Price and Lott to play?

philponder · Unread post by **philponder** » Thu Sep 06, 2012 8:27 pm

A link to the W-S Journal on eGriz says Price and Lott have been reinstated by Jerry Moore for the Montana game. Can't read the article due to an Adobe software issue. I listened to Mountaineer Talk tonight and didn't hear it mentioned. Can anyone confirm?

hm.grwn.grizfan · Unread post by **hm.grwn.grizfan** » Thu Sep 06, 2012 8:41 pm

I pulled it off this forum and posted it to egriz. Its in the updated depth chart thread.

Cincy App · Unread post by **Cincy App** » Thu Sep 06, 2012 8:53 pm

Lott and Price will both play this week and then sit out again one of the next 2 weeks. Here is the WS Journal link:

http://www2.journalnow.com/sports/2012/ ... r-2584601/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

firemoose · Unread post by **firemoose** » Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:01 pm

I think this is a good decision based on our current injury situation. Just curious but where does it say we have to sit both for the same game. If it's two out of the first four then why not look at the Cit and Chatty games, decide who is needed most in which game and sit the other. The punishment still applies, the player has to lose two games because of breaking the rules, and the coaches decide which game. Isn't that why the team rule says two of the first four games. Given where we are with injuries I think that would be a better idea than loosing two starters for the same conference game, unless the numbers work out that way. Just thinking out loud here.

philponder · Unread post by **philponder** » Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:18 pm

Doesn't leaving some wiggle room in there for the coaches to decide which games they miss seem a little weak? I mean if a rule is violated, send a strong message and make them sit the next two games or don't do anything. It just seems like a loophole. Maybe whatever they did was minor-- late for team meeting or something not involving a feliny

philponder · Unread post by **philponder** » Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:19 pm

...felony

Unread post by **biggie** » Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:26 pm

The option could be for be for good purpose on "light" violations. The Montana game is a big learning experience, especially for Price. Much more pressure/hype compared to the Cit/Chatty games.

mirin · Unread post by **mirin** » Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:29 pm

If the shoe were on the other foot I'd definitely be pumped to have the best players on the team playing on Saturday....but no doubt I'd be a little embarrassed that Moore is picking and choosing what games to suspend players for rule violations.

no respect lost though!

firemoose · Unread post by **firemoose** » Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:42 pm

philponder wrote:Doesn't leaving some wiggle room in there for the coaches to decide which games they miss seem a little weak? I mean if a rule is violated, send a strong message and make them sit the next two games or don't do anything. It just seems like a loophole. Maybe whatever they did was minor-- late for team meeting or something not involving a feliny

Wasn't advocating one way or the other about the punishment but the team has chosen to write the rule the way they have. I would guess, as you did, that this rule appiles to violations the team doesn't see as serious enough to warrant a stronger punishment by saying two of the first four. I was just saying, since the rule is written that way then why not take advantage given what we are facing right now. We're short on players at certain positions and since the coaches can decide which games a player has to miss then sit one for one game and the other for the next one. Anything to help us until we get back some of these day to day players. Also, doesn't seem to be a mention of Ware but since LB seems to be ok I guess they are going ahead and getting his out of the way before we have to face the option team.

AppinATL · Unread post by **AppinATL** » Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:57 pm

I like it. The players who messed up still get punished but this minimizes the collateral damage to the rest of the team who didn't do anything wrong. Also to the fans that want to see the best we have in this game. It's a win-win.

Appalachman · Unread post by **Appalachman** » Thu Sep 06, 2012 10:39 pm

I don't like this decision at all. 1-Montana staff will use it. "they don't think they can hang with us without bending the rules an playing these two men. Citadel or UTC staff will use it as "they think they are so much better they don't need their best to beat us" 2-Middleton is out, unless Walker's test results change there is no known timing of his return, so how is depth going to be better then. I do hope the best for walker. 3-our staff speaks strongly every year about winning the conference. The last two trips to Charleston have not been easy and the last two UTC games even tougher. We should focus on winning the conference and an auto-bid, true to our word repeated time and time again. Win the Socon first and while your at it beat Montana without these guys. 4-stick to your guns and keep the full reapect of kids in the program, starter or not - same rules.

WVAPPeer · Unread post by **WVAPPeer** » Fri Sep 07, 2012 6:15 am

I feel that this situation at this point in time seems to have been handled properly - some on the Rivals board seem to imply there was no 2 in 4 option for Coach Moore and that the suspensions were from the University which could be true as I have no idea - however if you weight in some existing situations specific to where our team is at this point then there has to be a category to consider - "For the betterment of the team as a whole" - Do we really want to have to pull a redshirt just for backup? - do we really want to have to move several players into situations where they could experience failure thru no fault of their own? - etc. --- and Yes, optional or spaced game suspensions happen all the time in college sports - even the NCAA allows it in some situations when actual NCAA suspensions have been handed down ---

Deano · Unread post by **Deano** » Fri Sep 07, 2012 7:45 am

The kids are going to sit out the two games like JM said, he didn’t originally specify which games. You don’t think it hurts these players any differently which games they sit out? If I was a player sitting out a game is sitting out a game, they all hurt and it serves the purpose of the punishment.

asumike83 · Unread post by **asumike83** » Fri Sep 07, 2012 7:55 am

If the '2 in 4' is the rule than that is fine. I think the rule should be 2 consecutive games but it is what it is. However, the timing bothers me. We knew very soon that Chisholm/Middleton were not playing this weekend and if he was going to reinstate these guys, it should have been done early in the week. Making the announcement when the Griz now have one day to prepare is disappointing.

I understand that having them miss this game would punish some guys who did not break the rules but that is how it goes. Part of the reason for disciplining these guys is to teach them not to let their teammates down.

I'm not overly upset about it and I haven't lost any respect for coach Moore but I disagree with how this situation was handled. Rumors all offseason about them being suspended, they are on the official ECU depth chart and then end up being suspended. They get taken off the Montana depth chart then we announce at the last minute that they are going to suit up for this one. Could have been dealt with much better.

WVAPPeer · Unread post by **WVAPPeer** » Fri Sep 07, 2012 8:19 am

"If the '2 in 4' is the rule than that is fine."

asumike - that is the key question here - if it's the rule then the rule was put in place for the "betterment of the team" and this is it's application - however as some on Rivals claim it was not 2in4 and Coach Moore is doing this to have a better chance to win (which i personally don't think happened) then I would have a problem - If it's the rule to miss the first 2 - then that is what should be done - if it is in fact 2 in 4 at the head coaches option then Coach Moore is doing the right thing for the betterment of the team ---

appalum2003 · Unread post by **appalum2003** » Fri Sep 07, 2012 8:26 am

asumike83 wrote:If the '2 in 4' is the rule than that is fine. I think the rule should be 2 consecutive games but it is what it is. However, the timing bothers me. We knew very soon that Chisholm/Middleton were not playing this weekend and if he was going to reinstate these guys, it should have been done early in the week. Making the announcement when the Griz now have one day to prepare is disappointing.

I understand that having them miss this game would punish some guys who did not break the rules but that is how it goes. Part of the reason for disciplining these guys is to teach them not to let their teammates down.

I'm not overly upset about it and I haven't lost any respect for coach Moore but I disagree with how this situation was handled. Rumors all offseason about them being suspended, they are on the official ECU depth chart and then end up being suspended. They get taken off the Montana depth chart then we announce at the last minute that they are going to suit up for this one. Could have been dealt with much better.

Remind you of a similar situation last year?

Unread post by **biggie** » Fri Sep 07, 2012 8:27 am

The 2 from the first 4 must have been known by others. I heard someone talking about it not long after the ECU game (maybe even DJ mentioned it on the post game show last week).

Don't think this was made up for the benefit of this situation.

asumike83 · Unread post by **asumike83** » Fri Sep 07, 2012 8:30 am

WVAPPeer wrote:"If the '2 in 4' is the rule than that is fine."

asumike - that is the key question here - if it's the rule then the rule was put in place for the "betterment of the team" and this is it's application - however as some on Rivals claim it was not 2in4 and Coach Moore is doing this to have a better chance to win (which i personally don't think happened) then I would have a problem - If it's the rule to miss the first 2 - then that is what should be done - if it is in fact 2 in 4 at the head coaches option then Coach Moore is doing the right thing for the betterment of the team ---

I don't think that Moore changed the rule to suit this situation either but I do have a problem with the timing.

And although I do believe he is abiding by the rule, I still disagree with the principle of it. Allowing the coach to choose which games you miss is counterproductive in terms of discipline, in my opinion. I think that strictly enforcing team violations by requiring a player to miss the next two games, regardless of opponent, would be the best thing for the team in the long run.

Either way, it is done and it is good for us in an on-field sense. I have mixed feelings.

JTApps1 · Unread post by **JTApps1** » Fri Sep 07, 2012 8:35 am

asumike83 wrote:If the '2 in 4' is the rule than that is fine. I think the rule should be 2 consecutive games but it is what it is. However, the timing bothers me. We knew very soon that Chisholm/Middleton were not playing this weekend and if he was going to reinstate these guys, it should have been done early in the week. Making the announcement when the Griz now have one day to prepare is disappointing.

I understand that having them miss this game would punish some guys who did not break the rules but that is how it goes. Part of the reason for disciplining these guys is to teach them not to let their teammates down.

I'm not overly upset about it and I haven't lost any respect for coach Moore but I disagree with how this situation was handled. Rumors all offseason about them being suspended, they are on the official ECU depth chart and then end up being suspended. They get taken off the Montana depth chart then we announce at the last minute that they are going to suit up for this one. Could have been dealt with much better.

I agree Mike, this whole situation should have been handled differently. It's been a rollercoaster ride since the spring. I can understand not wanting the entire team to pay for the mistakes of these two, but I do wonder what message that sends to everyone. Even with the injuries I don't see where these two are needed more this week compared to last. Unless Lott is going to play Corner how does it really help having him back? Blacklock definitely can't play corner. We didn't lose anyone at receiver so how has that situation changed? Also, what about Jamal Ware? Are we telling him he isn't as important as these two players, or is his violation more severe than theirs? I can see both sides here, but once again a decision seems to raise more questions about whats going on than answer them.

Oh well, Beat the Griz!

WVAPPeer · Unread post by **WVAPPeer** » Fri Sep 07, 2012 9:10 am

I do believe the key to any off-season suspension is the 1st game - to work so hard from Dec to Sep and then not getting to take the field with your teammates has to be (and should be) painful ---

Price and Lott to play?

Price and Lott to play?

Re: Price and Lott to play?

Re: Price and Lott to play?

Re: Price and Lott to play?

Re: Price and Lott to play?

Re: Price and Lott to play?

Re: Price and Lott to play?

Re: Price and Lott to play?

Re: Price and Lott to play?

Re: Price and Lott to play?

Re: Price and Lott to play?

Re: Price and Lott to play?

Re: Price and Lott to play?

Re: Price and Lott to play?

Re: Price and Lott to play?

Re: Price and Lott to play?

Re: Price and Lott to play?

Re: Price and Lott to play?

Re: Price and Lott to play?

Re: Price and Lott to play?

Login • Register