Here's your Gosselin article on injuries

[C'est La Vie]

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon.../nfl/stories/011008dnspogosselin.2b868ef.html

He calculates Colts lost 81 games by starters, 55 on defense. Interestingly, in 2003, Pats lost a league high 87, on the way to a SuperBowl win. 55, 67, and 46 are the Pats subsequent years.

Obviously, the way he tallies his numbers differ, since I have seen numbers as high as 103 for the Pats. Wilson (Indy Star writer), had us down for mid 90's thise season.

In any event, I think this non-partisan view illustrates that the Colts lost enough guys this season to make it a worthy topic of conversation.

Not flaming here, just intersting numbers.

 

[Tommysgirl]

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon.../nfl/stories/011008dnspogosselin.2b868ef.html

He calculates Colts lost 81 games by starters, 55 on defense. Interestingly, in 2003, Pats lost a league high 87, on the way to a SuperBowl win. 55, 67, and 46 are the Pats subsequent years.

Obviously, the way he tallies his numbers differ, since I have seen numbers as high as 103 for the Pats. Wilson (Indy Star writer), had us down for mid 90's thise season.

In any event, I think this non-partisan view illustrates that the Colts lost enough guys this season to make it a worthy topic of conversation.

Not flaming here, just intersting numbers.

Nobody said you weren't injured. It was just funny to us all that when we were decimated, it was all part of the game. When the bug finally hit the Colts, it became an excuse. Colts fans kept insisting nobody has ever been as injured as them. The proof is in the pudding.

 

[Mooch]

Wow, the Jags had ONE guy start all 16 games and still went 11-5? That's pretty impressive.

 

[Amnorix]

Among other things, this article suggests the Titans overperformed a bit this year. They can't exact to have so few injuries again next year.

 

[C'est La Vie]

Nobody said you weren't injured. It was just funny to us all that when we were decimated, it was all part of the game. When the bug finally hit the Colts, it became an excuse. Colts fans kept insisting nobody has ever been as injured as them. The proof is in the pudding.

Well, actually, many said that there was no way Colts were injured as much as the [insert Patriot season here]. Not sure that anyone has stated verbatim that no one has ever been as injured as this seasons Colts. And while many talk about the what ifs, I don't think that the majority of the fan base is using it as an excuse. However, if attacked, perhaps they reference those facts.

The '03 season for the Pats certainly WAS remarkable. Heck, they won it all. This season for the Colts is yet to be determined, but given the off season losses (before injuries), I think it makes this years achievements equally remarkable.

Wonder if anyone has evaluated the value of each starter lost. For example, if Brady or Manning were to go down, it counts as "one", the same as if a guy like Rookie DT Ed Johnson goes down. But obviously, losing a franchise QB is a much bigger loss than losing a rookie D-lineman.

 

[Bertil]

In an interesting aside, the number of games lost by Patriots starters is inversely proportional to games missed by guard Stephen Neal.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon.../nfl/stories/011008dnspogosselin.2b868ef.html

He calculates Colts lost 81 games by starters, 55 on defense. Interestingly, in 2003, Pats lost a league high 87, on the way to a SuperBowl win. 55, 67, and 46 are the Pats subsequent years.

Obviously, the way he tallies his numbers differ, since I have seen numbers as high as 103 for the Pats. Wilson (Indy Star writer), had us down for mid 90's thise season.

In any event, I think this non-partisan view illustrates that the Colts lost enough guys this season to make it a worthy topic of conversation.

Not flaming here, just intersting numbers.

The bulk of the missed games were defensive players, yet almost anytime I hear Colts fans using this as an excuse it is to defend the play of Manning and he missing players around him.

 

[MassPats38]

The article is unbiased, but he doesn't indicate how he calculates his numbers. Are major pre-season IRs factored in, or just those remaining on the roster? Does Colvin count as lost games, or does the clock start when he is inactive but on the roster so therefore the statistic would show 0 missed games for him this season despite missing all the games when he went IR? It is a figure that can misrepresent the inury damage to a team.

I will add the Colts have done well this season despite losing Freeney and McFarland and having Harrison, Clark and Gonzalez miss games due to injuries. At the same time, I would not make too much of that record as the Patriots lost Colvin (starting LB), Morris (solid RB, arguably starting), Chad Scott (arguably in the starting secondary mix), and Seymour for much of the season and still finished ahead of them. The Superbowl season was noteworthy as the Patriots took so much injury damage (not lost days, lost bodies - few to none of the secondary were available for duty) as to deplete the free agent pool and require a receiver to play secondary.

Again, every team has injuries and either win or lose in the playoffs with what they have. Dallas is trying to win without a healthy Owens and Glenn, and nobody will throw them a pity party if they lose to the Giants. Such is the NFL.

 

[C'est La Vie]

The bulk of the missed games were defensive players, yet almost anytime I hear Colts fans using this as an excuse it is to defend the play of Manning and he missing players around him.

Nothing really to defend about his play. SD was bad, and most of those are on him, as he owned up to. IMO, Moorehead, Fletch, Utecht are veteran enough that they should probably have performed better. Morehead dropped a bomb in his breadbasket that would have given the Colts the lead. Oh well. The point you make relates directly to the value of starters lost. Ugoh (LT) is a pretty important piece to pass protection. We though Charlie could handle it, but he's look bad in that spot. Obviously, losing Marvin is not good, but Reggie certainly picked up his slack. It was when guys like Gonzo or Clark were out that really magnified things, becuase no one was there to fill the void vacated by Reggie filling Marvin's spot.

Bottom line point is that 87 or 81, that's a lot of time lost. However, in addition, losing David, June, Harper, Doss, Tarik and Rhodes (probably missed one or two) BEFORE these other injuries makes this season ebven that much more gratifying for Colts fans. I will admit though, I was in the "addition by subtraction" camp, which many outside the Indy fanbase weren't buying at the time.

 

[theflinger]

Good work, C'est. I do think that the tallies are calculated a little differently than I'd expect, but it's still very worthy.

Just to clear this up, I don't think anyone would say that the Colts haven't had a lot of injuries. We all know that. We just expect, as Patriot fans who have gone through it already, that the Colts would not use that as an excuse. To their credit, they are showing off their depth just like the 2003-2004 SB champion Patriots did.

As for dropped balls costing games, well, that happens. Even Randy Moss drops balls right in the breadbasket. No excuses, just wins.

 

[C'est La Vie]

Good work, C'est. I do think that the tallies are calculated a little differently than I'd expect, but it's still very worthy.

Just to clear this up, I don't think anyone would say that the Colts haven't had a lot of injuries. We all know that. We just expect, as Patriot fans who have gone through it already, that the Colts would not use that as an excuse. To their credit, they are showing off their depth just like the 2003-2004 SB champion Patriots did.

As for dropped balls costing games, well, that happens. Even Randy Moss drops balls right in the breadbasket. No excuses, just wins.

I'm with you, no excuses. But you know how it is, ball in hand, in stride, end zone 2 yards away

Again, not implying anything one way or another. Just an interesting part of the season. IIRC, Pitt was rolling along, with few injuries, then they piled up a bit on the back half of the year. Even so, they had relatively few for the year. Think Juron did a pretty impressive job with the Bills.

 

[Isaac]

Anyone catch that the Jets were the second-healthiest team in football. :bricks: That's hilarious! Ouch! What's going to happen to that team when they have at least average injuries?!?

 

[theflinger]

I'm with you, no excuses. But you know how it is, ball in hand, in stride, end zone 2 yards away

Again, not implying anything one way or another. Just an interesting part of the season. IIRC, Pitt was rolling along, with few injuries, then they piled up a bit on the back half of the year. Even so, they had relatively few for the year. Think Juron did a pretty impressive job with the Bills.

Oh, I know how it is. I don't forget Reche so easily!

Injuries are definitely part of the game. Pittsburgh's injuries hit them where they had no depth- Anthony instead of Troy = trouble!