most inured team

[cubzzzfanincali]

OK, so Kevin Seifert, with whom I rarely agree, has posted an article on most injured teams:

Ranking NFL teams most hurt by injuries

I will have to go look up my injured team statistics web site later when I have more time, but just at first glance, while I sort of agree with him on his top 4, I really wouldn't put Green Bay as #5. I think an argument can be made that we should be at 5, or maybe Kansas City.

Anyway, I will try to look up the stats later, but here's discussion food for you all for now.

 

[JoeyTourettes]

I like that some are actually acknowledging that injuries matter. Whenever I would bring up injuries as a factor in the past I've gotten blasted with the notion of "next man up" and "everyone has injuries" (This of course was in a Jay Cutler context- which in and of itself has it's own biases- **PLEASE DON'T START THAT ARGUMENT AGAIN***

Injuries matter, they factor in team records and coaching success and everything. This list is pretty decent. I would also add the Bears too, much more last year...with Briggs & Tillman and all the Dlineman 2 years ago- but if those guys were healthy we might still be stuck with Tresty. so Injuries can be a blessing too! LOL

 

[blh7068]

Think of it this way- as a general rule, if backups were starters, they wouldnt be backups to begin with.

Also, its not just what the replacement does. A starter that makes significant contributions also creates opportunities for others. If that player is out, not only does the entire depth chart at that position get bumped, but can the player taking over the starting role- A) adequately make up what has been lost, and B)produce enough to create those opportunities for those that are behind him.

Yes, injuries do matter- and the level of impact from team to team can be highly variable depending on personnel lost and quality of depth that will be called on.

 

[noonthirtyjoe]

It's not number of injury's it's who and how it affects that teams scheme.

 

[nebearsfan70]

Well, the chicks can't hold deh smoke. That's what it is.

 

[beardown07]

 

[wood20ks]

Think of it this way- as a general rule, if backups were starters, they wouldnt be backups to begin with.

Also, its not just what the replacement does. A starter that makes significant contributions also creates opportunities for others. If that player is out, not only does the entire depth chart at that position get bumped, but can the player taking over the starting role- A) adequately make up what has been lost, and B)produce enough to create those opportunities for those that are behind him.

Yes, injuries do matter- and the level of impact from team to team can be highly variable depending on personnel lost and quality of depth that will be called on.

There are bak-ups that could be starters for other teams.tl depend on the depth...... Where I think the huge drop-off comes is at the qb position.
Unless a team is very very fortunate,the back-up qb is a back-up for a reason.
Rbs seem like the position where back-ups can actually produce admirably.

 

[cubzzzfanincali]

This is why I always argue with people that you have to evaluate a team's chances based on overall depth and the 53 man rather than the week one starting 22.

And sure it is never just the number of injuries, obviously who matters a lot, but I've tended to observe that every team's fan base usually perceives only their team's injuries are uniquely awful in nature and not just number.

Anyway, no one that I can find has yet tallied in Adjusted Games Lost yet. In 2013 according to AGL the Bears were the 14th healthiest team in the league, and last year we were the 27th healthiest. So I just got done undertaking a completely subjective exercise in reviewing every week's injury report and IR lists. I'd say that while you could make a case that the Bears started off in the Top 5 most injured teams, that's really no longer true. I'd say now we are pretty middle of the pack.

If I had to rank the Top 5 most injured teams right now, and taking into account "who" and numbers, I'd go with:

1. Pittsburgh (this is not even up for a debate)
2. Dallas (9 guys on IR a lot less than Pitt's 19 but their cap hits are highest in league)
3. Baltimore
4. San Diego (you could argue they deserve the 3 spot)
5. Minnesota

and honorable mention to the NY Giants.

So, no, not Green Bay.

Anyway, off to the bar. A little worried about this game because to me it looks like the Bears are at a disadvantage on the line on both sides of the ball, but it isn't as though the Rams are unbeatable, and have played pretty badly against some of their shittier opponents (motivation issue?), I'd say we have a chance. If we can stop Gurley, that is.

 

[wood20ks]

There are bak-ups that could be starters for other teams.tl depend on the depth...... Where I think the huge drop-off comes is at the qb position.
Unless a team is very very fortunate,the back-up qb is a back-up for a reason.
Rbs seem like the position where back-ups can actually produce admirably.

Jeremy Langford anyone?
He may keep that starters job, as well as Miller.

 

[blh7068]

here are bak-ups that could be starters for other teams.tl depend on the depth...... Where I think the huge drop-off comes is at the qb position.
Unless a team is very very fortunate,the back-up qb is a back-up for a reason.
Rbs seem like the position where back-ups can actually produce admirably

Sure, there are exceptions...and the drop off varies from position to position. Hence, my wording as a 'general' rule. I also agree that depth at RB is one of the easier positions to fill.

 

[anotheridiot]

I remember there were alot of injuries when Lovies strength and conditioning coaches were replaced by Trestmans team. Lovie wanted quick and agile players, seemed to focus on Flexibility. Trestman wanted beasts. All kinds of leg injuries showed up and I never ruled out a change in training philosophy might have lent a hand in the increase of injuries. Now another new coaching regime and a ton of injuries again. Did strength and conditioning change again? Yes, we have had a pretty big turnaround in players, but even new players might not have been conditioned the same last year. I mean a boxer like tillman kept tearing his triceps muscle, just seemed like a heavy bag should have been part of his regimen.

At least thats one of the ways I look at these injury cycles with this football team. I know my way is usually fucked up but it kinda makes sense.

 

[blh7068]

Did strength and conditioning change again?

Yes, it did. What you said about different conditioning/training methods contributing to injuries makes sense.

 

[richig07]

I like that some are actually acknowledging that injuries matter. Whenever I would bring up injuries as a factor in the past I've gotten blasted with the notion of "next man up" and "everyone has injuries" (This of course was in a Jay Cutler context- which in and of itself has it's own biases- **PLEASE DON'T START THAT ARGUMENT AGAIN***

Injuries matter, they factor in team records and coaching success and everything. This list is pretty decent. I would also add the Bears too, much more last year...with Briggs & Tillman and all the Dlineman 2 years ago- but if those guys were healthy we might still be stuck with Tresty. so Injuries can be a blessing too! LOL

Everyone does have injuries. It is apart of the game, but there is a line to be drawn. When you lose your franchise QB and superstar WR like Dallas did this season. Okay, yeah... I'll give you a pass, and I think we'll all safely assume they'd be better than their current 2-7 record, if it wasn't for some extraordinary circumstances. However, every team has some key guys defensively, up front on the O-line, skill position guys... etc... that miss time. For the most part, it's not an excuse. However, when someone is completely decimated, or lost their QB... I'm willing to listen to an argument.