Re: BB Blames Increase In Injuries Due To Practice Rule Changes
posted at 12/27/2013 5:52 AM EST
In response to shenanigan's comment:
In response to rkarp's comment:
did you even read the article, or because BB said i, it must be 100% correct? Let me mention some parts of the article;
What’s in question is whether injuries are, in fact, on the rise in the NFL, as Belichick suggested.
Though he didn’t cite specific numbers, Belichick said he was citing “a matter of record not opinion,” in saying injuries league-wide have been on the rise over the past three years.
League spokesman Michael Signora disputed Belichick’s assertions.
“We carefully monitor player injuries,” Signora said. “There is no evidence that the new work rules have had an adverse effect on the injury rate or that injuries have in fact increased.”
The NFL declined to released its numbers. But according to STATS, the number of NFL players finishing a season on injured reserve has risen significantly over the past 14 seasons.
From 2000-06, there was an average of 239 players on IR. That average has jumped to about 314 over the past seven years.
The low over that span was 192 in 2001, with the high being 353 in 2010, but that was before the new offseason rules came into effect.
As of Monday, there were 288 players on IR, the lowest total since 287 in 2008.
Those figures, however, don’t include players who have been on injured reserve and released by their teams during the season.
I simply ask the question, would the old rules regarding practice reduce injury? Common sense says no. The NFL says no. The data says no.
I stated I could see that the old practice rules could help teach better technique simply due to more reps. This indeed may help lower the rate of concussions. But how doesit lower the rate of broken bones and ACL/MCL injuries?
Be suspicious when given chopped up data. Notice they didn't give you the data. They didn't even give you the data post 2011 except for this year which they admit is high. Then they use an average of a completely irrelevant period (2000-2006 when we are talking post 2011). Ever hear about the man who drowned in a river an average of six inches deep?
Then, the data they did give you was for IR only while missed games would be the obvious stat. Is it true? I don't know. But I know two things, chopped up stats of partial averages compared to partial seasons of irrelevant stats don't give me confidence I'm getting the truth. And Billy football isn't known for shooting his mouth off at press conferences about things he doesn't know about.
Another poster put out the info yesterday, that there are 6-7 teams this year that have missed more starters games than the Pats.
The same info stated that the Pats have lost more starters games in 2010 and 2011 than they have this year.
Injuries are not up, they are simply more high profile this year for the pats than usual.
Reported concussions are up...but concussions are the black hole that the NFL is afraid of. Non concussion injuries are on par with other years.