1/3 of the way through the season takeaways

[Deleted member 6794]

I guess I would say your last examples price my point. The tackle position for gb has been like those situation. Pro bowl level players hurt along with all their backups. What happened to those teams happened this week and what happened to gb happened at the start of the season. So going forward gb looks way better but up to this point have had it worse. It isn't hard logic to follow. The whole point has been so far. Every announcer and national pundit has talked about how bad the Packers injuries have been. This isn't a Packer fan thing

There's no doubt the Packers have had a rash of injuries at tackle but fortunately didn't suffer a season ending injury to one of their starters. Aside of that the team has been pretty healthy at most other positions compared to other teams.

 

[mradtke66]

We've talked about this before.

Eh, I don't agree with everything the Cap says, but on this part he is completely right.

You make the positive claim. He responds, "I don't believe that to be correct."

YOU AND ONLY YOU must now provided the evidence. This is standard and polite behavior. To do otherwise is lazy.

 

[bigbubbatd]

There's no doubt the Packers have had a rash of injuries at tackle but fortunately didn't suffer a season ending injury to one of their starters. Aside of that the team has been pretty healthy at most other positions compared to other teams.

OK we can agree to disagree on the last part of the statement considering Daniels, perry and house have all missed time and two of those have missed 3 games I think. Not to mention Nelson and Cobb and adams combining to miss essentially 3 games and our starting rb missing 2. That just doesn't seem pretty healthy. Honestly it seems like safety and qb have been the only places injuries haven't hit since cook and Ryan/Thomas and others have missed as well

 

[Deleted member 6794]

OK we can agree to disagree on the last part of the statement considering Daniels, perry and house have all missed time and two of those have missed 3 games I think. Not to mention Nelson and Cobb and adams combining to miss essentially 3 games and our starting rb missing 2. That just doesn't seem pretty healthy. Honestly it seems like safety and qb have been the only places injuries haven't hit since cook and Ryan/Thomas and others have missed as well

FWIW none of the guys you mentioned has missed three games. I don't know who you're talking about when mentioning Cook.

 

[Dantés]

So what you're telling me is that you don't have any information to support your claim but I should either refute it by collecting information on it or have blind faith in your subjective observation. Got it.

I can't make you see what you don't want to see. If you're willing to deny what just about everyone, Packers fans and otherwise, understands to be perfectly obvious, then what good is it going to do for me to list out the first month's worth of injury reports for you? Do you need me to prove to you that the Packers are 4-1? Or that Rodgers wears #12?

 

[Dantés]

FWIW none of the guys you mentioned has missed three games. I don't know who you're talking about when mentioning Cook.

Evidence please????????

If you're going to throw out outrageous claims regarding how many games players have missed, please show us the numbers. I want quantified stats or I will assume that you're making it up.

 

[bigbubbatd]

FWIW none of the guys you mentioned has missed three games. I don't know who you're talking about when mentioning Cook.

Daniels went out the first series against Atlanta and missed the next two games. That is 3 games. I have no idea how it came out cook. That was supposed to be house who missed two games plus the one he got hurt. Sorry for the confusion there.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I can't make you see what you don't want to see. If you're willing to deny what just about everyone, Packers fans and otherwise, understands to be perfectly obvious, then what good is it going to do for me to list out the first month's worth of injury reports for you?

If it's that obvious to everyone aside of me there shouldn't be any issue to at least provide a single link to a site or story confirming your claim.

Evidence please????????

If you're going to throw out outrageous claims regarding how many games players have missed, please show us the numbers. I want quantified stats or I will assume that you're making it up.

 

[Mondio]

Eh, I don't agree with everything the Cap says, but on this part he is completely right.

You make the positive claim. He responds, "I don't believe that to be correct."

YOU AND ONLY YOU must now provided the evidence. This is standard and polite behavior. To do otherwise is lazy.

wouldn't matter if you did, because whatever you find, won't be good enough. If it doesn't come from his stat book. only certain stats matter and it depends on the debate. They can and do change in level of importance, almost on a whim one might say.

I can't believe people would look at this team and say they haven't had to fight thru some injuries and make do under some pretty damaging circumstances. and I don't care if other teams are just as injured, because the majority aren't 4-1 either. just like last year heading into the playoffs, the Packers were again considered the most injured team at the time. top or bottom 5 however you want to look at it and the other 4 were NOT in the playoffs. at playoff time the most healthy teams, Pats, Falcons and Cowboys. But they weren't adjusted correctly to his "metrics" so they didn't count LOL.

You guys are all wasting your time. I mean I appreciate it, because I can just like and agree with responses, without actually having to read or respond to any of it anymore. Some people aren't here to talk about football, they're here to find fault and an angle to prove every single poster "wrong". at least on something. Daily.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Daniels went out the first series against Atlanta and missed the next two games. That is 3 games. I have no idea how it came out cook. That was supposed to be house who missed two games plus the one he got hurt. Sorry for the confusion there.

You're right about Daniels essentially missing the entire game at Atlanta. House played 84% of the snaps vs. the Falcons though.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

wouldn't matter if you did, because whatever you find, won't be good enough. If it doesn't come from his stat book. only certain stats matter and it depends on the debate.

You might want to give it a try only once but of course that would require there to be facts out there supporting your claim.

 

[PackAttack12]

Evidence please????????

If you're going to throw out outrageous claims regarding how many games players have missed, please show us the numbers. I want quantified stats or I will assume that you're making it up.

Oh my.

 

[PFanCan]

Evidence please????????

If you're going to throw out outrageous claims regarding how many games players have missed, please show us the numbers. I want quantified stats or I will assume that you're making it up.

Most of us know when a claim needs to be backed up with evidence and when a claim does not. Stating that the Packers "are the most injured team" or something similar is definitely something that would need some reference to data. Stating that the Packers are 4-1 or who wears #12 does not need any evidence as it's a priori for anyone on this forum.

Wim was just asking for some justification for your earlier statement-- not anything out of line. But, your silly response just lost you any credibility on this topic, IMHO.

 

[Dantés]

If it's that obvious to everyone aside of me there shouldn't be any issue to at least provide a single link to a site or story confirming your claim.

If only I could find anything at all on the internet referring to the Packers' dealing with an inordinate amount of injuries during the first month of the season.

Also, please don't use the "rolling eyes" emoji unless you have an outside source proving that it's warranted.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

If only I could find anything at all on the internet referring to the Packers' dealing with an inordinate amount of injuries during the first month of the season.

None of the articles you linked to contain any data confirming the Packers are one of the most injured teams in the league.

 

[Dantés]

Most of us know when a claim needs to be backed up with evidence and when a claim does not. Stating that the Packers "are the most injured team" or something similar is definitely something that would need some reference to data. Stating that the Packers are 4-1 or who wears #12 does not need any evidence as it's a priori for anyone on this forum.

Wim was just asking for some justification for your earlier statement-- not anything out of line. But, your silly response just lost you any credibility on this topic, IMHO.

We'd been through this. I directed him to the injury reports as the total number of injuries aren't quantified into a single stat this early in the season. I had confidence that he could look through them (if he actually wanted to) without me posting the injury reports for the entire league on this website. He ignored that and pretended that I asked him/others to accept what I said without evidence. He's not interested in the evidence. He's just pretending that there isn't any.

 

[bigbubbatd]

You're right about Daniels essentially missing the entire game at Atlanta. House played 84% of the snaps vs. the Falcons though.

So Daniels has missed 3. House has missed 2 and a little extra. King has missed time as well. Perry obviously has missed time. Those are very key parts to an already bad defense right?

 

[gbgary]

It's great that most of the Packers' injuries haven't ended up on IR, but they've had to do without more starters than the majority of teams through 5 weeks. This is pretty innocuous, self-evident commentary, but some people catch a whiff of positivity in it and thus feel the need to "correct" it as though it needed correcting.

here's a site that has "games missed" info. it's a paid site though: https://www.mangameslost.com/nfl-week-4-games-missed-due-injury-injury-metrics-october-4-2017/

 

[Deleted member 6794]

So Daniels has missed 3. House has missed 2 and a little extra. King has missed time as well. Perry obviously has missed time. Those are very key parts to an already bad defense right?

The Packers were definitely hurt by those players missing games or a significant amount of snaps but once again I don't believe it has been worse than what most other teams have had to endure this season so far.

 

[PFanCan]

We'd been through this. I directed him to the injury reports as the total number of injuries aren't quantified into a single stat this early in the season. I had confidence that he could look through them (if he actually wanted to) without me posting the injury reports for the entire league on this website. He ignored that and pretended that I asked him/others to accept what I said without evidence. He's not interested in the evidence. He's just pretending that there isn't any.

IMO, I disagree with the notion that the Packers are "the most injured team in the NFL" or anything of this notion. I live in Houston. Try to tell anyone here that GB is worse off than the Texans, especially after the last game...

Ok, I went here: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/injuries.htm and built a pivot table from the data, using only those that are either "Out" or on IR:
BAL 18
DET 14
NOR 13
NYG 13
CHI 13
NYJ 12
HOU 11
CAR 10
SFO 10
MIA 10
SEA 10
IND 9
CLE 9
NWE 9
KAN 9
WAS 8
PHI 8
GNB 7
LAC 7
TAM 7
DAL 7
DEN 7
CIN 7
MIN 6
JAX 6
ARI 6
TEN 5
BUF 5
OAK 5
LAR 4
ATL 4
PIT 2
Grand Total 271

Of course, this doesn't show criticality of who is out, but it is a start. As you can see, GB isn't the worst in terms of raw numbers, in fact is in the better "bottom" half.

Now, let's look at some details, starting with GB's list of seven:

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Not a starter on the list, save our long snapper. Let's look at GB's doubtful and questionable list for next week:

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

That's more substantial.

Let's look at just a single other team, say, NYG, starting with the IR/Out:

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Oh my! Yes, this list got much worse on Sunday with Beckham's injury. But it was bad prior. Also, questionable and doubtful for NYG:

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Some pain on this list, too. Longer and plenty of starters missing for NYG, too.

So, at least ONE team looks to have been bitten worse by the injury bug this year thus far than the Packers. I would guess that we would find more evidence of other teams worse off if I continued to mine the data, namely Baltimore, Carolina, Detroit, Houston, and Seattle. Oh, Indy, too, with bad "Luck" of over 6 on IR. And, don't forget New England with Eldeman and quite of few other key players out on IR. Wait, KC, too... Achille's tendons seem to be their, um, achille's heal this year. Ok, one more, Philly is pretty banged up and missing starters.

There is the data. No real evidence, IMO that GB is worse off than all or even most other NFL teams right now.

Edit: Minor typo

 

[bigbubbatd]

The Packers were definitely hurt by those players missing games or a significant amount of snaps but once again I don't believe it has been worse than what most other teams have had to endure this season so far.

Fair enough. I do think it is fair to say it isn't just Packer fans who have said this though. Maybe it isn't factual but announcers, writers, etc have been saying it all year. I think Baltimore and Indy seem to have had it the worst overall but I don't have data

 

[Deleted member 6794]

IMO, I disagree with the notion that the Packers are "the most injured team in the NFL" or anything of this notion. I live in Houston. Try to tell anyone here that GB is worse off than the Texans, especially after the last game...

Ok, I went here: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/injuries.htm and built a pivot table from the data, using only those that are either "Out" or on IR:
BAL 18
DET 14
NOR 13
NYG 13
CHI 13
NYJ 12
HOU 11
CAR 10
SFO 10
MIA 10
SEA 10
IND 9
CLE 9
NWE 9
KAN 9
WAS 8
PHI 8
GNB 7
LAC 7
TAM 7
DAL 7
DEN 7
CIN 7
MIN 6
JAX 6
ARI 6
TEN 5
BUF 5
OAK 5
LAR 4
ATL 4
PIT 2
Grand Total 271

Of course, this doesn't show criticality of who is out, but it is a start. As you can see, GB isn't the worst in terms of raw numbers, in fact is in the better "bottom" half.

Now, let's look at some details, starting with GB's list of seven:

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Not a starter on the list, save our long snapper. Let's look at GB's doubtful and questionable list for next week:

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

That's more substantial.

Let's look at just a single other team, say, NYG, starting with the IR/Out:

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Oh my! Yes, this list got much worse on Sunday with Beckham's injury. But it was bad prior. Also, questionable and doubtful for NYG:

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Some pain on this list, too. Longer and plenty of starters missing for NYG, too.

So, at least ONE team looks to have been bitten worse by the injury bug this year thus far than the Packers. I would guess that we would find more evidence of other teams worse off if I continued to mine the data, namely Baltimore, Carolina, Detroit, Houston, and Seattle. Oh, Indy, too, with bad "Luck" of over 6 on IR. And, don't forget New England with Eldeman and quite of few other key players out on IR. Wait, KC, too... Achille's tendons seem to be their, um, achille's heal this year. Ok, one more, Philly is pretty banged up and missing starters.

There is the data. No real evidence, IMO that GB is worse off than any or even most other NFL teams right now.

Great job on your part putting in the work of assembling that list. Of course I expect Dantés, Mondio and some others to refute it without providing any meaningful information for doing so.

 

[Mondio]

I'm reading back thru this, not a lot saying we're the most injured team ever or this year, most are saying we weathered some pretty significant injuries. and that doesn't need to be qualified with some stat. It just doesn't. BakhT and Bulaga, important or not? at the same time? WR's going down for a game or so. Not a huge loss, but no Jordy at times, no Adams at times. that's significant. Perry, Brooks, House, Daniels. Significant. and like I said before, there are teams that may have more injuries, how many are 4-1 coming thru it? We're fortunate in that many of these guys we can expect back so we should be getting stronger going forward.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I'm reading back thru this, not a lot saying we're the most injured team ever or this year, most are saying we weathered some pretty significant injuries.

You're kidding, right??? The entire discussion over the past two sites of this thread have been about whether the Packers are one of the most injured teams in the league or not.

and that doesn't need to be qualified with some stat. It just doesn't. BakhT and Bulaga, important or not? at the same time? WR's going down for a game or so. Not a huge loss, but no Jordy at times, no Adams at times. that's significant. Perry, Brooks, House, Daniels. Significant. and like I said before, there are teams that may have more injuries, how many are 4-1 coming thru it? We're fortunate in that many of these guys we can expect back so we should be getting stronger going forward.

Did you honestly believe the Packers won't suffer any injuries this season??? It makes sense to compare the Packers' injuries to other teams in the league to put them into some context.

 

[SoonerPack]

King may be something. I just wish he had a little more self confidence.