If Carr signs elsewhere, should CJ be made our primary kick returner?

Um...

If I had a million dollars...

 

Hawkins returned kicks in college. Not sure about punts...Cary Williams was pretty good at it also.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrz7TE03168

Yeah. He looks great in the open field. Even on his interceptions.

 

Is there some kind of statistic that proves returners get hurt more than rb's? I just don't uderstand the logic of not allowing a skill player to return kicks. If CJ is the best returer, he should be returning kicks. I do agree there are plenty of good returners to do the job officially. I think that Anthony Alridge in Washington is going to be an electrifying suprise if they allow him to return kicks and run. We could have had another CJ right there for free.

 

we need carr on a three year deal...end of story

 

I think so. I think teams should play starters on special teams. Rarely do you see a return guy get hurt, and the fact that CJ isn't an every down back would allow him to return kicks and still have enough stamina to play RB as well. CJ is explosive, we need him in the open field with the ball every chance we can get. However, I see very slight possibility of this happening, I doubt Fish would risk it

 

Well if you can find a stat and it says position A gets hurt more than position B, then what would you say if the player played both of the positions.It's not like he would be moved to return duties and that's it. I don't think it's necessarily the positions but rather being on the field a larger chunk of time playing a position, that typically can be filled with lower tier players. Not necessarily superstars.

Especially considering we have others capable why risk it?

 

If Carr does indeed leave my list from our current roster would be:

- Lavelle Hawkins

- Chris Davis

- Cary Williams

- Even Chris Henry before CJ


] One of these guys should be capable enough.

 

Well...

It's not the statistic...it's the risk vs reward. What is your upside of having a CJ return kicks vs a Carr? Probably none. What's the downside of an injury? We lose our Pro Bowl rb...for what?

Even if you have an avg returner and CJ could get you 2 more TD's and 5 more yards of field position per kick, what happens to your offense if he goes out for one game...what about 3 games? Even an ankle injury for a game or 2 quickly negates any possible gain and anything more serious is a DISASTER!

The Giants decided to let Jason Seahorn - there star CB - return kicks. What's the injury risk, right? He hurt his knee...I think in a pre-season game and he never was the same player again. It's not worth the risk...especially for a starter who's under 200lbs. Think of what would have happened to CJ if he had taken that headon Darrell Reid hit (Colts DT) instead of Chris Henry? He might have broken into a few pieces...

It's a risk vs reward game. If you can have backup players do it just as well as a starter...you use the backup. If he gets hurt, much less dmg to the overall team than if your best offensive player goes down.

Gut

 

Deion Sanders did both too. The Reward was greater than the risk clearly. If CJ is our best returner, he should be on the field. Again, I see no increase of risk just because he is on the field. The odds of being injured on any given play do not increase. I can understand the thought that if you play more your more likely to be injured, but is it really true, and if it is, what does it mean...

The injury rate is about 3.4% per game. And only 1% result in injuries greater than 7 days. That means only one player per game will be out more than 7 days.

The oft quoted you cannot hit what you can't catch is true. A study was done on rugby players. One third of injuries occurr in differential speed tackles--that is, when one player is travelling much faster than the other at impact. The reality of that statistic was that the player with the lower momentum was injured in 85% of these cases. So the faster you are the less likely the event of being involved in an injury, and the less likely it is to be you who gets hurt to boot.

So while I understand the philosophy that more exposure leads to greater chance of injury, I don't understand why the risk is greater than the reward.

I will grant if you have equal players then using the less valuable player is optimal. But if Carr is gone, and CJ is the best the returner, then the gain is well worth the risk.

The Titans rely on field position. I think we all could agree on that. So having a returner is amplified for us. The gain itself of a great returner vs. an an average returner is debateable, but you are talking about an increase in point production per game by at least 1 point, and I think you could safely assume a good kick returner will get you another fg per game too. The Hidden yardage, as Jimmy Johnson points out, would be about 50 yards per game or five first downs. Plus the hidden yards when a team kicks it out of bounds.

Jimmy Johnson thinks the team with the best field position through a game generally wins. I tend to agree.

So I see the reward as much greater than the risk.

 

I guess 90% of the time coaches are stupid for not letting their starters return kicks and punts........
SlammaJamma might be on to something here. These coaches that have been in the game their whole lives have simply been morons all these years.....

All kidding aside there is more to it than just significant injury. It is the wear and tear of a long season. All RBs especially take a beating and as Gut said you really have to justify letting them return based on them being far better than the next best guy. IMO if CJ tore it up in the pre-season and looked like Deion back there we might have seen him return more in critical games and situations but what little we saw him return his timing wasn't there yet and he was a rookie learning the offense so there wasn't any reason to waste his time and wear and tear doing returns when we had Carr.

It also only takes one significant injury for a RB to end his career and with a guy as valuable as CJ why even take the chance.