I was away from the tube when Ford left the game. Any info on the injury and potential severity?
I was away from the tube when Ford left the game. Any info on the injury and potential severity?
another board is saying his sister posted that it was a fractured fibula on Facebook and that he may be back for TCU. However, the words fractured and fibula don't belong in the same sentence as he'll be back for TCU. I guess we'll find out later today.
Unreal.
Looks like Ross is going to have to step up his game.
Any word on Woods? I missed the play where UT was called for tripping. Looked like he was hurting pretty good. Was the trip intentional?
You want a toe? I can get you a toe by 3 o'clock!!!!
Actually the fibula is pretty small and its very possible that he could come back within 3 weeks.Originally Posted by EatLeadCommie
Need to have Brooks ready to go, no guarantee other guys don't get dinged during the next game.
Time to unsuspend Mixon!
Hey, if it can be done for Penn State when they're needed, why not?
The enduring image of Oklahoma was that ridiculous double–middle finger of a game-icing kick. It was probably an accident, which somehow made it more, not less, insulting. It was as though Stoops had partied so hard on the corpse of the SEC that he woke up with an unplanned tattoo.
No Perine needs more carries. The Ford injury could be actually be good for us. I actually hope Perine becomes our featured back would love to see him get 25 carries a game, and wear defenses down
Looks like Ross is going to have to step up his game.
No
"Image is what people think we are. Integrity is what we really are"
I'm a little concerned about Perine's ball security.
The enduring image of Oklahoma was that ridiculous double–middle finger of a game-icing kick. It was probably an accident, which somehow made it more, not less, insulting. It was as though Stoops had partied so hard on the corpse of the SEC that he woke up with an unplanned tattoo.
Absolutely No.No
I will say I agree Perine could use more carries, but no way is any one back going to be able to carry the load. But Ford is our best back, so in no Universe is his injury "good for us". Ross hasn't shown (yet) any ability to get through traffic and those first tackles. Ross will have to step up so he and Perine can share the load about equally. Otherwise, we'll need to bring in some of those other guys and let them spell Perine (who, BTW, looked exceptionally tough against UT).
^This. Always need plenty of backs that can be effective and trusted. I wasn't comfortable with just 3 and hoped that Brooks might get a couple of carries late yesterday once Ford was out. On the Perine non-fumble (that sure looked like a fumble to me), he got his hand banged up. Only kept him out for a few plays, but this kind of thing happens to RBs all the time. Also having different styles of runners can open up a game as well.
I strongly disagree with this. I certainly think Perine could carry the load. He is a workhorse type back. He is a guy who would be great with 25 carries a game.
Ford's injury is not good for anyone. Disagree that Perine fumbled. Refs didn't see a fumble, review officials didn't see a fumble. I didn't see a fumble. I saw the ball firmly placed between his massive upper arm and body until after Perine's forward progress was stopped and his knee was down. The only controversy in the controversial non-fumble was created by the tv announcers.
I wasn't listening to any TV announcers. In other similar situations I've seen, if the player has the ball pinned like that, it was not counted as being in his control. Obviously, I'm happy with the way it was ruled, but I've seen it go the other way. I don't know the exact rule, so maybe other refs got it wrong and this one was right. But I was going by history I've seen and not what my crimson shades wanted. That was a critical play because Ford scored his rushing TD on that drive.
I definitely had on my crimson shades. However, if the player's forward progress is stopped and his knee is on the ground before he loses possesion, the ruling has historically been called for the runner
If the knee is on the ground, of course. But I didn't see it touch the ground before the ball became pinned. It looked like the initial hit jarred it from his grasp into the pinned position and he never regained it. If the knee went down after that, it wouldn't matter because he is no longer the ball carrier. Forward progress was not an issue, because that is not reviewable, and they did review it. So I can only imagine they ruled it inconclusive on the knee being down first or there was another angle.
But his knee wasn't on the ground. However I agree with the forward progress if the refs blew the whistle
If they ruled on forward progress, there would have been no review.
Posting Permissions
