2016 Adjusted Games Lost

[Deleted member 6794]

Several posters have used injuries as a major reason for the Packers falling short of winning another Super Bowl. According to Football Outsiders' AGL metric this doesn't hold true as the team was the 15th healthiest last season.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2017/2016-adjusted-games-lost

 

[RRyder]

Several posters have used injuries as a major reason for the Packers falling short of winning another Super Bowl. According to Football Outsiders' AGL metric this doesn't hold true as the team was the 15th healthiest last season.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2017/2016-adjusted-games-lost

People have asserted that injuries focusing on a particular group, in other words the CB position, was the major reason. You have been conflating this argument to suit your own by simply stating the total injuries for the entire team.

A particular positional group being devastated by injuries can be catastrophic, as we've seen the past two years between the WR and CB slots, where as is the same exact number of injuries spread across the entire roster is infinitely easier for a team to overcome

 

[Deleted member 6794]

People have asserted that injuries focusing on a particular group, in other words the CB position, was the major reason. You have been conflating this argument to suit your own by simply stating the total injuries for the entire team.

A particular positional group being devastated by injuries can be catastrophic, as we've seen the past two years between the WR and CB slots, where as is the same exact number of injuries spread across the entire roster is infinitely easier for a team to overcome

Football Outsiders will release information based on positional groups later in the week.

The Packers entering the NFCCG without only a single week 1 starter on defense doesn't explain the unit giving up 44 points though.

 

[RRyder]

Football Outsiders will release information based on positional groups later in the week.

The Packers entering the NFCCG without only a single week 1 starter on defense doesn't explain the unit giving up 44 points though.

And the Packers entered their PO game against Arizona missing one WR. Doesn't mean the guys that did play weren't playing gimped.

Nobody is saying we don't need to be better on D then what we were at the end of last year. But I'm genuinely suprised you need a stat to tell you that the Packers were devestated by injuries at the CB slot last season

 

[longtimefan]

If the only injury all year was to Rodgers and we didn't make SB, would it matter if we were the healthiest?

Sometimes stats prove a point sometimes they do nothing

 

[Deleted member 6794]

But I'm genuinely suprised you need a stat to tell you that the Packers were devestated by injuries at the CB slot last season

The Packers lost their #1 cornerback for the entire season in week 1 but while other players at the position were in and out of the lineup I don't accept that as an excuse for the unit's terrible performance. In addition Thompson had more than two months to bring in help before the trade deadline but not surprisingly decided to stand pat.

If the only injury all year was to Rodgers and we didn't make SB, would it matter if we were the healthiest?

Sometimes stats prove a point sometimes they do nothing

Rodgers is the only player being irreplaceable for the team though. Using any other injury as the main reason for falling short is a lame excuse in my opinion.

 

[PikeBadger]

If the only injury all year was to Rodgers and we didn't make SB, would it matter if we were the healthiest?

Sometimes stats prove a point sometimes they do nothing

And sometimes they are used to advance an agenda. The comments in the OP preceding the link is a notice to Packer fans that we didn't have injury problems in either the secondary or at LB. It didn't happen and we didn't see what we thought we saw.

 

[C-Lee]

The Packers were the walking dead when they went to Atlanta.....

The flu had been going around, Jordy played with broken ribs, Davante had a sprained ankle, Morgan went out again.

Guion played RG at one point..... These guys were hanging on by a thread.

 

[PackAttack12]

Still the excuses about the Atlanta game. As if the Packers are the only team that's banged up a bit in late January. SMH. Those guys just were not ready to play football against that team on that day.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The comments in the OP preceding the link is a notice to Packer fans that we didn't have injury problems in either the secondary or at LB. It didn't happen and we didn't see what we thought we saw.

WTF are you talking about??? I posted the link to refute the claim that the Packers were one of the most injured teams in the league.

Of course you and some others won't let facts get in the way while blaming the team coming up short predominantly on injuries.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

People have asserted that injuries focusing on a particular group, in other words the CB position, was the major reason. You have been conflating this argument to suit your own by simply stating the total injuries for the entire team.

A particular positional group being devastated by injuries can be catastrophic, as we've seen the past two years between the WR and CB slots, where as is the same exact number of injuries spread across the entire roster is infinitely easier for a team to overcome

Cb and rb were both devastated by week 6....

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Still the excuses about the Atlanta game. As if the Packers are the only team that's banged up a bit in late January. SMH. Those guys just were not ready to play football against that team on that day.

It's absolutely ridiculous and lame. A lot of posters whine about Shields being lost for the season while completely ignoring the Falcons were missing their #1 cornerback in Trufant as well.

Once again, other than him the Packers didn't miss a single week 1 starter on that side of the ball.

 

[C-Lee]

Still the excuses about the Atlanta game. As if the Packers are the only team that's banged up a bit in late January. SMH. Those guys just were not ready to play football against that team on that day.

Meh. Besides Gronk being out, the Patriots were very healthy and the Falcons looked pretty damn healthy as well (weren't they just missing a CB or something?)

The Packers simply ran out of gas, in my opinion. I hate making excuses but I really believe that they had a lot of things going against them (Flu going around, the plane being delayed, injuries galore to key players who I mentioned above)

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The Packers simply ran out of gas, in my opinion. I hate making excuses but I really believe that they had a lot of things going against them (Flu going around, the plane being delayed, injuries galore to key players who I mentioned above)

You hate making excuses yet feel compelled to mention the plane being delayed as a reason the Packers lost the NFCCG???

Absolutely classy!!!

 

[PackAttack12]

Meh. Besides Gronk being out, the Patriots were very healthy and the Falcons looked pretty damn healthy as well (weren't they just missing a CB or something?)

The Packers simply ran out of gas, in my opinion. I hate making excuses but I really believe that they had a lot of things going against them (Flu going around, the plane being delayed, injuries galore to key players who I mentioned above)

Yet there was still 1 man that decided to show up that day. The same guy that always shows up. He took the same flight, supposedly was one of the players that got hit with the flu bug, dealt with his fair share of injuries towards the later stages of the season.

To Wimm's point, everyone was on the field that day. Jordy with broken ribs caught the first three balls that day.

This injury excuse is just becoming laughable. You could point to them every season.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Not to sound like a "butt kisser" here, but there is some truth behind what everyone is saying in regards to the Packers and injuries. No, they didn't have a season that saw them on the plus or negative side, they were "average" in comparison to other teams, so its easy to say stop "stop your whining, we had as many injuries as everyone else". However, what did happen is that the Packers lack of quality and experienced depth was exposed (possibly more than other teams). Especially when a player or players at certain positions were injured. Hard not to see that at CB, RB and TE and it nearly happened at ILB, as well as OLB.

The lesson for me, Ted Thompson and the Packers will never be able to rely on an injury free season. Injuries are a part of the game, but when they do happen, you either better have a capable backup or go out and try and find one. This is something the Packers lacked or didn't do in 2016, they just kept getting thinner at CB and RB. Think about 2015 when Jordy went down, TT was smart enough to go out and sign James Jones. Did Jones completely make up for the loss of Jordy? No, but he wasn't forced (right away) into playing guys that weren't ready. That is what happened when Sam Shields went down, nobody was ready to play that role. Keeping a 53 man roster that has too many young, inexperienced players is just asking (for trouble) for a team that can't respond very fast/well to injuries, especially when they pile up at one position.

 

[C-Lee]

You hate making excuses yet feel compelled to mention the plane being delayed as a reason the Packers lost the NFCCG???

Absolutely classy!!!

It was more of a Murphy's Law thing about that game. Obviously that's not the reason we lost but I'm sure it didn't help the preparation of the day.

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

 

[brandon2348]

It was the playoffs. Everyone is banged up across the board on all teams when you get that far. Julio Jones had a bad case of turf toe yet he dominated us and he was a total mismatch for our secondary.

The Packers were coming off a "long run" but have nobody else to blame for the hole they dug themselves into prior to the run. The competiveness and will of Rodgers saved the season but the Packers don't have a Championship defense and it showed in the playoffs. The Giants couldn't catch the ball. They almost gave the game away to Dallas that they were in total control of and Atlanta just flat out ran us off the field in embarrassing fashion.

Yet were gonna basically roll the same secondary into 2017 with no replacement STILL NOT in sight for Sammie Shields. It didn't need to be this way and we thank TT.

 

[PackAttack12]

I always find it cute when some come rolling through a thread getting click happy with the disagree button but apparently don't feel the need to explain why they disagree with you.

 

[Zartan]

Its not the number of injuries its the number of injuries to a key position. We lost several key players on Defense and we had sub par players at a critical position. That made opposing offenses attack that and had success.

In 2011 when Pack won the Super Bowl with many injuries but they wernt completely devastated at one position that made the team weaker as a result.

 

[Dantés]

The Packers were not one of the more injury plagued teams in the NFL last year, and thus poor health in general is not a great excuse for not winning more games.

The Packers were decimated at corner and suffered in the passing defense because (among other reasons) of the concentration of injuries at that position.

Both of these things can be true at the same time.

Injuries are not a pass for how last season went. And at the same time, even the same average amount of injuries spread out positionally could leave them in better shape than so many to just one spot.

Now the Atlanta game needs to be taken on its own. The defense was pretty darn healthy and stayed that way throughout the game; they just got boat raced by a historically good offense. Everyone knew going into that game that it was going to be a shoot out if the Packers were going to win. They'd need to answer scores and keep the defense rested with sustained drives. But the problem was that Adams and Nelson came in hurt, Montgomery got hurt, and they were down a few offensive linemen by the time it was all said and done. Throw in a fumble here, missed field goal there, a pick on 3rd and 21, and way too many punts and you have yourself a blowout.

 

[PikeBadger]

Cb and rb were both devastated by week 6....

Hmmm..... I thought I saw it the exact same way.
Of course, Thompson should have been clairvoyant and had cheap veteran studs stacked 6 deep at both of those positions that also could play special teams, linebacker and TE as well like the other 31 teams do so well.

 

[PackAttack12]

The Packers were not one of the more injury plagued teams in the NFL
Now the Atlanta game needs to be taken on its own. The defense was pretty darn healthy and stayed that way throughout the game; they just got boat raced by a historically good offense. Everyone knew going into that game that it was going to be a shoot out if the Packers were going to win. They'd need to answer scores and keep the defense rested with sustained drives. But the problem was that Adams and Nelson came in hurt, Montgomery got hurt, and they were down a few offensive linemen by the time it was all said and done. Throw in a fumble here, missed field goal there, a pick on 3rd and 21, and way too many punts and you have yourself a blowout.

Agree with a lot of this, but injuries didn't effect the production level of the offense, IMO. 1st drive, missed FG. 2nd drive, fumble inside the 10. 3rd and 4th drives dropped passes, plus Atlanta was able to come after Rodgers more aggressively due to us being in such an obvious passing situation due to the big deficit. 1st drive of the 2nd half, two big drops by Jared Cook.

The injuries might have effected the way that Atlanta was able to get to Rodgers at times, but if receivers weren't dropping balls and we avoid turnovers, it would have been way more interesting, which you alluded to.

 

[PackAttack12]

Hmmm..... I thought I saw it the exact same way.
Of course, Thompson should have been clairvoyant and had cheap veteran studs stacked 6 deep at both of those positions that also could play special teams, linebacker and TE as well like the other 31 teams do so well.

He could have went out and got a suitable replacement for Sam Shields after Week 1, but declined to do so. I don't think any of us quite realized how much Shields held that secondary together.

 

[Dantés]

Agree with a lot of this, but injuries didn't effect the production level of the offense, IMO. 1st drive, missed FG. 2nd drive, fumble inside the 10. 3rd and 4th drives dropped passes, plus Atlanta was able to come after Rodgers more aggressively due to us being in such an obvious passing situation due to the big deficit. 1st drive of the 2nd half, two big drops by Jared Cook.

The injuries might have effected the way that Atlanta was able to get to Rodgers at times, but if receivers weren't dropping balls and we avoid turnovers, it would have been way more interesting, which you alluded to.

But his top two receivers weren't out there for much of the game and were limited by injuries when they were. Towards the beginning of the game, that was the big limiting factor. Then by the end it was the OL. But yeah, unforced errors were a major factor as well.