Packers Past Injuries Overstated ?

Dr Jones said:
I had always thought we were really banged up the last couple yrs but ran across this article.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2016/2015-adjusted-games-lost

Last year we were the 9th healthiest team and in 2014 we were the 3rd healthiest. So the question is our injuries really being overstated as an excuse for underachieving ?
Click to expand...
It's a thin line between injuries being reasons for losses and using them as excuses for losses. I don't like thinking about it in black & white terms ("There are never any excuses! Winners win!" or "Had player X had been healthy, we'd have surely won it all!").

I like what Football Outsiders does with their data, but you have to keep context in mind when reading their stuff. We were generally remarkably healthy in 2014, but it didn't matter - All it took was for no. 12 to get injured and hobbled at the wrong time. Excuse? Not to me. One does not simply replace the MVP in top form.

In 2015, it wasn't that bad. Sure, 3 out of 4 top WRs were injured, and starting Oline was together for 2 games. But IMHO we should've been able to handle that. Talent and depth just failed:
- Barclay failed utterly as top backup OT. That's on TT.
- We didn't have enough talent at TE to help the thinned WR corps. That's on TT, too.
- Lacy's girth didn't allow to compensate with dominant running game. That's on Lacy, and the position coach.

We were remarkably healthy on defense. Raji had a nagging injury and Barrington was on IR, but otherwise key guys didn't miss a lot of time.
 
salmar80 said:
In 2015, it wasn't that bad.

We were remarkably healthy on defense.
Click to expand...

The D saved our bacon many times last year. They were great, IMO. dance) Did they suck at times? Of course. Who doesn't?

salmar80 said:
Sure, 3 out of 4 top WRs were injured, and starting Oline was together for 2 games. But IMHO we should've been able to handle that.
Click to expand...

o_O

I don't think many teams could 'handle' that (or at least not well).

I have no doubt that you'll reply with stats to rebut me soundly. :)

All I can do, is answer with the statement you use at the top of your post.

salmar80 said:
It's a thin line between injuries being reasons for losses and using them as excuses for losses.
Click to expand...

br)
 
Last edited:
HeartyHops said:
I don't think many teams could 'handle' that (or at least not well).

I have no doubt that you'll reply with stats to rebut me soundly. :)
Click to expand...
Naah. No stats this time. I simply overstated it. mute(

Not many teams can fully replace "a Jordy". But our receiving corps took a precipitous nosedive, and we didn't have a TE or RB to alleviate the problem by replacing some of the lacking production.

And I just feel like a team should have one backup OT that's not a total disaster. OG backups actually fared OK. The problem there was 95% Barclay.

br) to all!
 
I really dislike the 'Barclay' word. :D

But besides that, can you imagine how awful it would have been had James Jones not been available at precisely the right time?
 
We might not have had a lot of guys hurt but 2 units really got hammered - OL + WR - and this caused our offense to sputter. :(
 
Pugger said:
We might not have had a lot of guys hurt but 2 units really got hammered - OL + WR - and this caused our offense to sputter. :(
Click to expand...
Coupled with NO TEs and subpar RB production. Sometimes its easier to lose a guy for the year than to have him hanging around at 75%, in and out of lineup.
 
Injuries are part of the story, but the TE and RB problem were not injury related. The TE problem was lack of talent and that is on TT. The RB problem was Lacy being out of shape and the lack of a real threat out of the backfield. Yes, Starks and Lacy made some plays on screens, but I think the RB group needs a RB who can be more of a varied receiving threat out of the backfield and that's on TT (and maybe to some degree on MM).
 
57packer said:
Injuries are part of the story, but the TE and RB problem were not injury related. The TE problem was lack of talent and that is on TT. The RB problem was Lacy being out of shape and the lack of a real threat out of the backfield. Yes, Starks and Lacy made some plays on screens, but I think the RB group needs a RB who can be more of a varied receiving threat out of the backfield and that's on TT (and maybe to some degree on MM).
Click to expand...
I would like to point out that TT did have a back like that, Jonathan Franklin. Career ending injury, tough to pin that on the GM.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top