Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Maybe The Colts Do Get Injured More Often


21isSuperman

Recommended Posts

http://www.nfl.com/features/freakonomics/episode-6?module=HP11_cp

--

If you click on the part where it says "click to scroll" and look at the most adjusted games lost by a team in the last 3 years, Indy has the most. The formula for adjusted games lost is also given. Some people want to say that other teams are just as injured as we are, but this shows that it's not true. We have the highest adjusted games lost out of any team in the last 3 years

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope the powers that be watched this video. It seems like everyone knew that we wouldn't win without Peyton except for everyone within the Colts organization. Knowing the FO, they will probably draft luck and build the team totally around him so we'll be in the same boat a few years down the road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.nfl.com/f...?module=HP11_cp

--

If you click on the part where it says "click to scroll" and look at the most adjusted games lost by a team in the last 3 years, Indy has the most. The formula for adjusted games lost is also given. Some people want to say that other teams are just as injured as we are, but this shows that it's not true. We have the highest adjusted games lost out of any team in the last 3 years

Great find. I always wondered what was the specific hit on Manning that started the neck problems and this video clearly showed how it started. Ouch - that was a brutal rip to the head by the Redskins defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Packers had more players on IR last year than the Colts..

who is probable and doubtful is NOT a good barometer of injury..

The Colts dont get injured more than everybody else...there's no logic there.....

We know why we're 0-13

Doesn't it still make some sense though? Sure, a guy who is listed as questionable or doubtful may still play, but his performance will likely be compromised

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't it still make some sense though? Sure, a guy who is listed as questionable or doubtful may still play, but his performance will likely be compromised

Most times....but sometimes its misleading..

......................remember the year Belichek said Brady was probably all season? and he played every game

And Manning has been out all year but not IR..

Like Bob Sanders was...

Rothislberger has a broken toe, right?...and he's not listed on the injury report

It skews the numbers.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Packers had more players on IR last year than the Colts..

who is probable and doubtful is NOT a good barometer of injury..

The Colts dont get injured more than everybody else...there's no logic there.....

We know why we're 0-13

Well, you would have to assume that other teams also list players as probable and doubtful similarly to the way we do. This means that a player has been hurt and it is questionable whether they will play of not. As Supermanis21 has stated, this will effect the way these players play, and will effect the performance of a team.

The Packers did have a lot of injuries last year, but that was one year. The numbers show that we consistently have more injuries over a span of several years.

By your assumption, if we have more players listed as probable or doubtful and it does not mean that we have more injuries, then it would mean that we are improperly listing players as "probable" or "doubtful".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I' definitely say we get injured more than any other team. Most of the busts we have are because of injuries. Gonzo has a lot of talent but cannot stay healthy at all. addia could be very good but he's been injury prone the last few years. sanders was a stud but injury was his middle name. collie clark and garcon have all missed a good amount of time the last two years. Our secondary is in shambles and brackett has been injued too. even our o-line is depleted. the only position you could always count on was qb before this year. every year we suffer major injuries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you would have to assume that other teams also list players as probable and doubtful similarly to the way we do. This means that a player has been hurt and it is questionable whether they will play of not. As Supermanis21 has stated, this will effect the way these players play, and will effect the performance of a team.

The Packers did have a lot of injuries last year, but that was one year. The numbers show that we consistently have more injuries over a span of several years.

By your assumption, if we have more players listed as probable or doubtful and it does not mean that we have more injuries, then it would mean that we are improperly listing players as "probable" or "doubtful".

Yes....some are more honest than others...NE is notorious for lying on the injury report..

There's not trying to give anything away

Look at Houston,..decimated offensively by injuries..

the Bears have been hit hard...

remember 2 years ago how Dwight Freeney hobbled into the Super Bowl.

Unless I'm mistaken.,,he's played EVERY SINGLE game since then..

There's no pattern of injuries..and it has nothing to do with how hard you work (i.e. Bob Sanders)

any in time frame (5 years...3 years) you select the results will will change if you change the time frame..

...we're just trying to look for someone or something to blame....I understand it..because we're 0-13

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes....some are more honest than others...NE is notorious for lying on the injury report..

There's not trying to give anything away

Look at Houston,..decimated offensively by injuries..

the Bears have been hit hard...

remember 2 years ago how Dwight Freeney hobbled into the Super Bowl.

Unless I'm mistaken.,,he's played EVERY SINGLE game since then..

There's no pattern of injuries..and it has nothing to do with how hard you work (i.e. Bob Sanders)

any in time frame (5 years...3 years) you select the results will will change if you change the time frame..

...we're just trying to look for someone or something to blame....I understand it..because we're 0-13

There are 32 teams in the NFL. Logically, some team will have to have the least amount of injuries and some team will have to have the most amount of injuries. It's illogical to think that every team has the exact same amount of injuries over a span of 5 years. What this report shows is that the Colts are the team with the most amount of injuries over that span of time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.nfl.com/f...?module=HP11_cp

--

If you click on the part where it says "click to scroll" and look at the most adjusted games lost by a team in the last 3 years, Indy has the most. The formula for adjusted games lost is also given. Some people want to say that other teams are just as injured as we are, but this shows that it's not true. We have the highest adjusted games lost out of any team in the last 3 years

I have read similar metrics from other sources how we are most injured , sorry no link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the initial comments made here about Dungy when it was announced he was to be Colts head coach was that he was a "player's coach". What does that mean to you?

From my understanding, it means he can really relate to players. The players don't see him as just a coach, they see him as their peer/friend, they see the whole man instead of just the coach. However, the problem arises when a coach is too much of a player's coach and the players don't take him seriously. Or they slack because the coach is their friend and won't discipline them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my understanding, it means he can really relate to players. The players don't see him as just a coach, they see him as their peer/friend, they see the whole man instead of just the coach. However, the problem arises when a coach is too much of a player's coach and the players don't take him seriously. Or they slack because the coach is their friend and won't discipline them

Wonder if it could also mean..."Coach, I broke my pinkie and in hurts when I go into my stance, can I go on IR, Please?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are the most injury prone team in the last 5 years... maybe more

We had very few injuries in 2009. We had a couple of high profile injuries, the yearly Bob Sanders and Anthony Gonzalez injuries, but other than that, we stayed relatively healthy. 2008 started bad, but wasn't that terrible overall. 2007 started really well, and ended bad (Freeney and Mathis both out by the end of the year, but Sanders played 15 games). I don't think this injury issue goes back five years. It's been really bad this year and last, but as chronic as you make it seem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We had very few injuries in 2009. We had a couple of high profile injuries, the yearly Bob Sanders and Anthony Gonzalez injuries, but other than that, we stayed relatively healthy. 2008 started bad, but wasn't that terrible overall. 2007 started really well, and ended bad (Freeney and Mathis both out by the end of the year, but Sanders played 15 games). I don't think this injury issue goes back five years. It's been really bad this year and last, but as chronic as you make it seem.

Ya think Calwell's attitude toward resting injured players may have an influence here? Wonder what it looked like a Wake Forrest?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We just have too many soft players on this finesse team. We need to go in the smashmouth direction. Or maybe we're just very unlucky.

Luck is a major part of it, but I find it hard to believe that we have bad luck multiple years in a row. Something else has got to causing it, though I agree that luck is a big part

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya think Calwell's attitude toward resting injured players may have an influence here? Wonder what it looked like a Wake Forrest?

No.

I know it's in vogue to blame everything on Caldwell (unless it's being blamed on Polian, which is even better), but I don't get how we can blame his resting starters in 2009 for increased injuries in 2010 and 2011.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No.

I know it's in vogue to blame everything on Caldwell (unless it's being blamed on Polian, which is even better), but I don't get how we can blame his resting starters in 2009 for increased injuries in 2010 and 2011.

It must have something to do with the scheme. I don't know what else it could be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...