The 80% Starter

Wayfaring Stranger

New Member
Messages
35
Reaction score
0
One thing I've never understood is when a coach or a starting player declares that player as 80% and that player still starts and plays the majority of the game. The NFL is so competitive and there are very few secrets, if a player has a weakness it is often exposed when he is 100%, so I am always a little puzzled when a team puts a player out there at less than 90%. I heard lots of players say that because of the competitiveness and the grind on the NFL that once training camp is over no one is ever really at 100%, so this might explain some of this.

My larger point here is really about the backups. If you have a starter whose is banged up, why have a backup on the team (at his best) that is still less than 80% as good as the starter who can't get on the field when the starter is hurt? One example was when Flozell had an infected hand last season, it seemed like the coaching staff didn't have enough confidence in any of the backups to replace him or to even spell him in limited duty. Why have backups on the team with that big a drop-off? I've seen this with a lot of teams not just the Cowboys.

A lot of people didn't like this Cowboys draft, but one of the things Jerry Jones did emphasize (public rationale) was that they did want to focus on Special Teams and Backup type players this year. I am hoping with what was done this year that the drop off from starter to backup is not that great.
 

ArmyCowboy

New Member
Messages
951
Reaction score
0
Wayfaring Stranger;2818564 said:
One thing I've never understood is when a coach or a starting player declares that player as 80% and that player still starts and plays the majority of the game. The NFL is so competitive and there are very few secrets, if a player has a weakness it is often exposed when he is 100%, so I am always a little puzzled when a team puts a player out there at less than 90%. I heard lots of players say that because of the competitiveness and the grind on the NFL that once training camp is over no one is ever really at 100%, so this might explain some of this.

My larger point here is really about the backups. If you have a starter whose is banged up, why have a backup on the team (at his best) that is still less than 80% as good as the starter who can't get on the field when the starter is hurt? One example was when Flozell had an infected hand last season, it seemed like the coaching staff didn't have enough confidence in any of the backups to replace him or to even spell him in limited duty. Why have backups on the team with that big a drop-off? I've seen this with a lot of teams not just the Cowboys.

A lot of people didn't like this Cowboys draft, but one of the things Jerry Jones did emphasize (public rationale) was that they did want to focus on Special Teams and Backup type players this year. I am hoping with what was done this year that the drop off from starter to backup is not that great.

Remember 2005 when Flo got hurt and the "great" Torrin Tucker came in to replace him?

Think he was even close to 80% of Flo?
 

Maikeru-sama

Mick Green 58
Messages
14,548
Reaction score
6
ArmyCowboy;2818575 said:
Remember 2005 when Flo got hurt and the "great" Torrin Tucker came in to replace him?

Think he was even close to 80% of Flo?

And the worst part about that is that Rob Pettiti was on the other side.
 

ArmyCowboy

New Member
Messages
951
Reaction score
0
Maikeru-sama;2818598 said:
And the worst part about that is that Rob Pettiti was on the other side.

True that.

Petitti and Tucker may have been the worst pair of tackles to ever start games in the NFL. :shoot6:
 

Temo

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,946
Reaction score
362
I think you're taking the "80%" thing too literally. A guy with a bum ankle or knee can be described as being 80%, but they just get wrapped up, shot up, and drugged up and they can play pretty close to their ceiling.
 

burmafrd

Well-Known Member
Messages
43,820
Reaction score
3,379
I don't think they were the worst. We had a couple in the late 80s, and before that the legendary Pozderac.

I have always thought that the 80% was a crock. 90% I can see, but not 80%. Unless your backup really stinks or is a rookie or something like that a healthy player is going to be better then just about anyone else at 80%.
 

AbeBeta

Well-Known Member
Messages
35,680
Reaction score
12,392
Maikeru-sama;2818598 said:
And the worst part about that is that Rob Pettiti was on the other side.

Pettiti played poorly but he got out there and battled as best he could. Tucker... you just felt like he wasn't even in the game and didn't give a crap.

Plus, apparently, Gurode is so distractable that Tucker screwed him up too
 

jobberone

Kane Ala
Messages
54,219
Reaction score
19,659
Wayfaring Stranger;2818564 said:
One thing I've never understood is when a coach or a starting player declares that player as 80% and that player still starts and plays the majority of the game. The NFL is so competitive and there are very few secrets, if a player has a weakness it is often exposed when he is 100%, so I am always a little puzzled when a team puts a player out there at less than 90%. I heard lots of players say that because of the competitiveness and the grind on the NFL that once training camp is over no one is ever really at 100%, so this might explain some of this.

My larger point here is really about the backups. If you have a starter whose is banged up, why have a backup on the team (at his best) that is still less than 80% as good as the starter who can't get on the field when the starter is hurt? One example was when Flozell had an infected hand last season, it seemed like the coaching staff didn't have enough confidence in any of the backups to replace him or to even spell him in limited duty. Why have backups on the team with that big a drop-off? I've seen this with a lot of teams not just the Cowboys.

A lot of people didn't like this Cowboys draft, but one of the things Jerry Jones did emphasize (public rationale) was that they did want to focus on Special Teams and Backup type players this year. I am hoping with what was done this year that the drop off from starter to backup is not that great.

NO. NO. :banghead: We did not address STs this year nor backups. We addressed positions of need. (even if they forgot the OL/DT/NT). We do have young guys who are fast and athletic enough to play STs this year plus an attitude to contribute. But they were not drafted as STs players. They were drafted to start in the near future at some position while playing STs until then as most rookies do.
 
Top