Thread: Why Can't Bears Safeties Stay Healthy?......................

If we're voting on this I'll pick this one.

Another theory is that the physical demands of the position in the Bears’ defense are an adjustment, especially for young players from smaller colleges or former collegiate cornerbacks such as Conte and Hardin. Walters is all three — a second-year, small-college player (Delaware) making the transition from cornerback. It’s a lot more physical here than it is at Division I-AA, that’s for sure.’’

Quite a few of the Safeties the Bears have drafted over the years have come from small schools, not major Div. I college programs and Walters makes a good point. It's a hell of a lot more physical in the NFL then anything some of these guys experienced in college.

Add to that the fact that these three are former college CBs unaccustomed to the type of hitting as a CB they're required to do as a Safety in this defense and you have a recipe for injuries that will continue until they improve their tackling technique. I'd like to say that this is all a coincidence and maybe we all could except for one thing, this.

Brown, of course, is the poster boy for this phenomenon. Brown played in 65 consecutive games under Dick Jauron from 2000 to ’03. But in Smith’s cover-2, he missed 47 of 84 games in five seasons, finishing four seasons on injured reserve.

Did Mike Brown just suddenly become injury prone overnight when he'd never been before in his entire career? Why didn't that continue in his last NFL season in KC then too?

I don't really have an answer to it all but when in 8 seasons we've only started the same FS/SS combo just once in all 16 games, and no Safety has ever started more than 17 straight games, you gotta ask the question why? There has to be an answer somewhere and I hope they find it. I'm getting really sick and tired of watching this revolving door deal at Safety and seeing the major reason as players constantly getting hurt.

I was watching the game on Saturday up to the point where Hardin was injured following the injury to Conte and then I'd had enough. It pissed me off and I'm a little tired of the lame ass excuses from Lovie. Yeah, shit does happen but why does it happen to your Safeties a lot more than everyone else's? Maybe you should figure that one out huh?

Here's my theory. I posted it in another thread a couple of days ago.

I believe the game as evolved to where a safety has to tackle bigger/faster players than ever before. TE's are a big part of the game now, and they range between 250 upwards to near 300 pounds - and they can run as fast as RB's did not too many years ago. And there are bigger/faster RB's now too. Guys like our Clutts at 260 pounds, or Bush who is nearly 250. In fact, many WR's now are big boys, like our Brandon Marshall listed on our roster as being 230 pounds.

These guys bring a load.

And safeties are not so big (most of our safeties are ~190 to 210 pounds......Conte is listed at 203 pounds). So it's basic physics. We used to call it "Conservation of Linear Momentum" which is basically saying our safeties are like bugs hitting a windshield now. And the bugs (safeties) lose.

I believe we will always experience safety injuries. I'm glad we do have solid depth at the position.

Being a former Rugby player I fail to understand just why teams don't teach BASIC tackling techniques in practice. When executed properly these techniques actually prevent injury instead of causing injury. A real head scratcher IMHO.

Originally Posted by MPBears68

Interesting discussion (above posts).

JABF, yes you're correct and that's true. But isn't it true for every team's safeties? Is the size/mass differential affecting only the Bears? Is it peculiar to the Bears style of defense which relies heavily upon safeties?

I never thought about it. I'll see if I can find some data on this and report back.

Well, that blows my theory out of the water. Safety injuries are not THAT high as compared with other positions.

LINK to the article

Which NFL Position Groups Suffer the Most Injuries?

by Jason Kirk on Jul 7, 2010 8:00 AM EDT in Editorial

• 18 comments
• Email
• Print

I've been thinking about this since the Falcons drafted Corey Peters. While most of us here think it was a fine pick, DT wasn't a *need* in any obvious sense. If we'd drafted a guard, for instance, we could have an instant starter instead of the likely backup (for the time being) we have in Peters. However, could it be that certain positions tend to experience such turnover that teams must stockpile extra talent?


I had a strong hunch that defensive tackles get hurt more often than other players. How to test such an assumption? To the mathmobile!
At which position groups should teams collect the most injury insurance? Let's break down end-of-season injured reserve data:

The chart accounts for how many players of each position are usually on the field at the same time. This means that while about 10 NFL teams can expect to have a QB on injured reserve by the end of each year, about 24 can expect to have either a FS or SS on IR. 24 IR safeties, divided by 2 safety positions, equals 12 average IR players per safety position. (I'll explain more.)


A verdict: As we saw last year when Jason Snelling was our last man running for half a month, RBs get hurt a lot. It's no wonder their careers tend to be the shortest of any position group, while OL stick around forever. The difference between DTs and non-RB positions seems pretty substantial. Of course quarterbacks get hurt the least -- every NFL offense, except San Francisco's, is designed to protect the QB. Safeties are also pretty safe (LOL), perhaps because they're the least likely defender to face contact during the average play.




This also means that, in the average year, most NFL teams can expect to lose one of their DTs (or, even more critically, their NT) for the season. Thus, losing Peria Jerry for '09 was no surprise at all.


Here's how I came up with this chart (you can skip all the rest if you want):


Finding the numbers: I'm pretty confident in the best IR data available for 2009 and 2008, while 2007's came from an old post in a gambling forum I've lost the link to and can't find again. That last one might sound shady -- however, gamble bros care about accurate and up-to-date injury reports more than anybody. Plus it's not like the '07 numbers ended up way off from the other two. All three years were pretty consistent, with the only really alarming outlier being the massacre of '09 linebackers (a dozen more IR LBs in '09 than in '07 and '08 combined).


And fiddling with them: I added the number of IR players for each position group from '07, '08, and '09. If a player was listed as something vague like DB or DL, I gave both sub-groups (CB and S, and DT and DE respectively) half credit for that player. I divided the total for each position group by 3 (for 3 years of data), providing an average for each position group. You're with me so far.


I then divided that average by the number of players from each position group that are usually on the field at once. Let me explain that. There are always 2 OTs on the field, while there's always only 1 QB, smartass wildcat objections notwishstanding. So I divided the total number of OTs by 2 and let QBs ride. I also left C at 1 and divided G by 2, DE by 2, and S by 2, as that's how many players from each of these position groups are almost always on the field.


Things got trickier for offensive ball-handlers. Offensive coordinators have 5 spots to customize for each play, trotting out some combination of RBs, WRs, and TEs. If we had a set of really great data on how many of each type of ball-handler the average NFL team uses per play, that would be great. But we don't, do we? (Do we?)

I figured it would be best to guesstimate 1.33 RB, 2.33 WR, and 1.33 TE appear in the average formation. This takes into account everything from 2-back/2-TE sets to 5-WR sets. It might be skewed a little towards my pass-happy concept of the modern NFL, as a surprising number of teams may typically keep 2 RBs on the field most of the game. However, the divider for RBs must be smaller than 2, as no NFL teams run Paul Johnson's offense and plenty use 1 or 0 RBs at times. (Plus, even if we divide RBs by a full 2, It's still the most injured position group by far.) My formula is not perfect at all, and if you have a suggestion for how these 5 spots could better be allotted, let's hear it.


On defense, I had to account for the 3-4 and nickel packages. I actually divided LBs by only 3, since most teams do use the 4-3 -- and ~20 teams running 2-LB nickel sets on 3rd down likely more or less makes up for ~10 teams running 4-LB base sets on 1st and 2nd.
Next I divided DTs by 1.5 and CBs by 2.5.


Regarding 1.5 for DTs: first, many teams use the 3-4. Second, some 4-3 teams replace a DT with a coverage LB (3-3-5) or an extra pass-rushing DE when in nickel (as we used to do with DE Jamaal Anderson ... he's now a true tweener, so present-day Jamaal isn't the perfect example). I went back and forth on using 1.5 for DT, since using anything too small makes it look like I rigged the data to support what I'd wanted to support in the first place (i.e., drafting Corey Peters was smart because DTs get hurt more than anybody else), but the number has to be smaller than 2 to account for the 3-4. And 2 CBs is simply not enough, meaning the extra .5 has to come from somewhere. Can't take it from DE or S, as all common sets use 2 of each of these, and there are almost always more than 2 LB on the field. Let me know if you think 1.5 is too small of a number for DTs, but increasing it to 1.75 doesn't change its standing as the second-most IR-prone position group.


Regarding 2.5 for CBs: teams can have as many as 5 CBs on the field at once, and nickel sets have been base defenses in many games. If the extra .5 is off, it's quite possibly too small.


The total number of players expected to usually be on-field for each position group:

• QB: 1
• HB: 1.333
• WR: 2.333
• TE: 1.333
• T: 2
• G: 2
• C: 1
• DE: 2
• DT: 1.5
• LB: 3
• CB: 2.5
• S: 2

Caveats: Obviously this is only injured-reserve data. If we could include all the hundreds of Probables, Doubtfuls, Questionables, and Outs that surface during a season, who knows if things would change? Maybe certain positions are more likely to suffer small injuries and less likely to reach the IR.


My jimmy-rigged "players per position group on the field" formula can't account for special teams. Since more LBs play special teams than QBs do (you knew this, right?), this certainly nudges LBs a little bit higher on the chart. We could BS some percentages to throw in for special teams-intensive position groups. Then again, half the point of drafting a sixth-round LB is having another guy to throw at kick returners, so maybe special teams should just be thought of as a hazard that comes with not playing quarterback. Suggestions?


I still have all the data, so we'll break this out again next year with another season of data to add and hopefully a formula tweaked by your comments. Holler.

Originally Posted by JustAnotherBearsFan99

Here's my theory. I posted it in another thread a couple of days ago.

I believe the game as evolved to where a safety has to tackle bigger/faster players than ever before. TE's are a big part of the game now, and they range between 250 upwards to near 300 pounds - and they can run as fast as RB's did not too many years ago. And there are bigger/faster RB's now too. Guys like our Clutts at 260 pounds, or Bush who is nearly 250. In fact, many WR's now are big boys, like our Brandon Marshall listed on our roster as being 230 pounds.

These guys bring a load.

And safeties are not so big (most of our safeties are ~190 to 210 pounds......Conte is listed at 203 pounds). So it's basic physics. We used to call it "Conservation of Linear Momentum" which is basically saying our safeties are like bugs hitting a windshield now. And the bugs (safeties) lose.

I believe we will always experience safety injuries. I'm glad we do have solid depth at the position.

Which is why we keep having to draft "bugs" in the 3rd round every year which the causes some of the "faithful" to protest screaming, "what another bug"? It's getting like Lovie is a sixteen year old kid who keeps wrecking his car but we just go out and buy him another one!

I do understand the "physics" involved but damn we need to do something about this. Conte and Hardin are both a little bigger than a few who have come before them and we still keep wrecking these guys every year and the Mike Brown thing is a little disturbing too.

Maybe that's just a coincidence but speaking symbolically here ya' know if the only time I ever get sick is when YOU come around then I'm not letting YOU come around much anymore. Right? Michael Bush isn't the guy being used as a "battering ram", it's our Safeties by the look of it.

We need to armor plate these guys and start teaching them how to protect themselves from injury or Safety continues to be a revolving door deal in Chicago. It's either that or we draft and play guys like Steltz who has a neck as big as a tree trunk or turn guys like Kyle Adams into 250lb Safeties. Damn, this is getting frustrating!

GREAT FIND !!
Thanks for sharing this.

Originally Posted by JustAnotherBearsFan99

Well, that blows my theory out of the water. Safety injuries are not THAT high as compared with other positions.

No, just ours.