#Hokies injury report ... pic.twitter.com/3y2sSAFWrC— Mike Barber (@RTD_MikeBarber) October 5, 2017
Looks like Peoples and now Carroll are going to be out.
*Not great bob gif.
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
Ehhhh rest them up against BC and then they also have the bye week. Not ideal but we'll be fine.
By 8 mins into the 1st quarter hopefully we will be on the 8th string anyway.
So you telling me that tech is going to be up 78-0 with 7 minutes left in the first quarter? That sounds good to me
Any issues with Fuente recruiting so many WRs now?
Peoples was out last week as well. He was wearing a boot at the end of the ODU game.
I'm just glad (knock on wood... like a motherfucker) to not see Tremaine's name up. He looked like he tweaked his shoulder when he laid that lick on Bryant in the 3rd qtr, or was it the 4th?
I'm worried about Phillips. Looks like a groin type strain slowed him after a few rough tackles the last couple games.
Fuente sounded hopeful that Patterson would be back after the bye. Given who the opponent is and the bye after that, I doubt they are going to rush anyone back.
I have learned to be skeptical about the injury reports. Fuente keeps his hand hidden. Would not surprise me to see questionable players play like they are injury free, or players not on the list sit to heal up.
These are ACC mandated so he can't be but so cute with injury reports.
I can't imagine it's regulated but so much, and I'd imagine as long as he keeps up the percentages it'll be fine (ie, having a 100% healthy player and a 100% injured player both listed as "questionable" to make the opponent account for the injured player in the gameplan)
Bitter and LaBlue actually discussed this - they aren't mandated, but preferred. Kinda like tipping - you are expected to, but you don't have to unless you want to look like a jerk.
I think "questionable" status in the NFL means they play if they are needed. I'm hoping that Peoples and Carroll are not needed for us to win at BC. BC can be a stubborn team to beat, for us or any other contending team, so I wouldn't rule out either of them playing if they are truly capable of helping our offense.
wrong thread, who dis.
Wrong thread
Good looking out!
I got you fam
Hmm...no Drew Harris.
I almost did a spit take with my coffee here in my office..lol.
That means Dwayne Lawson on a LOT more QB keepers.
Good point. Going to be easy to defend.
says Hi
KP could see some time at BC with Carroll out. Could be time for KP to show us what he's got.
Has he played yet this year?
Yes, he was in the
EDUECU andOSUODU games. No receptions yet.Edit: wow...that was bad
East....Delaware?
OSU...I don't remember that one. /s
East Delaware and Old State University were classic wins
don't even get me started on the western VAH university game what a doozie
Eastern Delaware.
That's not even a State!
I'm hoping to see Clark and Holston on the field as they are not on the list.
Don't remember seeing them on the list last week either so take this with a grain of salt. Hope we do see them though.
Holston got pretty sick Clemson week, to the point where he lost some weight. Fuente said he didn't feel like putting him against Clemson would have been good idea. I'd be surprised if we didn't see him get in against BC. Not sure about Clark. I'm guessing both were good to play from a medical perspective against Clemson, hence not on the injury report, but probably not healthy enough to be an improvement over the guys they would replacing.
Saw Clark standing behind CJF on sideline last week, no helmet, with a bandage/brace on one of his fingers. Can't recall which, thumb or index maybe?
I'll ask again...does anyone know what "Questionable" means in NCAA parlance?
Does the term have an actual definition (as NFL injury reports do) or is it just whatever each school wants it to mean that week?
From what I remember, questionable = 25% chance to play whereas probable = 75% chance to play.
I know I've seen that somewhere, but I don't know how credible the source was.
Probable = 75%
Questionable = 50%
Doubtful = 25%
Out = 0%
Is that what it officially means or is that a logical explanation of what it could mean? It looks good, and makes sense just wondering if the NCAA has a definition.
The NCAA doesn't define it. It's an accepted convention, AFAIK. I think I read it in an Andy Bitter article a few years ago when we had tons of injuries and he was predicting the likelihood of a few key guys to actually play; he offered those numbers as a normal interpretation of the terms.
The ACC is the ONLY conference who wants injury reports from teams so there isn't an NCAA rule about it.
So basically the various terms are actually meaningless because 1) they mean whatever the school wants them to mean and 2) fans/media can interpret them however they want to...
Sometimes vizualization helps
Mommer would make some damn fine 'nanner puddin' from those dark ones. Mmmmm mmmmm!
This is just some gamesmanship from Fuente. He's trying to make sure next week's opponent doesn't have a good read on who we have ready to play. /s
Time to let the fox out of the cage!
Way past overdue!
Not to mention the much reviled site that will remain unnamed, but their roster card shows Peoples starting.
Damn.
Hope McClease and Holston are good to go.
And hope Cam is feeling 100. Would love to see Kumah get involved tonight, maybe Grimsley? Our bigger guys can present problems for that corners group
CJF is hopeful Patterson may be ready to go after the bye week.
Sure, but he's watching this game on TV in Blacksburg. It'll be good to have Phil back, but I'm really talking about this week.
I'd be happy to see Pimp get involved too - he's obviously the natural 'next man up' behind CJ. In general, I'd love to see us spread it around tonight - and be balanced re run vs pass. Their defense should be a good test...
Aaaand now we know why they are much reviled. Even their roster cards are wrong.