it is unavoidable. i believe the nfl did a study over the last 2 decades and on average 10 guys get hurt in every game.
the nyg have again had bad injury luck this year, but not as insanely so like past years. the stuff that's really killer is what's self inflicted like mckinney/atv and jackson/punt returns.
because i believe the study i'd seen was simply the number of players who leave games due to injury, not necessarily that they also missed games following the injury, but it gets a similar point across.
Quote:
Over the course of the 2015 NFL season, we have meticulously tracked player snaps and injuries each week throughout the entire league to produce the most accurate team ratings possible. One great side benefit of this process is the ability to analyze how often injuries occur, to whom they occur, and for how long they last. In this article we examine the injury rate over the course of the 2015 NFL season of all players that were on rosters at the end of the season.
Only injuries that resulted in a player missing games thereafter are considered. Only injuries occurring in Weeks 1-16 are counted because injuries following Week 17 would be unknown. Preseason injuries that lasted into the regular season are not included. Overall, 1794 players were examined (excluding kickers, punters, and long snappers). 882 separate injuries were recorded among the 688 players (38%) that missed at least 1 game due to injury. 45% of players managed to be available for all 16 possible games, while the remaining 17% avoided injury, but were not on a 53-man roster for all 16 games.
Teams start every season knowing roughly half of their starting lineup is going to play every game and the other half will miss time at some point.
Obviously there is an enormous incentive for all involved to have as few injuries as possible so you invest everything you can in prevention but when it comes down to it it's a violent game so you are mostly hoping that the real key players stay healthy, and the injuries that do occur are of the minor variety as opposed to season enders. https://www.profootballlogic.com/articles/nfl-injury-rate-analysis/ - ( New Window )
it is unavoidable. i believe the nfl did a study over the last 2 decades and on average 10 guys get hurt in every game.
the nyg have again had bad injury luck this year, but not as insanely so like past years. the stuff that's really killer is what's self inflicted like mckinney/atv and jackson/punt returns.
Contact injuries, yes. This noncontact stuff like getting your cleat stuck and torquing your knee is what needs to be hunted to extinction
No team has been injured and lost man games like us. There is something else at play here…training, strength and conditioning but it isn’t just bad luck.
I worry about Thursday. We might not score a point!
about it and being injured are not the same thing.
If the players don't like, don't trust the playing surface, that's a problem whether the metrics support it or not. They're the ones who have to go out there, and player health is a good part of the foundation for having a good season or not.
If baseball players don't like the field everything stops until they address it. Play stops in basketball when officials identify unsafe conditions. The only reason it's not this way in football is that we tolerate/expect injuries.
about it and being injured are not the same thing.
If the players don't like, don't trust the playing surface, that's a problem whether the metrics support it or not. They're the ones who have to go out there, and player health is a good part of the foundation for having a good season or not.
If baseball players don't like the field everything stops until they address it. Play stops in basketball when officials identify unsafe conditions. The only reason it's not this way in football is that we tolerate/expect injuries.
But there should be a reason, a factual reason, for why the Giants have what seems like more than average injuries and players complaining about the surface is not the factual reason.
Also, I refuse to believe NFL owners, regardless of what other uses the stadium has, ignore factual evidence about one playing surface being proven to be measurably more conducive to injury than another, and still forcing the use of that detrimental playing surface.
it is unavoidable. i believe the nfl did a study over the last 2 decades and on average 10 guys get hurt in every game.
the nyg have again had bad injury luck this year, but not as insanely so like past years. the stuff that's really killer is what's self inflicted like mckinney/atv and jackson/punt returns.
Contact injuries, yes. This noncontact stuff like getting your cleat stuck and torquing your knee is what needs to be hunted to extinction
and recency bias at best. I had a thread earlier in the year pulling together other studies and all them showed a higher prevalence of lower leg injuries on turf vs. grass, particularly non-contact. FieldTurf was the worst brand.
NFLPA demands a league wide change to grass and low and behold the NFL has a study that says grass = turf? Right.
RE: It's weird how posters here defend the turf...
Or are the Giants going to make you personally remove it?
that's what seems weird to you?
but it doesn't seem weird to you that people are claiming (as fact) that the field surface is responsible for injury without any evidence?
I wouldn't care if it was reversed and people were blaming grass, but if it were the field surface, why aren't the Jets, who play their home games on the exact same surface, close to as injured as the Giants?
Why aren't road opponents who play on the exact same field surface dropping like flies like the Giants players?
Why is it the Ravens, who play on grass, have lost more man games to injury than the Giants?
seems like if the surface is the culprit it would be simply proven, even if not a causal relationship at least the data should indicate it.
but it does not. the empirical injury data is sketchy at best and not indicating of a cause.
and that is why I think the ownership group(s) are not acting.
I fail to believe the owners of the Giants and Jets, billion dollar sports franchises, are simply ignoring what all the experts on here believe to be true just so they can host concerts and monster trucks in the venue and receive whatever income they get from that.
not sure why that seems weird that someone just doesn't buy into that narrative and you feel like they are defending the current field surface instead of simply seeking the truth/remedy
RE: RE: It's weird how posters here defend the turf...
not sure why that seems weird that someone just doesn't buy into that narrative and you feel like they are defending the current field surface instead of simply seeking the truth/remedy
I am still leaning towards something being "off" with our strength and conditioning. Too many soft tissue injuries for too many years.
This might have been discussed already, but the players' union chief
1. The Immediate Replacement and Ban of all Slit Film Turf
Just like there are different types of grass, there are also different types of turf (Monofilament, Dual fiber, Slit film). The slit film playing surface has statistically higher in-game injury rates compared to all other surfaces for each of the following:
Non-contact injuries
Missed time injuries
Lower extremity injuries
Foot and ankle injuries
There are currently seven teams that use slit film in their stadiums (New York Giants, New York Jets, Detroit Lions, Minnesota Vikings, New Orleans Saints, Indianapolis Colts, and Cincinnati Bengals).
The NFL and its experts have agreed with this data and acknowledge that the slit film field is less safe. Player leadership wrote a letter to the NFL this week demanding the immediate removal of these fields and a ban on them going forward, both in stadiums and for practice fields. The NFL has not only refused to mandate this change immediately, but they have also refused to commit to mandating a change away from slit film in the future at all.
2. No longer allowing games to be played on fields with clear visual abnormalities
Too often we see fields with clear issues that pose an increased risk to the players. Most recently, we saw the field in Tottenham that had a giant uneven seam right above the numbers. We should not be playing on anything but the best-quality playing surfaces. We saw this in Chicago and Las Vegas during the preseason as well, with chunks of grass torn up. This is an embarrassment.
The NFL might be quick to say something like, “those fields have passed their mandatory inspections.” While, again, this is a great PR spin, it does not address the need for safety improvements.
3. For players, it means we need to raise the field standards and test the safety and performance of all field surfaces.
The current mandatory field practices (or “MPs”) only evaluate the maintenance condition of the surface. This includes surface hardness. These standards are more than 13 years old. The results tell you nothing about how safe it is to play on the field.
We need to accelerate the joint development of new performance and safety standards that can be used to test every single field. The good news is that the NFLPA and NFL are currently engaged in research to, for the first time, establish these standards.
about it and being injured are not the same thing.
If the players don't like, don't trust the playing surface, that's a problem whether the metrics support it or not. They're the ones who have to go out there, and player health is a good part of the foundation for having a good season or not.
If baseball players don't like the field everything stops until they address it. Play stops in basketball when officials identify unsafe conditions. The only reason it's not this way in football is that we tolerate/expect injuries.
But there should be a reason, a factual reason, for why the Giants have what seems like more than average injuries and players complaining about the surface is not the factual reason.
Also, I refuse to believe NFL owners, regardless of what other uses the stadium has, ignore factual evidence about one playing surface being proven to be measurably more conducive to injury than another, and still forcing the use of that detrimental playing surface.
it defies logic
Followed through to it's conclusion then, whatever the explanation is will defy logic. Statistics dictate that, at this point
A) There IS a problem ( clearly)
B) It defies logic (clearly)
My best guess is, and has been, the playing surface. Players and the NFLPA agree, though I am no fan of either, but it's what those who play on it think.
If it was the turf, wouldn't the opposing teams (cumulatively) and the Jets be just as injured as the Giants?
No. They don't have the constant wear on them from it.
It may be there is a cumulative affect as opposed to simply an instantaneous one. Remember players from other teams get on it and instantly dislike it.
Playing on it constantly may require very slight and very subtle adjustments that would be hard to verbalize, yet still occur, and it may be that getting used to that style of turf
A) while perhaps minimizing the dangers of playing on met life turf, don't translate well to OTHER fields, resulting in in juries THERE as well, and
B) These adjustments may not be good long term, and add stressors that aren't normally see and may not be well understood
This is all speculation, I know nothing, but still I believe there may be a kernel of truth there. I think players are on to this as well.
about it and being injured are not the same thing.
If the players don't like, don't trust the playing surface, that's a problem whether the metrics support it or not. They're the ones who have to go out there, and player health is a good part of the foundation for having a good season or not.
If baseball players don't like the field everything stops until they address it. Play stops in basketball when officials identify unsafe conditions. The only reason it's not this way in football is that we tolerate/expect injuries.
But there should be a reason, a factual reason, for why the Giants have what seems like more than average injuries and players complaining about the surface is not the factual reason.
Also, I refuse to believe NFL owners, regardless of what other uses the stadium has, ignore factual evidence about one playing surface being proven to be measurably more conducive to injury than another, and still forcing the use of that detrimental playing surface.
it defies logic
It may also be that as with science, certain things are not understood well simply because there is no real method to measure and quantify. Doesn't mean there isn't a reason, but maybe we don't have established methods for measuring certain effects of playing on, or switching between different kinds of turf. The NFLPA certainly fdeels at this point they can make a case against Met Life Turf, even though we've been told for years statistics don't support that conclusion. It seems the NFLPA begs to differ. Maybe they are on to something.
It feels like a lot of the NYG injuries come because they play
Giants have had bad injuries for years since MetLife was built. The players shouldn't wear deep cleats as they get bound up in the substrate.
But also, overbuilding muscles as opposed to creating flexibility puts amazing load in joints which don't have a chance in hell. The trainers need to review the Knnes over Toes program on YouTube and learn how to build a stronger VMO. Squats and deadlifts are a dead end after awhile
RE: Turf is bad but also the trainer staff may be an issue
Giants have had bad injuries for years since MetLife was built. The players shouldn't wear deep cleats as they get bound up in the substrate.
But also, overbuilding muscles as opposed to creating flexibility puts amazing load in joints which don't have a chance in hell. The trainers need to review the Knnes over Toes program on YouTube and learn how to build a stronger VMO. Squats and deadlifts are a dead end after awhile
Isn’t this like the third training staff in the last 6 years?
RE: RE: It's weird how posters here defend the turf...
If it was the turf, wouldn't the opposing teams (cumulatively) and the Jets be just as injured as the Giants?
It’s taking a toll on guys knees and ankles, making them more susceptible to injury.
Quote:
As we've established
If it was the turf, wouldn't the opposing teams (cumulatively) and the Jets be just as injured as the Giants?
Opposing teams have complained before. I specifically remember the 49ers having a lot to say about it in recent years.
the nyg have again had bad injury luck this year, but not as insanely so like past years. the stuff that's really killer is what's self inflicted like mckinney/atv and jackson/punt returns.
Only injuries that resulted in a player missing games thereafter are considered. Only injuries occurring in Weeks 1-16 are counted because injuries following Week 17 would be unknown. Preseason injuries that lasted into the regular season are not included. Overall, 1794 players were examined (excluding kickers, punters, and long snappers). 882 separate injuries were recorded among the 688 players (38%) that missed at least 1 game due to injury. 45% of players managed to be available for all 16 possible games, while the remaining 17% avoided injury, but were not on a 53-man roster for all 16 games.
Teams start every season knowing roughly half of their starting lineup is going to play every game and the other half will miss time at some point.
Obviously there is an enormous incentive for all involved to have as few injuries as possible so you invest everything you can in prevention but when it comes down to it it's a violent game so you are mostly hoping that the real key players stay healthy, and the injuries that do occur are of the minor variety as opposed to season enders.
https://www.profootballlogic.com/articles/nfl-injury-rate-analysis/ - ( New Window )
the nyg have again had bad injury luck this year, but not as insanely so like past years. the stuff that's really killer is what's self inflicted like mckinney/atv and jackson/punt returns.
Contact injuries, yes. This noncontact stuff like getting your cleat stuck and torquing your knee is what needs to be hunted to extinction
I worry about Thursday. We might not score a point!
If the players don't like, don't trust the playing surface, that's a problem whether the metrics support it or not. They're the ones who have to go out there, and player health is a good part of the foundation for having a good season or not.
If baseball players don't like the field everything stops until they address it. Play stops in basketball when officials identify unsafe conditions. The only reason it's not this way in football is that we tolerate/expect injuries.
Quote:
about it and being injured are not the same thing.
If the players don't like, don't trust the playing surface, that's a problem whether the metrics support it or not. They're the ones who have to go out there, and player health is a good part of the foundation for having a good season or not.
If baseball players don't like the field everything stops until they address it. Play stops in basketball when officials identify unsafe conditions. The only reason it's not this way in football is that we tolerate/expect injuries.
But there should be a reason, a factual reason, for why the Giants have what seems like more than average injuries and players complaining about the surface is not the factual reason.
Also, I refuse to believe NFL owners, regardless of what other uses the stadium has, ignore factual evidence about one playing surface being proven to be measurably more conducive to injury than another, and still forcing the use of that detrimental playing surface.
it defies logic
Or are the Giants going to make you personally remove it?
Quote:
it is unavoidable. i believe the nfl did a study over the last 2 decades and on average 10 guys get hurt in every game.
the nyg have again had bad injury luck this year, but not as insanely so like past years. the stuff that's really killer is what's self inflicted like mckinney/atv and jackson/punt returns.
Contact injuries, yes. This noncontact stuff like getting your cleat stuck and torquing your knee is what needs to be hunted to extinction
Agreed completely.
Or are the Giants going to make you personally remove it?
Some of us prescribe to the notion that NFL players are taking bodies to the absolute limit and most non contact injuries are a result of this.
NFLPA demands a league wide change to grass and low and behold the NFL has a study that says grass = turf? Right.
Or are the Giants going to make you personally remove it?
that's what seems weird to you?
but it doesn't seem weird to you that people are claiming (as fact) that the field surface is responsible for injury without any evidence?
I wouldn't care if it was reversed and people were blaming grass, but if it were the field surface, why aren't the Jets, who play their home games on the exact same surface, close to as injured as the Giants?
Why aren't road opponents who play on the exact same field surface dropping like flies like the Giants players?
Why is it the Ravens, who play on grass, have lost more man games to injury than the Giants?
seems like if the surface is the culprit it would be simply proven, even if not a causal relationship at least the data should indicate it.
but it does not. the empirical injury data is sketchy at best and not indicating of a cause.
and that is why I think the ownership group(s) are not acting.
I fail to believe the owners of the Giants and Jets, billion dollar sports franchises, are simply ignoring what all the experts on here believe to be true just so they can host concerts and monster trucks in the venue and receive whatever income they get from that.
not sure why that seems weird that someone just doesn't buy into that narrative and you feel like they are defending the current field surface instead of simply seeking the truth/remedy
not sure why that seems weird that someone just doesn't buy into that narrative and you feel like they are defending the current field surface instead of simply seeking the truth/remedy
I am still leaning towards something being "off" with our strength and conditioning. Too many soft tissue injuries for too many years.
1. The Immediate Replacement and Ban of all Slit Film Turf
Just like there are different types of grass, there are also different types of turf (Monofilament, Dual fiber, Slit film). The slit film playing surface has statistically higher in-game injury rates compared to all other surfaces for each of the following:
Non-contact injuries
Missed time injuries
Lower extremity injuries
Foot and ankle injuries
There are currently seven teams that use slit film in their stadiums (New York Giants, New York Jets, Detroit Lions, Minnesota Vikings, New Orleans Saints, Indianapolis Colts, and Cincinnati Bengals).
The NFL and its experts have agreed with this data and acknowledge that the slit film field is less safe. Player leadership wrote a letter to the NFL this week demanding the immediate removal of these fields and a ban on them going forward, both in stadiums and for practice fields. The NFL has not only refused to mandate this change immediately, but they have also refused to commit to mandating a change away from slit film in the future at all.
2. No longer allowing games to be played on fields with clear visual abnormalities
Too often we see fields with clear issues that pose an increased risk to the players. Most recently, we saw the field in Tottenham that had a giant uneven seam right above the numbers. We should not be playing on anything but the best-quality playing surfaces. We saw this in Chicago and Las Vegas during the preseason as well, with chunks of grass torn up. This is an embarrassment.
The NFL might be quick to say something like, “those fields have passed their mandatory inspections.” While, again, this is a great PR spin, it does not address the need for safety improvements.
3. For players, it means we need to raise the field standards and test the safety and performance of all field surfaces.
The current mandatory field practices (or “MPs”) only evaluate the maintenance condition of the surface. This includes surface hardness. These standards are more than 13 years old. The results tell you nothing about how safe it is to play on the field.
We need to accelerate the joint development of new performance and safety standards that can be used to test every single field. The good news is that the NFLPA and NFL are currently engaged in research to, for the first time, establish these standards.
It’s ridiculous at this point. It’s an organizational problem.
It’s taking a toll on guys knees and ankles, making them more susceptible to injury.
Quote:
In comment 15915521 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
about it and being injured are not the same thing.
If the players don't like, don't trust the playing surface, that's a problem whether the metrics support it or not. They're the ones who have to go out there, and player health is a good part of the foundation for having a good season or not.
If baseball players don't like the field everything stops until they address it. Play stops in basketball when officials identify unsafe conditions. The only reason it's not this way in football is that we tolerate/expect injuries.
But there should be a reason, a factual reason, for why the Giants have what seems like more than average injuries and players complaining about the surface is not the factual reason.
Also, I refuse to believe NFL owners, regardless of what other uses the stadium has, ignore factual evidence about one playing surface being proven to be measurably more conducive to injury than another, and still forcing the use of that detrimental playing surface.
it defies logic
A) There IS a problem ( clearly)
B) It defies logic (clearly)
My best guess is, and has been, the playing surface. Players and the NFLPA agree, though I am no fan of either, but it's what those who play on it think.
Quote:
As we've established
If it was the turf, wouldn't the opposing teams (cumulatively) and the Jets be just as injured as the Giants?
No. They don't have the constant wear on them from it.
It may be there is a cumulative affect as opposed to simply an instantaneous one. Remember players from other teams get on it and instantly dislike it.
Playing on it constantly may require very slight and very subtle adjustments that would be hard to verbalize, yet still occur, and it may be that getting used to that style of turf
A) while perhaps minimizing the dangers of playing on met life turf, don't translate well to OTHER fields, resulting in in juries THERE as well, and
B) These adjustments may not be good long term, and add stressors that aren't normally see and may not be well understood
This is all speculation, I know nothing, but still I believe there may be a kernel of truth there. I think players are on to this as well.
Quote:
In comment 15915521 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
about it and being injured are not the same thing.
If the players don't like, don't trust the playing surface, that's a problem whether the metrics support it or not. They're the ones who have to go out there, and player health is a good part of the foundation for having a good season or not.
If baseball players don't like the field everything stops until they address it. Play stops in basketball when officials identify unsafe conditions. The only reason it's not this way in football is that we tolerate/expect injuries.
But there should be a reason, a factual reason, for why the Giants have what seems like more than average injuries and players complaining about the surface is not the factual reason.
Also, I refuse to believe NFL owners, regardless of what other uses the stadium has, ignore factual evidence about one playing surface being proven to be measurably more conducive to injury than another, and still forcing the use of that detrimental playing surface.
it defies logic
And now done.
But also, overbuilding muscles as opposed to creating flexibility puts amazing load in joints which don't have a chance in hell. The trainers need to review the Knnes over Toes program on YouTube and learn how to build a stronger VMO. Squats and deadlifts are a dead end after awhile
But also, overbuilding muscles as opposed to creating flexibility puts amazing load in joints which don't have a chance in hell. The trainers need to review the Knnes over Toes program on YouTube and learn how to build a stronger VMO. Squats and deadlifts are a dead end after awhile
Isn’t this like the third training staff in the last 6 years?
Quote:
...do you have stock in Field Turf Inc.?
Or are the Giants going to make you personally remove it?
Some of us prescribe to the notion that NFL players are taking bodies to the absolute limit and most non contact injuries are a result of this.
Actual NFL players disagree with you. Nearly every single player prefers to play on natural surfaces.