1/3 of the way through the season takeaways

[PFanCan]

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

There is a Charles Johnson, who is a WR on the Panthers, that is on IR.

 

[Dantés]

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.



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.

Corey Graham plays for the Eagles and was not a starting DB for them to open the season. Why are you talking about what he did for the Bills?

Anyhow, let me get this straight...

A few of us make the pretty self-evident claim that the Packers were dealing with more injuries than most during September, as basically anyone who covers the team/league will corroborate, and we have to produce stone cold evidence to prove what should be obvious to anyone who looks up the injury reports.

You make the counter claim that the Packers were not hit harder with injuries than most teams (i.e. they were average or better in terms of how many guys they had out), and no one is allowed to question it? You don't need to back it up? You just say what you want and we swallow it?

This is ********. You don't want to acknowledge that the Packers dealt with an inordinate amount of injuries. It's that simple. I'm sorry that the circumstances don't fit your preferred narrative in this case.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

There is a Charles Johnson, who is a WR on the Panthers, that is on IR.

True, but I wasn't thinking about him though.

 

[Dantés]

Oops. Fake news. I will correct my post.

I thought I must have missed a Siemien injury.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Corey Graham plays for the Eagles and was not a starting DB for them to open the season. Why are you talking about what he did for the Bills?

Anyhow, let me get this straight...

A few of us make the pretty self-evident claim that the Packers were dealing with more injuries than most during September, as basically anyone who covers the team/league will corroborate, and we have to produce stone cold evidence to prove what should be obvious to anyone who looks up the injury reports.

You make the counter claim that the Packers were not hit harder with injuries than most teams (i.e. they were average or better in terms of how many guys they had out), and no one is allowed to question it? You don't need to back it up? You just say what you want and we swallow it?

This is ********. You don't want to acknowledge that the Packers dealt with an inordinate amount of injuries. It's that simple. I'm sorry that the circumstances don't fit your preferred narrative in this case.

I guess that Graham hasn't started for the Eagles because he has appeared on the injury report all season long.

You were the one making the claim that the Packers suffered more injuries than most teams during the first month of the season. I was questioning it. It's your turn to back it up.

 

[swhitset]

Th

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.

I would ignore that the same way I ignore the fact that Vince Biegel, Don Barclay etc... were on IR before the season. I evaluate a team's performance based on the actual team when the season starts... not by who they might have had. Even two years ago while the media was making a huge deal about the loss of Jordy, I felt like it was up to Thompson to field a decent set of receivers since the injury occurred before the start of the season. Obviously, that was a pretty big loss, but I don't think it is relevant to the current discussion.

 

[Dantés]

I guess that Graham hasn't started for the Eagles because he has appeared on the injury report all season long.

You were the one making the claim that the Packers suffered more injuries than most teams during the first month of the season. I was questioning it. It's your turn to back it up.

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.

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.

So you get to say that ^ and no one gets to ask you about it?

Corey Graham was playing to start the season. He just wasn't starting. Because he isn't... you know... a starter.

 

[PFanCan]

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.

Ok. Happy to share: Kansas City Chiefs.

I think that they have lost at least one starter in every game thus far, several season ending. Starting with their OL: Lost Ehinger (LG) in Week #1. Mitch Morse (center) in week #2. Tardiff (RG) in week #4. I think these guys are all returning soon or even may have played this past weekend- not sure.

Also, lost their kicker, Santos, (!) in week #3. Lost starting safety, Eric Berry, for the year in Week #1. And starting OLB Dee Ford in Week #3.

Now, in month #2, Chief fans' misery continues with regards to the injury bug which has now claimed Justin Houston, Chris Conley (season ender) and TE Kelce.

There may be other teams, I don't know. This is addressing those that think the Packers are in a league by themselves when it comes to dealing with injuries. They aren't.

 

[OldSchool101]

1/3 way through the season we can takeaway that while we have had early injury setbacks, Other teams are not immune to the same or worse major injuries.
In just 1 game I watched WR Sterling Shepard sprain his ankle, WR Odelle Beckham Jr break his leg, WR Brandon Marshall just announced he's done for the season, WR Dwayne Harris Is done for season to have surgery on his fifth metatarsal, meanwhile LB J Casillas went out with an undisclosed and S Landon Collins sprained his ankle in one game

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I would ignore that the same way I ignore the fact that Vince Biegel, Don Barclay etc... were on IR before the season. I evaluate a team's performance based on the actual team when the season starts... not by who they might have had. Even two years ago while the media was making a huge deal about the loss of Jordy, I felt like it was up to Thompson to field a decent set of receivers since the injury occurred before the start of the season. Obviously, that was a pretty big loss, but I don't think it is relevant to the current discussion.

It's extremely tough to adequately replace one of the team's core players being lost for the year shortly before the start of the season though. There's definitely a difference in a team losing a dominant tight end like Olsen compared to a rookie fourth round pick in Biegel or a backup offensive lineman with Barclay.

So you get to say that ^ and no one gets to ask you about it?

I wasn't making a claim but questioning yours though.

 

[swhitset]

It's extremely tough to adequately replace one of the team's core players being lost for the year shortly before the start of the season though. There's definitely a difference in a team losing a dominant tight end like Olsen compared to a rookie fourth round pick in Biegel or a backup offensive lineman with Barclay.
.

I agree, however we are now evaluating players based on their actual worth to their respective teams. We aren't just counting players and saying... "see ... team A has 4 injuries and team B has only 3... so team A wins the most injured crown". I would Submit that losing both of our very highly rated starting tackles along with our best DT trumps a lot of other team's losses. Further, I don't think anybody every said that the Packers were THE most injured, just that they were one of a few and that they did a great job overcoming them.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I agree, however we are now evaluating players based on their actual worth to their respective teams. We aren't just counting players and saying... "see ... team A has 4 injuries and team B has only 3... so team A wins the most injured crown". I would Submit that losing both of our very highly rated starting tackles along with our best DT trumps a lot of other team's losses. Further, I don't think anybody every said that the Packers were THE most injured, just that they were one of a few and that they did a great job overcoming them.

Unfortunately Football Outsiders doesn't publish their adjusted games lost metric during the season. The Packers definitely had some significant injuries to overcome over the first five weeks of the season and the team did a great job of it. My point remains until proven wrong by some evidence that they didn't suffer more devastating injuries than most other teams in the league though.

 

[swhitset]

Unfortunately Football Outsiders doesn't publish their adjusted games lost metric during the season. The Packers definitely had some significant injuries to overcome over the first five weeks of the season and the team did a great job of it. My point remains until proven wrong by some evidence that they didn't suffer more devastating injuries than most other teams in the league though.

And you are right... without some sort of hard evidence neither of us can prove our position. I happen to believe that mine is likely to be true. I'm sure you feel the same. But we are really coming down to subjectivity when trying to evaluate how much a particular player's loss affects their respective team. I don't think there is any hard evidence to definitively prove either position. I think we can both just be happy that the Packers have gotten to 4-1 and hope they can continue in that way.

 

[Dantés]

Ok. Happy to share: Kansas City Chiefs.

I think that they have lost at least one starter in every game thus far, several season ending. Starting with their OL: Lost Ehinger (LG) in Week #1. Mitch Morse (center) in week #2. Tardiff (RG) in week #4. I think these guys are all returning soon or even may have played this past weekend- not sure.

Also, lost their kicker, Santos, (!) in week #3. Lost starting safety, Eric Berry, for the year in Week #1. And starting OLB Dee Ford in Week #3.

Now, in month #2, Chief fans' misery continues with regards to the injury bug which has now claimed Justin Houston, Chris Conley (season ender) and TE Kelce.

There may be other teams, I don't know. This is addressing those that think the Packers are in a league by themselves when it comes to dealing with injuries. They aren't.

The Chiefs have had serious losses thus far. However, during the first month of the season they didn't deal with as much as the Packers.

They were without Ehinger for the first three weeks, Morse for weeks 3-4, and Ford for week 4. This is in addition to the loss of Berry, as you mentioned.

The Packers didn't have Bakhtiari for weeks 2-4; Bulaga for weeks 1, 2, & 4; Daniels for weeks 2-4 (minus 7 snaps); Nelson for all but 7 snaps in week 2; Cobb, House, Brice, Perry, and Ryan in week 3.

There just isn't any comparison there.

And if we're going to bring up their kicker, then I'll mention that the Packers were also without the backups to Bakhtiari and Bulaga for much of September.

No one is saying that the Packers were alone in dealing with injuries or in bad shape moving forward. I was merely pointing out that they dealt with more than most teams to start the season and came through it well. That's literally it. I'm still baffled that it could be this controversial.

 

[Dantés]

It's extremely tough to adequately replace one of the team's core players being lost for the year shortly before the start of the season though. There's definitely a difference in a team losing a dominant tight end like Olsen compared to a rookie fourth round pick in Biegel or a backup offensive lineman with Barclay.



I wasn't making a claim but questioning yours though.

You were. Those were declarative statements. It's funny to watch you dodge this after you were so insistent that others provide evidence. What a joke.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

You were. Those were declarative statements. It's funny to watch you dodge this after you were so insistent that others provide evidence. What a joke.

Whatever, man. I'm still waiting for you to present evidence (it seems you have trouble understanding the meaning of it) for the claim that started this entire discussion but definitely don't expect you to ever come up with any.

 

[PFanCan]

Further, I don't think anybody every said that the Packers were THE most injured, ...

I am not going to search the archives, but I do believe it was written or insinuated. Definitely, it's been a thread for years and is perhaps why I jumped in to this conversation. Not sure why, but living outside of Wisconsin for the past 30+ years, I notice when Packer fans complain without perspective.

I think we can both just be happy that the Packers have gotten to 4-1 and hope they can continue in that way.

Absolutely!

((And I am sure we can all agree that Capers needs to be fired, Janis should play more and Favre should have been brought back. ))

 

[Dantés]

Whatever, man. I'm still waiting for you to present evidence (it seems you have trouble understanding the meaning of it) for the claim that started this entire discussion but definitely don't expect you to ever come up with any.

It would seem that nothing is going to be good enough for you short of a AGL stat that doesn't exist at this point in the season. I'm fine if you'd prefer to remain confused.

 

[Mondio]

\

That's literally it. I'm still baffled that it could be this controversial.

Be careful, it's rubbing off on you. You're better than that

 

[Dantés]

Be careful, it's rubbing off on you. You're better than that

While I didn't meant to do that, once again, I am absolutely convinced that this mind boggling discussion is definitely having an adverse effect on my posts. Once again.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

It would seem that nothing is going to be good enough for you short of a AGL stat that doesn't exist at this point in the season.

I would actually be fine with any data supporting your claim. Unfortunately articles by beat writers isn't good enough though.

 

[PFanCan]

The Chiefs have had serious losses thus far. However, during the first month of the season they didn't deal with as much as the Packers.

They were without Ehinger for the first three weeks, Morse for weeks 3-4, and Ford for week 4. This is in addition to the loss of Berry, as you mentioned.

The Packers didn't have Bakhtiari for weeks 2-4; Bulaga for weeks 1, 2, & 4; Daniels for weeks 2-4 (minus 7 snaps); Nelson for all but 7 snaps in week 2; Cobb, House, Brice, Perry, and Ryan in week 3.

There just isn't any comparison there.

And if we're going to bring up their kicker, then I'll mention that the Packers were also without the backups to Bakhtiari and Bulaga for much of September.

No one is saying that the Packers were alone in dealing with injuries or in bad shape moving forward. I was merely pointing out that they dealt with more than most teams to start the season and came through it well. That's literally it. I'm still baffled that it could be this controversial.

There isn't any comparison? Baffled that someone has a differing opinion than yourself?

Let's compare, using your facts, this situation that has "no comparison":

Chiefs lost 6 starter games on the OL. The Packers lost six. Packers lost their starting tackles, which sucks, but the Chiefs had nearly their entire line shuffled and no stability anyone along it. I call this quite comparable. Just my humble opinion.

The Packers, lost arguable their best D-player for almost three games. The Chiefs lost their defensive star and one of the league best for nearly the entire month. Their starting OLB loss was also big. We lost Ryan, who would have started. I call this quite comparable.

The kicker is a pretty big loss. Generally, the drop-off is huge, at least for a game or two. Not sure if we have someone comparable. Sure we lost our #1 WR for a while, but at least the bench is deep, typically, in this position. But, I guess I could agree that they were similar.

I didn't mention their backup losses as I was answering your question for teams that were "missing starters". They do have injuries that go beyond their starters, like all teams do. But, I grow tired of trying to find data that you find acceptable. When I find data to answer your question, you simply change the question and keep it a moving target.

I am out. Only so much one can do. Go Pack!

 

[Dantés]

There isn't any comparison? Baffled that someone has a differing opinion than yourself?

Let's compare, using your facts, this situation that has "no comparison":

Chiefs lost 6 starter games on the OL. The Packers lost six. Packers lost their starting tackles, which sucks, but the Chiefs had nearly their entire line shuffled and no stability anyone along it. I call this quite comparable. Just my humble opinion.

The Packers, lost arguable their best D-player for almost three games. The Chiefs lost their defensive star and one of the league best for nearly the entire month. Their starting OLB loss was also big. We lost Ryan, who would have started. I call this quite comparable.

The kicker is a pretty big loss. Generally, the drop-off is huge, at least for a game or two. Not sure if we have someone comparable. Sure we lost our #1 WR for a while, but at least the bench is deep, typically, in this position. But, I guess I could agree that they were similar.

I didn't mention their backup losses as I was answering your question for teams that were "missing starters". They do have injuries that go beyond their starters, like all teams do. But, I grow tired of trying to find data that you find acceptable. When I find data to answer your question, you simply change the question and keep it a moving target.

I am out. Only so much one can do. Go Pack!

No, I really don't think there is.

I don't believe there's any real comparison between the Chiefs losing a center and guard while the Packers did without their top 5 offensive tackles.

I don't believe there's any real comparison between the Chiefs missing Berry and Ford while the Packers did without Daniels, Perry, House, Brice, and Ryan.

The Packers lost more players and, outside of Berry (who is huge, no doubt), more important players (Bakh, Daniels, Perry, Bulaga), etc.

Therefore-- no comparison.

 

[BrokenArrow]

I dunno about that. House played pretty well coming back from injury. I didn't expect much from him when he was signed, but he's doing OK.

I'm also becoming a big Hawkins fan.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I'm also becoming a big Hawkins fan.

Hawkins performance has been pretty respectable.