Forget the Game, what about the F...ing INJURIES?!

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by dgack

I was just thinking it would be interesting to try and quantify in numerical terms the losses this team has sustained to key personnel throughout the end of last season and beginning of this one, as compared to any other team.

Perhaps the problem lies not in the number of injuries or even the specifics of who got injured, but that our talent isn't well distributed among the different strings of players.

Obviously first-stringers are supposed to be better than second-stringers, but it really does seem like we are a top-heavy team who has a huge dropoff in talent level (or experience, or both) beyond our starters. I'm sure this is true of many teams but it seems like the great ones, the successful ones, do not have nearly as much of a drop when players go out.

Indy, for example, lost Edgerrin James and Dominic Rhodes to free agency, Marvin Harrison to injuries, plus at least a few other notables on defense, to say nothing of any line players they may have had injuries. And I think they have managed to win a few games this year.

I'm going to try to do this because I'm pretty interested also. If I come up with something substancial, I'll open a thread for it.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I think if they were both in the game, and Campbell didn't have those two costly fumbles yes we could have won.

I don't know if I agree that we would have won, but if we had scored and not fumbled, and gone into halftime 17-7, that would have made a HUGE difference.

I just hope we can compartmentalize this loss and move on. If we get down on ourselves and let this carry over, it could be disastrous.

[dgack]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I'm going to try to do this because I'm pretty interested also. If I come up with something substancial, I'll open a thread for it.

So it's pretty easy to quantify the loss of production out of a back. On the defensive side, you should be able to quantify loss of production by taking the inverse (i.e., the loss of a negative force is a positive one). So big plays given up, takeaways, etc.

How to quantify the effects of an O-Line? Sacks, YPC average, anything else?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by dgack

So it's pretty easy to quantify the loss of production out of a back. On the defensive side, you should be able to quantify loss of production by taking the inverse (i.e., the loss of a negative force is a positive one). So big plays given up, takeaways, etc.

How to quantify the effects of an O-Line? Sacks, YPC average, anything else?

I'd have to compute the value for every player in a numerical way. It can be done of course, but there'd be a bit of subjectivity it in.

I wouldn't be able to do it for all teams, just the Redskins and a few others.

If you have a few teams you'd like me to compare to, just name em off.

[dgack]

I might be able to help run some of the numbers. What's your data source?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by dgack

I might be able to help run some of the numbers. What's your data source?

I'd probably use DPAR (Defense adjusted points above replacement) since Football Outsiders already scales their numbers to equal points in a football game.

FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Football analysis and NFL stats for the Moneyball era - Authors of Pro Football Prospectus 2007

For the offensive lines I'd probably come up with a total value for the line, and attempt to assign a responsibility to each position, but that could get real messy real fast. OLs are always tough to apply numbers to.

I think you could find each players contribution if you averaged their four most recent seasons. That would give a good idea.

[CHIEF CHUCKING MY SPEAR]

get over it were not that good. If we played in the AFC we would be one of the worst teams, but in the NFC we have a chance at 8-8. We played with a professional team on sunday and got our ass handed to us.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by dgack

I was just thinking it would be interesting to try and quantify in numerical terms the losses this team has sustained to key personnel throughout the end of last season and beginning of this one, as compared to any other team.

Perhaps the problem lies not in the number of injuries or even the specifics of who got injured, but that our talent isn't well distributed among the different strings of players.

Obviously first-stringers are supposed to be better than second-stringers, but it really does seem like we are a top-heavy team who has a huge dropoff in talent level (or experience, or both) beyond our starters. I'm sure this is true of many teams but it seems like the great ones, the successful ones, do not have nearly as much of a drop when players go out.

Indy, for example, lost Edgerrin James and Dominic Rhodes to free agency, Marvin Harrison to injuries, plus at least a few other notables on defense, to say nothing of any line players they may have had injuries. And I think they have managed to win a few games this year.

True enough. However, we are not Indy and JC is no Peyton Manning. For a team that relies on it's O-line to pound the rock, losing the starting right side of the line is devastating. Call it an excuse and say that we should have more depth if you like, but I cannot help but think that this team which ran the ball so well in 2005 and 2006 despite the lack of a passing attack is having a lot of woes because of its inability to run the ball behind a patchwork line.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by CHIEF CHUCKING MY SPEAR

get over it were not that good. If we played in the AFC we would be one of the worst teams, but in the NFC we have a chance at 8-8. We played with a professional team on sunday and got our ass handed to us.

We'd be one game out of first in the AFC North and in first place in the AFC West

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by CHIEF CHUCKING MY SPEAR

get over it were not that good. If we played in the AFC we would be one of the worst teams, but in the NFC we have a chance at 8-8. We played with a professional team on sunday and got our ass handed to us.

Where's the compassion for your favorite team? Ugh...nevermind.

[dgack]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

True enough. However, we are not Indy and JC is no Peyton Manning. For a team that relies on it's O-line to pound the rock, losing the starting right side of the line is devastating. Call it an excuse and say that we should have more depth if you like, but I cannot help but think that this team which ran the ball so well in 2005 and 2006 despite the lack of a passing attack is having a lot of woes because of its inability to run the ball behind a patchwork line.

Agreed -- I guess what I am saying is, given that we know we want to be a grind-it-out, smash mouth team, perhaps we have made the personnel mistake of putting most of our eggs into few baskets. Any of those key O-line personnel go out, and suddenly, our entire offense falls into disarray.

The Indy comparison was not meant to be a direct comparison to our team as we are vastly different, however -- it was meant to show how a team can lose people that are really key to their existing gameplan, and they either adapt a new plan and execute it, or other personnel step up and do a great job in relief.

[dgack]

Hey GTripp,

Speaking of which teams we should compare to, I'd love to see some analysis compared to Denver. The whole "CP is a system back" argument got me thinking about how well Denver has kept their run game together over the years.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I'd probably use DPAR (Defense adjusted points above replacement) since Football Outsiders already scales their numbers to equal points in a football game.

FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Football analysis and NFL stats for the Moneyball era - Authors of Pro Football Prospectus 2007

For the offensive lines I'd probably come up with a total value for the line, and attempt to assign a responsibility to each position, but that could get real messy real fast. OLs are always tough to apply numbers to.

I think you could find each players contribution if you averaged their four most recent seasons. That would give a good idea.

OK, heres what I found on the injury report:

The injuries to the offensive line are costing us about -.35 yards per carry (thats a lot). The adjusted sack numbers don't really look any different.

Portis' injury that he's trying to play through is crippling him. Normally, he's good for about 20 pts (above replacement) in a season based on the average of his prior three seasons in Washington. This year, hes on pace to finish at about 5 pts (above replacement), well below the league average. It's impossible to tell exactly how much of that decline is due to offensive line and not injury, but the Redskins line ranks 18th in FO's adjusted line yards, but 30th in yards/carry (Houston, Chicago). What's killing our yards/carry is the lack of long 20+ yard runs, and obviously you can't put that on the offensive line. Once a back is in the secondary.

I'd like to run some pass pro numbers after the Pats game is factored in, but that's going to take me some time.

Carlos Rogers' injury is not lethal in terms of pass coverage, because Smoot's splits are nearly identical against the pass. Against the run however, Carlos will be sorely missed. The outside runs are a weak spot on our defense, and we may need to start bringing Landry up into the box again to have a chance to stop it. That could open the floodgates.

Rogers' injury will mean that the Redskins have a replacement level dime back now. I have yet to quantify the effect of a dime back on his defense, but considering that Smoot and Prioleau were playing well in the nickel/dime roles, it's going to be a BIG dropoff. I'd estimate half a game in terms of W/L.

So here's my estimation on how the Skins' record has been affected by those 4 injuries: roughly 1.5-2 games worse off, which is pretty sizable.

[theBIGC_1982]

Well, I just saw a clip from the Redskins noon radio show. They asked Gibbs what's being done about all the hamstring and groin injuries. More stretching and less reps (because over working is causing muscle fatigue).

And I didn't catch when he came on board, but they now have a hamstring and groin specialist.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by dgack

Hey GTripp,

Speaking of which teams we should compare to, I'd love to see some analysis compared to Denver. The whole "CP is a system back" argument got me thinking about how well Denver has kept their run game together over the years.

This doesn't really answer your question....but:

In 2004, Reuben Droughns rushed for 1,240 yards at 4.5 per carry. Want to cite those stats as proof that Broncos backs are system backs? Well in 2005, Reuben Droughns rushed for 1,232 yards at 4.0 yards per carry with the Browns (who didn't have an O-line or a QB). In 2005, Mike Anderson was the Broncos rushing leader with 1,014 yards at 4.2 yards per carry. In 2006 he rushed for 183 yards at 4.7 yards per carry with the Ravens. In 2006, Tatum Bell rushed for 1,025 yards at 4.4 yards per carry. Bell is currently playing for the Lions and has rushed for 182 yards at 4.1 yards per carry.

As we all know, Denver had to go out and sign a aging big-name free agent with drug problems named Travis Henry. The Broncos haven't had anyone that has produced numbers close to Portis'. The Broncos have had a few 1,000 yard rushers, but it's not like they're producing Pro Bowl running backs every year.

In fact, between 2004 (the year Portis left Denver) and 2006, Portis rushed for more yards despite playing the early half of the of 2006 season with injuries and ending up on IR for the latter half of the season. Portis almost rushed for almost as many yards in two seasons as the Broncos leading rushers did in three.