Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Cole Madison
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="HardRightEdge" data-source="post: 835908"><p>Since many (all?) readers are disinclined to read to the bottom of the above post, I'll break out some concluding points here. It turned out to be much longer than I originally anticipated, and might again go entirely unread, but here it is for what it is worth.</p><p></p><p>First, the results of the FO analysis themselves tend to invalidate the methodology as you presume it is applied, at least in this context, which is whether the rules reduce injuries. Given the sheer number of AGLs across the league, not including backups in the AGL data, guys who end up starting and then themselves get injured, as you assume in the Arizona O-Line example, would grossly underestimate the importance of roster depth. Special teams players are evidently excluded entirely.</p><p></p><p>We may have lost track of the point of the discussion which was whether reduced contact in practices, the limitation of starter snaps in preseason, and the rule changes have actually reduced injuries. The FO data, focusing on presumed starters and "rotational players" while excluding special teams and all the back up players injured from the start of camp through the end of the season who did not start or "rotate", provides an incomplete picture.</p><p></p><p>As mntioned before getting into the FO data, it wouldn't have surpirsed me if total injuries were up while concussions were down given the rules emphasize more upright running and lower targetting in tackling. A complete picture would encompass all injuries, from camp through the Super Bowl, with the FO data being incomplete. The league is more than willing to share their concussion date, but not the rest, which I think is telling.</p><p></p><p>Even if one assumes an increased number of injuries, I would surmise, conjecture, conclude, that the NFL is fairly happy with the result of the injury reduction measures taken in recent years.</p><p></p><p>Concussions were down sharply year-over-year and, as the FO data points out, starter QB AGLs were down year-over-year where there are few shades of gray as to who is and is not the starter and critically important to the respective teams. Is that a result of the "Rodgers Rule", prohibiting driving the QB into the ground, even if that rule was inconsistly applied? More data is needed but the NFL would find the preliminary results encouraging. There were no Shazier-type incidents with the changes to the targetting rules, again encouraging even if such one-off exteme cases are prevented over the long haul will be an open question for quite a long time.</p><p></p><p>I think it would be difficult to argue that concussions/spine injuries and QBs are not the NFL's first priorities for different reasons, the former for financial liability and the latter for fan interest.</p><p></p><p>Lets face it. The preponderance of fans, unlike many on this site, pay most attention to the QBs, offensive skill position players, fantasy points. Other than a marquis defensive player or two, the typical fan is largely oblivious to what defensive players are doing and how well they are doing it as they follow the ball play after play. You can't begin to evaluate high safeties, and to a lesser degree CB play, from broadcast video since so much of what they do is off the screen. You might see a missed tackle, a business decision, or a poor coverage here or there while there may be numerous invisible instances of good coverage where the QB does not throw the ball in that direction. This might account for why PFF (and the Bears, evidently) place a good value on a Clinton-Dix leaving some Packer fans incredulous.</p><p></p><p>I think the NFL is getting what they wanted.</p><p></p><p>There is one unintended consequence where the story is yet to be told. With more upright running and lower targetting will offensive skill position player leg injuries reach unacceptable levels? How might we gauge "unacceptable"? Fantasy player ire, with an excess of chosen players dropping like flies, might be one unaccptable outcome especially if Jerry's and Bob's fantasy gambling revenue starts to slip. Only time will tell.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="HardRightEdge, post: 835908"] Since many (all?) readers are disinclined to read to the bottom of the above post, I'll break out some concluding points here. It turned out to be much longer than I originally anticipated, and might again go entirely unread, but here it is for what it is worth. First, the results of the FO analysis themselves tend to invalidate the methodology as you presume it is applied, at least in this context, which is whether the rules reduce injuries. Given the sheer number of AGLs across the league, not including backups in the AGL data, guys who end up starting and then themselves get injured, as you assume in the Arizona O-Line example, would grossly underestimate the importance of roster depth. Special teams players are evidently excluded entirely. We may have lost track of the point of the discussion which was whether reduced contact in practices, the limitation of starter snaps in preseason, and the rule changes have actually reduced injuries. The FO data, focusing on presumed starters and "rotational players" while excluding special teams and all the back up players injured from the start of camp through the end of the season who did not start or "rotate", provides an incomplete picture. As mntioned before getting into the FO data, it wouldn't have surpirsed me if total injuries were up while concussions were down given the rules emphasize more upright running and lower targetting in tackling. A complete picture would encompass all injuries, from camp through the Super Bowl, with the FO data being incomplete. The league is more than willing to share their concussion date, but not the rest, which I think is telling. Even if one assumes an increased number of injuries, I would surmise, conjecture, conclude, that the NFL is fairly happy with the result of the injury reduction measures taken in recent years. Concussions were down sharply year-over-year and, as the FO data points out, starter QB AGLs were down year-over-year where there are few shades of gray as to who is and is not the starter and critically important to the respective teams. Is that a result of the "Rodgers Rule", prohibiting driving the QB into the ground, even if that rule was inconsistly applied? More data is needed but the NFL would find the preliminary results encouraging. There were no Shazier-type incidents with the changes to the targetting rules, again encouraging even if such one-off exteme cases are prevented over the long haul will be an open question for quite a long time. I think it would be difficult to argue that concussions/spine injuries and QBs are not the NFL's first priorities for different reasons, the former for financial liability and the latter for fan interest. Lets face it. The preponderance of fans, unlike many on this site, pay most attention to the QBs, offensive skill position players, fantasy points. Other than a marquis defensive player or two, the typical fan is largely oblivious to what defensive players are doing and how well they are doing it as they follow the ball play after play. You can't begin to evaluate high safeties, and to a lesser degree CB play, from broadcast video since so much of what they do is off the screen. You might see a missed tackle, a business decision, or a poor coverage here or there while there may be numerous invisible instances of good coverage where the QB does not throw the ball in that direction. This might account for why PFF (and the Bears, evidently) place a good value on a Clinton-Dix leaving some Packer fans incredulous. I think the NFL is getting what they wanted. There is one unintended consequence where the story is yet to be told. With more upright running and lower targetting will offensive skill position player leg injuries reach unacceptable levels? How might we gauge "unacceptable"? Fantasy player ire, with an excess of chosen players dropping like flies, might be one unaccptable outcome especially if Jerry's and Bob's fantasy gambling revenue starts to slip. Only time will tell. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
mradtke66
Latest posts
R
Cam Achord new ST coach - Fire him
Latest: rmontro
Today at 9:17 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Christian Watson signs a 4 year 110m extension
Latest: Pokerbrat2000
Today at 8:08 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
H
Why I Love The 2026-2027 Green Bay Packers
Latest: Heyjoe4
Today at 7:59 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
The Crew - 2026
Latest: Pokerbrat2000
Today at 7:44 AM
Milwaukee Brewers Forum
Valuation of NFL Teams
Latest: Pokerbrat2000
Today at 7:40 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Cole Madison
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top
