Are smaller players more injury-prone?

[stan786]

I completely agree, I think calling someone shady for something like that is a tad aggressive is all. If you watch him talk he's incredibly thoughtful and humble. I just tend to defend guys when their character is pressed for something that's way smaller of deal long term like throwing at a combine. I get it though, as I said earlier I have no problem with people being size aware and using it as something in the calculus.

I have a bigger problem with the assumption he's automatically hurt at some insane rate is all.

[mrcompletely11]

Just now, stan786 said:

I completely agree, I think calling someone shady for something like that is a tad aggressive is all. If you watch him talk he's incredibly thoughtful and humble. I just tend to defend guys when their character is pressed for something that's way smaller of deal long term like throwing at a combine. I get it though, as I said earlier I have no problem with people being size aware and using it as something in the calculus.

I have a bigger problem with the assumption he's automatically hurt at some insane rate is all.

Again it is semantics but trying to deceive teams about your size is a bit shady imo. 

[Varking]

Just now, stan786 said:

I completely agree, I think calling someone shady for something like that is a tad aggressive is all. If you watch him talk he's incredibly thoughtful and humble. I just tend to defend guys when their character is pressed for something that's way smaller of deal long term like throwing at a combine. I get it though, as I said earlier I have no problem with people being size aware and using it as something in the calculus.

I have a bigger problem with the assumption he's automatically hurt at some insane rate is all.

I don’t think it’s him, completely, he’s being guided by folks to not compete at the combine, not reweigh during the pro days, etc. All these kids are getting advice from people they trust. 

[rayzor]

3 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

Its cool man.  You are not worried about it but our coach is.  Trust me having a different opinion is fine

Like I said before, his size does give me concern in his ability to see from the pocket and while he has adapted just fine to handle it, I'd rather not have a QB who relied on being mobile to properly scan the field. 

I'd be more than ok with it, but if I had to decide between the two and it was a pretty level playing field, I'd go with the taller one.

I'm just not going to be paranoid about any QB getting injured more than any other one because from what I've seen, size doesn't matter. All it takes is one hit and they are done regardless of size.

[stan786]

1 minute ago, mrcompletely11 said:

Again it is semantics but trying to deceive teams about your size is a bit shady imo. 

I personally think if you think any team is deceived you arent giving them enough credit. This guys gonna go through so many physicals and background checks and have people around the program interviewed they are going to know exactly what he played at and where he's going to be capable of going. Getting to over 200 just showed he could eventually carry it imo and that was the hurdle he needed to pass.

[stan786]

2 minutes ago, Varking said:

I don’t think it’s him, completely, he’s being guided by folks to not compete at the combine, not reweigh during the pro days, etc. All these kids are getting advice from people they trust. 

Yeah I agree with this, the pre draft game is played by everyone, a lot of the top guys seem to want to min max their measurements or obscure them all together.

[DrowsyJungle]

1 minute ago, stan786 said:

I personally think if you think any team is deceived you arent giving them enough credit. This guys gonna go through so many physicals and background checks and have people around the program interviewed they are going to know exactly what he played at and where he's going to be capable of going. Getting to over 200 just showed he could eventually carry it imo and that was the hurdle he needed to pass.

Getting to over 200 doesn't show that you can carry it. He didn't weigh in at his pro day. If he kept the weight he would've weighed in again.

[Ivory Panther]

20 minutes ago, Lame Duck said:

He missed games in both seasons with shoulder injuries from what I read.

can you share your read with us plz. I'm genuinely curious.

[Lame Duck]

Just now, Ivory Panther said:

can you share your read with us plz. I'm genuinely curious.

Someone shared insight after my post.  It was on one of the scouting reports that said he had recurring shoulder injuries in both years he started.  I mean… he’s 5’10 and most tackles will be in shoulder area.

[kungfoodude]

1 hour ago, MHS831 said:

Are smaller players more injury-prone?

There are many ideas about what makes a player more injury prone, and many people point to size as a possible culprit. Namely, some people claim that smaller players are more likely to get injured playing football because their bodies are less suited to handle NFL collisions. This is at least a fairly straightforward question to study, as originally done here. However, we should separate this by position group, as we saw in Part 1 of this series that different position groups have different rates of injury, and more mobile positions (RB, WR, DB, LB) tend to have the highest rate of injury, while less mobile positions (OL, QB) tend to have the lowest rate of injury. The overall injury rate by position is summarized in the table below. Remember than an Athlete Exposure (AE) is defined as a game played or a practice session in which a player was listed as a full participant.

Injury Rate By Position

Position	Injury Rate per 1000 AEs (Standard Error)
RB	20.7 (0.5)
DB	17.4 (0.3)
WR	17.1 (0.4)
LB	17.1 (0.3)
TE	16.9 (0.5)
DL	15.1 (0.3)
OL	12.8 (0.3)
QB	8.6 (0.4)
ST	4.4 (0.3)
Total	15.1 (0.1)

Clearly, if we just looked at injury rate vs weight, it would appear that smaller players are more likely to be injured, but that is only because the most injured position groups happen to have smaller, more mobile players. Having established this baseline, we can then plot the injury rate vs weight for each of these position groups.

For the most part, it actually looks like smaller players are less likely to be injured, not more likely. However, each graph has a slightly different pattern that is worth describing.

• DB is perhaps the easiest plot to interpret, and shows a clear increasing risk of injury based on size.
• DL shows a similar pattern, but the effect is not as large and it is overall a much flatter plot, indicating size is not strongly correlated to injury for DL. The up-down-up shape of the curve may be due to conflation of DEs and DTs.
• LB actually shows a slightly decreased risk of injury for larger LBs up until the heaviest weight category, which has significantly increased risk.
• OL shows a clearly increasing risk of injury based on size, except for the highest weight category, which has greatly decreased risk of injury (this may be the threshold at which OL can simply win with size).
• QB also shows a clearly increasing injury rate based on size.
• RB shows an increasing injury rate based on size up to a point, then a decreasing injury rate. This pattern may again be because two slightly different position groups (HBs and FBs) are being lumped in the same category together.
• TE also shows an increasing injury rate up to a point, then a decrease. It may be due to larger TEs being used primarily as blockers rather than pass catchers.
• WR shows a strong correlation between increased size and increased rate of injury, although the very smallest weight category of WR also had an increased rate of injury.

Overall, these data seem to indicate that smaller players are actually a bit less prone to injury within a given position group, although usage seems to play a much bigger role than size in determining injury rate. My big takeaway from this is not that teams should target smaller or larger players, but rather just that teams should not assume that smaller players are more prone to injury, as injury history is a much better predictor of future injury than size.

https://www.hogshaven.com/2019/6/22/18658887/understanding-injuries-in-the-nfl-part-3

 

 

 

Can we get a ban here, please?

I was told that only emotions and not statistics were allowed on this subject. 

After all, we wouldn't want anything objective inserted into a comically hysteria-filled debate.

It took what, a handful of posts before someone cried about this?

[Martin]

1 hour ago, MHS831 said:

Are smaller players more injury-prone?

There are many ideas about what makes a player more injury prone, and many people point to size as a possible culprit. Namely, some people claim that smaller players are more likely to get injured playing football because their bodies are less suited to handle NFL collisions. This is at least a fairly straightforward question to study, as originally done here. However, we should separate this by position group, as we saw in Part 1 of this series that different position groups have different rates of injury, and more mobile positions (RB, WR, DB, LB) tend to have the highest rate of injury, while less mobile positions (OL, QB) tend to have the lowest rate of injury. The overall injury rate by position is summarized in the table below. Remember than an Athlete Exposure (AE) is defined as a game played or a practice session in which a player was listed as a full participant.

Injury Rate By Position

Position	Injury Rate per 1000 AEs (Standard Error)
RB	20.7 (0.5)
DB	17.4 (0.3)
WR	17.1 (0.4)
LB	17.1 (0.3)
TE	16.9 (0.5)
DL	15.1 (0.3)
OL	12.8 (0.3)
QB	8.6 (0.4)
ST	4.4 (0.3)
Total	15.1 (0.1)

Clearly, if we just looked at injury rate vs weight, it would appear that smaller players are more likely to be injured, but that is only because the most injured position groups happen to have smaller, more mobile players. Having established this baseline, we can then plot the injury rate vs weight for each of these position groups.

For the most part, it actually looks like smaller players are less likely to be injured, not more likely. However, each graph has a slightly different pattern that is worth describing.

• DB is perhaps the easiest plot to interpret, and shows a clear increasing risk of injury based on size.
• DL shows a similar pattern, but the effect is not as large and it is overall a much flatter plot, indicating size is not strongly correlated to injury for DL. The up-down-up shape of the curve may be due to conflation of DEs and DTs.
• LB actually shows a slightly decreased risk of injury for larger LBs up until the heaviest weight category, which has significantly increased risk.
• OL shows a clearly increasing risk of injury based on size, except for the highest weight category, which has greatly decreased risk of injury (this may be the threshold at which OL can simply win with size).
• QB also shows a clearly increasing injury rate based on size.
• RB shows an increasing injury rate based on size up to a point, then a decreasing injury rate. This pattern may again be because two slightly different position groups (HBs and FBs) are being lumped in the same category together.
• TE also shows an increasing injury rate up to a point, then a decrease. It may be due to larger TEs being used primarily as blockers rather than pass catchers.
• WR shows a strong correlation between increased size and increased rate of injury, although the very smallest weight category of WR also had an increased rate of injury.

Overall, these data seem to indicate that smaller players are actually a bit less prone to injury within a given position group, although usage seems to play a much bigger role than size in determining injury rate. My big takeaway from this is not that teams should target smaller or larger players, but rather just that teams should not assume that smaller players are more prone to injury, as injury history is a much better predictor of future injury than size.

https://www.hogshaven.com/2019/6/22/18658887/understanding-injuries-in-the-nfl-part-3

 

 

I would think playing style would be a huge factor. Josh Allen will run a lot more then Drew Brees and expose himself a lot more to injury. A lot if the bigger QBs do run a lot. 

[ForJimmy]

12 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

Again it is semantics but trying to deceive teams about your size is a bit shady imo. 

He is probably just doing what his agent says. Young’s character is solid.

[stan786]

Just now, Martin said:

I would think playing style would be a huge factor. Josh Allen will run a lot more then Drew Brees and expose himself a lot more to injury. A lot if the bigger QBs do run a lot. 

Yeah I think thats why the curve for QBs goes up when they are heavier, they get put into more dangerous situations on purpose.

[MHS831]

1 minute ago, kungfoodude said:

 

Can we get a ban here, please?

I was told that only emotions and not statistics were allowed on this subject. 

After all, we wouldn't want anything objective inserted into a comically hysteria-filled debate.

It took what, a handful of posts before someone cried about this?