Injuries Comparison - 49ers vs. Packers

[Marvin49]

The Niners only have ONE guy on IR? Are you serious?
And Seattle has ZERO (that will change now that they finally lost a guy, Clemons, in their playoff game).

New England also has ZERO ZERO ZERO guys on IR? Wow.
How lucky for those teams.....

Seattle & San Fran, the 2 NFC West teams.... I think those guys on the left coast there, Bonds, McGwire, Canseco, Sherman, Brandon Browner.... I think they have the best, most aggressive PED program out there, keeps them from getting hurt as much as our guys or something..... ours get hurt all the time. 2010 was no aberration.
Sadly.

Actually, I think they have at LEAST 4.

Parys Haralson
Kyle Williams
Kendall Hunter
Mario Manningham

Plus Darius Fleming, a rookie

EDIT: oops...I see someone beat me too it. I forgot Dobbs as well. He was kinda like a jack of all trades. That one hurt. He played both offense AND defense.

 

[Oshkoshpackfan]

Injury comparison is more like a "woulda shoulda coulda" thing. They are what they are and in no way is there some form of handi-cap play installed to even things out. It sounds more like an early excuse factor. Put it this way, if we lose, it was due to us having more injuries right? But, if we win, a beat up from the feet up team just won against a 95% healthy team...right? lol

 

[PFanCan]

Injury comparison is more like a "woulda shoulda coulda" thing. They are what they are and in no way is there some form of handi-cap play installed to even things out. It sounds more like an early excuse factor. Put it this way, if we lose, it was due to us having more injuries right? But, if we win, a beat up from the feet up team just won against a 95% healthy team...right? lol

Forums are exactly the place to discuss "woulda shoulda coulda" things. As I wrote-- the chart is simply a hypothetical scenario.

It is exactly the place for fans to lament the bad things that have happened to our team and rejoice the things that went well.

Not sure what your point is...

 

[Marvin49]

My answer to that question depends on who wins this Saturday!

I forgot about Perry (how'd I do that?) and Hunter. Oops. And, yes, Jacobs probably stays on the team had Gore gone down... But, it's just a silly hypothetical anyhow.

Good point regarding the fact that the one spot that the Packers could not afford injury (QB) was avoided, and that isn't the key spot for 49ers considering they have a reasonable backup. But, I would think that one's starting middle LB is pretty much key for all teams. Losing Bishop for the entire season was a huge loss. Then his backup goes down. Just flicking ridiculous.

Just look at all that red, though, on the chart. That sucks.

Of course it's key....but When its Patrick Willis, Navorro Bowman...or maybe Ray Lewis, its a WHOLE different story.

All I'm saying is you can't say losing Bishop is the same as losing Willis.

Its losing a good player on one team compared to one of the best players in the NFL and a HUGE reason for their recent success.

 

[Marvin49]

I think Kaep and Rodgers are more comparable than you want to admit and you know it. Take Smith out of the equasion and go with Tolzien, and you'll see what I mean.

ALl I'm saying is that all things are not equal....IE losing our starting QB is different han losing your starting QB. Losing our ILB is different than losing you starting LB.

These players have different values and fill different rioles on our teams.

Willis is a 6 time Pro Bowler and arguably the best ILB in the NFL (tho some think he may not be the best on his own team). Losing him is much bigger than losing Bishop simply because willis is a much larger part of the 49ers recipe for success than Bishop is.

That all I'm saying.

I will say this tho...whats up with the Packers and that injury bug.

Wow.

 

[FrankRizzo]

Bishop was GREAT.
Just like Nick Collins was.
Just because the media doesn't hype these guys up like they do the East Coast guys or Patrick Willis, doesn't mean they weren't great players.
We all knew Jennings was great before the national fans and media figured it out.
Same thing with Collins & Bishop.

I think people forget those 2 made Super Bowl winning huge plays?
They are not guys easily replaceable, as we have learned the hard way.
Just because they aren't "names" to the non-experts doesn't mean they aren't/weren't great.
Bishop was our only thumper in there.

 

[HyponGrey]

ALl I'm saying is that all things are not equal....IE losing our starting QB is different han losing your starting QB. Losing our ILB is different than losing you starting LB.

These players have different values and fill different rioles on our teams.

Willis is a 6 time Pro Bowler and arguably the best ILB in the NFL (tho some think he may not be the best on his own team). Losing him is much bigger than losing Bishop simply because willis is a much larger part of the 49ers recipe for success than Bishop is.

That all I'm saying.

I will say this tho...whats up with the Packers and that injury bug.

Wow.

Which is why I went Bowman. However, personally I think Bishop is just as big a factor in our Defense as Willis is in yours. Bishop was our enforcer, and our best cover man. He was our tone setter.

 

[Marvin49]

Which is why I went Bowman. However, personally I think Bishop is just as big a factor in our Defense as Willis is in yours. Bishop was our enforcer, and our best cover man. He was our tone setter.

I guess we'll just have to respectfully disagree.

Willis on one of the reasons this team is where it is. Losing him for an extended period would be catastrophic.

 

[PFanCan]

Of course it's key....but When its Patrick Willis, Navorro Bowman...or maybe Ray Lewis, its a WHOLE different story.

All I'm saying is you can't say losing Bishop is the same as losing Willis.

Its losing a good player on one team compared to one of the best players in the NFL and a HUGE reason for their recent success.

Totally understand your point- and it has merit and I agree with you. I will buy that Willis is way better than Bishop.

Just for discussion, another factor to consider is the "drop-off" beyond the player that is injured. Said another way, I would rather lose a top player who has an up-and-comer behind him (e.g. Woodson and Burnett) rather than a "good" player with no one to back him up (e.g. Bishop).

So, though Bishop himself doesn't carry the defense like Willis does, having a pedestrian Jones manning the middle really hurts the Packers. If I could have any one of the Packers injured back... it would be Bishop in a heartbeat.

And, against the 49ers, having a soft interior LB crew (Hawk was never known to have Bishop's aggressiveness), is a serious problem.

 

[Marvin49]

Bishop was GREAT.
Just like Nick Collins was.
Just because the media doesn't hype these guys up like they do the East Coast guys or Patrick Willis, doesn't mean they weren't great players.
We all knew Jennings was great before the national fans and media figured it out.
Same thing with Collins & Bishop.

I think people forget those 2 made Super Bowl winning huge plays?
They are not guys easily replaceable, as we have learned the hard way.
Just because they aren't "names" to the non-experts doesn't mean they aren't/weren't great.
Bishop was our only thumper in there.

I didn't say he wasn'ty a good player.

I said he isn't as important to your team as Willis is to his.

Can we at least admit the "slight" probability that a guy who has made 6 Pro Bowls in 6 years just might be a bigger linchpin to a team that does its dirty work on the defensive side of the ball?

 

[Marvin49]

Totally understand your point- and it has merit and I agree with you. I will buy that Willis is way better than Bishop.

Just for discussion, another factor to consider is the "drop-off" beyond the player that is injured. Said another way, I would rather lose a top player who has an up-and-comer behind him (e.g. Woodson and Burnett) rather than a "good" player with no one to back him up (e.g. Bishop).

So, though Bishop himself doesn't carry the defense like Willis does, having a pedestrian Jones manning the middle really hurts the Packers. If I could have any one of the Packers injured back... it would be Bishop in a heartbeat.

And, against the 49ers, having a soft interior LB crew (Hawk was never known to have Bishop's aggressiveness), is a serious problem.

OK, now THAT argument I can buy.

The 49ers are actually one of the deepest teams in the league (thanks to great GMs and horrible coaches securing great draft opicks). If Willis or Bowman were to go down, they do have Larry Grant and Tavares Gooden to back them up.

It would still be a big dropoff tho. I don't know anything about Jones so I'll have to take your word for it.

 

[HyponGrey]

I guess we'll just have to respectfully disagree.

Willis on one of the reasons this team is where it is. Losing him for an extended period would be catastrophic.

So would you give us Bowman as a Bishop equivalent? Our Defense would be much improved with Bishop, cover man for cover man?

 

[PFanCan]

OK, now THAT argument I can buy.

The 49ers are actually one of the deepest teams in the league (thanks to great GMs and horrible coaches securing great draft opicks). If Willis or Bowman wer to go down, they do have Larry Grant and Tavares Gooden to back them up.

It would still be a big dropoff tho. I don't know anything about Jones so I'll have to take your word for it.

Luckily for us Packer fans, GB also has a very deep and talented roster. Thank you, Ted Thompson!

2010 was a very bad year full of injuries (16 on IR, including 5 starters), but there is a nice shiny trophy in Green Bay from that season!

 

[Marvin49]

So would you give us Bowman as a Bishop equivalent? Our Defense would be much improved with Bishop, cover man for cover man?

LOL...I dunno....there are some who say Bowman is BETTER than Willis. Both guys are scheduled to start in Hawaii and hopefully neither will be able to attend.

 

[HyponGrey]

LOL...I dunno....there are some who say Bowman is BETTER than Willis. Both guys are scheduled to start in Hawaii and hopefully neither will be able to attend.

Well since you put it that way, Willis will do nicely. Bowman can cover for him as the "better player"

 

[Marvin49]

Well since you put it that way, Willis will do nicely. Bowman can cover for him as the "better player"

hehe.

I guess I can boil it down to this....

The Packers have a high-flying powerful offense led by the best QB in the NFL.

The 49ers have IMO the best D in the NFL (even though they had some issues in 2 of the last 3 games there).

The Packers can lose a LB and allow 20 points per game and still win because they have that offense.

The 49ers can't do that. They put ALOT more pressure on their D to perform because they DON'T have that high-flying ofense.

THAT is why I say you are comparing apples to oranges when talking about Willis and Bishop.

Of course I think Willis is better, but it's also simply that the 49ers D can't afford to give up the yards or points that the Packers can because the Packers have that offense. Every play on D takes on a larger significance so there is much less room for error...IEmore importance on those guys playing very, very well.

Does that make sense?

 

[HyponGrey]

hehe.

I guess I can boil it down to this....

The Packers have a high-flying powerful offense led by the best QB in the NFL.

The 49ers have IMO the best D in the NFL (even though they had some issues in 2 of the last 3 games there).

The Packers can lose a LB and allow 20 points per game and still win because they have that offense.

The 49ers can't do that. They put ALOT more pressure on their D to perform because they DON'T have that high-flying ofense.

THAT is why I say you are comparing apples to oranges when talking about Willis and Bishop.

Of course I think Willis is better, but it's also simply that the 49ers D can't afford to give up the yards or points that the Packers can because the Packers have that offense. Every play on D takes on a larger significance so there is much less room for error...IEmore importance on those guys playing very, very well.

Does that make sense?

IMO if losing a LB impacts you that much you have lousy depth. What position would you liken your LB to here? WR? Because we got along without a WR for most of the year. Fact is that we have depth at most of our positions that allows for somesome wiggle room, even if there is some drop off. Do you really not believe in Haralson, Gooden, Grant, and Wilhoite that much that you sell your season without your starter?

I think your offense does just fine, especially when you control the clock. It is more than capable of scoring, as you've noted. Plus, weren't you saying something about Kaep's deep ball ability? Because that kinda helps equalize.

 

[Marvin49]

IMO if losing a LB impacts you that much you have lousy depth. What position would you liken your LB to here? WR? Because we got along without a WR for most of the year. Fact is that we have depth at most of our positions that allows for somesome wiggle room, even if there is some drop off. Do you really not believe in Haralson, Gooden, Grant, and Wilhoite that much that you sell your season without your starter?

I think your offense does just fine, especially when you control the clock. It is more than capable of scoring, as you've noted. Plus, weren't you saying something about Kaep's deep ball ability? Because that kinda helps you to score.

LOL.

I guess we'll just disagree.

Yeah..Kaep is very good at throwing deep, but that has just been the last half here. This team isn't built around him...yet.

I agree with you tho....taking a Pro Bowl starting player off the O is a close comparison. Its like you have Adrian Peterson back there and he gets hurt. I can't say Rodgers because that would be overstating.

 

[HyponGrey]

LOL.

I guess we'll just disagree.

Yeah..Kaep is very good at throwing deep, but that has just been the last half here. This team isn't built around him...yet.

I agree with you tho....taking a Pro Bowl starting player off the O is a close comparison. Its like you have Adrian Peterson back there and he gets hurt. I can't say Rodgers because that would be overstating.

Fact is we dealt with losing a probowl WR. we dealt with losing our probowl FB and a probowl G for a game or so, we benched our probowl C. I don't think that because your boys play a little better than ours that it makes them any more important to your game than our players are to ours. Fact is we don't have a lot of probowlers, that doesn't make our boys any less valuable or any more replaceable.We dealt with injury all season long, yet you refuse to deal with it even in thought. Almost makes me wish your boys WOULD go down for the year. We have had to deal with significant dropoff in ability and talent and have performed admirably in the face of that adversity. Your players may be tough, but you as a fan seem really weak.

 

[HyponGrey]

We lost a probowler in Woodson for 8 games, we lost Matthews for 4, Raji played injured, Tramon still hasn't fully recovered from nerve damage, and we kept winning. If all you have are your starters I'm no longer worried about your shell team. Our team is good enough that apparently we can compensate for our injured players, whereas yours obviously is not. You had a nice run though.

 

[FrankRizzo]

Can we at least admit the "slight" probability that a guy who has made 6 Pro Bowls in 6 years just might be a bigger linchpin to a team that does its dirty work on the defensive side of the ball?

Yes, but Bowman, they tell me, is better than Willis now.
Bishop was our best ILB.

 

[HyponGrey]

Yes, but Bowman, they tell me, is better than Willis now.
Bishop was our best ILB.

I'm just Curious as to which of THEIR ILB does the dirty work. I don't see how being a better overall player makes you any more valuable than the man who does the exact same thing for another team. It doesn't make the other guy any more replaceable.

You remember when OUR probowl LB got injured and sat out a few games? Seems like their team is so weak that any of their pro bowlers fall and they'll fall apart. We'll 2 probowlers, since Justin is already having trouble

 

[Oshkoshpackfan]

Forums are exactly the place to discuss "woulda shoulda coulda" things. As I wrote-- the chart is simply a hypothetical scenario.

It is exactly the place for fans to lament the bad things that have happened to our team and rejoice the things that went well.

Not sure what your point is...

I'm not picking on the chart by any means, it is actually well laid out. what i meant was, it just seams that some people are maiking the injury bug for this game out to be any early excuse if we lose......that is all. Which in no way it is. We have delt with this all season and stuck it to teams like Houston and came away with a big win, so why can't we do it now since we are healthier now? I just don't like the pre-excuse type thing.

 

[PFanCan]

Actually, I am proud that the team I cheer for continues to do well despite the injury bug. Remember 2010? That trophy shines even more (in my eyes) considering how many starters went down that year.

But, you are right. This is a game for big boys. No whining or pre-excuses allowed. Final score is the only thing that matters...

 

[PFanCan]

... Your players may be tough, but you as a fan seem really weak.

That's kind of harsh. I think Marvin has been a very reasonable poster on this forum. I don't consider him a weak fan at all.