Do Packers have more injuries than other teams?

[Tacklynn]

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

 

[swhitset]

I don't have the stats in front of me... I'm sure Captain will come along with those later lol.... but I'm going to go out on a limb and say no.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I doubt it, but how do you even measure that? Games missed by starters, I suppose, but not all starters are created equal.

Be thankful the only guys on IR are Barclay and Schum, the latter heading for an injury settlement.

 

[906Fan]

Be thankful the only guys on IR are Barclay and Schum, the latter heading for an injury settlement.

I think Schum was released.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I think Schum was released.

overthecap.com shows him on IR. Maybe the injury settlement has been resolved, maybe not.

Looking now at the packers.com roster, Barclay, Talley and Waters are listed as "Reserve/Injured". No Schum. I imagine Talley and Waters could be headed for injury settlements as well. Or the injuries are not that bad and they are being red shirted.

 

[906Fan]

I wonder how that works for players who get injured then end up getting released without an injury settlement, can they claim the injury in the line of the job caused them to get released and get money?
After seeing Goodson get injured I have doubts that he will every play again.

 

[Sky King]

What has happened to the Packers for the past few seasons have been simultaneous injuries to select position groups at inopportune times. We'll see how tomorrow goes but it could follow the same unfortunate pattern if Bakh and Bulaga cannot start or drop-out early. Worse yet if they lose somebody else on the OL. Every Packer fan needs to remember to wear their lucky shirt tomorrow.

 

[rmontro]

It's easy to feel like the Packers get hit by injuries worse than others, but we haven't had our QB knocked out for the season like many teams have.

 

[swhitset]

It's easy to feel like the Packers get hit by injuries worse than others, but we haven't had our QB knocked out for the season like many teams have.

knock on wood

 

[Deleted member 6794]

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

No, the Packers have actually been pretty healthy over the past three seasons. On the other hand they've been definitely one of the most injured teams in the league from 2009-13.

Football Outsiders most likely offers the most in-depth information in the league with their adjusted games lost metric. According to them here's where Green Bay finished based on a descending ranking of teams from the healthiest to the most injured over the past few seasons:

2016: 15th
2015: 9th
2014: 3rd
2013: 31st
2012: 32nd
2011: 16th
2010: 3oth
2009: 25th

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

 

[lambeaulambo]

turn your head and cough...

 

[HardRightEdge]

No, the Packers have actually been pretty healthy over the past three seasons. On the other hand they've been definitely one of the most injured teams in the league from 2009-13.

Football Outsiders most likely offers the most in-depth information in the league with their adjusted games lost metric. According to them here's where Green Bay finished based on a descending ranking of teams from the healthiest to the most injured over the past few seasons:

2016: 15th
2015: 9th
2014: 3rd
2013: 31st
2012: 32nd
2011: 16th
2010: 3oth
2009: 25th

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

How is "adjusted games lost" defined? Without that, it's just another black box. If the "adjustment" does not account for the quality of the players lost it doesn't mean a whole lot.

I recall that one of these "games lost" stats (maybe FO, maybe somebody else) didn't include anybody who was not on the opening day roster, e.g., a Nelson or an Edelman IRed before the opening roster was set. That ain't right.

 

[Dantés]

How is "adjusted games lost" defined? Without that, it's just another black box. If the "adjustment" does not account for the quality of the players lost it doesn't mean a whole lot.

I recall that one of these "games lost" stats (maybe FO, maybe somebody else) didn't include anybody who was not on the opening day roster, e.g., a Nelson or an Edelman IRed before the opening roster was set. That ain't right.

It gives more weight to injured starters than backups essentially. As opposed to just listing how many guys landed on IR.

What wouldn't mean a whole lot would be trying to rank injuries on perceived player value. That's pretty subjective and would pretty much devolve into each fan base arguing that their guys were the bigger losses.

 

[rodell330]

Lol yep. Especially when it comes to guys who actually play a lot of snaps. Always a lower leg injury smh. Packers lead the nation in pulled groins and hamstring injuries.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

How is "adjusted games lost" defined? Without that, it's just another black box. If the "adjustment" does not account for the quality of the players lost it doesn't mean a whole lot.

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.

 

[Sanguine camper]

Packers have a lot of injuries but they compound the problem by treating relatively minor injuries like season threatening ones. Case in point, tonight both tackles will treat the game like a preseason game. They are sitting to rest minor injuries. Pacjets might as well let their starters rest and bench anyone else who might not feel 110%. Pathetic to think that a regukar season game is,being treated like the preseason. Playing Rodgers tonight would be a stupid move. His left tackle was on the practice squad and has never played in the NFL.

 

[Packer Fan in SD]

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.

Every team has injuries, every week and overall at every position. Few teams have the luck to not have injuries. Those that can overcome them are those that win. I hope you can learn to enjoy the games, live with the battles that are the week to week NFL and enjoy what happens when the playoffs come, rather than sink the proverbial ship after 1week when we are 1-0 and have not even played tonight's game.

 

[Mondio]

Bulaga has been out how many weeks? Probably minor

 

[swhitset]

Packers have a lot of injuries but they compound the problem by treating relatively minor injuries like season threatening ones. Case in point, tonight both tackles will treat the game like a preseason game. They are sitting to rest minor injuries. Pacjets might as well let their starters rest and bench anyone else who might not feel 110%. Pathetic to think that a regukar season game is,being treated like the preseason. Playing Rodgers tonight would be a stupid move. His left tackle was on the practice squad and has never played in the NFL.

agreed just to counter the red x... lol... However, I do question how you know that these are minor injuries.

 

[eman6854]

If the tackles are crap, playing Rodgers if we get down by 14+ is asking for trouble. If they're gonna be cautious with two 300# tackles they damn well better be with the franchise qb.

 

[Packer Fan in SD]

agreed just to counter the red x... lol... However, I do question how you know that these are minor injuries.

So you agreed to disagree... with yourself.

If the tackles are crap, playing Rodgers if we get down by 14+ is asking for trouble. If they're gonna be cautious with two 300# tackles they damn well better be with the franchise qb.

No one said anything about being down by 14. He said not to play ARod at all. Different discussions.

 

[swhitset]

So you agreed to disagree... with yourself.


No one said anything about being down by 14. He said not to play ARod at all. Different discussions.

I said the same in another thread.... I'm not sure risking Rodgers in this game is wise.... I do however disagree with assuming these injuries are minor.

 

[Chad Hart]

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

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

 

[mongoosev]

our injuries are hurting us! I don't know what the hell they are doing during practice but it's just taking a toll on our progress. Now Nelson and Cobb will have to get evaluated and see what their conditions are. Glad we have to face Bengals and bears at home giving us some type of break before going up against cowgoys!

 

[Deleted member 6794]

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

As I've mentioned above the Packers have been pretty healthy compared to other teams in the league over the past three seasons. Therefore using injuries as an excuse for the team not having it made to another Super Bowl over the past six seasons is a lame one.