1/3 of the way through the season takeaways

[PFanCan]

...like I said before, there are teams that may have more injuries, how many are 4-1 coming thru it?

I can answer that!

TWO. Philly and Carolina. Both currently have more players on both their IR/Out lists as well as their respective Questionable/Doubtful lists than the Packers.

PS. There is an additional team that has more IR/Out and equal Questionable/Doubtful lists (incl. Conley, Terrell and Kelce) as compared to the Packers that are currently undefeated. They are the Kansas City Chiefs.

PPS. Additionally, there are five 3-2 teams that the data seems to indicate are more beat up than the Packers.

 

[Dantés]

By week three of the season, the Packers were playing without Cobb, Bulaga, Bakhtiari, Daniels, Perry, Ryan, House, and Brice, among other backup players. In week 4, they got Cobb and Brice back, but lost Murphy. Perry was also playing on a limited basis with his hand in a club. They were missing a lot of important starters.

Very few teams were that bad off during the first month of the season. I've never argued that they were dealing with the most missed injuries per se, but simply *among the most.* And I've always pointed out that very few of these guys went on IR-- they will be back eventually, as we began to see in week 5.

But who was dealing with missing starters to that extent during the first month of the season? The Ravens? The Colts? How many teams? Clearly very few. Just about everyone who writes about the league or the Packers in particular has noted this. It's so silly that it has to be contended tooth and nail.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

It's so silly that it has to be contended tooth and nail.

That's most likely because the numbers don't support your claim.

 

[swhitset]

I didn't dissect all that data, but it seems to me that it is current... as in right now. It seems to me that the discussion centered around the Packers injuries relating to other team's leading up to the current 4-1 record. Several of those injuries on other teams happened this week, while the discussion has been centered around the opening weeks of the season. Were the Packers one of the most injured teams? I don't know. But considering the injuries they have had IN THAT TIME PERIOD. I would say that they did a very good job overcoming them.

 

[PFanCan]

By week three of the season, the Packers were playing without Cobb, Bulaga, Bakhtiari, Daniels, Perry, Ryan, House, and Brice, among other backup players. In week 4, they got Cobb and Brice back, but lost Murphy. Perry was also playing on a limited basis with his hand in a club. They were missing a lot of important starters.

Very few teams were that bad off during the first month of the season. I've never argued that they were dealing with the most missed injuries per se, but simply *among the most.* And I've always pointed out that very few of these guys went on IR-- they will be back eventually, as we began to see in week 5.

But who was dealing with missing starters to that extent during the first month of the season? The Ravens? The Colts? How many teams? Clearly very few. Just about everyone who writes about the league or the Packers in particular has noted this. It's so silly that it has to be contended tooth and nail.

IMO, the only starters that will earn the Packers any sympathy outside of Wisconsin will be the fact that they have been without their two starting tackles for most of the season thus far. Also, noted will be Daniels.

The others, some of whom are starters (Cobb, Perry, maybe Ryan and House) are likely grouped in with all the other injuries throughout the league and do not garnish much attention.

That being said, ask IND, DEN, MIA, MIN or TEN if they would trade having their starting QB back in trade of their tackles and a DLineman, and the answer would likely be "Yes", IMO. That is five teams alone and just with their QBs. Two of those teams are on their 3rd string QBs.

Edit: Removed DEN.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

But considering the injuries they have had IN THAT TIME PERIOD. I would say that they did a very good job overcoming them.

There's no doubt the most important thing is that the Packers are currently tied for the conference lead at 4-1 with most core players currently being injured expected to be back on the field over the next few weeks. Therefore it's justified being optimistic about the team's chances going forward this season.

 

[PFanCan]

I didn't dissect all that data, but it seems to me that it is current... as in right now. It seems to me that the discussion centered around the Packers injuries relating to other team's leading up to the current 4-1 record. Several of those injuries on other teams happened this week, while the discussion has been centered around the opening weeks of the season. Were the Packers one of the most injured teams? I don't know. .

All the data is there. I've provided the links. Anyone can look up the lists for any week of the season.

I've glanced through it and decided against doing the work of posting the data as it is clear it will not convince anyone to change the "gut feeling" claim that the Packers are worse off than other teams. There is a certain group of Fans that believe the gods are out to get them. I get it.

But considering the injuries they have had IN THAT TIME PERIOD. I would say that they did a very good job overcoming them.

I agree with this. The tackle situation works out far better than I imagined. But, this does not mean that the Packers were the "most injured" or not at any time. It just means that they've done a good job with the injuries that they had.

 

[Dantés]

I can answer that!

TWO. Philly and Carolina. Both currently have more players on both their IR/Out lists as well as their respective Questionable/Doubtful lists than the Packers.

PS. There is an additional team that has more IR/Out and equal Questionable/Doubtful lists (incl. Conley, Terrell and Kelce) as compared to the Packers that are currently undefeated. They are the Kansas City Chiefs.

PPS. Additionally, there are five 3-2 teams that the data seems to indicate are more beat up than the Packers.

During week three, the Panthers had one starter out-- Ryan Kalil. By week 4, it was two-- Kalil and Worley.

During week three, the Eagles had one starter out-- Ronald Darby. By week 4, it was two-- Darby and Cox.

 

[Dantés]

All the data is there. I've provided the links. Anyone can look up the lists for any week of the season.

I've glanced through it and decided against doing the work of posting the data as it is clear it will not convince anyone to change the "gut feeling" claim that the Packers are worse off than other teams. There is a certain group of Fans that believe the gods are out to get them. I get it.



I agree with this. The tackle situation works out far better than I imagined. But, this does not mean that the Packers were the "most injured" or not at any time. It just means that they've done a good job with the injuries that they had.

I realize you're jumping into during the middle of the discussion, so perhaps it just needs to be reiterated. No one is saying that the Packers are currently super banged up or that they're in bad shape for the remainder of the season. The point was simply that they were dealing with a lot (more than almost any other team) of missing starters during the first month. So pointing out the current status is irrelevant. I realize, and I think most realize, that the Packers are getting healthy and that other teams have been devastated recently.

But the notion that the Packers being very banged up in September is based on "gut feeling" or "subjective observation" is laughable. The injury reports are public record.

 

[AmishMafia]

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.

There are 3 types of lies: Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics.

I appreciate your dedication to providing statistical information, sometimes it is valuable and adds to the discussion. Sometimes though, it seems to miss the whole point of the matter and was meant as a distraction. The injury stats presented here are a perfect example.

So the matter currently at hand, are the injuries greater to the Packers than other teams. The statistics presented are probably accurate, but are they meaningful? This is a point in time and the Packers are currently the healthiest they have been all season. Earlier, we were down our best defensive player and our 2 starting OTs. Don't you think that is a very significant impact?

The comparison to the NYG is an interesting one. To my eye, their list including all of the probable and questionable players looks the worst. However, I don't know any of the names that are on IR except Brandon Marshall and Odell Beckham. But Odell, just made the list. Marshall did not look good earlier, not much of a loss, though I expected him to get more involved as the season went on. You cannot tell me, before today, that the loss of Brandon Marshall exceeded the Packers playing without their top 2 OTs and top DL.

 

[AmishMafia]

During week three, the Panthers had one starter out-- Ryan Kalil. By week 4, it was two-- Kalil and Worley.

During week three, the Eagles had one starter out-- Ronald Darby. By week 4, it was two-- Darby and Cox.

Beat me to it.

There is no easy way to determine exact impact of injuries and who has suffered the most. Way too many subjective parameters. But you are right. Using current injury list when we finally are getting healthy is either dishonest or just erroneous.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

During week three, the Panthers had one starter out-- Ryan Kalil. By week 4, it was two-- Kalil and Worley.

During week three, the Eagles had one starter out-- Ronald Darby. By week 4, it was two-- Darby and Cox.

Is there any reason you ignore the Panthers having put Greg Olsen and Charles Johnson on inured reserve before the start of the season??? In addition Cox was out in week three as well with Corey Graham being another starter the Eagles missed in week 3 as well.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

So the matter currently at hand, are the injuries greater to the Packers than other teams. The statistics presented are probably accurate, but are they meaningful? This is a point in time and the Packers are currently the healthiest they have been all season. Earlier, we were down our best defensive player and our 2 starting OTs. Don't you think that is a very significant impact?

There's no way to dispute that the Packers have missed some significant contributors over the first five games of this season but I highly doubt the team has been hit harder than most other teams in the league over that period. So far there hasn't been any evidence posted confirming the opposite.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

But the notion that the Packers being very banged up in September is based on "gut feeling" or "subjective observation" is laughable. The injury reports are public record.

Actually it's laughable that you have been asked to present some evidence to support your claim several times by now but so far have completely ignored that request.

 

[AmishMafia]

Is there any reason you ignore the Panthers having put Greg Olsen and Charles Johnson on inured reserve before the start of the season??? In addition Cox was out in week three as well with Corey Graham being another starter the Eagles missed in week 3 as well.

So you are saying both of those teams together had fewer starters out as the Packers at week 3?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

So you are saying both of those teams together had fewer starters out as the Packers at week 3?

It seems the Packers were missing more starters than the Eagles and Panthers in week 3. That doesn't change the fact that Dantés didn't list some starters for both of them who either have missed the entire season so far or at least parts of it for some reason.

 

[Dantés]

Is there any reason you ignore the Panthers having put Greg Olsen and Charles Johnson on inured reserve before the start of the season??? In addition Cox was out in week three as well with Corey Graham being another starter the Eagles missed in week 3 as well.

Yes, it's because I was working from injury reports. Include them, and there's still no comparison during those weeks.

Corey Graham is not a starter. If you want to include him as a contributor, that's fine. Still no comparison.

 

[bigbubbatd]

That being said, ask IND, DEN, MIA, MIN or TEN if they would trade having their starting QB back in trade of their tackles and a DLineman, and the answer would likely be "Yes", IMO. That is five teams alone and just with their QBs. Two of those teams are on their 3rd string QBs.

I don't know. I live in Minnesota and the constant refrain as to why they didn't make the playoffs last year was injuries on the oline. And that was primarily losing two pretty below average tackles. The Packers lost two very good tackles and their 3 backups.

I get qb is the most important position. I am not saying it is worse. But up until this week the Vikings had Bradford and no one else missing from their starting lineup. Bradford is not good enough to be a bigger lose than Bahk, Bulaga, and the 3 backups, Daniels, house and others who have missed significant time. Bradford and cook is big but then we can add Montgomery. We can add jordy Cobb and others.

I never said gb was the most injured but they have been beat up over the first 5 games and are 4-1 including 3 games against teams that made the playoffs last year 2 of those on the road. My initial comment was I am impressed with how they have overcome injuries. Still am. Somehow that turned it how the Packers haven't had it bad. They have. Maybe not the worst but bad.

 

[Dantés]

Actually it's laughable that you have been asked to present some evidence to support your claim several times by now but so far have completely ignored that request.

You've been shown articles discussing the rash of injuries and given lists of missing starters from the first month of the season. The evidence doesn't matter if you're going to decide not to acknowledge it.

How about this: name for me the teams who were struggling with missing starters to the same extent as the Packers during the first month. If your contention, as you've said repeatedly, is that the Packers "weren't hit harder than most teams over that period" then please do share.

 

[Dantés]

Since when is Denver missing its starting QB?

 

[AmishMafia]

It seems the Packers were missing more starters than the Eagles and Panthers in week 3. That doesn't change the fact that Dantés didn't list some starters for both of them who either have missed the entire season so far or at least parts of it for some reason.

And you listed Charles Johnson as a starter, are you sure of that? Shepard was probably ahead of him and now Samuels is ahead of Shepard. That would make CJ #5 . . .

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Yes, it's because I was working from injury reports. Include them, and there's still no comparison during those weeks.

Corey Graham is not a starter. If you want to include him as a contributor, that's fine. Still no comparison.

The Panthers missing Olsen and Johnson is definitely a huge loss for them. Graham started all 32 games for the Bills over the past two seasons.

You've been shown articles discussing the rash of injuries and given lists of missing starters from the first month of the season. The evidence doesn't matter if you're going to decide not to acknowledge it.

How about this: name for me the teams who were struggling with missing starters to the same extent as the Packers during the first month. If your contention, as you've said repeatedly, is that the Packers "weren't hit harder than most teams over that period" then please do share.

Linking to articles by beat writers isn't presenting evidence. Once again you were the one making a claim, it's not on me proving it wrong.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

And you listed Charles Johnson as a starter, are you sure of that? Shepard was probably ahead of him and now Samuels is ahead of Shepard. That would make CJ #5 . . .

My bad, PFR has mistakenly listed DE Charles Johnson as being on injured reserve for the Panthers.

 

[PFanCan]

Since when is Denver missing its starting QB?

Oops. Fake news. I will correct my post.

 

[PFanCan]

And you listed Charles Johnson as a starter, are you sure of that? Shepard was probably ahead of him and now Samuels is ahead of Shepard. That would make CJ #5 . . .

Charles Johnson was the starter in week #1. If you want a link, I can provide.