theogt
Surrealist
- Messages
- 45,846
- Reaction score
- 5,912
There's really no point to arguing this for either of us. It has no bearing on the overarching point and we're just discussing it for shiggles. I still don't understand why someone would say, "Let's give Barber the rock at the beginning of the 2nd half" and then give Julius the carries simply because there are a few seconds left in the 1st quarter (and of course continue to give Julius the carries after the 2nd quarter begins).AdamJT13;1657871 said:I don't even know why you're arguing this point. First of all, if the plan was to get Barber a possession in the second quarter, why would they do it in the first quarter? What if there was time for two plays in the first quarter? Or three? Or four? Are they going to put him in if there's time for one play, but not two? Or two, but not three?
Secondly, we haven't had any similar situations this season to see if it would be any different now. If we get a non-situational possession with a few seconds left in the first quarter sometime in the next few weeks and Barber is in the game, then you might be onto something. But there's no way to know whether anything is different until then.
It's a role change. You don't consider it much of one. But I consider it Barber continuing to chip away at Julius' carries.AT BEST, the change is to get Barber a few non-situational carries in the second quarter instead of the third. But he's had only two of them so far, and he did get them at times last year. I don't consider that much of a role change.
It's simply more evidence on top of other evidence of the roles that each player played last season. That's all. You can exclude it in your mind for whatever reason, but it's still there glaring at the rest of us.It was different from how they were being used before that, too. One atypical game does not signify a change in roles. Especially when their roles now are virtually identical to their roles before that atypical game.