I just came across this on Twitter, and I thought it was interesting.  Here is chart that shows the total amount of games missed (left to right) and the win total (up and down).



I can't exactly make out who had more injuries between us and teams like Tampa and Buffalo, as they're too close on the graph.  But I think we can all agree they're comparable in number.

Here are the teams who had less total injuries than us: Atlanta, Miami, Los Angeles, Indy, Arizona, Houston, Pittsburgh.

Here are the teams who had a comparable amount of injuries: Cincinnati, Buffalo, and Tampa.

That leaves the remaining 22 teams with more games missed due to injury than us. 

I've seen quite a few people compare our situation to San Fran.  You might want to rethink that (look at them on graph).  They had over 300 missed games due to injury whereas we had around 125.

I've long held the belief that our injury situation is completely overstated by some who look for reasons to defend our lack of success.  This seems to illustrate my point rather well.

(01-05-2021, 03:59 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: I just came across this on Twitter, and I thought it was interesting.  Here is chart that shows the total amount of games missed (left to right) and the win total (up and down).



I can't exactly make out who had more injuries between us and teams like Tampa and Buffalo, as they're too close on the graph.  But I think we can all agree they're comparable in number.

Here are the teams who had less total injuries than us: Atlanta, Miami, Los Angeles, Indy, Arizona, Houston, Pittsburgh.

Here are the teams who had a comparable amount of injuries: Cincinnati, Buffalo, and Tampa.

That leaves the remaining 22 teams with more games missed due to injury than us. 

I've seen quite a few people compare our situation to San Fran.  You might want to rethink that (look at them on graph).  They had over 300 missed games due to injury whereas we had around 125.

I've long held the belief that our injury situation is completely overstated by some who look for reasons to defend our lack of success.  This seems to illustrate my point rather well.

Look at everything Joe Judge had to deal with in the shit show that is the NY Giants...yet he managed to win as many games in his rookie year that Zac has won in 2. Is it it just a coincidence that every single coach hired with and since Zac has better win %?

The one issue I would have is that this is just counting total injuries and all players are not equal.
The Bengals did lose a ton of key players before and during the season.

This also shows that the good franchises are able to deal with the injuries better because they have better coaching/players/depth.

I won’t try and defend this teams last 30 years but I also don’t think the stats shown in the original post prove that injuries were not a big factor in how this season ended up.

(01-05-2021, 03:59 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: I just came across this on Twitter, and I thought it was interesting.  Here is chart that shows the total amount of games missed (left to right) and the win total (up and down).



I can't exactly make out who had more injuries between us and teams like Tampa and Buffalo, as they're too close on the graph.  But I think we can all agree they're comparable in number.

Here are the teams who had less total injuries than us: Atlanta, Miami, Los Angeles, Indy, Arizona, Houston, Pittsburgh.

Here are the teams who had a comparable amount of injuries: Cincinnati, Buffalo, and Tampa.

That leaves the remaining 22 teams with more games missed due to injury than us. 

I've seen quite a few people compare our situation to San Fran.  You might want to rethink that (look at them on graph).  They had over 300 missed games due to injury whereas we had around 125.

I've long held the belief that our injury situation is completely overstated by some who look for reasons to defend our lack of success.  This seems to illustrate my point rather well.

The Bengals didn't do a good enough mitigating risk when it came to their starters, and/or they really wouldn't have been very good even with most/all of their planned starters.

(01-05-2021, 04:15 PM)Clark W Griswold Wrote: The one issue I would have is that this is just counting total injuries and all players are not equal.
The Bengals did lose a ton of key players before and during the season.

This also shows that the good franchises are able to deal with the injuries better because they have better coaching/players/depth.

I won’t try and defend this teams last 30 years but I also don’t think the stats shown in the original post prove that injuries were not a big factor in how this season ended up.

The size of the circle is supposed to represent the quality of player... with that in mind, I think our circle is way too small.

(01-05-2021, 04:15 PM)Clark W Griswold Wrote: The one issue I would have is that this is just counting total injuries and all players are not equal.
The Bengals did lose a ton of key players before and during the season.  

This also shows that the good franchises are able to deal with the injuries better because they have better coaching/players/depth.

I won’t try and defend this teams last 30 years but I also don’t think the stats shown in the original post prove that injuries were not a big factor in how this season ended up.

Fwiw, it supposedly accounts for quality of player too.  It's represented by bubble size. (See note where they descibe it as cumalative quality of players)

I really don't know how they could calculate that (starters missed games vs backups, position value???), but they claim to.  Our bubble size is definitely on the smaller size.

(01-05-2021, 04:18 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Fwiw, it supposedly accounts for quality of player too.  It's represented by bubble size. (See note where they descibe it as cumalative quality of players)

I really don't know how they could calculate that (starters missed games vs backups, position value???), but they claim to.  Our bubble size is definitely on the smaller size.

Thanks I didn’t catch that but I was responding to you just talking about the quantity of injuries.
That is a tough thing to project. I guess Burrow is just a rookie so he’s lower than we think.

Still, this does show that there is a lack of talent on this roster in addition to the coaching issues.

Also have to take into account players we kept around that were clearly falling off in Green and Atkins.

Doubt they ever play like their old selves again, and it showed this season and this is also on the coaches.

We just have terrible coaches that cannot coach the next man up. All across the board terrible.

Every team has injuries and to even their best players.

We lost with Burrow as QB and lost after he was hurt. No matter the jersey numbers on the field, we take the L.

You can't look at injuries one dimensional like this. It is not just the number of games missed by injuries. It is when the injuries occurred and to whom they happened. For instance losing your starting QB for 6 1/2 games is more impactful than losing your nickleback for the same time period. Losing an entire position group can kill you.

(01-05-2021, 04:18 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Fwiw, it supposedly accounts for quality of player too.  It's represented by bubble size. (See note where they descibe it as cumalative quality of players)

I really don't know how they could calculate that (starters missed games vs backups, position value???), but they claim to.  Our bubble size is definitely on the smaller size.

But that's quality of injured players, not full roster.  So the Bengals lost less quality players than SF did.  Is how I read that, at least.  So to say that bubble size represents the Bengals as having a terrible roster across the board appears to be a false assumption based on the chart. 

(01-05-2021, 04:18 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Fwiw, it supposedly accounts for quality of player too.  It's represented by bubble size. (See note where they descibe it as cumalative quality of players)

I really don't know how they could calculate that (starters missed games vs backups, position value???), but they claim to.  Our bubble size is definitely on the smaller size.

Maybe it's due to our poor depth. I would definitely agree that injuries were overplayed when we had a better team...like the early Dalton/Green era, but this team has some pretty bad starters on it right now, and the depth is even worse. That 2015 draft was a huge setback, and they didn't really hit on much from then thru 2018. 

When you have a talent deficiency, and questionable coaching, you'll get you a nice big shit show.

Fwiw, I think the bubble size thing is way off. There is now way a team like Indy suffered a greater quality of losses than we did, when we're that close in the total amount of injuries.

I didn't really start this to debate a ton on quality of players lost, but only point out that when people act like our depth is completely decimated due to injury that's not factual. All teams deal with this.

We cannot blame injuries year-in and year-out. Hell, last year we weren't hit that bad. Yet people acted like being down AJ Green and Jonah Williams put us in some sort of unique category, where we never stood a chance.

NFL injuries are going to happen to every team, every year. You'll often hear ownership, a GM, or coaches utter the mantra, "Next man up." Meaning, players will play who were unexpected to start. The phrase is indicative of leadership taking accountability and saying having to rely on the "next man up" is not an excuse for losing.

That is not happening with the Bengals. They utter, "Injuries are to blame for why we do poorly" and use player injuries to be dismissive of their own failures and shortcomings as owners, GMs, or coaches. Posters here wanting to defend Zac's poor coaching performance of 6-25-1 on injuries are just living in fanciful dreamland of ignorance about why the Bengals suck.

(01-05-2021, 03:59 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: I just came across this on Twitter, and I thought it was interesting.  Here is chart that shows the total amount of games missed (left to right) and the win total (up and down).



I can't exactly make out who had more injuries between us and teams like Tampa and Buffalo, as they're too close on the graph.  But I think we can all agree they're comparable in number.

Here are the teams who had less total injuries than us: Atlanta, Miami, Los Angeles, Indy, Arizona, Houston, Pittsburgh.

Here are the teams who had a comparable amount of injuries: Cincinnati, Buffalo, and Tampa.

That leaves the remaining 22 teams with more games missed due to injury than us. 

I've seen quite a few people compare our situation to San Fran.  You might want to rethink that (look at them on graph).  They had over 300 missed games due to injury whereas we had around 125.

I've long held the belief that our injury situation is completely overstated by some who look for reasons to defend our lack of success.  This seems to illustrate my point rather well.

What team lost their starting QB and starting RB and tope Oline LT for the amount of games that Bengals did ? I think is understated about the impact of a few players hurt more than a number of players.

(01-05-2021, 04:26 PM)MileHighGrowler Wrote: But that's quality of injured players, not full roster.  So the Bengals lost less quality players than SF did.  Is how I read that, at least.  So to say that bubble size represents the Bengals as having a terrible roster across the board appears to be a false assumption based on the chart. 

I have no clue how they came up with that part of the graph.  Honestly, I think it's bs.  I don't think there's anyway to designate a legitimate numerical value to that without going into each and every player and assigning an overall rank, and then also assigning position tiers as well.

I will say this, there at least right on San Fran.  Anybody who thinks our injuries have been comparable (there's been quite a few who have said this) don't know a lot about their situation.  The guys they lost makes ours look small by comparison.  And they still won two more games than us.

(01-05-2021, 04:40 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: I have no clue how they came up with that part of the graph.  Honestly, I think it's bs.  I don't think there's anyway to designate a legitimate numerical value to that without going into each and every player and assigning an overall rank, and then also assigning position tiers as well.

I will say this, there at least right on San Fran.  Anybody who thinks our injuries have been comparable (there's been quite a few who have said this) don't know a lot about their situation.  The guys they lost makes ours look small by comparison.  And they still won two more games than us.

I must ask. Which do you buy into more, this chart or Sample = Kelce talent based on percentage of balls caught? 

(01-05-2021, 04:38 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: What team lost their starting QB and starting RB and tope Oline LT for the amount of games that Bengals did ? I think is understated about the impact of a few players hurt more than a number of players.

They were 1-4-1 in games where Burrow, Mixon and Jonah all played. 

(01-05-2021, 04:40 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: I have no clue how they came up with that part of the graph.  Honestly, I think it's bs.  I don't think there's anyway to designate a legitimate numerical value to that without going into each and every player and assigning an overall rank, and then also assigning position tiers as well.

I will say this, there at least right on San Fran.  Anybody who thinks our injuries have been comparable (there's been quite a few who have said this) don't know a lot about their situation.  The guys they lost makes ours look small by comparison.  And they still won two more games than us.

Agree on SF....I wonder how Covid opt outs affect things as well.

Often times with injuries it's quality over quantity.