Most injuries by NFL stadium

broughtupbears

Active member
Joined:
Sep 2, 2012
Posts:
440
Liked Posts:
156
Location:
In your head
I saw a study looking at injuries by type of field , but im wondering if there is anything that looks at just straight up by the stadium that has the most in game injuries.
 

Porkchop

Well-known member
Joined:
Jun 5, 2016
Posts:
661
Liked Posts:
607
I don't know, but the Bears were the most injury plagued squad in the league last year (and among the most the last 3 years total) and they play half their games on the Soldier Field turf that makes my unkempt backyard look like something you'd find on the front page of a landscaping magazine.

So I'd imagine SF is a safe bet.
 

xer0h0ur

HS Referee HoF
Donator
Joined:
Aug 20, 2012
Posts:
22,260
Liked Posts:
17,824
Location:
Chicago, IL.
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago White Sox
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
Teams and the league like to reference these studies but never seem to release them to the public. I sure as shit have never seen one.
 

Darnell Mooney

The Member
Joined:
Mar 22, 2016
Posts:
1,114
Liked Posts:
1,479
Location:
South Bend IN
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Notre Dame Fighting Irish
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-soldier-field-explosion-20180512-story.html?scrlybrkr=eed6db89

fire in chicago

DdA6awFXcAMdz8H.jpg

DdA6ZgyXcAUEqRq.jpg
 

Starion

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Aug 29, 2012
Posts:
4,217
Liked Posts:
2,669
Location:
Fort Myers, FL
Well, there's this, which debunked the theory that Soldier Field's grass is more dangerous. That loose grass is actually safer per the stats.

https://goo.gl/VmWaTn

See post #8 - counterbalanced study which removes the home team factor that would otherwise skew the results. A few CCS posters didn't understand that part, but it's as close to a good study as I've seen referenced.
 

JoJoBoxer

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 14, 2010
Posts:
11,577
Liked Posts:
8,008
Well, there's this, which debunked the theory that Soldier Field's grass is more dangerous. That loose grass is actually safer per the stats.

https://goo.gl/VmWaTn

See post #8 - counterbalanced study which removes the home team factor that would otherwise skew the results. A few CCS posters didn't understand that part, but it's as close to a good study as I've seen referenced.

Since Soldier Field had the 8th lowest lower body injury rate for visiting players (post #8 from your link) and the Bears were the most injured team for 2 years in a row, it must mean that the training staff was garbage and the Bears had bad luck.
 

broughtupbears

Active member
Joined:
Sep 2, 2012
Posts:
440
Liked Posts:
156
Location:
In your head
Question answered,

"Across the 4-year span that was studied, it had the eighth-lowest (lower leg injury) or ninth-lowest (overall injury) rate for visitor injury in the NFL. This suggests, pretty heavily, that Soldier Field is fine and that whatever combination of decision-makers dictate the continued use of grass actually do know what they are talking about in this case."
 

xer0h0ur

HS Referee HoF
Donator
Joined:
Aug 20, 2012
Posts:
22,260
Liked Posts:
17,824
Location:
Chicago, IL.
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago White Sox
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
People are mainly salty at the shitty maintenance of Soldier Field than anything else. Not to mention all the damn events held there tearing up the field.
 

Bearly

Dissed membered
Donator
Joined:
Aug 17, 2011
Posts:
41,084
Liked Posts:
23,409
Location:
Palatine, IL
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
Well, there's this, which debunked the theory that Soldier Field's grass is more dangerous. That loose grass is actually safer per the stats.

https://goo.gl/VmWaTn

See post #8 - counterbalanced study which removes the home team factor that would otherwise skew the results. A few CCS posters didn't understand that part, but it's as close to a good study as I've seen referenced.

How the fuck would including home team injuries skew the results. The point of league wide studies is acquiring the most data points. It evens out. Excluding the home team also removes the wear and tear factor of playing on that surface for a greater period. Home team injuries count as does the effects of more extended play on a given surface which is a very significant long term factor to safety. to a certain extent, that study it also removes the variability factor of our field that may be very safe at some point in the season and very dangerous at another. Playing on ice or very poor footing 2 weeks in a row or alternating weeks can can change the odds and it's not something you get from visiting teams. A field that has both high and low traction areas on the same day is a very dangerous thing and it's something we see here. To me, that's worse than any one condition situation where you can at least pick the cleat that has the right combo of traction and give.

By trying to not skew results they have actually accomplished the opposite effect to get a result. I have seen college studies with a much greater data resource and opposite results. It's all about how you gather the data. The right way to grade something is to use all of the data. You 'll get closer the correct result than you will by stacking a deck.

For me, it's less about grass vs turf than it is about consistency and durability. That can be done with grass in this climate but not under our circumstances of use and field construction.
 

SERE Bear

Drinking da Bears better
Donator
Joined:
Aug 20, 2012
Posts:
6,636
Liked Posts:
6,775
I actually heard it was us, the Bears McCaskey's need to stop being cheap and get their own stadium. I always wished for a dome


When I was younger I hated the idea of a dome but now I have grown out of that way of thinking. A dome in December sounds fantastic.
 

botfly10

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Jun 19, 2011
Posts:
32,868
Liked Posts:
26,844
People are mainly salty at the shitty maintenance of Soldier Field than anything else. Not to mention all the damn events held there tearing up the field.

People were salty during the Lovie era when the team prioritized speed in a read and swarm D. The perception was that Soldier Field was a slower surface and that hurt the D. This perception was echoed at least a couple times by players talking about playing on faster surfaces in away games in a positive light. Whether that perception is reality, I don't know, but that is where the criticisms first originated.

Where the idea of a sloppy field leading to more injuries came from is a mystery to me. To me, the idea is dumb. I would think a sloppy field would lead to less injuries. I would be much more concerned about artificial surfaces not providing as much cushion or causing cleats to stick.
 

Bearly

Dissed membered
Donator
Joined:
Aug 17, 2011
Posts:
41,084
Liked Posts:
23,409
Location:
Palatine, IL
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
Watson took out his knee by stepping in a low spot during a rollout in practice. Anybody think that practice field was worse than a some days at Soldier Field? Guess how Grasu did his knee on family night? It's not about grass vs turf or general slop. It's about a consistent surface on any given day and not how they do it. I'd love Lambeau's surface but it's a better done single use field which will never happen here. In fact, their surface with fibers sewn through it to strengthen it and is perfect for how they use it would be worse than ours here. It can't be resodded. It was a total fail in Pittsburgh for that reason.
 

modo

Based
Donator
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
29,162
Liked Posts:
25,103
Location:
USA
How the fuck would including home team injuries skew the results. The point of league wide studies is acquiring the most data points. It evens out. Excluding the home team also removes the wear and tear factor of playing on that surface for a greater period. Home team injuries count as does the effects of more extended play on a given surface which is a very significant long term factor to safety. to a certain extent, that study it also removes the variability factor of our field that may be very safe at some point in the season and very dangerous at another. Playing on ice or very poor footing 2 weeks in a row or alternating weeks can can change the odds and it's not something you get from visiting teams. A field that has both high and low traction areas on the same day is a very dangerous thing and it's something we see here. To me, that's worse than any one condition situation where you can at least pick the cleat that has the right combo of traction and give.

By trying to not skew results they have actually accomplished the opposite effect to get a result. I have seen college studies with a much greater data resource and opposite results. It's all about how you gather the data. The right way to grade something is to use all of the data. You 'll get closer the correct result than you will by stacking a deck.

For me, it's less about grass vs turf than it is about consistency and durability. That can be done with grass in this climate but not under our circumstances of use and field construction.

Home team is not included because it could skew results giving the Bears 50% input into the numbers vs rest of teams. If the Bears were an aging team or just a bunch of guys that are more heavily injured that would throw off the results.

Using just the visiting teams gives it a more diverse result, not just skewed by results of one team from something other than the turf.
 

Bearly

Dissed membered
Donator
Joined:
Aug 17, 2011
Posts:
41,084
Liked Posts:
23,409
Location:
Palatine, IL
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
We are young. If we're more heavily injured the field may play a roll. To dismiss it is ludicous.
 

Enasic

Who are the brain police?
Joined:
Mar 17, 2014
Posts:
13,292
Liked Posts:
9,715
I don't know, but the Bears were the most injury plagued squad in the league last year (and among the most the last 3 years total) and they play half their games on the Soldier Field turf that makes my unkempt backyard look like something you'd find on the front page of a landscaping magazine.

So I'd imagine SF is a safe bet.

How many players got injured at soldier field? How many of them had non contact injuries vs. brutal collisions etc? There’s a lot of factors going on. Like off the top of my head Leonard Floyd had a brutal knee collision that had nothing to do with the turf. I think there’s more merit in blame towards the strength and conditioning coach than there is the turf, IMHO.
 

modo

Based
Donator
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
29,162
Liked Posts:
25,103
Location:
USA
We are young. If we're more heavily injured the field may play a roll. To dismiss it is ludicous.

The study was done a few years ago....and if we don't get injured, it could skew it the other way.....that is why it is better to use more teams than one team that weights the number to heavily either way.

If you use the Bears...you'd be counting the Bears 8 times which would skew the results if there was an outside influence on the Bears injuries, other than the field.
 
Last edited:

Bearly

Dissed membered
Donator
Joined:
Aug 17, 2011
Posts:
41,084
Liked Posts:
23,409
Location:
Palatine, IL
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
The study was done a few years ago....and if we don't get injured, it could skew it the other way.....that is why it is better to use more teams than one team that weights the number to heavily either way.

If you use the Bears...you'd be counting the Bears 8 times which would skew the results if there was an outside influence on the Bears injuries, other than the field.

No, it would give more accurate overall results. I get why they did it that way but they"re just outsmarting themselves. They've added a variable by trying to remove one.
 

Top