Live Tackling - Cure for our Injuries?

[BorderRivals.com]

Here's a fascinating take by McGinn on what could potentially solve our injury issues: http://www.jsonline.com/sports/pack...or-rash-of-injuries-b9985208z1-221490581.html

Essentially, institute live tackling during training camp, which in theory conditions the body to it more and gets them playing full bore, rather than less than 100%. I'm not sure if it's coincidence that the teams he talked to that do live tackling are also healthy (and he may not have referenced/cited those teams that do live tackling and still have injuries for purposes of furthering his argument) or just luck. But, his point that we've continually been among the most injured teams does call into question our M.O. At this point, what's the harm in trying the new approach? I think I'd be for it - plus, he can (hopefully) further utilize the live tackling to toughen our team for facing the likes of 49ers and Giants.

 

[HyponGrey]

We worked full pads up to the ARI game, what more do you want? Should we run the Oklahoma too? Maybe we should just IR the entire team at the start of the season. I refuse to give clicks to McGinn's personal vendetta. I'm half convinced he's a large part of the reason we're perceived as soft. He used to be a really good reporter.

 

[13 Times Champs]

More live tackling in games would be nice.

 

[13 Times Champs]

I refuse to give clicks to McGinn's personal vendetta. I'm half convinced he's a large part of the reason we're perceived as soft. He used to be a really good reporter.

McGinn had nothing to do with my opinion that the Packers are soft.

 

[Lex Luger]

We worked full pads up to the ARI game, what more do you want? Should we run the Oklahoma too? Maybe we should just IR the entire team at the start of the season. I refuse to give clicks to McGinn's personal vendetta. I'm half convinced he's a large part of the reason we're perceived as soft. He used to be a really good reporter.

Wow, talk about drinking the kool aid. Its Mcginn's fault the packers are "perceived" as soft? They are perceived as soft because they are soft, as a pillow. Also, aren't you the guy that said my opinion didnt matter because I said Eric Fisher was overrated and DJ Fluker was the smarter pick? Whoops. Maybe its your opinion that doesnt matter.

 

[realcaliforniacheese]

CBA limits pad workouts. The current crop of NFL players are *****'s and don't want to get hit too much lest they hurt their over exaggerated PED made bodies.

 

[HyponGrey]

Wow, talk about drinking the kool aid. Its Mcginn's fault the packers are "perceived" as soft? They are perceived as soft because they are soft, as a pillow. Also, aren't you the guy that said my opinion didnt matter because I said Eric Fisher was overrated and DJ Fluker was the smarter pick? Whoops. Maybe its your opinion that doesnt matter.

No, I was the guy who said Fisher should go before Joeckel because of upside, and that Fluker was a terrible fit for our OL.

 

[Passepartout]

Hopefully the Packers won't be soft come week 1 of the 2013 season! This is the last pre-season game this weekend!

 

[El Guapo]

...which in theory conditions the body to it more

It's a theory, nothing more at this point. How does live tackling condition the body to avoid hamstring injuries? How does live tackling condition the body to avoid ACL tears? I'd love to see research that shows that the more times you get hit in the side of the knee, the stronger it gets. Then I'll believe the theory more.

I have no problems with live tackling in order to make the team more game ready and tougher. I'm all for that if the CBA allows for it. However, using the pretense that more tackling will prevent injuries sounds to me like saying that MLB players will have less injuries if teams would have them get hit by the pitch more in spring training.

This line of thinking only makes sense if you've had a few concussions and maybe downed a few caucasians.

 

[12theTruth]

Here's a fascinating take by McGinn on what could potentially solve our injury issues: http://www.jsonline.com/sports/pack...or-rash-of-injuries-b9985208z1-221490581.html

Essentially, institute live tackling during training camp, which in theory conditions the body to it more and gets them playing full bore, rather than less than 100%. I'm not sure if it's coincidence that the teams he talked to that do live tackling are also healthy (and he may not have referenced/cited those teams that do live tackling and still have injuries for purposes of furthering his argument) or just luck. But, his point that we've continually been among the most injured teams does call into question our M.O. At this point, what's the harm in trying the new approach? I think I'd be for it - plus, he can (hopefully) further utilize the live tackling to toughen our team for facing the likes of 49ers and Giants.

I assumed that live tackling was a part of training camp. When did this get phased out for the Packers? McCarthy? It only seems to be common sense that you'd want to prepare for this KEY fundamental element to the game. And what better way to prepare than to perform the ACTUAL thing before its bright lights, big stage!

 

[Sunshinepacker]

It's a theory, nothing more at this point. How does live tackling condition the body to avoid hamstring injuries? How does live tackling condition the body to avoid ACL tears? I'd love to see research that shows that the more times you get hit in the side of the knee, the stronger it gets. Then I'll believe the theory more.

I have no problems with live tackling in order to make the team more game ready and tougher. I'm all for that if the CBA allows for it. However, using the pretense that more tackling will prevent injuries sounds to me like saying that MLB players will have less injuries if teams would have them get hit by the pitch more in spring training.

This line of thinking only makes sense if you've had a few concussions and maybe downed a few caucasians.

I think the argument about conditioning for toughness is silly but I do think the comment made in the article, that many injuries occur when one guy is going 100% and another guy is going 50%, might be true. Without live tackling you probably do have guys out there loafing more than they usually would and might, therefore, be more prone to tensing up before getting hit, which would lead to more injuries since tensing up makes you more susceptible to injury. The only reason I say players may be more prone to tensing is that when going 100% the muscles may not have any more ability to tense up, or the movements could be coming so quickly that they don't have a chance to tense up.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

CBA limits pad workouts. The current crop of NFL players are *****'s and don't want to get hit too much lest they hurt their over exaggerated PED made bodies.

CBA has specific limits on in-season padded practices (14 padded in 17 weeks). Prior to the season I'm not sure what the limit is but it's much more lenient than in-season.

 

[El Guapo]

I think this sums up the absurdity of McGinn's column for me:

If it were me, I'd put the players in pads more often. And then many of the practices, at least in the first two weeks of camp, would feature 11-on-11 periods of live tackling in which everyone except the quarterback could and would be brought to the ground.

Why wouldn't you live tackle the QB? Answer. Because they don't want him to get injured! If you really believed that live tackling prevented injuries, you'd sure as snot want your QB to stay healthy too, right?

I knew that I'd get more aggravated if I actually read the article.

 

[El Guapo]

Here is another contradiction that frustrates me about his article:

It's time they confront those fears and begin developing a team that doesn't start coming apart in late July

Followed by:

Players that survive those first two weeks would stand a better chance of avoiding the hamstrings and knees and quads and ankles and toes that have bedeviled the Packers for too long once they start playing games.

McGinn points out that their bodies aren't conditioned to tackling and therefore get hurt in the games. Yet, most of our injuries (as pointed out in his first quote) happen well before the preseason games. More of our injuries happen in camp than in the games. So how is live tackling in training camp going to lead to less game injuries? That's not where the problem exists. The problem seems to exist more in the offseason and during camp.

One could also stand to reason that our level of injuries should go down during the regular season while they are live tackling each Sunday. I'd love to see some proof supporting that.

 

[TJV]

We worked full pads up to the ARI game, what more do you want? Should we run the Oklahoma too? Maybe we should just IR the entire team at the start of the season.

Working in full pads doesn’t mean the team engaged in live tackling and according to the article, the Packers have practiced in pads six times in the last four weeks. Now I don’t know if, “… the human body must be conditioned to play this violent game. It becomes conditioned best by real football, and that means the man with the ball being put on the ground.” I do think that’s a prescription for a better tackling defense but with regard to injuries, I think El Guapo makes a good point. McGinn says about 13 of the 32 teams engage in a lot more live tackling in TC than the Packers and he gives examples of a couple of those teams experiencing fewer injuries. But he also writes of the 31 preseason games McCarthy has coached, the Packers had more players held out than the opponent in 26 of those games. That, as well as the number of players held out of practice could reflect McCarthy and his staff just being more careful than other teams who may have players with “minor” injuries play. We need a lot more information in order to really get a fix on where the Packers are regarding injuries vs. the league because of course we pay more attention to Packers’ injuries. If an exhaustive study (not only number of players and practices & games missed but also severity of injuries) showed the 13 teams or so who practice live tackling in TC experience fewer injuries than of course it would be worth a try. An examination of the surface the Packers practice on should be in order too, although I would think its far superior to "regular" turf or frozen dirt/grass but I have no data to back that up.

I refuse to give clicks to McGinn's personal vendetta. I'm half convinced he's a large part of the reason we're perceived as soft. He used to be a really good reporter.

Who is McGinn’s “personal vendetta” directed at? Thompson? McCarthy? Both? The Packers? What evidence do have of it, not only in this article but in others? What particularly in this article is evidence of it? What do you suppose his motivation for it would be? Have you read another reporter's ideas about how to reduce injuries? Do you think McGinn should just write positive articles?

 

[HyponGrey]

Working in full pads doesn’t mean the team engaged in live tackling and according to the article, the Packers have practiced in pads six times in the last four weeks. Now I don’t know if, “… the human body must be conditioned to play this violent game. It becomes conditioned best by real football, and that means the man with the ball being put on the ground.” I do think that’s a prescription for a better tackling defense but with regard to injuries, I think El Guapo makes a good point. McGinn says about 13 of the 32 teams engage in a lot more live tackling in TC than the Packers and he gives examples of a couple of those teams experiencing fewer injuries. But he also writes of the 31 preseason games McCarthy has coached, the Packers had more players held out than the opponent in 26 of those games. That, as well as the number of players held out of practice could reflect McCarthy and his staff just being more careful than other teams who may have players with “minor” injuries play. We need a lot more information in order to really get a fix on where the Packers are regarding injuries vs. the league because of course we pay more attention to Packers’ injuries. If an exhaustive study (not only number of players and practices & games missed but also severity of injuries) showed the 13 teams or so who practice live tackling in TC experience fewer injuries than of course it would be worth a try. An examination of the surface the Packers practice on should be in order too, although I would think its far superior to "regular" turf or frozen dirt/grass but I have no data to back that up. Who is McGinn’s “personal vendetta” directed at? Thompson? McCarthy? Both? The Packers? What evidence do have of it, not only in this article but in others? What particularly in this article is evidence of it? What do you suppose his motivation for it would be? Have you read another reporter's ideas about how to reduce injuries? Do you think McGinn should just write positive articles?

The turf at Nitschke was replaced back in 07? and could be a contributing factor in our recent injury struggles.

McGinn's vendetta is clearly aimed at Thompson.

 

[TJV]

McGinn's vendetta is clearly aimed at Thompson.

And what evidence supports your opinion? BTW, what possible motive would McGinn have to hold a vendetta against the GM of the team he covers who lead them to a title three seasons ago?

 

[El Guapo]

There are several points in the article where McGinn essentially calls Thompson a softy. I got the same strong sense that HyponGrey sensed, that McGinn doesn't like TT. It doesn't really bother me if he does or doesn't like the guy, but he seemed to lay all of this at TT's feet:

If serial worrywart Ted Thompson can't bear to watch, so be it.

Just don't expect live tackling to surface in Green Bay as long as Thompson remains general manager. He would appear diametrically opposed. He is petrified of even the least exposure to injury.

But if McCarthy were to prevail, he'd have the clout to make it work.

McGinn seems to be saying that even MM wants to have live tackling, but TT won't allow it. Otherwise he wouldn't talk about McCarthy "prevailing" over TT.

Vendetta seems too strong, but McGinn seems to clearly say that the lack of live tackling in practice is TT's fault, and it has led to more injuries. It's an article written about correlations without providing evidence of cause. It's a compelling story but nothing more.

 

[HyponGrey]

There are several points in the article where McGinn essentially calls Thompson a softy. I got the same strong sense that HyponGrey sensed, that McGinn doesn't like TT. It doesn't really bother me if he does or doesn't like the guy, but he seemed to lay all of this at TT's feet:



McGinn seems to be saying that even MM wants to have live tackling, but TT won't allow it. Otherwise he wouldn't talk about McCarthy "prevailing" over TT.

Vendetta seems too strong, but McGinn seems to clearly say that the lack of live tackling in practice is TT's fault, and it has led to more injuries. It's an article written about correlations without providing evidence of cause. It's a compelling story but nothing more.

Personnel too. We're too small, soft, and injury prone because TT drafted us that way. Read his last interview with TT, it's all McGinn trying to feed his own ego. I gained a whole new respect for TT, because I wouldn't have lasted halfway through that one.

As to what he has against TT, what other reason would he need than either discontent or disagreement?

 

[TJV]

As to what he has against TT, what other reason would he need than either discontent or disagreement?

"Discontent" or "disagreement" justifies a vendetta? I'm not buying it.