1/3 of the way through the season takeaways

[Dantés]

I looked through the first four weeks of injury reports and noted how many players each team had marked Doubtful or Out for each game. This method is imperfect, as it doesn't account for IR,sometimes Questionable players don't play and (far less often) Doubtful players do suit up, and it doesn't account for guys lost mid-game (e.g. Nelson/Daniels starting but only playing 7 snaps). But in a limited amount of time, it was the easiest way for me to come up with some sort of quantification.

There was only one team, Indianapolis (13) that had more starters marked Doubtful or Out through the first four weeks than the Packers (9 if you don't count Ryan as a starter). Arizona also had 9 and Houston had 7. FYI, this number for GB does not include injuries to backups (Murphy, Brooks, Spriggs, Ryan, etc).

Again, this isn't exact and I know that a few teams (e.g. Ravens) have some important players on IR. However, it does illustrate the original point, which was simply that GB has dealt with more injury to starters than most teams.

 

[Mondio]

Hawkins performance has been pretty respectable.

and respectable with continuity in the defensive backfield is going to take this team along ways once they all get the continuity part down.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I looked through the first four weeks of injury reports and noted how many players each team had marked Doubtful or Out for each game. This method is imperfect, as it doesn't account for IR,sometimes Questionable players don't play and (far less often) Doubtful players do suit up, and it doesn't account for guys lost mid-game (e.g. Nelson/Daniels starting but only playing 7 snaps). But in a limited amount of time, it was the easiest way for me to come up with some sort of quantification.

There was only one team, Indianapolis (13) that had more starters marked Doubtful or Out through the first four weeks than the Packers (9 if you don't count Ryan as a starter). Arizona also had 9 and Houston had 7. FYI, this number for GB does not include injuries to backups (Murphy, Brooks, Spriggs, Ryan, etc).

Again, this isn't exact and I know that a few teams (e.g. Ravens) have some important players on IR. However, it does illustrate the original point, which was simply that GB has dealt with more injury to starters than most teams.

Without considering IR/PUP players, no conclusion can be drawn.

 

[elcid]

Hey Kevin,

`my takeaway is that I hope you are back for next game. You seem like the real deal.

 

[Dantés]

Without considering IR/PUP players, no conclusion can be drawn.

I don't have the time though. I realize that the IR/PUP factor may place some teams above the Packers that are currently below them. But even then, they'd still be close to the top.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I don't have the time though. I realize that the IR/PUP factor may place some teams above the Packers that are currently below them. But even then, they'd still be close to the top.

If you have not done the IR/PUP analysis I don't see how you can make the claim that the Packers are "close to the top". In another week or two, the Packers could be back to full strength. IR can be "forever".

 

[Dantés]

If you have not done the IR/PUP analysis I don't see how you can make the claim that the Packers are "close to the top". In another week or two, the Packers could be back to full strength. IR can be "forever".

But that doesn't matter when the only thing I was talking about is starters missing during the first month.

 

[swhitset]

If you have not done the IR/PUP analysis I don't see how you can make the claim that the Packers are "close to the top". In another week or two, the Packers could be back to full strength. IR can be "forever".

That has nothing to do with the original discussion.

 

[HardRightEdge]

But that doesn't matter when the only thing I was talking about is starters missing during the first month.

I know. And I was talking about its relevance in light of its incompleteness.

For example, the Patriots lost Edelman, McClellin, their kick returner Cyrus Jones, Malcolm Mitchell, among others before the season even started. That's not going to show up in injury reports.

There may be better examples. The extent to which I follow teams other than the Packers is limited to watching a game or two per week.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I looked through the first four weeks of injury reports and noted how many players each team had marked Doubtful or Out for each game. This method is imperfect, as it doesn't account for IR,sometimes Questionable players don't play and (far less often) Doubtful players do suit up, and it doesn't account for guys lost mid-game (e.g. Nelson/Daniels starting but only playing 7 snaps). But in a limited amount of time, it was the easiest way for me to come up with some sort of quantification.

There was only one team, Indianapolis (13) that had more starters marked Doubtful or Out through the first four weeks than the Packers (9 if you don't count Ryan as a starter). Arizona also had 9 and Houston had 7. FYI, this number for GB does not include injuries to backups (Murphy, Brooks, Spriggs, Ryan, etc).

Again, this isn't exact and I know that a few teams (e.g. Ravens) have some important players on IR. However, it does illustrate the original point, which was simply that GB has dealt with more injury to starters than most teams.

Here's the most detailed information I have been able to find about the injury situation in the league through four weeks of the season:

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

That numbers indicate the Packers have been within the top 10 in total games missed due to injury as well as the cumulative quality of injured players. There are other teams that have been hit harder by injuries though.

 

[Dantés]

Here's the most detailed information I have been able to find about the injury situation in the league through four weeks of the season:

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

That numbers indicate the Packers have been within the top 10 in total games missed due to injury as well as the cumulative quality of injured players. There are other teams that have been hit harder by injuries though.

Thank you.

 

[Dantés]

So, uh... Packers dealt with more injuries than most teams through that first month, eh guys?

 

[Dantés]

Team stats for the Pack through 5 weeks:

Offense-

Passing Yardage: 11th, 245 YPG
YPA: 13th, 7.2
Rushing Yardage: 22nd, 91.6 YPG
YPC: 13th (T4), 4.2
Scoring: 6th (T2), 27.4 PPG

Defense-

Passing Yardage: 6th, 199.8 YPG
YPA: 17th, 7.2
Rushing Yardage: 22nd, 121.4 YPG
YPC: 20th, 4.3
Scoring: 20th, 22.4 PPG

I'm not really seeing anything here that strikes me as surprising. In the two games against Atlanta and Dallas, the Packers are giving up 32.5 PPG, though it bears mentioning that 7 points in the Atlanta game were given up by the offense. In the other three games, they're giving up 15.7 PPG. So clearly their stop unit will need to improve by season's end if they're going to give themselves the best chance possible of vanquishing the other NFC powers.

A few other surprising takeaways thus far:

-Buffalo leads the league in scoring defense at 14.8 PPG
-The Rams are 2nd in PPG on offense with 30.4
-The Patriots are tied for 31st in scoring defense at 28.4 PPG
-The Texans are 28th in scoring defense at 26 PPG

 

[HardRightEdge]

Here's the most detailed information I have been able to find about the injury situation in the league through four weeks of the season:

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

That numbers indicate the Packers have been within the top 10 in total games missed due to injury as well as the cumulative quality of injured players. There are other teams that have been hit harder by injuries though.

Does this data include IR/PUP? It does not say. Is it limited to starters, however that might be defined?

 

[gbgary]

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

glad that site worked out for you. i noticed they had a similar graph for games missed since 2009 i believe it was.

 

[PikeBadger]

My takeaway. We are really good as I expected. Staff has done a great done job working around all the injuries. The future is very bright and we are positioned well. Very pleased with the growth and development of the young players. Randall’s head mess is the only notable disappointment imo.

 

[Dantés]

I would say that the team has essentially met my expectations through 5 games, though I didn't see all the injuries coming and thus am maybe a little more impressed than I would be otherwise.

Moving forward, I want to see the defense improve against stronger offenses. The Saints should be a decent test that way. Otherwise, we will have to see how the offenses of Pittsburgh, Tampa, Detroit and Carolina look by the time GB gets them.

 

[PFanCan]

So, uh... Packers dealt with more injuries than most teams through that first month, eh guys?

My takeaways are:
1. I agree with your statement above.
2. I disagree in your previous statement that the Packers injuries are not comparable to other teams, namely the Chiefs, but also others.
3. The Packers, as I have been saying, are not dramatically worse off than many other teams, including the several who look to be doing worse this past month from Wimm's chart.

 

[PFanCan]

Here's the most detailed information I have been able to find about the injury situation in the league through four weeks of the season:

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

That numbers indicate the Packers have been within the top 10 in total games missed due to injury as well as the cumulative quality of injured players. There are other teams that have been hit harder by injuries though.

That's a great chart. Link?

Edit: Ah, I see the website mentioned now in the header of the chart.

 

[Dantés]

My takeaways are:
1. I agree with your statement above.
2. I disagree in your previous statement that the Packers injuries are not comparable to other teams, namely the Chiefs, but also others.
3. The Packers, as I have been saying, are not dramatically worse off than many other teams, including the several who look to be doing worse this past month from Wimm's chart.

EDIT: I have to cop to having misread your post above and I apologize for being a jerk in what this reply originally said.

To be clear, I do not think that the Chief's problems in September compare (i.e. were as severe) to GB's, but I do think that there were other teams that did (or were worse off).

And I agree that moving forward, the Packers should be in really good shape.

 

[PFanCan]

EDIT: I have to cop to having misread your post above and I apologize for being a jerk in what this reply originally said.

To be clear, I do not think that the Chief's problems in September compare (i.e. were as severe) to GB's, but I do think that there were other teams that did (or were worse off).

And I agree that moving forward, the Packers should be in really good shape.

I didn't see whatever you first wrote, but am happy that you removed it. I like this forum as there is often good stuff here and interactions are generally positive and constructive. But, if the thread turns personal or abusive, I find others to interact with instead. It's easy to do.

Go Pack.

 

[Dantés]

I didn't see whatever you first wrote, but am happy that you removed it. I like this forum as there is often good stuff here and interactions are generally positive and constructive. But, if the thread turns personal or abusive, I find others to interact with instead. It's easy to do.

Go Pack.

Well it wasn't personal, but it was salty.

The way I read your post originally, I thought that you were still disagreeing with my statement, which I didn't understand.

In any case, have a good evening.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

**** me......people being polite to each other. Whatever next ?

 

[PFanCan]

**** me......people being polite to each other. Whatever next ?

Capers for the Packer HOF threads?

 

[Packer Fan in SD]

I think this weekend's game is key. The Packer's first 6 games were brutal on paper going to Atlanta, Dallas and Minnesota while hosting Seattle. If they are some how 5-1 after that you have to be quite the pessimist to not be really encouraged especially with the injury issues the team has weathered.

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.

I agree with these statements, but how did the first quote devolve into a "Most injuries" thread? It was just a post stating that even with all our injuries we are 4-1 and could be 5-1 in a week. I get we all are Packer fans except maybe Raptorman but why all the arguments? We all have different thoughts on how we do things, why we do things and who is to blame, but we are 4-1, in the running for HFA and yet we digress from a post about being 4-1 with injuries (which we should get many back soon) to an argument about who has the most injuries. Come on guys. Lets enjoy the last win and worry about the next. To quote a Rod (see what I did there, you old guys) can't we all just get along?