Page 7 of 119 FirstFirst ... 567891757107 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 1182

Thread: Changed my thoughts about the Bell contract

  1. #61
    Legend

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by feltdizz View Post
    Anyone can get injured on every play.

    Its all random and you can’t prevent it.

    Was AB injured because of his touches last year vs the Pats? What about vs the Bungles 2 years earlier?

    Bell had 300+ touches and no injuries last year? How is it possible?

    Conner had 15 or 20 touches and look what happened?

    Pouncey?

    Gilbert?

    AV?

    DeCastro?

    What makes one player more prone than another?

    It just depends where you are in the pile or how far your cleat is in the turf when hit or rolled on.
    There is some probability that a running back gets hurt when he carries the ball and when he catches the ball. For the sake of argument, let's say that all touches have the same risk of injury and it's 0.1%.

    If a back gets 200 carries, we'd expect that he'd have ~ 82% chance of not getting hurt over the year and ~ 18% chance of getting hurt.

    If that same back gets 300 carries, we'd expect that he'd have ~ 74% chance of not getting hurt and ~ 26% chance of getting hurt.

    This doesn't mean that he's injury prone (i.e. the chance of getting injured per touch didn't change). But, his chances of getting hurt over a season went up because he's in a danger of getting hurt more often. I feel like I looked at this before and Bell's touches has him playing something like 1.5 games more than other highly used backs in the league. So, if every back had the same chance of getting injured every play you'd expect Bell's risk of injury to be almost 10% higher than other highly used backs.

    That's a pretty simple analysis that assumes that getting hurt is random and occurs at a constant rate. My guess is that RBs get a little bit hurt every time they carry the ball. I think that's not unreasonable given the violence that can take place with every hit.

    I think that those minor aches and pains probably add up over a season and make the chance of injury increase over time. I think that this is why most teams don't give their backs as many touches as they did in the past (kind of like how basketball stars get rested periodically and goalies in hockey don't play in back to back games).

    I'm not the only one that thinks this. The NFLPA is very much against adding games to the season because they believe that it increases injury risk.

    Because of that, I think he has a higher chance of being injured in a season even if his chance of being injured on a particular play is the same as every other back in the league.

  2. #62
    Legend

    User Info Menu

    the center gets hit every play. i dont see every center in the league getting hurt all the time
    steelers = 3 ring circus with tomlin being the head clown

  3. #63
    Legend

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Northern_Blitz View Post
    There is some probability that a running back gets hurt when he carries the ball and when he catches the ball. For the sake of argument, let's say that all touches have the same risk of injury and it's 0.1%.

    If a back gets 200 carries, we'd expect that he'd have ~ 82% chance of not getting hurt over the year and ~ 18% chance of getting hurt.

    If that same back gets 300 carries, we'd expect that he'd have ~ 74% chance of not getting hurt and ~ 26% chance of getting hurt.

    This doesn't mean that he's injury prone (i.e. the chance of getting injured per touch didn't change). But, his chances of getting hurt over a season went up because he's in a danger of getting hurt more often. I feel like I looked at this before and Bell's touches has him playing something like 1.5 games more than other highly used backs in the league. So, if every back had the same chance of getting injured every play you'd expect Bell's risk of injury to be almost 10% higher than other highly used backs.

    That's a pretty simple analysis that assumes that getting hurt is random and occurs at a constant rate. My guess is that RBs get a little bit hurt every time they carry the ball. I think that's not unreasonable given the violence that can take place with every hit.

    I think that those minor aches and pains probably add up over a season and make the chance of injury increase over time. I think that this is why most teams don't give their backs as many touches as they did in the past (kind of like how basketball stars get rested periodically and goalies in hockey don't play in back to back games).

    I'm not the only one that thinks this. The NFLPA is very much against adding games to the season because they believe that it increases injury risk.

    Because of that, I think he has a higher chance of being injured in a season even if his chance of being injured on a particular play is the same as every other back in the league.
    while I get what you are saying I still think it's random when it comes to injuries.

    We lost Bell in the 6th game to a season ending injury. That wasn't due to a high touch rate, just due getting his leg twisted while being tackled. Interior OL and DL bang on every play... it's just luck IMO for some players to avoid injury.
    I lost a bet about Najee gaining 1300 yards.

    "Our head coach has failed to win a playoff game for seven years in a row. His game day strategy, culture of divas, in game decisions, clock management, player evaluation, hires, and affinity with sub par starters at RB, P, and OL are holding the Steelers back. That standard remains the standard"



  4. #64
    Legend

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by squidkid View Post
    the center gets hit every play. i dont see every center in the league getting hurt all the time
    I think they're showing they get an awful lot of tramautic encephalopathy from those repeated hits.


    We got our "6-PACK" - time to work on a CASE!

    HERE WE GO STEELERS, HERE WE GO!

  5. #65
    Rookie

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by SanAntonioSteelerFan View Post
    I think they're showing they get an awful lot of tramautic encephalopathy from those repeated hits.
    Mike Webster (RIP)
    Actually, my post was NOT about you...but, if the shoe fits, feel free to lace that &!+€# up and wear it.

  6. #66
    Legend

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by SanAntonioSteelerFan View Post
    I think they're showing they get an awful lot of tramautic encephalopathy from those repeated hits.

    agreed. point was using bells carries as a injury excuse were he misses games compared to a lineman that gets hits every single play.........
    steelers = 3 ring circus with tomlin being the head clown

  7. #67
    Legend

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by feltdizz View Post
    while I get what you are saying I still think it's random when it comes to injuries.

    We lost Bell in the 6th game to a season ending injury. That wasn't due to a high touch rate, just due getting his leg twisted while being tackled. Interior OL and DL bang on every play... it's just luck IMO for some players to avoid injury.
    I agree with what you are saying, but those are two different arguments.

    I think you are saying: Every play is dangerous and a player can get hurt on any play.

    This is certainly true. You can lose guys for the season on the first play of the year.

    I am saying: Being in a dangerous situation more often means that there is a higher chance that you get hurt than if you were in a dangerous situation less often.

    I think it's pretty clear that this is true too. I also think that for RBs, every nagging injury they get slows them down a fraction. I think that would increase their chances of getting hurt because some guys (think Barry Sanders) don't get hurt as much because they are elusive enough to avoid getting hit "full on". I feel like any small loss of mobility at that level could reduce that elusiveness enough to increase the chances of injury (even slightly).

  8. #68
    Legend

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by squidkid View Post
    agreed. point was using bells carries as a injury excuse were he misses games compared to a lineman that gets hits every single play.........
    I think it's a different kind of violence for linemen. I think it's more insidious in a lot of ways because it's probably a lower magnitude per hit but the frequency is higher. I think that makes it easier for damage (particularly to the brain) to go unnoticed. It's way easier to see that a WR gets concussed when he gets knocked upt by heat shot across the middle on a crossing pattern.

  9. #69
    Banned

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Northern_Blitz View Post
    I think it's a different kind of violence for linemen. I think it's more insidious in a lot of ways because it's probably a lower magnitude per hit but the frequency is higher. I think that makes it easier for damage (particularly to the brain) to go unnoticed. It's way easier to see that a WR gets concussed when he gets knocked upt by heat shot across the middle on a crossing pattern.
    Man..if you ever really just focus in on line play......it is tremendous amount of force and strength put on down in that pit.

  10. #70
    Legend

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Steel Maniac View Post
    Man..if you ever really just focus in on line play......it is tremendous amount of force and strength put on down in that pit.
    To NB's point, it's F=M x A. The linemen got the mass, but I don't think they have the acceleration of a 225 lb Shazier running at a RB. And the repeated exposure to lower level hits I think is also a concern. But it's not the kind of injury that puts a player out of a game, but the accumulated damage is real.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •