Strength and Conditioning

[Pokerbrat2000]

That is actually just showing the loses for teams.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/gnb/2023_injuries.htm has a breakdown of injuries with games missed. Roughly 1/3 of games missed were due to Davis, Tenuta and Bakh.

Thanks. I should have looked at it closer. I just figured with the link being "nfl-most-man-games-lost-to-injury-2023", it actually had something to do with injuries.

Now can we find a chart that shows all 32 teams and how injuries effected their starters?

 

[Firethorn1001]

g "nfl-most-man-games-lost-to-injury-2023", it actually had something to do with injuries.

Now can we find a chart that shows all 32 teams and how injuries effected their starters?

I got tripped up on the same link too. I've been looking for a complete list, but I've only found various articles for 2023 referring to top 6 teams hit with injuries and post 2022 games lost articles.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I got tripped up on the same link too. I've been looking for a complete list, but I've only found various articles for 2023 referring to top 6 teams hit with injuries and post 2022 games lost articles.

I may have to phone Austria for the Info.

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

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I may have to phone Austria for the Info.

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

Still one of my most favorite SNL skits.

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

 

[PikeBadger]

Packers were 19th in "man games lost due to injury" (8), but tied with 7 other teams. That must not include Bahk or Stokes.

NFL Most Man Games Lost To Injury 2023 | StatMuse

The Carolina Panthers lost the most games by a team in 2023, with 15 losses.

www.statmuse.com

I'm more interested in starter games lost

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I'm more interested in starter games lost

Well, and as @Firethorn1001 posted, my graphic was not starter games lost and had a very misleading title, so my apologies. Typically, someone can produce a comparison of all 32 teams and how many games were missed by starters. Perhaps the 2023 season is still being compiled?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Well, and as @Firethorn1001 posted, my graphic was not starter games lost and had a very misleading title, so my apologies. Typically, someone can produce a comparison of all 32 teams and how many games were missed by starters. Perhaps the 2023 season is still being compiled?

Something like this is always useful, but it is for cumulative years (2009-2022) and doesn't include 2023.

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

 

[El Guapo]

There used to be a Dallas sportswriter that would rank all of the teams at the end of each season. I don't remember his metric, but it was based on starter games missed, days on IR, and other factors. I did a couple quick searches but came up empty handed.

 

[PikeBadger]

Something like this is always useful, but it is for cumulative years (2009-2022) and doesn't include 2023.

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

Interesting to note from this graph. We had the 2nd best record during this time frame.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Interesting to note from this graph. We had the 2nd best record during this time frame.

Yes. Despite what you have heard over the years from some Packer fans, the team has been pretty damn successful. I get the fact that people love Super Bowls, but I wouldn't trade the Packers last 30 or so years for any other teams, besides the Patriots.

 

[Firethorn1001]

So I went through Pro Football Reference injury charts for each table and compiled to a sheet. Assume the charts there are correct.

Each of those charts lists the number of times questionable, doubtful, out and IR were on reports and then the number of times someone reported played that week.

The Packers were 21st for total games missed across all 4 categories. They were 29th across games missed for those in the out/IR categories. That suggests they were pretty good at avoiding significant and obvious injuries that would immediately rule someone out early in the week.

Interestingly, the Packers had the most players reported as doubtful with 18 (10 in 2021 and 6 in 2022). Only 4 teams in the league had 10 or more of those reports. Maybe the Packers were more hopeful early in the week and maybe other teams were just going with out right away. For questionable, they were #3 in those reports with 88 (33 and 39 in past 2 years) and 21st overall in percent of players that played at around 63% and 22nd in Q/D percent played so, basically if they had a game reported they only played about 53% of the time. They were definitely utilizing Q/D designations in comparisons to the rest of the league this year and a significant bump from the previous 2 years.

Q questionable, QP questionable played (repeat doubtful, out, IR). IR played is probably on the IR in the week, designated and returns
Ttl total games missed
% Q play = percent of time someone played if questionable and reported (repeat for doubtful)

I didn't check my math.

Team	Q	QP	D	DP	O	OP	IR	IRP	Ttl Game Missed	% Q play	% D play	O+IR	Percent Q/D
JAX	56	45	0	0	32	0	93	0	136	80.36%	0.00%	125	80.36%
IND	32	28	3	0	37	0	196	0	240	87.50%	0.00%	233	80.00%
CAR	54	48	7	0	38	0	175	0	226	88.89%	0.00%	213	78.69%
HOU	61	48	0	0	51	0	280	4	340	78.69%	0.00%	331	78.69%
TB	56	47	4	0	35	0	57	0	105	83.93%	0.00%	92	78.33%
NE	131	101	1	1	39	0	156	1	224	77.10%	100.00%	195	77.27%
CLE	44	34	1	0	38	0	190	0	239	77.27%	0.00%	228	75.56%
CHI	36	29	4	0	42	0	53	1	105	80.56%	0.00%	95	72.50%
PIT	18	13	0	0	25	0	99	2	127	72.22%	0.00%	124	72.22%
DET	44	36	6	0	50	0	178	0	242	81.82%	0.00%	228	72.00%
NO	57	41	0	0	45	0	120	0	181	71.93%	0.00%	165	71.93%
LV	37	28	4	1	26	0	103	0	141	75.68%	25.00%	129	70.73%
AZ	76	54	1	0	40	0	186	0	249	71.05%	0.00%	226	70.13%
NYJ	48	34	4	0	39	0	187	0	244	70.83%	0.00%	226	65.38%
TEN	40	26	0	0	55	0	125	0	194	65.00%	0.00%	180	65.00%
MIA	93	56	0	0	22	0	114	0	173	60.22%	0.00%	136	60.22%
WAS	14	9	1	0	32	0	187	3	222	64.29%	0.00%	219	60.00%
LA	40	27	9	0	12	0	62	5	91	67.50%	0.00%	74	55.10%
NYG	48	31	12	1	31	0	148	1	206	64.58%	8.33%	179	53.33%
KC	33	18	1	0	40	0	102	0	158	54.55%	0.00%	142	52.94%
DEN	17	9	0	0	24	0	119	2	149	52.94%	0.00%	143	52.94%
GB	88	56	18	0	21	0	76	0	147	63.64%	0.00%	97	52.83%
SD	47	32	15	0	34	0	93	0	157	68.09%	0.00%	127	51.61%
ATL	30	16	1	0	20	0	185	0	220	53.33%	0.00%	205	51.61%
CIN	33	19	4	0	16	0	81	1	114	57.58%	0.00%	97	51.35%
SF	46	26	5	0	34	0	118	0	177	56.52%	0.00%	152	50.98%
SEA	61	35	10	0	28	0	100	1	163	57.38%	0.00%	128	49.30%
BAL	58	31	5	0	38	0	116	0	186	53.45%	0.00%	154	49.21%
DAL	34	20	7	0	8	0	151	1	179	58.82%	0.00%	159	48.78%
BUF	27	12	0	0	24	0	137	1	175	44.44%	0.00%	161	44.44%
PHI	14	7	2	0	43	0	100	1	151	50.00%	0.00%	143	43.75%
MIN	45	18	1	0	26	0	128	1	181	40.00%	0.00%	154	39.13%

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

So I went through Pro Football Reference injury charts for each table and compiled to a sheet. Assume the charts there are correct.

Each of those charts lists the number of times questionable, doubtful, out and IR were on reports and then the number of times someone reported played that week.

The Packers were 21st for total games missed across all 4 categories. They were 29th across games missed for those in the out/IR categories. That suggests they were pretty good at avoiding significant and obvious injuries that would immediately rule someone out early in the week.

Interestingly, the Packers had the most players reported as doubtful with 18 (10 in 2021 and 6 in 2022). Only 4 teams in the league had 10 or more of those reports. Maybe the Packers were more hopeful early in the week and maybe other teams were just going with out right away. For questionable, they were #3 in those reports with 88 (33 and 39 in past 2 years) and 21st overall in percent of players that played at around 63% and 22nd in Q/D percent played so, basically if they had a game reported they only played about 53% of the time. They were definitely utilizing Q/D designations in comparisons to the rest of the league this year and a significant bump from the previous 2 years.

Q questionable, QP questionable played (repeat doubtful, out, IR). IR played is probably on the IR in the week, designated and returns
Ttl total games missed
% Q play = percent of time someone played if questionable and reported (repeat for doubtful)

I didn't check my math.

Team	Q	QP	D	DP	O	OP	IR	IRP	Ttl Game Missed	% Q play	% D play	O+IR	Percent Q/D
JAX	56	45	0	0	32	0	93	0	136	80.36%	0.00%	125	80.36%
IND	32	28	3	0	37	0	196	0	240	87.50%	0.00%	233	80.00%
CAR	54	48	7	0	38	0	175	0	226	88.89%	0.00%	213	78.69%
HOU	61	48	0	0	51	0	280	4	340	78.69%	0.00%	331	78.69%
TB	56	47	4	0	35	0	57	0	105	83.93%	0.00%	92	78.33%
NE	131	101	1	1	39	0	156	1	224	77.10%	100.00%	195	77.27%
CLE	44	34	1	0	38	0	190	0	239	77.27%	0.00%	228	75.56%
CHI	36	29	4	0	42	0	53	1	105	80.56%	0.00%	95	72.50%
PIT	18	13	0	0	25	0	99	2	127	72.22%	0.00%	124	72.22%
DET	44	36	6	0	50	0	178	0	242	81.82%	0.00%	228	72.00%
NO	57	41	0	0	45	0	120	0	181	71.93%	0.00%	165	71.93%
LV	37	28	4	1	26	0	103	0	141	75.68%	25.00%	129	70.73%
AZ	76	54	1	0	40	0	186	0	249	71.05%	0.00%	226	70.13%
NYJ	48	34	4	0	39	0	187	0	244	70.83%	0.00%	226	65.38%
TEN	40	26	0	0	55	0	125	0	194	65.00%	0.00%	180	65.00%
MIA	93	56	0	0	22	0	114	0	173	60.22%	0.00%	136	60.22%
WAS	14	9	1	0	32	0	187	3	222	64.29%	0.00%	219	60.00%
LA	40	27	9	0	12	0	62	5	91	67.50%	0.00%	74	55.10%
NYG	48	31	12	1	31	0	148	1	206	64.58%	8.33%	179	53.33%
KC	33	18	1	0	40	0	102	0	158	54.55%	0.00%	142	52.94%
DEN	17	9	0	0	24	0	119	2	149	52.94%	0.00%	143	52.94%
GB	88	56	18	0	21	0	76	0	147	63.64%	0.00%	97	52.83%
SD	47	32	15	0	34	0	93	0	157	68.09%	0.00%	127	51.61%
ATL	30	16	1	0	20	0	185	0	220	53.33%	0.00%	205	51.61%
CIN	33	19	4	0	16	0	81	1	114	57.58%	0.00%	97	51.35%
SF	46	26	5	0	34	0	118	0	177	56.52%	0.00%	152	50.98%
SEA	61	35	10	0	28	0	100	1	163	57.38%	0.00%	128	49.30%
BAL	58	31	5	0	38	0	116	0	186	53.45%	0.00%	154	49.21%
DAL	34	20	7	0	8	0	151	1	179	58.82%	0.00%	159	48.78%
BUF	27	12	0	0	24	0	137	1	175	44.44%	0.00%	161	44.44%
PHI	14	7	2	0	43	0	100	1	151	50.00%	0.00%	143	43.75%
MIN	45	18	1	0	26	0	128	1	181	40.00%	0.00%	154	39.13%

Nice work, thanks for doing that. I hope that Mrs or Mr Firethorn rewarded you after for job well done.

One question I have and I even hate to ask it, but were these just "starters" or did it encompass the entire 52 players of each teams roster? I assume the latter. While all the players on the roster are important, having Samori Toure on the injury list and not suiting up is far less of an impact than an Aaron Jones in that same scenario. Guessing someone could put together a computer model that calculates the value (to the team) of each player and tallies all the lost player games, based on that value.

Just using the "eye test", the Packers had a pretty decent 2023 season in regards to injuries. Besides Bahk, I can't recall any impact player being lost for the season. Jones, Watson, and Alexander are the 3 names that come to mind when it comes to multiple games lost. Dillon and Stokes too, but I don't consider either a huge loss.

 

[Firethorn1001]

o ask it, but were these just "starters" or did it encompass the entire 52 players of each teams roster?

From what I saw, it was everyone that was on a report for the week which is why there were some on the IR, but they played. Packers IR numbers reflect Tenuta and Davis being on the IR since the beginning of the season along with all the other teams. There is no weighting or anything done on the importance of the player, but when looking at just pure games missed and Q/D/O designations I don't think it isn't that important since generally injuries don't care about how important a player is to the overall team. I was more looking at it from a 'Did the Packers really have a significant number of games lost' across the board.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

There is no weighting or anything done on the importance of the player, but when looking at just pure games missed and Q/D/O designations I don't think it isn't that important since generally injuries don't care about how important a player is to the overall team. I was more looking at it from a 'Did the Packers really have a significant number of games lost' across the board.

I would disagree on this. A players value to a team and that players subsequent lost games, if unweighted, doesn't tell the whole story. Like I said in my previous post, losing Aaron Jones for 6 games has a much bigger impact than losing Toure over the same time period.

Put even more simply and clearly. What would have a bigger impact on the team, losing Jordan Love for 10 games or losing Sean Clifford for 10 games?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

This discussion reminds me of a Movie I just watched called "Moneyball". For those who haven't seen it, I would recommend it. The film chronicles how A's manager Billy Beane assembled successful teams with the Oakland Athletics by using statistics to acquire cheaper, less-well-known players.

 

[SudsMcBucky]

This discussion reminds me of a Movie I just watched called "Moneyball". For those who haven't seen it, I would recommend it. The film chronicles how A's manager Billy Beane assembled successful teams with the Oakland Athletics by using statistics to acquire cheaper, less-well-known players.

Did Beane use statistics to help him evaluate some players? Sure. But don't get caught up in the "story" of that movie. Look at that team and the players he actually had as the core before using "moneyball."

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Did Beane use statistics to help him evaluate some players? Sure. But don't get caught up in the "story" of that movie. Look at that team and the players he actually had as the core before using "moneyball."

He lost 3 core players, due to money, which basically set the stage for what happened. He began to use SABRmetrics to try and fix/rebuild the team. He didn't have the money that some teams did, so his job was to try and find a way to compete, with a lot less money. Seemed to work well, the A's turned their season around and won 20 straight games at one point, which at that time, was a modern day record.

Some of those very same principles of SABRmetrics are being used today in Baseball and other sports.

 

[SudsMcBucky]

He lost 3 core players, due to money, which basically set the stage for what happened. He began to use SABRmetrics to try and fix/rebuild the team. He didn't have the money that some teams did, so his job was to try and find a way to compete, with a lot less money. Seemed to work well, the A's turned their season around and won 20 straight games at one point, which at that time, was a modern day record.

Some of those very same principles of SABRmetrics are being used today in Baseball and other sports.

Yes, I've very familiar with the story of the movie as I've seen it MANY times. My point, though, is most people don't understand the actual core of the A's that still remained after Damon and them left. That was still an excellent roster.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Yes, I've very familiar with the story of the movie as I've seen it MANY times. My point, though, is most people don't understand the actual core of the A's that still remained after Damon and them left. That was still an excellent roster.

Might have been an excellent roster, but unless the movie took some liberties, they were losing a LOT with that roster. They didn't start winning until the "statistically chosen" players were inserted into the lineup.

I recognize that a lot of stuff was probably played up. However, I don't doubt that the A's Manager, who seemed to not believe any of the statistical stuff, as well as the media and fans were wondering just how crazy Beane had become.

 

[SudsMcBucky]

Might have been an excellent roster, but unless the movie took some liberties, they were losing a LOT with that roster. They didn't start winning until the "statistically chosen" players were inserted into the lineup.

I recognize that a lot of stuff was probably played up. However, I don't doubt that the A's Manager, who seemed to not believe any of the statistical stuff, as well as the media and fans were wondering just how crazy Beane had become.

I'll stop at this, but yes, the "moneyball sabermetrics" were real, but GREATLY exaggerated in the movie.

Moneyball True Story: How Accurate The Baseball Movie Is

Moneyball is mostly although not entirely factual.

screenrant.com

One thing that the Moneyball true story was about was winning without needing a team full of major stars. This meant that, in the movie, the team was filled with mostly role players and only a few name players. However, this is not how the Oakland A's won in 2002. Yes, there was sabermetrics used to build the team, but there were also some star players on the team that the movie chose not to mention. Whether this was because the players didn't want their names in the baseball movie or because it looked better for Moneyball if there were no stars, this was an interesting omission. The biggest names here, and one of the biggest reasons the A's were so successful, was their pitching rotation. The top three in the rotation included Tim Hudson, Barry Zito, and Mark Mulder. These three pitchers combined for 57 wins and 493 strikeouts, and both Hudson and Zito had an ERA below 3.00. Zito even won the Cy Young Award that season. Add in some names like Eric Chavez and Miguel Tejada, who combined for 68 home runs, and there was plenty of talent in the Moneyball true story, although their inclusion in the movie might have lessened the message it wanted to tell.

 

[Firethorn1001]

I would disagree on this. A players value to a team and that players subsequent lost games, if unweighted, doesn't tell the whole story.

As noted, I was not looking at the number for how the Packers were impacted by the quality of players out, but rather just the flat numbers. In that regards, the quality of player isn't important.

'How many coins do you have in your piggy bank?' is a different question than 'What is the value of the coins in your piggy bank'. I was merely looking at the numbers to answer the 1st.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

As noted, I was not looking at the number for how the Packers were impacted by the quality of players out, but rather just the flat numbers. In that regards, the quality of player isn't important.

'How many coins do you have in your piggy bank?' is a different question than 'What is the value of the coins in your piggy bank'. I was merely looking at the numbers to answer the 1st.

Your numbers might be more useful in evaluating your training/medical staff, how to practice, rehab, etc.

The numbers I seek are more for the analytical purpose ovilooking at how injuries impacted the Packers and the 31 other teams.

 

[Thirteen Below]

I recognize that a lot of stuff was probably played up. However, I don't doubt that the A's Manager, who seemed to not believe any of the statistical stuff, as well as the media and fans were wondering just how crazy Beane had become.

The hostile relationship between Beane and Art Howe (and the majority of the club's scouts and coaches) was wildly exaggerated, and Howe was really angry about that for years. In reality, Howe was a loyal team guy who did have some doubts, but had a (mostly) good working reationship with Beane and was supportive of his ideas, and worked hard to make Beane's system work. Most of the other staff were also supportive of it, and some were actually pretty excited about it from the beginning.

But that was exactly the sort of drama that makes a movie more intense, so they took a lot of iberties with that and wound up making Howe look ike a jerk. He really felt betrayed by that, especially since nobody plays a whiny, smarmy jerk better than Phillip Seymour Hoffman did.

They also did "massage" a lot of the details regarding some specific players in order to simplify the plot line and make it look like the data analytics were the only thing that made the team decent, when in reality, a lot of other people on that staff with more traditional roles to play did a very good job to acquire key players and contribute to the overall effort. I think some of those guys felt a little slighted over that, too.

 

[AKCheese]

I was just seriously curious about what 47 posts about our strength and conditioning coach would look like. Honestly? It’s about what I thought. Carry on gentlemen.

 

[Thirteen Below]

I was just seriously curious about what 47 posts about our strength and conditioning coach would look like. Honestly? It’s about what I thought. Carry on gentlemen.

Thnak you from the bottom of my heart. I never would have realized how foolish we were being unless you'd taken the time to enlighten us.

Please do make an effort to pop back in every day and straighten us out, so we all know how we should make better use of our internet time.