2017 Adjusted Games Lost

  • Thread starter Deleted member 6794
  • Start date
OP
OP
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Adjusted?

Here's Football Outsiders' explanation of their metric:

For those unfamiliar with AGL, we do not simply add up the number of games missed. We are able to quantify how much teams were affected by injuries based on two principles: (1) Injuries to starters, injury replacements, and important situational reserves (No. 3 wide receiver, receiving backs, nickel corner, etc.) matter more than injuries to benchwarmers; and (2) Injured players who do take the field are usually playing with reduced ability, which is why AGL is based not strictly on whether the player is active for the game or not, but instead is based on the player's game status that week (out, doubtful, questionable or probable/Blank).
 

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
12,116
Reaction score
3,036
On the whole (looking at the averages), the Packers have not been an especially healthy or injury-plagued team. However, I think we can all agree that the problem in 2017 was not so much the quantity of the injuries, but who got injured.
 

Ace

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
94
Location
Milwaukee
On the whole (looking at the averages), the Packers have not been an especially healthy or injury-plagued team. However, I think we can all agree that the problem in 2017 was not so much the quantity of the injuries, but who got injured.

But that is taken into account when coming up with the list.
 

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
12,116
Reaction score
3,036
But that is taken into account when coming up with the list.

To an extent. FO makes adjustments based on whether a guy is a starter or a backup. But they don't (and really shouldn't) try to make adjustments based on how important that starter is. So if Aaron Rodgers and Lane Taylor both miss 4 games, they count the same. But on the field, the former is obviously far more devastating to the offense.
 

Ace

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
94
Location
Milwaukee
To an extent. FO makes adjustments based on whether a guy is a starter or a backup. But they don't (and really shouldn't) try to make adjustments based on how important that starter is. So if Aaron Rodgers and Lane Taylor both miss 4 games, they count the same. But on the field, the former is obviously far more devastating to the offense.

Correct, my mistake, had to re-read the explanation. Carry on
 

Half Empty

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
4,548
Reaction score
659
Here's Football Outsiders' explanation of their metric:

For those unfamiliar with AGL, we do not simply add up the number of games missed. We are able to quantify how much teams were affected by injuries based on two principles: (1) Injuries to starters, injury replacements, and important situational reserves (No. 3 wide receiver, receiving backs, nickel corner, etc.) matter more than injuries to benchwarmers; and (2) Injured players who do take the field are usually playing with reduced ability, which is why AGL is based not strictly on whether the player is active for the game or not, but instead is based on the player's game status that week (out, doubtful, questionable or probable/Blank).

Sorry, I broke my own rule and forgot a smilie. I was referring to
The packers were 19th in wins last year.
and humorously(?) asking if the wins were also adjusted. Now back to your regularly scheduled program.
 

hallzi43

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 5, 2018
Messages
435
Reaction score
18
On the whole (looking at the averages), the Packers have not been an especially healthy or injury-plagued team. However, I think we can all agree that the problem in 2017 was not so much the quantity of the injuries, but who got injured.

It was funny to hear Ben Fennel on ESPN Milwaukee radio yesterday. He pretty much took the McCarthy to task on the notion of injuries being our big problem. Good coaching overcomes injuries and we were not well coached last season.
 
OP
OP
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
It was funny to hear Ben Fennel on ESPN Milwaukee radio yesterday. He pretty much took the McCarthy to task on the notion of injuries being our big problem. Good coaching overcomes injuries and we were not well coached last season.

The 2017 roster definitely wasn't good enough to overcome Rodgers being lost for half the season.
 

hallzi43

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 5, 2018
Messages
435
Reaction score
18
The 2017 roster definitely wasn't good enough to overcome Rodgers being lost for half the season.

Definitely? That is a bit of an overstatement considering if we ended up coming out on the right side of that Pittsburgh game Rodgers just needs to overcome 2 out of that last 3. I certainly don't think McCarthy coached up a 3-6 record without #12.
 

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
12,116
Reaction score
3,036
The 2017 roster definitely wasn't good enough to overcome Rodgers being lost for half the season.

We know it wasn’t good enough to go from Rodgers to the league’s worst QB play. But that’s all we really know for certain.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
15,903
Reaction score
6,829
To an extent. FO makes adjustments based on whether a guy is a starter or a backup. But they don't (and really shouldn't) try to make adjustments based on how important that starter is. So if Aaron Rodgers and Lane Taylor both miss 4 games, they count the same. But on the field, the former is obviously far more devastating to the offense.
If we’re doing an injury analysis.. Why not just weight the injured players based on average salary. While no man made rating will ever be perfect, wouldbt that at least give a better assessment than rating those 2 player examples equally? IF that’s what FO uses? I wouldn’t put much weight in that analogy or it’s outcome.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Definitely? That is a bit of an overstatement considering if we ended up coming out on the right side of that Pittsburgh game Rodgers just needs to overcome 2 out of that last 3. I certainly don't think McCarthy coached up a 3-6 record without #12.

You have to realize that the three teams the Packers defeated with Hundley starting won only a combined 10 games last season. In addition it took the team overtime twice to win those games.

We know it wasn’t good enough to go from Rodgers to the league’s worst QB play. But that’s all we really know for certain.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the backup quarterback is part of a team's roster, isn't he???

If we’re doing an injury analysis.. Why not just weight the injured players based on average salary.

Feel free to put in the work.
 

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
12,116
Reaction score
3,036
You have to realize that the three teams the Packers defeated with Hundley starting won only a combined 10 games last season. In addition it took the team overtime twice to win those games.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but the backup quarterback is part of a team's roster, isn't he???



Feel free to put in the work.

I thought we were talking about the rest of the roster around the quarterback.
 
OP
OP
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
I thought we were talking about the rest of the roster around the quarterback.

I don't know how it's possible to misunderstand my previous reply which clearly stated that the 2017 roster definitely wasn't good enough to overcome Rodgers being lost for half the season.
 

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
12,116
Reaction score
3,036
I don't know how it's possible to misunderstand my previous reply which clearly stated that the 2017 roster definitely wasn't good enough to overcome Rodgers being lost for half the season.

I read it as though you were saying that the rest of the roster couldn’t overcome the loss of Rodgers. My mistake.
 

RepStar15

"We're going to relentlessly chase perfection."
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
1,469
Reaction score
277
Location
Cranston, RI
I find that information pretty shocking actually. The one thing I have always said about the packers is the KIND of injuries they suffer. I do not know how to find the data, but I feel like hamstring and groin strains are recurring problems in GB, and those injuries are extremely preventable.

As far as the record without Rodgers debate, I want to ask everyone a question. If Tom Brady got hurt in 2017 after the Jimmy Garapolo trade, what would their record had been with Hoyer? Would Hoyer have gotten a 6-2 team to playoffs? With how bad that defense was and looking at that schedule I think the Patriots go 3-5 at best during that stint, which was a pretty easy schedule I may add. Sure 9-7 gets the Patriots a seat in playoffs in the AFC, but the point here is this, when a team (any team) loses a franchise QB with a terrible backup QB, unless they have a top 5 defense, a Nick Foles caliber backup (who I think we all agree will likely be a starting QB on another team by November 1st of this year) or are the Steelers and have enough weapons on offense to make it work, they WILL NOT do well. As Packers fans, we expect to win every game, there is a high standard. Losing Rodgers should not make you realize how bad the rest of the team is. Losing Rodgers should not make you realize that we do not have Steelers caliber offensive weapons or a top 5 defense, if you thought either of those things were true prior to Rodgers going down, you really need to watch more football. Losing Rodgers should make you realize ONE THING: Brett Hundley is bad. That is something I did not know. I was honestly somewhat impressed with him in preseason, I thought he may be able to fill in and grind out some W’s. The Packers are not a bad team. They lost their best player. Do the Texans make playoffs if Deshean Watson didnt tear his ACL? Do the Eagles win the Super Bowl if Brett Hundley is their backup QB? Do the Vikings get to the NFC Championship if Anthony Barr was the one that broke his collarbone in October? Do the Steelers secure home field and a first round bye in December if Antonio Brown does not tear his calf in the first series of the Patriots game?

I am so sick of everyone saying the Packers TEAM sucks. They do not suck. They are underwhelming without Rodgers and a competent backup QB. But there is not a single perfect team in the NFL! Teams with the best defenses have underwhelming offenses. Teams with the best offenses have underwhelming defenses. Teams that have good offenses and good defenses lose playmakers due to cap space. Teams that have bad offenses and bad defenses gain playmakers due to cap space. It is all relative. You cannot just say that Packers TEAM sucks. If Rodgers does not get hurt last year they go 12-4, and probably lose to the Eagles in the NFC championship.
 
OP
OP
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
I find that information pretty shocking actually. The one thing I have always said about the packers is the KIND of injuries they suffer. I do not know how to find the data, but I feel like hamstring and groin strains are recurring problems in GB, and those injuries are extremely preventable.

As far as the record without Rodgers debate, I want to ask everyone a question. If Tom Brady got hurt in 2017 after the Jimmy Garapolo trade, what would their record had been with Hoyer? Would Hoyer have gotten a 6-2 team to playoffs? With how bad that defense was and looking at that schedule I think the Patriots go 3-5 at best during that stint, which was a pretty easy schedule I may add. Sure 9-7 gets the Patriots a seat in playoffs in the AFC, but the point here is this, when a team (any team) loses a franchise QB with a terrible backup QB, unless they have a top 5 defense, a Nick Foles caliber backup (who I think we all agree will likely be a starting QB on another team by November 1st of this year) or are the Steelers and have enough weapons on offense to make it work, they WILL NOT do well. As Packers fans, we expect to win every game, there is a high standard. Losing Rodgers should not make you realize how bad the rest of the team is. Losing Rodgers should not make you realize that we do not have Steelers caliber offensive weapons or a top 5 defense, if you thought either of those things were true prior to Rodgers going down, you really need to watch more football. Losing Rodgers should make you realize ONE THING: Brett Hundley is bad. That is something I did not know. I was honestly somewhat impressed with him in preseason, I thought he may be able to fill in and grind out some W’s. The Packers are not a bad team. They lost their best player. Do the Texans make playoffs if Deshean Watson didnt tear his ACL? Do the Eagles win the Super Bowl if Brett Hundley is their backup QB? Do the Vikings get to the NFC Championship if Anthony Barr was the one that broke his collarbone in October? Do the Steelers secure home field and a first round bye in December if Antonio Brown does not tear his calf in the first series of the Patriots game?

I am so sick of everyone saying the Packers TEAM sucks. They do not suck. They are underwhelming without Rodgers and a competent backup QB. But there is not a single perfect team in the NFL! Teams with the best defenses have underwhelming offenses. Teams with the best offenses have underwhelming defenses. Teams that have good offenses and good defenses lose playmakers due to cap space. Teams that have bad offenses and bad defenses gain playmakers due to cap space. It is all relative. You cannot just say that Packers TEAM sucks. If Rodgers does not get hurt last year they go 12-4, and probably lose to the Eagles in the NFC championship.

There's absolutely no doubt that it's impossible to make up for losing an elite quarterback like Rodgers for an extended period of time. On the other side the Packers definitely lack talent at several other positions than backup QB compared to other contenders in the league. They have to improve in those areas to truly content for another Super Bowl within the next few years.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
We know it wasn’t good enough to go from Rodgers to the league’s worst QB play. But that’s all we really know for certain.
Well, of the 32 QBs with enough attempts to qualify for the passer rating ranking, Hundley finished 30th. Kizer was 32nd.
 
Top