(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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. 

(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.

(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.

(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.