Could Austin Pettis's injury have been avoided?
by Kevan Lee on Nov 30, 2009 2:16 PM PST
in Boise State football
45 comments
The injury report for the Broncos is out, and it is a House, MD episode waiting to happen. The biggest blow is a fractured leg to Austin Pettis that could keep him out of the Broncos' bowl game. The biggest controversy is over whether or not Pettis's injury could have been avoided by the Broncos not going for two.
After the jump, I'll show you one local media personality who calls the Broncos on the carpet, and I'll leave my opinion on the matter. What's your take? Could Pettis's injury have been avoided? Let me know in the comments.
To recap, Pettis's injury happened on a failed two-point conversion attempt after the Broncos' second touchdown. Pettis took the snap, looked in vain for a receiver, danced around some defenders, and was finally tackled. The takedown was not nearly as gruesome as Matt Kaiserman's injury, but you could see that Pettis had tweaked something by his reaction to the play.
The vagueness of Pettis's recovery timetable (possibly a return by bowl season) has muted much of the clamor surrounding an injury to a team's star player. However, that isn't to say that there is nothing to clamor about.
Troy Oppie, the newskid from KBCI Channel 2 in Boise, weighed in with his take on the injury in the Channel 2 sports blog. Written from hindsight:
Bad: Austin Pettis' ankle injury on a needless 2-point converstion try with a 13-0 lead in the first quarter against Nevada. Few teams use the swinging gate (or whatever it is) formation on extra point attempts, and Boise State has used it successfully many times this season. But it's all fun and games until someone gets hurt - and when you lose your stud wide receiver (Pettis was tied for the national receiving TD lead going into the game) on a play that isn't likely to matter anyway - well, that's a little more than plain 'ol bad luck. It could have and should have been avoided.
But really ... could it have and should it have?
The Broncos have made swinging gate two-point conversion attempts a staple of the special teams play this season, and Pettis has been the triggerman for the majority of them. Now that one blew up in the Broncos' face on a fluke tackle, should Boise State fans hold the coaching staff accountable?
In my opinion, it would be wrong to do so. Pettis's injury could have happened just as easily on a pass reception than it did on the two-point conversion attempt. It is not like he was throwing and got his shoulder separated on a hard hit. He was being tackled, which kind of goes with the territory of being an offensive player. Football is a physical game and injuries happen, and while the timing and circumstances around this particular injury are different, that doesn't make the playcall regrettable.
Claiming that a 13-0 lead is a bad time to call the two-point try shows a lack of knowledge about Boise State football. The Broncos have gone for the two points routinely in the first quarter of games this season, and they always do so when the defense dictates. Claiming that Pettis is the wrong man for the job is ludicrous, too. You have to have Pettis on the field because he is the team's best holder, and there is no one better at running the swinging gate.
That is my opinion. What is yours? Do you think the Broncos were right in going for two in that situation? Do you think Pettis should be so involved in special teams? Share your opinion in the comments.
0 recs |
45 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Nope
This kind of play is indicative of what has made Boise State successful and one of the most fun teams to watch in the nation. When you start to isolate this play and question the validity of it, you are questioning everything that has made Boise State football what it is today.
Besides, Titus Young could easily be tackled the same way on a screen pass in traffic. It’s not like we only use our wide receivers down the field.
by Nick Kroes on Nov 30, 2009 2:20 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
What a ridiculous assertion by Oppie.
Any player can get injured on ANY play. If Pettis had been injured trying to block a punt, would local “media” types claim that Pettis was needlessly injured by playing on special teams? It is extremely unfortunate that Pettis was injured at all, but I believe he was injured by being tackled…Pettis is tackled numerous times every single game (generally a good defensive game plan)…whether he was tackled and injured after a reception, on special teams, on PAT, or on the sideline makes little difference.
by Drew Roberts on Nov 30, 2009 2:26 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Agreed, Kevan
as much as we hate it, this injury was a complete fluke and could’ve happened to any one of our players. it just happened to be Pettis.
however, maybe it would be best to start using guys a little lower on the depth chart for things like this, just in case. i’m not calling anyone out – just a thought.
besides, since Pettis is going to be back by the bowl (hopefully), this will all be moot.
Thank you, Nick Adenhart. You will always be remembered. #34
by howiestheman on Nov 30, 2009 2:27 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Hindsight is 20/20
This kind of thing upsets me. Had Pettis not been injured, Pete would have been hailed as a genius yet again for causing trouble for opposing defensive coordinators. Stick with the support of Pete and believe he knows what he’s doing! His record should prove it by now!
Someday I hope to look in a mirror and see something special... something like a coach pete protoge'.
by BigBaloo on Nov 30, 2009 2:27 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
If we would have just sat him from the begining we could use him in a bowl game
There is no way I am going to fault a coaching staff that is 47-4. We put the best players on the field whenever possible.
by BSUTHROWBALLFOREVER on Nov 30, 2009 2:28 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Would Oppie's response been the same if Michael Choate was injured?
The issue is not whether to run the swinging gate. It has proven successful and is yet another scheme the opposition has to spend time preparing for.
If Oppie is upset that a star player is hurt on a meaningless special teams play, he hasn’t been watching much Bronco football.
Having star players play on special teams has been a staple of the Broncos’ philosophy over recent years. Is Oppie calling for the coaching staff to cease using Doug Martin and Jeron Johnson on kickoff coverage? Should BSU not run the end-around to Titus because he is a receiver? Should Kellen Moore not run the option because he slow of foot and is much better with his arm than his feet????
Hindsight is great, but the reality is, that injury could have happened on just about any play and the win-loss record of this coaching staff speaks for itself. There is not much room to second guess any personnel or strategy decisions made by Coach Pete and company.
"...east and west is the problem, north and south the solution."
by MKingery on Nov 30, 2009 2:29 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Correct. Kellen Moore should not run the option.
Agreed. You can’t have it both ways. Either you write an editorial calling for all Bronco star players to be exempt from anything other than their specific position assignments, or you write nothing. And even if you chose the former, I think you would be missing the point of Boise State football: Putting the team first.
"Only film the ones that are standing, Kenneth." - Tony Perkis
by Kevan Lee on Dec 1, 2009 6:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm keeping my fingers crossed(most of you think I do that all the time the way I type)
Even if AP aint 100%, if we can get him on the field at bowl time he’ll be effective. Any team prepping for us will see a lot fo his stuff; when he lines up he’ll get attention, which helps Young. Maybe we could do a Dolphins ‘73 Superbowl deal; it was known that Paul Warfield wasdinged up. He dogged it into the 3rd quarter, and then ate the Vikings a new one that set up a td. Anyway if he can jsut get on the field(SAFELY-goes w/o saying but I did) Broncos will be ok. tom scott jus temailed me a Pete quote form th enew conference " We’ll always have answers." i dont htink anyone here doubts Pete and Harsin.
tvmunson
by tmunson on Nov 30, 2009 2:43 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
We should all quit going out in public.
Because the threat of injury lingers around every corner. Right, Troy?
These kids all suit up knowing the inherent dangers of playing the most physical team sport on earth. The same sport they’ve played since childhood, in most cases. The idea that a star player injured on a early two-point conversion is cause for balling out the coaching staff is ridiculous. He could have been injured on any of his TD catches. Should we blast Coach Pete for throwing to him too?
Sounds like someone is an opportunist.
Boise State - The best in all the land (The "land" being Idaho, and large parts of California, Oregon, and Nevada.)
by Mikrino on Nov 30, 2009 2:50 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
As for opie
(couldnt he get a nom de t.v.-or is this it?) what an inane comment. This is Broncos football. We play imaginative, full out football, not like guys laying down carpet. When it works it adds insult to injury and when it doesnt’-ehh. Teams have to practice for it.
tvmunson
by tmunson on Nov 30, 2009 2:50 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Come on Oppie!
This ain’t intramurals in Mayberry. What do you know about coaching football?
The gameplan was to come out and get stuff done quickly, forcing Kapi to play QB instead of RB.
I am behind whatever the BSU coaching staff does ALL THE WAY.
Signature Pending
by Belexes on Nov 30, 2009 2:51 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Correct Comrade!
I think it adds to the “we aint in Kansas anymore” feel to playing the Broncos esp on the blue. Pete says he figures teams spend about an hour on it out of a 20 hour NCAA alottment. That’s 5% for a play we may use once or not at all. As in war, requiring your opponent to spend a disproportionate amount of hi sresources countering your moves leads to victory. Stephen Ambrose noted much the same thing about our use of bombers in WWII against the Germans. Nearly 20% of their available manpower and equipment was spent defendiing German cities against air strikes that used less than 5% of ours.
tvmunson
by tmunson on Nov 30, 2009 2:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Had we lost by one point
Oppie would be writing a different article. He’s a opportunist looking for a story. Many people thought this was going to be a shoot out. That’s the reason coaches went for 2. Why would you put in a second or third string player when your trying to win the game. Keep in your best players. It was the first quarter.
by ruffneck on Nov 30, 2009 3:33 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Couldnt be more wrong
They thought it would be a shoot out so thats why they went for 2? We’ve been doing it all year when we didnt need it!
"dont talk about it, be about it"
by bmc83 on Nov 30, 2009 4:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Have no problem with the 2 point try
this early in the game…..just wish someone else would be the trigger man on this trickeration. How about Potter or Coughlin?
Oh well…time to reload!
We do not take counsel of our fears, our naysayers, or the unknown
Coach Pete January 1, 2007
by StatueLeft on Nov 30, 2009 3:45 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
The only problem with that ...
… is that the triggerman would also have to be on the actual kicking team, probably as the holder. Boise State has to have the option to motion into a kick formation, which is why Pettis as triggerman and holder works so perfectly. This brings up the question: How hard can holding be? I’ve never really tried it, so I don’t know.
"Only film the ones that are standing, Kenneth." - Tony Perkis
by Kevan Lee on Dec 1, 2009 6:46 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It might not be rocket science....
But Pettis didn’t become the holder until we had issues.
We will miss Pettis as a WR, but don’t underestimate his role in solidifying the kicking game.
by ElPepeGrande on Dec 1, 2009 9:36 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I totally agree with Oppie!
There is no reason to go for 2 point conversions! Why not just take the points. Of course it couldve been avoided. Line up and beat a team.
"dont talk about it, be about it"
by bmc83 on Nov 30, 2009 4:23 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
YOU couldn't be more wrong
The defense dictates if they go for 2 or just kick. If the D gives you a better than average chance at getting 2 pts, why would you NOT take it? Just because they didn’t convert doesn’t mean it wasn’t the right call.
If Nevada, or any other team, decided to put in all their players under 150 lbs on a 4th and goal from the 2, would Pete say, “I know the odds are in our favor for a TD, but lets just take the points and kick the FG”? Of course not. Even if the Broncos didn’t convert in this hypothetical situation, it’s still the right call. However, I know from your previous comments you would “take the points”. That’s why you’re posting in a comment section of the greatest blog on the planet, and Pete is making 7 figures coaching the #6 team in the nation.
by MooreWalksOnWater on Nov 30, 2009 4:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
bmc83
There is no reason to go for 2 point conversions!
The only reason that the coaching staff has given publicly is that going for 2-point conversions causes future opponents to gameplan against the swinging gate, which takes away gameplan time from stopping the Bronco offense.
I can buy your argument about being against two-point conversions in general. Are you against them even when the Broncos convert?
"Only film the ones that are standing, Kenneth." - Tony Perkis
by Kevan Lee on Dec 1, 2009 6:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Honestly Kevan
EVERY time we go for them i question it, whether or not we make it. I guess im a conservative and would just rather take the EASY point. But i think we are good enough that if we are going to go for 2-points, lets line up and beat them. I understand the trickery, but when we are playing teams that we can just line up and beat i dont get it.
I think that sometime the coaches out think themselves. We dont always have to be cute about it. Im pretty sure we all think “Do it all Doug” could take it up the gut for 2-points. Or a play action to paul would work again (obviously)! I dont mind getting “extra” points, but moore (or coughlin) is a much better option that pettis.
"dont talk about it, be about it"
by bmc83 on Dec 1, 2009 3:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
GAME PLAN
Dumb article Dopie. Coach P is a man of routine and systems. This was in the game plan.
Any injury can be avoided by not suiting up.
by BSU Alumni stranded in Portland on Nov 30, 2009 4:57 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Would someone qualified explain the injury and rehab. in detail?
by BSU Alumni stranded in Portland on Nov 30, 2009 4:59 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
I’d like to know more than lower leg fracture. Is it the tibia? Is it hairline?
by Nick Kroes on Nov 30, 2009 5:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Preface this by saying I really have no inside info. I studied anatomy in college (insert joke here). That being said, it’s most likely the fibula. It’s the skinnier of the 2 bones in the lower leg and makes up the outer ankle bone. Just and educated guess but I think it takes A LOT to break the tibia.
As for the rehab, I have no idea. I assume everything depends on the severity of the fracture.
From WebMD: Because the major bones of the leg support our weight, at least 6-8 weeks is usually required before the bone is healed.
And also this came up when I searched “fractured fibula”: The average fracture requires 4-8 weeks for the bone to heal.
by MooreWalksOnWater on Nov 30, 2009 6:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not a doctor, but I play one on OBNUG.
I can’t believe I missed this joke yesterday!
by MooreWalksOnWater on Dec 1, 2009 6:48 AM PST via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
I have no insider info either
In fact, I’m about as far removed from the situation as can be. That being said, by the way it happened, I’d say there’s a good chance it’s what they call an “avulsion fracture” which means the ligament was stressed, and instead of ripping, it pulled a little chunk of bone away from the rest of the bone. I had one of these years ago, and it took about two months to heal. I think if we see him in the bowl game, it will only be as a decoy.
by casketbase on Dec 1, 2009 5:49 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Polynikes has some inside information on the injury. It kind of sheds some light on things.
http://www.obnug.com/2009/11/30/1180293/more-inside-info-on-austins-injury
"Only film the ones that are standing, Kenneth." - Tony Perkis
by Kevan Lee on Dec 1, 2009 6:55 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Agree 100% with Kevan and most of the commentors.
Mariners/D Broncos/BSU Broncos fan in Seattle
by appleshampoo on Nov 30, 2009 5:29 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I avoided an ankle injury
By not playing the BAD WORD game. Wow, when did College Football become Major League Baseball? I think I will avoid watching KBCI as not to become mentally ill.
The Bronco Nation Podcast: A Podcast By Bronco Fans, For Bronco Fans
follow me on twitter at http://twitter.com/TheBNPodcast
by Bronco Nation Podcast on Nov 30, 2009 7:52 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
J Bates still has his head on his shoulders
… until Troy Oppie gets wind of it and suggests he puts it in a safer place.
"Only film the ones that are standing, Kenneth." - Tony Perkis
by Kevan Lee on Dec 1, 2009 6:51 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
troy-boy
should have and could have avoided writing such imbecilic drivel in order to keep from appearing moronic.
This is national TV. So don't pick your noses or scratch your nuts.
by joe bob priddy on Nov 30, 2009 8:04 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
So if Brotzman had gotten hurt on a kick
would his story have been that we should have gone for two?
Or if Pettis gets hurt running an end around, that the play is too risky?
Lets go to the Tom Brady injury last year… that was too risky for the Patriots to have him throw it on THAT play. They should have run it.
If we could go back and replay the down and even undo an injury, this line of thinking might have some relevance (like when you could save a video game and go back to the point when you saved it when something else unforeseeable went wrong), but really, this is a pretty ridiculous line of thinking. This guy is really a reporter?
by PascoJoe on Nov 30, 2009 9:48 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Good comment, PascoJoe
Got a question for you (and everyone): Do you think there is anything to be learned from hindsight in this situation? For example, will Bronco coaches not use starting skill position players on two-point attempts in the future? Will they go for two less frequently (Brockel got hurt on a 2-pointer also)?
Just something to chew on. Be curious to know what you think (personally, I hope it doesn’t change their strategy one bit).
"Only film the ones that are standing, Kenneth." - Tony Perkis
by Kevan Lee on Dec 1, 2009 6:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I doubt Peterson is going to change much because of a fluke injury.
He shouldn’t and I hope he won’t.
If all of a sudden we get a rash of fluke injuries on second down, how about we just start taking a kneel down and moving on to the much “safer” third down?
by PascoJoe on Dec 1, 2009 9:38 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Oppie is an idiot
First of all, yes it absolutely sucks that Pettis is hurt. At least the Broncos don’t need him this week. But what an absolutely stupid assertion to make though. If the Pettis had converted the 2 point conversion and the Broncos had won (yes I know it didn’t happen this way) but coach Pete would have been hailed as a hero and genius.
Saying the Broncos should not have gone for two in that situation is pointless. It’s the exact same thing as saying if I had a million dollars then I would be rich. I obviously don’t have a millions dollars, so therefore I am not rich. Exact same thing with coach Belichick and his call on 4th down against the Colts. He gets called out because the play failed. But if had converted he would have been hailed as a genius yet again.
The media loves to second guess because it makes them look smarter then the coaches. They’re thinking the coach made a wrong call, so I’m going to call them out and look really, really smart!
The Broncos have always used their best players on special teams. Why all of the sudden is this now a problem? No one complained last year when Ian Johnson played on special teams and rushed for fewer yards. No one complained earlier this year when Austin Pettis blocked two punts. No one complained when the Broncos went for two and converted against Oregon and other teams.
Everyone loves to second guess when someone is wrong. But no one complains when everything is going good. Way to be consistent media!
by givemesomemoore on Dec 1, 2009 12:28 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
If I remember right
Ian won the Fiesta bowl going for two. I realize the stakes were higher but It sure looked like a smart move then.
by ruffneck on Dec 1, 2009 11:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
All this second guessing by the media of Coach Petersen is amateurish at best. It is way to easy to sit back and second guess decisions made in the heat of battle. Real leadership is being able to make those decisions when the pressure is on. I am sure that Coach Pete feels as bad or worse about he injury to Austin Pettis as anyone but if you coah conservatively you get mediocre and conservative results. That is not what BSU football is about. Rather it is about laying it all on the line and leaving it all on the field. These media arm chair QB’s need to stay in their living rooms because they don’t have the courage or intestinal fortitude to make the tuff decsisions play after play in the heat of battle that are necessary to be successful in D1 football.
Opie doesn’t have the guts to make a decision like our Head Coach makes multiple times each game let alone the integrity to stand up and take responsibility for those decisions. What a worthless piece of journalism!!!
by Mountngrown on Dec 1, 2009 6:13 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
If you really don't like 2 point conversions...
Where the hell have you been?
Haven’t we tried a 2 point conversion every game this year? And now you don’t like it???
Complaining after the fact is weak.
by ElPepeGrande on Dec 1, 2009 9:39 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
And we HAVENT needed it yet
i suppose maybe it made teams play us different being down another point, but i doubt it. And of course theres no reason to complain until something like this happens. But the fact is we’ve lost 2 starters to it and we havent needed that extra point. SO WHATS THE POINT?!?!
"dont talk about it, be about it"
by bmc83 on Dec 1, 2009 3:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Key injuries
Is this a good time to remind people who booed Kellen for not giving up his body on a goalline dive a month ago? You know, the one where he passed for a touchdown on the next play?
We may or may not struggle without Richie, Pettis, Harper etc, but if we lose Kellsey (you are welcome Kevan) this converstation gets more grim.
by ElPepeGrande on Dec 1, 2009 9:42 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on One Bronco Nation Under God
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
