ability is..... RTR</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tidestalker, post: 1418397, member: 21333"] I've been really impressed with some of what appears to be a difference in approach with the strength & conditioning over the last 2 years. It sounds like the Clemson beat down was the end of the Cochran era, and brought the new regime in 2 years ago. Is it fair to question whether or not there needs to be some adjustments made following this season's rash of injuries? Particularly the speedy/quick skill guys at WR (both stud WR's going down with non-contact ACL's), and of course the depleted RB position. Then there were CB & OLB's in drought throughout the year as well. Personally I think it's more about bad luck - But if we were to continue seeing the same issues into next year, especially with skill guys - Would that change the approach? Gains are great, but we all know what the best ability is..... RTR [/QUOTE]

Verification