Packer Notes: On Who's Out and Who's Returning

Glad to see the (probable) return of Matthews, Pickett, Starks, Bigby and Harris. Even if only half those guys are ready on Sunday, it’s still gonna be a major improvement over what we saw last week.

Once again, the 2010 Packers are emulating the 2009-2010 Portland Trailblazers.

we need you

from Bill Barnwell at Football Outsiders. He basically attempted to quantify some of the problems that a ton of injuries can cause (link):

Football Outsiders has developed several metrics for analyzing injuries; at the moment, the most powerful one is referred to as H.G.L., or History-Adjusted Games Lost. That metric builds upon eight seasons of data, from 2001 to 2008, to assign each game missed by a player a numerical value of "injury cost" based upon a set of variables. Those include the player’s role on the team, previous Pro Bowl appearances and the historical effect of injuries sustained by a player of a similar caliber.

Basically, those players that are more important to a team will accrue more adjusted games lost.

Huge shifts in a team’s won-lost record are almost always supported by a similar shift in their health. The formula suggests that 26 percent of a team’s change in wins from year to year can be attributed to the change in its rate of injury.

Not good news for Packers fans. While we had a few key injuries last year, we definitely didn’t have injuries en masse like we do this year.

Injuries played a huge role in determining success in 2008. Of the 10 healthiest teams in the league by H.G.L., seven made the playoffs, including the surprising seasons enjoyed by Atlanta (second-healthiest team in the league), Carolina (third), Miami (fourth), Tennessee (sixth) and Arizona (eighth). Meanwhile, only 2 of the 10 most-injured teams in the league made the playoffs: Indianapolis (sixth-most-injured team in the N.F.L.) and Baltimore (seventh).

Also not good news for the Packers. Luckily we play in a division nobody seems to want to win.

An injury to a starting running back rarely affects the team; the correlation between H.G.L. in a given season and that team’s rushing performance is virtually nonexistent.

This is generally what I think. Although I would have loved to see Thompson go after Lynch, Barber, or Williams, I think that rushing performance tends to rely more on blocking execution. Injuries to running backs are more sustainable than to WR or QB by comparison (at least in my opinion).

I think the Packers performance issues are being controlled by a lack of a pass rush, games where the offensive line struggles, and Aaron Rodgers looking a little more human.

slants and the screen plays etc..BJack and Khun are good recievers. You don’t need good running backs for the dink and dunk.

I expect Harris to come back well and make a big difference. Bigby I’m not so sure about. That ankle may never heal, and I’ll only believe it when I see it. He hasn’t been right since he hurt it.

Smith looked good when he was here last preseason, though. He might cost us here and there with his famous mental lapses, but there’s no doubt that he’s a player. He always aggressive and “up to something.” I like guys who are up to something.

And with Clay and Pickett back… I’m expecting a win this week. Cautiously optimistic.