Le'veon Bell enters 48 hour homestretch

[rmilia1]

The last available data is from 2015- 2016 and running backs have a slightly higher injury rate ( 5.2% ) than receivers (4.5% ) but when adjusted on a per touch basis the running back position ranks dead last amongst skill positions in injury . It's on PFF if anyone cares to actually educate themselves . You can go back and look at prior years as well

 

[HaroldSeattle]

All you have to do is look at games missed due to injury. Not tough to do the math.

So humor us and show us the data backing that claim.

 

[SteelersPride]

The last available data is from 2015- 2016 and running backs have a slightly higher injury rate ( 5.2% ) than receivers (4.5% ) but when adjusted on a per touch basis the running back position ranks dead last amongst skill positions in injury . It's on PFF if anyone cares to actually educate themselves . You can go back and look at prior years as well

whats the adjusted number because the data u posted is basically statistically insignificant........

 

[HaroldSeattle]

The last available data is from 2015- 2016 and running backs have a slightly higher injury rate ( 5.2% ) than receivers (4.5% ) but when adjusted on a per touch basis the running back position ranks dead last amongst skill positions in injury . It's on PFF if anyone cares to actually educate themselves . You can go back and look at prior years as well

I don't pay there 35.00 per month fee for premium stats. How about you show us a screen shot backing your claim?

 

[eaglesnut]

All you have to do is look at games missed due to injury. Not tough to do the math.

There are 2-4 wrs on the field for any play. Only 1-2 running backs.

Even if the data shows what you pretend it does, your logic is still incorrect.

 

[SteelersPride]

I don't pay there 35.00 per month fee for premium stats. How about you show us a screen shot backing your claim?

wouldnt if wr have a 4.7% injury rate and touch the ball way LESS, then on a per touch basis get injure more actually...........or is my thinking wrong

 

[rmilia1]

whats the adjusted number because the data u posted is basically statistically insignificant........

The average running back sew the ball ( via catch or run on 50% of NFL plays), receivers are at 31%. This means an average back see the ball 169% more often yet is only injured at a 17% higher clip. If running back were more dangerous that 17% would be more than 170% higher.

Hopefully that makes sense . Listen ALL football players average a 4.1% injury rate so the game is dangerous to everyone. It's just less dangerous to RBS than other skill positions ( TE is actually the most dangerous although the sample size is less on a per catch basis and they're obviously in the trenches far more )

 

[rmilia1]

There are 2-4 wrs on the field for any play. Only 1-2 running backs.

Even if the data shows what you pretend it does, your logic is still incorrect.

This is a per player average not a total composite

 

[DJ]

Yes. Its strange you guys are so opposed to this fact when there's plenty of data to support it. But anyway if you aren't willing to admit facts theres no point in discussing it. Backs touch the ball far more yet must way less time on average. That's not up for debate. Its provable fact

You're fucking insane.

The QB touches the ball every offensive play, wether it be run or pass. And it's more of a passing League now.

The RB doesn't run on every offensive play.

 

[DJ]

View attachment 183489

BOOM.

 

[rmilia1]

You're fucking insane.

The QB touches the ball every offensive play, wether it be run or pass. And it's more of a passing League now.

The RB doesn't run every offensive play.

Quarterbacks are unique as they dont get hit often but QBs have the highest injury rate per contact ( for obvious reasons )

Seriously all the data is available on PFF or PFL. Check it out

 

[NWPATSFAN]

What does career length have to do with injury? Backs careered are short because they're w dime a sozrb and instead of paying a guy on his second contract you can replace him with a guy of equal talent for less money on the second or third day of the draft

Who said he had the dumbest statement earlier?
Maybe we should put a clock on it and quantify by the hour from now on?

 

[PDay8810]

"The position is not as dangerous as others because you rarely get hit by a guy running full speed and you almost always see it coming"

"Big hits on backs are few are far between"

"RB position is not as dangerous as playing WR for example"


So we agree...these statements are way over the top.

 

[rmilia1]

Who said he had the dumbest statement earlier?
Maybe we should put a clock on it and quantify by the hour from now on?

Yet solid backs lose their jobs every year to guys drafted in the 3rd. 4th or later. Money talks

 

[HaroldSeattle]

Quarterbacks are unique as they dont get hit often but QBs have the highest injury rate per contact ( for obvious reasons )

Seriously all the data is available on PFF or PFL. Check it out

OK found data that actually backs your claim. I'll do what you didn't and leave a link to it. Data is a little dated.

FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis | NFL Injuries Part IV: Variation by Position

Further more the data gets skewed by older WRs that keep playing vs RBs who career are over due to injuries making them ineffective IMO.

 

[NWPATSFAN]

Yet solid backs lose their jobs every year to guys drafted in the 3rd. 4th or later. Money talks

Those solid backs find new homes each and every year. They get moved because of their expected shelf life and GMs don't want to invest crazy capital on them. Solid backs always have a home it's just at what cost will a team spend for said solid back?

 

[rmilia1]

OK found data that actually backs your claim. I'll do what you didn't and leave a link to it. Data is a little dated.

FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis | NFL Injuries Part IV: Variation by Position

Further more the data gets skewed by older WRs that keep playing vs RBs who career are over due to injuries making them ineffective IMO.

Maybe. I've seen almost all the data before. When I said it I didn't think it was unknown. Clearly I was wrong lol

 

[Ewa PGH Fan]

The last available data is from 2015- 2016 and running backs have a slightly higher injury rate ( 5.2% ) than receivers (4.5% ) but when adjusted on a per touch basis the running back position ranks dead last amongst skill positions in injury . It's on PFF if anyone cares to actually educate themselves . You can go back and look at prior years as well

Per touch means nothing. Per snap or play is the important variable. Players bang violently into each other on every play whether they touch the ball or not. I don't know about other teams but the Steelers' WRs, TEs and RBs all block. RBs pick up blitzers all the time without ever touching the ball on a play. Blitzers come at high speeds creating violent collisions when met by a RB in the backfield. And all teams have 4 and 5 WR sets where a RB may not even be on the field. And then you have special teams like kickoffs where violent collisions are the norm, although the NFL is trying to limit those.

 

[rmilia1]

Per touch means nothing. Per snap or play is the important variable. Players bang violently into each other on every play whether they touch the ball or not. I don't know about other teams but the Steelers' WRs, TEs and RBs all block. RBs pick up blitzers all the time without ever touching the ball on a play. Blitzers come at high speeds creating violent collisions when met by a RB in the backfield. And all teams have 4 and 5 WR sets where a RB may not even be on the field. And then you have special teams like kickoffs where violent collisions are the norm, although the NFL is trying to limit those.

Well per touch is really the only viable way to compare positions that have such differing numbers . I get what you're saying but when there are 3.5 to 1 numbers on average for receivers vs backs the numbers aren't going to be the same. Larger numbers will almost always equate to a lower percentage of you're talking per play as opposed to per touch

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I don't pay there 35.00 per month fee for premium stats. How about you show us a screen shot backing your claim?

I actually KIND OF agree with rmilla... Only if his point is at a PER TOUCH scenario... I do think RBs are the SAFEST of the skill positions... The hits are more straight forward, don't really get blindsided or cheap shot as often...

BUT it doesn't matter about a per touch statistic, when the RBs clearly get significantly more touches...