Do Packers have more injuries than other teams?

[HardRightEdge]

FO's explanation of their metric:

These numbers do not simply add up the number of games missed. With Football Outsiders' adjusted games lost (AGL) metric, we are able to quantify how much teams were affected by injuries based on two principles: (1) Injuries to starters, replacement starters, and important situational reserves (No. 3 wide receiver, nickelback, etc.) matter more than injuries to bench warmers; 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 listed status that week (IR/PUP, out, doubtful, questionable or probable).

As long as NFL teams are solely responsible for producing weekly injury reports, we cannot say that every single injury has been accounted for, but secrecy is an unavoidable aspect of this part of the game.

"Probable" was eliminated from NFL injury reporting prior to the 2016 season. PO needs to update their stuff. While PO alludes to injury report gamesmanship, they go ahead and use it anyway. Frankly, I think they should stick to whether a guy plays or not rather than make assumptions about the "walking wounded".

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

Or is it my imagination? I am referring to the last couple of years.

I don't think it's a matter of more or less injuries as much as it is "Key" injuries.

On offense, it's been sucking that we can't keep Jordy and Bulaga on the field for big games, and on defense it's Mike Daniels. We were getting some heat on Ryan when he was in there and lost it when he left. Those three injuries in my books are the toughest we're having to compensate for.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

"Probable" was eliminated from NFL injury reporting prior to the 2016 season. PO needs to update their stuff.

I took Football Outsiders' explanation of their metric out of the adjusted games lost article for the 2015 season. If you had opened the link I posted above you would know that they're well aware the probable designation was eliminated last year.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

Does anybody think the NFL will give us some sort of dispensation because we are a special case ?

 

[gbgary]

nick perry scheduled for hand surgery. yikes!

 

[Reggie White Cheese]

I've mentioned this a time or two but a better look into the strength and conditioning of these players might be in order. I know injuries happen, but to the same players time and time again... Can we contribute this to them, or is just the luck of the draw? I guess I could be just rambling, but something has to give. I do believe that we might in the near future need to take a play out of the Lions book in drafting when they drafted 6 years in a row a WR in the 1st round... Jordy can't be a FAVRE and stay here forever. (I do not suggest we take a WR in the 1st round for years) but our team hinders on AR running around to find receivers, we could go the route of getting non namers to fill that void... Now i realize I went off topic... Carry on.

 

[OldSchool101]

Your opinion of how minor the injuries are is just speculation, your spelling implies you may be under the influence of liquid libations. Your negativity is appalling and your belief that we should lie down and take a loss is dispicable.

I'm not sure why this had me rolling but thank you! Thank You very much I needed that chuckle

 

[Chad Hart]

I dont know but our most important players are always injured every year if its not one its another...we cant stay healthy thats why we havent been to the superbowl since 2010

Cause we cant stay healthy but dom capers defensive scheme is the biggest reason why we havent gone back to the super bowl. Our defense blew it last year against the falcons and we got blown out and this year nothings changed

 

[rmontro]

Obviously there's a lot of disagreement on whether GB gets hit harder by injuries than other teams. But Colin Cowherd today gave an explanation for it that I have never heard before. Now he may be full of baloney, but I'd never heard this theory before:

One of his favorite themes to talk about is how the Packers are an average roster with a great quarterback. And I do think he is right about that, without Rodgers the Packers are an average team, at best. He noted that the Packers are always banged up, always hurt. His explanation was that the Packers don't have a very athletic roster. In other words, if you look at great athletes like LeBron James, they tend not to be injured much. In part, because they are so physically gifted, they are exceptional physical specimens. He's saying that the Packers don't have these types, and that's why they get hurt so much.

It's strange how we will go into a season thin at a certain area (last year corner, this year OL), and sure enough that area seems to be the one that gets hit the hardest.

 

[Mondio]

Obviously there's a lot of disagreement on whether GB gets hit harder by injuries than other teams. But Colin Cowherd today gave an explanation for it that I have never heard before. Now he may be full of baloney, but I'd never heard this theory before:

One of his favorite themes to talk about is how the Packers are an average roster with a great quarterback. And I do think he is right about that, without Rodgers the Packers are an average team, at best. He noted that the Packers are always banged up, always hurt. His explanation was that the Packers don't have a very athletic roster. In other words, if you look at great athletes like LeBron James, they tend not to be injured much. In part, because they are so physically gifted, they are exceptional physical specimens. He's saying that the Packers don't have these types, and that's why they get hurt so much.

It's strange how we will go into a season thin at a certain area (last year corner, this year OL), and sure enough that area seems to be the one that gets hit the hardest.

He's full of ****. He finds an angle, to retain viewers listeners and then finds things that might fit. Lebron James plays basketball. Every year lots of guys go down, extremely talented or average and there are a million reasons why from PED use, to repetition in training, to recovery periods, to lifestyle, to dumb luck and obviously a crap ton more reasons why. There is some truth to genetics behind injury or not, but it isn't the be all and end all, and it doesn't have a ton to do with athleticism. I could easily cherry pick data or present an argument that the more athletically gifted athletes are more often injured because they're most often used and fly around faster and stronger than the others putting them at more risk if I really cared to. But I don't, because it's football and stuff happens. on a personal note, I think it's the year round training to get bigger, faster, stronger that is getting a lot of these guys without proper soft tissue managment, rest/recovery, or just some **** poor exercises that are putting them at risk or any combination of those that is creating a league wide problem over some contrived argument like an un-athletic roster?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Obviously there's a lot of disagreement on whether GB gets hit harder by injuries than other teams. But Colin Cowherd today gave an explanation for it that I have never heard before. Now he may be full of baloney, but I'd never heard this theory before:

One of his favorite themes to talk about is how the Packers are an average roster with a great quarterback. And I do think he is right about that, without Rodgers the Packers are an average team, at best. He noted that the Packers are always banged up, always hurt. His explanation was that the Packers don't have a very athletic roster. In other words, if you look at great athletes like LeBron James, they tend not to be injured much. In part, because they are so physically gifted, they are exceptional physical specimens. He's saying that the Packers don't have these types, and that's why they get hurt so much.

It's strange how we will go into a season thin at a certain area (last year corner, this year OL), and sure enough that area seems to be the one that gets hit the hardest.

I agree with Mondio that there's no reason to put any stock into Cowherd's theory. Here's a link to an interesting interview by Michael Cohen with Bellin Health Movement Performance Lab physical therapist Charlie DeCleene from last week analyzing the Packers injury situation:

https://t.co/eJzfqXCswX

 

[Dantés]

Going back the past three seasons, the Packers were 15th, 9th, and 3rd in Adjusted Games Lost. They haven't been injured more than most teams.

They are currently, at this moment in the season, dealing with a lot more than most. But none of the really critical players have been placed on IR, so it could be a very different story by week 4 or 5.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

They are currently, at this moment in the season, dealing with a lot more than most. But none of the really critical players have been placed on IR, so it could be a very different story by week 4 or 5.

While a lot of Packers fans currently might get the impression the team is suffering more injuries than any other team in the league it's worth mentioning that they haven't had to put a single starter on injured reserve so far.

 

[Dantés]

While a lot of Packers fans currently might get the impression the team is suffering more injuries than any other team in the league it's worth mentioning that they haven't had to put a single starter on injured reserve so far.

Yep. I alluded to that. But they've been down a lot more starters than most teams in these recent games. We can all hope that it's just a spell that they have to weather.

 

[rmontro]

There is some truth to genetics behind injury or not, but it isn't the be all and end all, and it doesn't have a ton to do with athleticism.

Yeah, I didn't buy his theory either, but I brought it up because I had never heard it before. He used the word "athletic", but I think genetics is what he was really trying to say. Like Favre, you could see that he was a guy who had a body that was very solid and healthy. Some guys are definitely more fragile than others. So I think there is something to what he was trying to say, I just don't think it applies to the Packers really.

You didn't even get to hear what he said that was really full of ****. As I said, he likes to push this theory that the Packer roster is average, but Rodgers carries it. There's some truth to that, but he took it too far here: He was talking to Greg Jennings, and said that the Bears had better players than the Packers did (Rodgers being the difference). Jennings looked at him like he was nuts, said "I'm just going to get up and walk away after you said that", and he took his headset off and left lol. Greg's improved a lot as a commentator IMO.

 

[AKCheese]

Been listening to people **** and moan about injuries since the Favre days.... *yawn*.... evens out in the end would be my guess.... but I'm not really interested enough to do the research. I do know that I cant recall Champions whining about injuries (or anything else for that matter)

 

[HardRightEdge]

Obviously there's a lot of disagreement on whether GB gets hit harder by injuries than other teams. But Colin Cowherd today gave an explanation for it that I have never heard before. Now he may be full of baloney, but I'd never heard this theory before:

One of his favorite themes to talk about is how the Packers are an average roster with a great quarterback. And I do think he is right about that, without Rodgers the Packers are an average team, at best. He noted that the Packers are always banged up, always hurt. His explanation was that the Packers don't have a very athletic roster. In other words, if you look at great athletes like LeBron James, they tend not to be injured much. In part, because they are so physically gifted, they are exceptional physical specimens. He's saying that the Packers don't have these types, and that's why they get hurt so much.

It's strange how we will go into a season thin at a certain area (last year corner, this year OL), and sure enough that area seems to be the one that gets hit the hardest.

Athletes like LeBron James who can actually play football are hanging off trees, so that must be right.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

But they've been down a lot more starters than most teams in these recent games.

While the Packers have definitely had to deal with a rash of injuries on the offensive line I don't believe they have been hit extremely hard at other positions compared to the rest of the league.

 

[Dantés]

While the Packers have definitely had to deal with a rash of injuries on the offensive line I don't believe they have been hit extremely hard at other positions compared to the rest of the league.

Taken all together, they've definitely been dealing with more than most.

 

[Patriotplayer90]

Compared to some they do. Compared to others, like Baltimore and the Chargers, they do not.

I only started paying close attention to my local team, the Titans, at the beginning of 2016, and they seem to have a fraction of the injuries. There are the injury-prone guys who you expect to miss some time (Montgomery and Perry), but the team hasn't been nearly as banged up as GB.

Maybe, just maybe, all of the passing plays are tougher on the line and WRs.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Taken all together, they've definitely been dealing with more than most.

I don't have access to any current statistical breakdown of the injury situation for every team in the league but while the Packers have definitely suffered a lot of minor injuries sidelining starters for some games a lot of other clubs have already lost important players for the entire year.

 

[Dantés]

I don't have access to any current statistical breakdown of the injury situation for every team in the league but while the Packers have definitely suffered a lot of minor injuries sidelining starters for some games a lot of other clubs have already lost important players for the entire year.

I'm not sure what your contention is, as this is exactly what I said in the first place.

Green Bay has dealt with more missing players than most teams thus far, but thankfully not many have been lost permanently.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I'm not sure what your contention is, as this is exactly what I said in the first place.

The point I was trying to make is that I don't know if the Packers have suffered more short term injuries than most other teams as I don't have access to any numbers about it.

 

[Dantés]

The point I was trying to make is that I don't know if the Packers have suffered more short term injuries than most other teams as I don't have access to any numbers about it.

Just sift through the injury reports for the last few weeks. It's pretty easy to see.

 

[OldSchool101]

All teams suffer injury setbacks. I'm hoping this means ours happened early and we get them out of the way for playoffs