Staying Healthy
Columbia's encouraging 2006 season was mostly injury-free (CREDIT: Columbia Spectator)
As we wait and hope that Craig Hormann will recover from his ACL injury, it's important to realize how fortunate Columbia was last season when it came to injuries. I realize players like Troy Evangelist and Ray Rangel, who missed significant time because of injuries, won't exactly share in this sentiment, but the vast majority of Columbia players stayed healthy all season long.
That hasn't been the case in past seasons, and with Columbia's classic depth issues, one big injury has had the ability to ruin an entire season. I thought All-Ivy Wade Fletcher's injury at the start of the 2004 season killed our chances to win several games in a year that we ended up finishing 1-9. Mike Cavanagh's season-ending broken leg destroyed what had been a very promising 1995 season up until that point. And one season after they burned up the Ivies as sophomores, running backs Solomon Johnson and Greg Abbruzzese suffered injuries at the start of the 1989 campaign that they never really fully recovered from. (Commentors can feel free to chime in with the other killer injuries they remember over the years).
Injuries happen, they're very much a part of the game. But for Columbia, they have always hurt that much more because we just haven't had the horses to replace players for short or long periods of time.
But that's why the current CU roster looks so good. To come into camp, (which I believe begins on August 19th or 20th), with as much as 103 players is something we haven't seen in many, many years. And in addition to the actual numbers, you also have to factor in versatility. We have a lot of players who can play more than one position, especially when you realize a lot of our lighter guys can play defensive end in the 3-5-3 system when they wouldn't be able to be anything but linebackers anywhere else.
That said, Columbia could be little better than dead in the water if players like Austin Knowlin or Phil Mitchell went down. But would we be as bad off as we would have been in the past? Unless 20 or so players walk off this team in training camp, it's pretty obvious we'd still have a fighting chance in most games.
Let's just hope that the injury discussion remains academic for as long as possible.
Helmets are for sissies!
Rugby fans take note! There's a bunch of Columbia alums
who act as guardian angels for talented players. A lot of people wish rugby would become a varsity sport again at Columbia, but with our budget and Title IX, it ain't gonna happen. It's good to see the guys who once played this awesome sport at Columbia are still giving back to the game.
And finally...
The final pieces of the roster bio puzzle are in place now that we have the info on Bruce Fleming and Michael Antonakakis, you can check them out here.
9 Comments:
Injuries killed either the '63 or '64 season. We played a very tough Colgate team at home and won a close game in whihc 4 or 5 starters went down, some for the season. More recently, I agree that losing Fletch cost us several games a few years ago. while he was able to come back, he was hampered all year and was not the smae player that he had been the year before. But Cavanaugh's loss in '95 basically cost us the season. some coaches thought that he was a legitimate NFL prospect before his injury. He was hurt dropping back to pass at Palmer Stadium on a day in which the winds were hellacious and we should have kept the ball on the ground.
I admire your faithfulness, Jake. It's a shame the Lions will likely not win a conference game this season.
Jake, Asai Sunset or foehi has apparently decided to pollute your blog with the last comment. I expect us to be a first division team this year. Keep up the good work, and don't let subversive influences destroy the esprit de couer of your blog!
I seriously doubt that Asia Sunset posted that comment.
I also don't believe injuries caused us to lose games; they are the symptom, not the disease. Injuries occur in equal proportion to all teams. Lack of depth is what has caused us to lose a lot of games.
There was a lot of talk about how much parity there was in the league last year. I think there will be even more parity this year with Columbia, Cornell, and Dartmouth all reasonably expected to be better teams than last year. It remains to be seen though whether we have not just reduced the gap with the upper division teams, but become a better team than the ones who beat us last year. I am very unconvinced that this coming season is the breakthrough year in which we defeat more conference teams than we lose to, hence I hesitate to predict how many league wins we will achieve.
Leonidas
As a Dartmouth fan, I feel the same way, Leonidas. I think that Dartmouth (and Columbia) will be a much much better team due to the new coach, but I worry about the parity. I fear that while my Green has improved, so has everybody else; so wins may not come as often as you'd expect from a team that has progressed as much. It's as if the bar has been raised higher for EVERYONE, and I worry that the standings may stay the same despite better play.
I really htink that Columbia has had a dramatic improvement in personnel and in coaching , so much so that we can be contenders.
Please remember how we almost beat Princeton last year, with a new system, a new coach, and personnel coming off a 1 win season. Take away the cheap last second TD at Yale, and we could have beaten Yale. The simple fact is that we are much closer to a championship than many people think. We have outstanding young talent, a great defensive scheme, and a real leader at the helm in NW. Now let's just get some fan support!
The best teams in the league were not nearly as better than the worst teams last year than they have been in the past... and that spells parity. I expect Columbia to be better this season, and that should result in a winning season. But my full predictions are still about 2 1/2 months away
Jake, you are not supposed to be impartial. Being a Columbai fan means putting hope ahead of history.
Post a Comment
<< Home