[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by Big FN Deal

Hey DCEBB and anyone else that wants to chime in, I wanted to get your opinion on something I have been advocating for awhile. What's your thoughts on using the INJ rating to represent the more naturally frail positions and players? What I mean is that I feel like in general QBs, Kickers and Punters should have lower INJ ratings, as well as players of smaller stature, to denote the need to protect them in game. I think the QB/K/P reasoning speaks for itself and for the smaller stature players I oft use the example that Marvin Harrison explained that the way he was able to play so long and avoid major injury was by getting down to avoid the big hits. Of course there would be some exceptions to this, players like Rothlisberger and Janakwoski come to mind but for the most part I think this would encourage protecting the more vulnerable players/positions. Right now in the game, there is little to no reason to fear injury having a User controlled QB knocked down, sending a string bean receiver over the middle or having 180 pound DB hit stick a FB. What are some thoughts and opinions on using the INJ rating in a way to change this?

The INJ and TGH ratings on the FBG site are also the result of the scouting data. Basically, if the data says that a players INJ or TGH rating needs to be a 95, then we have to rate them as an 85. These measures, like all other FBG rating attributes, are relative to all players regardless of position. It is what it is, without having to account for the position a player plays.

I can provide you with a breakdown of the average ratings by position, however, to illustrate the numbers if you like:

INJ by position:
K: 81
P: 79
C: 71
QB: 70
WR: 70
DE: 70
CB: 70
OT: 69
OG: 69
DT: 67
FB: 67
S: 67
RB: 66
TE: 66
OLB: 64
ILB: 64
LS: 62

TGH by position:
QB: 74
TE: 69
LS: 69
DT: 68
RB: 67
FB: 67
C: 67
ILB: 67
S: 67
OT: 66
OG: 66
DE: 66
OLB: 66
CB: 65
P: 63
K: 62
WR: 61

When you compare both lists you can make a few assumptions:

1. Ks and Ps are by far the least likely to be injured. This likely has to do with the number of plays they play on the field and their proximity to the ball and the battle in the trenches.

2. Positions that utilize a lot of contact at speed are more susceptible to injury. It is the combination of SPD and contact that results in this correlation. The LBs, TEs, and RBs are the most vulnerable to this combination. LSs appear to be the lowest because of their vulnerability while snapping and sprinting down to cover punts.

3. WRs and CBs, because of their proximity to the trenches also are less likely to be injured. The fact that most WRs are facing defenders of comparable size (CBs and Ss) most of the time helps this.

4. QBs are less likely to be injured than all other offensive backs. Perhaps the new rules on the QBs has something to do with this.

5. QBs are TOUGH. They are above and beyond the toughest players on the field. They always have the ball in their hands on offensive plays (aside from the Wildcat and direct snaps) so the amount of contact they are susceptible to is high. However, they show more resiliency to injury than any other position group. QBs are a different breed. They are expected to stand tall, step up into a pocket bravely, deliver a pass, get hit, and get back up. Enough said.

6. All interior offensive backs (TEs, RBs, FBs,) are comparably tough to their interior defensive counterparts (DEs, DTs, ILBs, OLBs).

7. Ks, Ps, and WRs are the least tough of all positions, despite being less susceptible to injury. This is likely due to their proximity to the ball and tendency to shy away from contact on the outside. CBs also fit this group, but are required to engage in contact rather than avoid it.