Injuries - 9-Year Analysis

Originally posted by zonkers:

I think circa Harbaugh, a lot of players were taking extra vitamins (not saying Harbaugh started it), but the style of play and playoffs battles really wore them down fast. Post-Harbaugh, seems like they started leaning towards well-conditioned players (that might be lacking a bit of extra power).

As for consistency, maybe it's just that all the coaches had very aggressive styles of play.
Unless . . . the style is no different than anywhere else and it was the S&C staffs that didn't properly prepare the players.
Unless . . . the S&C staff only implements the blueprint from the GM.
Unless . . . the GM only created the blueprint with input from analytics (Paraag! )
Unless . . . Paraag is only using analytics to help Jed save money.

LMAO...this is terrific!

Originally posted by zonkers:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by zonkers:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Injured starters don't just hurt the record for that year. It hurts player development and system consumption all around. If a starter is injured multiple years, that affects the development of the chemistry of the players who rely on that position and it affects the development of that position or possible improvement at that position.

Sitting on injured players is a career-ending decision for GMs and coaches.

And it kind of worries me when they keep dipping into the injured player potential pool. I get that they need specific profiles for their system. But, if all the available options are glass, maybe more competition is needed or the system needs to be relaxed.

Even if Ward was a backup, look at what happened last year. Our starter gets hurt, Ward comes in, he immediately gets hurt.


Keeping perpetually injured players makes us one play away from having to play our 3rd stringer.

I agree. I think with fair competition, everyone on the depth chart is fighting for every rep. Hopefully, that means the injured guys bubble down toward being cut and the healthy guys bubble up toward getting more reps.

From what I understand, that's something Carroll has always done. Or even if he gives passes, it sounds like players fight for their careers in his practices.

Most players should be fighting for backup roles. I don't like starters having to compete unless the backup talent is eye popping.

The reason for this is because starters should get as many reps as they can and backups should take two or three years before they are ready to take over.

Our starters need as many reps as they can get so we click sooner. Being in a situation where a lot of starters are getting half reps is very bad and the season won't end well in terms of wins.

45,000 ACLS
3,000 achilles
5 pec tears

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by NinerBuff:

NCommand, if it is truly random, injuries wouldn't be evenly spread across all teams. There would be teams with little to no season-ending injuries and there would be teams with many.

Similar to the post above.

I might have read this wrong but can you restate what you mean, please?

Sorry that was vague.

Random doesn't mean each team would roughly have the same number of injuries across the league, but that the whole league would look like a statistical distribution - a few teams with many, some with a few, and some with none. But random also implies the teams with many injuries would also be random year to year.

If there are teams that consistently remain at the top of the list, it becomes less coincidence and more causation. There would be some explanation for the consistent, above average injury listing.

Originally posted by NinerBuff:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by NinerBuff:

NCommand, if it is truly random, injuries wouldn't be evenly spread across all teams. There would be teams with little to no season-ending injuries and there would be teams with many.

Similar to the post above.

I might have read this wrong but can you restate what you mean, please?

Sorry that was vague.

Random doesn't mean each team would roughly have the same number of injuries across the league, but that the whole league would look like a statistical distribution - a few teams with many, some with a few, and some with none. But random also implies the teams with many injuries would also be random year to year.

If there are teams that consistently remain at the top of the list, it becomes less coincidence and more causation. There would be some explanation for the consistent, above average injury listing.

Awesome. That's exactly what I thought you were getting at and I totally agree. 5 straight years of 23rd or worse is just way too consistent to cast off as bad luck or coincidence. As to WHAT that causation is, that's debatable, obviously.

Originally posted by smithgdwg:

I think they conditioned the bodies better back then. Maybe they are too coddling now days. Or maybe cocaine has healitive powers.

I imagine the stresses their bodies are put through now are greater, and it will probably get worse as the common professional athlete approaches the theoretical limit.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Remember the #49ers' loooooong injury list from the spring? The good news is that the majority, including all the ACL guys, are expected to be cleared for training camp. Here's a player-by-player look heading into Saturday's first practice ...https://t.co/4sQws6ZDQV

— Matt Barrows (@mattbarrows) July 23, 2019

Just went from 6 to midnight reading this.

Originally posted by NCommand:
Awesome. That's exactly what I thought you were getting at and I totally agree. 5 straight years of 23rd or worse is just way too consistent to cast off as bad luck or coincidence. As to WHAT that causation is, that's debatable, obviously.

agree,. the bad luck with injuries excuse is not longer logical after five straight years. soft players. soft coaches. bad medical staff.. who knows. but its more than just oh bad luck

Really hoping that this thread doesn't get bumped to the top of Niner Talk during training camp.......

Originally posted by Ensatsu:

Really hoping that this thread doesn't get bumped to the top of Niner Talk during training camp.......

I'm with this...and I'm the OP. LOL

Originally posted by Waterbear:

Just went from 6 to midnight reading this.

The number of injuries changes with every team from year to year but the total number is about the same. The statistical difference isn't enough to single out a single cause or team. In the Niners case, a lot of their injuries seem to be repeat injuries to the same players or guys that were injured when they were signed and never really got well. What matters the most to me is WHO gets injured. If a backup DB gets hurt I don't worry too much. If the starting QB gets hurt then that's a different story. That's like getting 3 or 4 other players hurt.

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:

The number of injuries changes with every team from year to year but the total number is about the same. The statistical difference isn't enough to single out a single cause or team. In the Niners case, a lot of their injuries seem to be repeat injuries to the same players or guys that were injured when they were signed and never really got well. What matters the most to me is WHO gets injured. If a backup DB gets hurt I don't worry too much. If the starting QB gets hurt then that's a different story. That's like getting 3 or 4 other players hurt.

You're premise is true but all injuries are not created equal which is why I love this metric. See the OP for details. But yeah, your team could be the healthiest one year and dead last the next. 5 years in a row consistently at the bottom is just way too stable of a metric to write off as bad luck or chance.

I think you're on to something...our attraction to injured players in an effort to target quality FA's at reduced rates (lower guaranteed money), in the draft and belief in oft-injured players (AA, M.Smith, Ward, etc.), S&C programs, and lack of footbal preparation (see how bad our fundamentals were/are at tackling as an example - tackling with forearms), IMHO all play into a very consistent and predictable metric where normally, it regresses back to the mean.

Errrybody