HoosierCat Posted February 18, 2005 Report Share Posted February 18, 2005 http://www.bengals.com/press/news.asp?iCur...=0&news_id=2760A must-read. The most ironic bit is Coyle giving the old "good teams overcome injuries" line, which is completely disproved by the chart earlier in the story! I have rarely seen a stat so directly correlate with winning/losing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FonzieDog Posted February 18, 2005 Report Share Posted February 18, 2005 I wouldn't say it is completely disproved. It shows the teams that had the most injuries were not able to win games. Obviously none of them were good teams that were able to overcome their injuries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted February 19, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2005 I wouldn't say it is completely disproved. It shows the teams that had the most injuries were not able to win games. Obviously none of them were good teams that were able to overcome their injuries. No, it shows that injuries can only be overcome on a very limited basis, which seems to be reached about the time that the number of starters knocked out hits four. Consider:Teams with 0-1 IR'd starters: 9# who went .500 or better: 9Teams with 2-3 IR'd starters: 12# who went .500 or better: 8Teams with 4+ IR'd starters: 11# who went .500 or better: 0Teams can handle one starter going down. Two or three and your chances erode, but are still good. At four, you go all the way to the bottom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyline Posted February 19, 2005 Report Share Posted February 19, 2005 How many starters did the Pats have out this year? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AGrizzlyBaer Posted February 19, 2005 Report Share Posted February 19, 2005 three Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesbrooks21 Posted February 19, 2005 Report Share Posted February 19, 2005 You hit it on the head Joisey. In today's game with the free agency, there is very little quality depth and when people start going down especially around 4-5 like you said............that particular team is in trouble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShulaSteakhouse Posted February 22, 2005 Report Share Posted February 22, 2005 Luckily for the Bengals their back-up depth wasn't much different than the current starters that went down talent wise.Warrick was the biggest loss and TJ basically repeated his production as a WR, although he really didn't come on until the end of the year when Palmer started figuring things out...but they still missed Warrick's versatility I think.If anything this shows just how poor the over-all talent on the Bengals' roster has been for several years, versus some miraculous coaching job.As stated above NE lost 3 "stars" from their defense - including arguably the best CB in the game - and still won the SB.Completely meaningless article by Hobson...what's new. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walshfan Posted February 22, 2005 Report Share Posted February 22, 2005 Luckily for the Bengals their back-up depth wasn't much different than the current starters that went down talent wise.Warrick was the biggest loss and TJ basically repeated his production as a WR, although he really didn't come on until the end of the year when Palmer started figuring things out...but they still missed Warrick's versatility I think.If anything this shows just how poor the over-all talent on the Bengals' roster has been for several years, versus some miraculous coaching job.As stated above NE lost 3 "stars" from their defense - including arguably the best CB in the game - and still won the SB.Completely meaningless article by Hobson...what's new. Not entirerly meaningless, NE lost 3 starters which put them in a low percentage of teams that won more that 50% of their games.. One more starter and they'd have bit the dust as all the others did.... Its not how many with these teams per say... Its WHO you lose... If we were to lose Braham ( which we did and had a losing record without him), Bobo Williams, Nate Webster ( again) and Kim Herring our chances of above .500 would be greater than say Palmer, big Willie, Levi and Simmons imo...Its Who goes down not exactly how many imo.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ckj414 Posted February 22, 2005 Report Share Posted February 22, 2005 Hardly a meaningless article, in fact I'd love to see a study done based on a larger number of seasons as to get more meaningful stats out of all this. Perhaps I'd be more likely to poo-poo this article if it hadn't reaffirmed my opinion of several teams, such as San Diego and the Jets.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.