Extreme amount of Safety injuries?

[stevew]

Maybe it's just me, but honestly it seems as if every year I need to keep at least 5 good safeties around to cover for the inevitable injuries. I'm only playing on the 100 injury setting as well. Right now my top 4 safeties are all out for the rest of the year with 10+ week injuries. I guess I don't notice as many injuries at any other position group....god forbid I keep 2 good safeties healthy all year.

[ReiperXHC]

I'm not an expert or anything, but it seems like you're just having bad luck at that position at the moment. I have my inj set to 200, and, though my safetys get injured, and I keep a lot of backups, I never have the problem of them ALL being injured for 10+ weeks.

Hope things get better for you.

-Reip

[Gallifrey]

This has happened to me too. I have safety injuries all year long, for long periods each.

[stevew]

It could just be the roster file I'm using, but it seems like quite a few of the top safeties in my league have a pretty long injury history. As in everyone with >2 years experience in the sort page had several injuries, varying in severity.

[ReiperXHC]

Maybe they weigh too much? Or too little? (I have no idea if bulking up or trimming down would even effect this, or what it even effects.)

I would think in terms of realism, if you have somebody who's just too big, he might injure his knees/back etc. a little more. Of if he's too small, the big guys running into him or something.....blah....I don't know.

Just talkin' out my ass here now....btw...anybody know what all "exactly" lifting weights in the off season accomplishes?

Right now I just bulk up or trim down and get as close to "average" in mass/body ratio as possible...is this a good strategy? lol

-Reip

[Subby]

I have seen a couple of tests that suggest weight only effects position switching success.

In other words, you could have an offensive line that averaged 150 lbs with little to no penalty to your run game.

[gstelmack]

I have seen a couple of tests that suggest weight only effects position switching success.

In other words, you could have an offensive line that averaged 150 lbs with little to no penalty to your run game.

FWIW, if accurate, it contradicts the help file which says:

Players who are at the ideal weight for their positions will perform better.

[ReiperXHC]

So what determines Ideal weight? Is total weight "average for his positon" best? What if most of the players in that position by some fluke are lighter or heavier than "ideal"

Or is it Weight/Body ratio?

It does seem though that most of the time whenever I get weight/body ratio to average (which is what I go after) the actually "weight" is usually average too. So probably not a real big deal.

Thought it totally would be sweet to find out what kinds of things this could affect other than "perform better".

It seems that everything in this game is about "performing better" lol.

-Reip

[Subby]

Well that would not be the first time the help file has been contradicted. :)

[gstelmack]

What I would actually love to see is a table from Jim (so I don't have to go through and do this manually like I did in 2k4) that lists the height/weight/body mass ranges (min/max/ideal) for each position. It's grunt work for us to pull out (i.e. not fun but not difficult as all the data is there), but shouldn't be difficult for him to post or drop in the help file.

[Ben E Lou]

What we don't know is *how* much better they perform. I just ran a couple of quick "smoke tests" to see if a bunch of 300-pound WRs and DBs would suck. They don't. What the quick tests do not tell us is whether or not they performed a *little* worse. It's virtually impossible to test that with any certainty because of the way game files are generated. My guess on this is that there's diminishing negative returns for players that are well above/below their ideal height/weight, but that there are *some* negative consequences--just not as much as we might assume, or is realistic.

And to verify, yes, in the quick season to which Subby is referring, I got a middle-of-the-pack rushing offense with every player on the team weighing in at 150 pounds.

[Subby]

And to verify, yes, in the quick season to which Subby is referring, I got a middle-of-the-pack rushing offense with every player on the team weighing in at 150 pounds.
To be fair, that totally worked for the New York Giants.

In 1938.

[stevew]

So, back on the topic at hand. Is anyone else thinking "damn, my safeties are always hurt?"

It could just be the roster files, however.

I'll see what happens when I get into the realm of all computer generated guys. And most of my guys are 6-8 year vets, that could very well be part of the issue.

[Carman Bulldog]

I never really had injury issues with the 100 setting, but playing at 200 certainly takes its toll. It's not only Safeties, but I found all DB's get beat up more than any other position.

[korme]

Funny you mention that because just tonight playing I ended up with 6 safeties on the roster as 4 went down with long injuries.

Though this is the first time I have actually noticed an entire position group get malled like that in quite some time - add to the fact that I use a 200 injury setting, and two safeties were 12 year vets... not sure it isn't just a fluke.

[st.cronin]

Totally unrelated, but it seems like every time I start up TCY my initial roster has 4 senior safeties, and that's it.

[perez24]

Like a previous poster(s), it's not just the safeties but my corners get pounded a lot too.

However, the biggest area where I've seen injuries on my team are 1st round draft picks...particularly if they were a top 10 -15 pick.

[AlexB]

Like a previous poster(s), it's not just the safeties but my corners get pounded a lot too.

+1

[Sgran]

What we don't know is *how* much better they perform. I just ran a couple of quick "smoke tests" to see if a bunch of 300-pound WRs and DBs would suck. They don't. What the quick tests do not tell us is whether or not they performed a *little* worse. It's virtually impossible to test that with any certainty because of the way game files are generated. My guess on this is that there's diminishing negative returns for players that are well above/below their ideal height/weight, but that there are *some* negative consequences--just not as much as we might assume, or is realistic.

And to verify, yes, in the quick season to which Subby is referring, I got a middle-of-the-pack rushing offense with every player on the team weighing in at 150 pounds.

How did you run the tests? Just take normal WR and increase their weight or change the position of a bunch of tackles?

[ReiperXHC]

Come to think about it, I haven't gone and verified or anything, but I think that I do notice that my secondary gets handed the beat-down frequently.

As a matter of fact, I keep a lot of those guys (almost subconsciously) just for that reason. I mean good depth, not just lots of guys. If I have a guy rated in the 70's I usually have a couple backups in the 60s or 50s.

hmm.....

[BucDawg40]

Like a previous poster(s), it's not just the safeties but my corners get pounded a lot too.



Ditto. I usually start every season with 6 corners and 5 safeties.

[abal1221]

Like a previous poster(s), it's not just the safeties but my corners get pounded a lot too.

However, the biggest area where I've seen injuries on my team are 1st round draft picks...particularly if they were a top 10 -15 pick.

I've also noticed DBs tend to get alot of injuries.

Haven't had your problem with top 15 picks, but it seems whenever i sign a Free Agent Offensive Lineman or TE they suffer a serious injury within 2 years

[jkat]

You could try lowering the playing time of your starters at any position that gets hurt often. Also, you might want to lower the playing time of backups who have to take the place of an injured starter if their endurance isn't up to par. Otherwise you could quickly go from one injured player at a position to that player and one or two of his backups being injured.

First round picks who start right away are also often in bad situations as far as how their endurance compares to their playing time.

[cuervo72]

To be fair, that totally worked for the New York Giants.

In 1938.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/61/Fordham_football.jpg