Does the hurry up offense = more injuries?

[MDH]

This has been a topic of discussion in college football for a few years but I haven't really seen it discussed here. If you do a google search of "hurry up offense injury risk" quite a few articles pop up from the past few years. Here's one from SI.com that's pretty good:

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130711/hurry-up-offense-safety-concerns/

 

There are a few arguments pointing to a higher injury risk with the hurry up. One, more plays equals more opportunity for injury. Last year the median number of plays a team ran on offense was 63.4 (I'm too lazy to do the mean and I couldn't quickly find the stat.) This year the Bills are averaging 72 offensive snaps per game (2nd most in the league.) That's a difference of 8.6 plays per game and 137.6 plays during the season. Divide that by the median and it says that over the coarse of the year that's over 2 games worth of plays - and hits - that the players go through.

 

Remember all the hoopla about player safety and why the NFL shouldn't add 2 more games to the schedule? Well, there are your two games right there.

 

There's also the argument about player fatigue causing more injuries. When players get tired their technique suffers and thus they are more susceptible to injury.

 

With the Bills' injuries piling up it's worth raising the question.

[uncle flap]

More opportunities for injury would logically lead to more injuries, but I find it interesting that the article doesn't compare how many actual injuries the hurry-up teams suffer vs "regular" speed teams.

 

I realize it states that there were more head impacts, which may lead to post career problems, but nothing saying "Team X's players suffered more concussions than Team Y because Team X played more snaps per game." Unless I'm missing something there.

 

I think perhaps teams that run and practice hurry up offenses are might be in better shape and therefore less susceptible to injury; That is, better conditioning may lead to stronger players who aren't fatigued and don't get injured as often as players sucking wind and struggling to keep up.

 

At least in the short term, I would assume there are enough teams that have played hurry up for long enough of a time to make statistically significant observations.

 

And over the long term, regarding post career conditions like CTE, I think playing football at all is so risky that the additional risk of playing in an up tempo offense probably isn't significant enough to warrant some type of rule change or even cause for concern.

 

IMO, it's like driving a car. Sure, the more you drive, the more likely you are to get into an accident. But the fact still remains anytime you get into a car, you run the risk of getting into an accident. Instead of trying to drive 10-15% less of the time to be "safer," the powers that be should be trying to make driving- or in this case, football - inherently safer.

 

TLDR- Don't play football less because it's dangerous, make football safer.

 

Oh, and as far as the Bills injuries, I don't think they have any additional injuries bc of the hurry up. They have a ton of injuries every year, just like most teams that incorporate every type of offensive philosophy.

[mrags]

Didn't read the article yet but very good points by both of you.

 

Didn't read the article yet but very good points by both of you.

[nucci]

I think with football being a violent collision sport, there will be injuries no matter how you play.

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

NO

 

Seriously look at all the injuries around the league so far this year.

 

ask yourself -

Did Buffalo run the hurry up last season or the season before when they had lost 10+ starters to injury?

[Gugny]

Didn't read the article yet but very good points by both of you.

 

Didn't read the article yet but very good points by both of you.

[MDH]

More opportunities for injury would logically lead to more injuries, but I find it interesting that the article doesn't compare how many actual injuries the hurry-up teams suffer vs "regular" speed teams.

 

I realize it states that there were more head impacts, which may lead to post career problems, but nothing saying "Team X's players suffered more concussions than Team Y because Team X played more snaps per game." Unless I'm missing something there.

 

I think perhaps teams that run and practice hurry up offenses are might be in better shape and therefore less susceptible to injury; That is, better conditioning may lead to stronger players who aren't fatigued and don't get injured as often as players sucking wind and struggling to keep up.

 

At least in the short term, I would assume there are enough teams that have played hurry up for long enough of a time to make statistically significant observations.

 

And over the long term, regarding post career conditions like CTE, I think playing football at all is so risky that the additional risk of playing in an up tempo offense probably isn't significant enough to warrant some type of rule change or even cause for concern.

 

IMO, it's like driving a car. Sure, the more you drive, the more likely you are to get into an accident. But the fact still remains anytime you get into a car, you run the risk of getting into an accident. Instead of trying to drive 10-15% less of the time to be "safer," the powers that be should be trying to make driving- or in this case, football - inherently safer.

 

TLDR- Don't play football less because it's dangerous, make football safer.

 

Oh, and as far as the Bills injuries, I don't think they have any additional injuries bc of the hurry up. They have a ton of injuries every year, just like most teams that incorporate every type of offensive philosophy.

 

I agree with pretty much everything you said except the car analogy. Driving in a car, if no accident happens, isn't damaging to you. Football is, even if you don't sustain an injury. The additional contact, the small trauma to the head, over and over again has a cumulative effect.

 

I think with football being a violent collision sport, there will be injuries no matter how you play.

 

Wouldn't you say the more you play the more injuries you're likely to have though?

 

NO

 

Seriously look at all the injuries around the league so far this year.

 

ask yourself -

Did Buffalo run the hurry up last season or the season before when they had lost 10+ starters to injury?

 

The league, on average, has more plays per game this year. It's up quite a bit so far (though it's a small sample size - only 4 games.)

 

As far as the injuries in previous years, yeah, they have. But just because you play less plays from scrimmage in one year doesn't mean for that one year injuries will be down for a team. It's a matter of chance and with a smaller sample size (like one year) you'll have larger deviations. This is why the Bills injuries so far this year could just be an aberration. It'll take more games/seasons to really know for sure (and somebody putting in the time/effort to examine the data.)

[mrags]

 

lol. Funny

[jr1]

I want to rest our defense. Eat the clock, fellas

[Gugny]

lol. Funny

My wife and I are always quoting "Goodfellas" and most mornings I say this prior to going out to get the paper. You opened the door for a good early-morning laugh, so thanks!

[papazoid]

YES

 

more plays = more risk of injuries.

 

2012 - 62 plays/game average for season.

 

2013 - 71 plays/game average thru 4 games.

[uncle flap]

I agree with pretty much everything you said except the car analogy. Driving in a car, if no accident happens, isn't damaging to you. Football is, even if you don't sustain an injury. The additional contact, the small trauma to the head, over and over again has a cumulative effect.

 

 

Ok yeah the analogy isn't perfect.

 

But my point is not really about the cumulative effect, but that driving (like football) is so inherently dangerous that cutting back on driving, or running fewer plays, doesn't make each instance any safer. And I wonder if the additional experience/practice actually would make it safer. A more experienced driver is actually less likely to be in an accident, and perhaps a better conditioned football player is less likely to be injured.

 

In other words, even if playing hurry up "causes" more injuries (cumulatively or in isolation), the fact that they are playing football at all is what's really dangerous.

 

Player X played in an uptempo offense for 7 years and when he retires he develops CTE and his joints are non-existent. Well, Player Y played in an offense for 7 years that milked the clock the entire game. Guess what? Player Y retires with CTE and no joints either.

 

I'm not saying you're wrong that more opportunities for injury cause more injuries. I'm just saying that players are injured so often, and for all types of reasons, that a player is already so likely to get injured anyway, that the additional opportunities aren't all that significant.

[Prickly Pete]

This has been a topic of discussion in college football for a few years but I haven't really seen it discussed here. If you do a google search of "hurry up offense injury risk" quite a few articles pop up from the past few years. Here's one from SI.com that's pretty good:

 

http://sportsillustr...afety-concerns/

 

There are a few arguments pointing to a higher injury risk with the hurry up. One, more plays equals more opportunity for injury. Last year the median number of plays a team ran on offense was 63.4 (I'm too lazy to do the mean and I couldn't quickly find the stat.) This year the Bills are averaging 72 offensive snaps per game (2nd most in the league.) That's a difference of 8.6 plays per game and 137.6 plays during the season. Divide that by the median and it says that over the coarse of the year that's over 2 games worth of plays - and hits - that the players go through.

 

Remember all the hoopla about player safety and why the NFL shouldn't add 2 more games to the schedule? Well, there are your two games right there.

 

There's also the argument about player fatigue causing more injuries. When players get tired their technique suffers and thus they are more susceptible to injury.

 

With the Bills' injuries piling up it's worth raising the question.

 

Actually, I brought up this very topic, but apparently only inspired other, more important questions.

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/161545-the-no-huddle-trend-and-injuries/

[Alphadawg7]

This has been a topic of discussion in college football for a few years but I haven't really seen it discussed here. If you do a google search of "hurry up offense injury risk" quite a few articles pop up from the past few years. Here's one from SI.com that's pretty good:

 

http://sportsillustr...afety-concerns/

 

There are a few arguments pointing to a higher injury risk with the hurry up. One, more plays equals more opportunity for injury. Last year the median number of plays a team ran on offense was 63.4 (I'm too lazy to do the mean and I couldn't quickly find the stat.) This year the Bills are averaging 72 offensive snaps per game (2nd most in the league.) That's a difference of 8.6 plays per game and 137.6 plays during the season. Divide that by the median and it says that over the coarse of the year that's over 2 games worth of plays - and hits - that the players go through.

 

Remember all the hoopla about player safety and why the NFL shouldn't add 2 more games to the schedule? Well, there are your two games right there.

 

There's also the argument about player fatigue causing more injuries. When players get tired their technique suffers and thus they are more susceptible to injury.

 

With the Bills' injuries piling up it's worth raising the question.

 

There have been numerous stories about this and such, and just about everyone I have ever read shows there to be no rise in injuries with hurry up offense.

 

Things to also consider that no one ever really talks about in relation of how this is a myth about no huddle potentially causing more injuries:

 

1. Total Play Counts - They ONLY ever focus on offensive play counts. They never show their defensive snap counts and ST snap counts to determine the true TOTAL of plays a team runs each week. People always assume that teams run more total plays with a no huddle, but that is just not always the case. To correlate that a TEAM is in more jeopardy because of more time on the field, then the total number of plays would be what needs to be compared, not just the offense. And defensive play counts in a study I saw had gone down in the case of a no huddle offense. My guess is that is a direct result of two factors...A) Sustained drives due to the success of the hurry up B) Opposing teams slowing their own offense down to help their defense get more rest while on the sidelines.

 

2. Fatigue - This is looked at, but incorrectly. They speculate a lot of times in this discussion that fatigue can lead to more injuries, however, there really is no proof that fatigue makes someone more vulnerable to injuries in games. However, the other side of fatigue that is being over looked is that players who are tired have less explosion, less speed, less power...and a reduction in speed, power, explosiveness, etc will directly reduce the violence of impact and there fore would be a direct factor in an expectation of LESS injuries.

 

3. History - Injuries are rampant all over the league, no matter what type of offense is run. There is no indication that teams who have run more plays have gone on to experience more injuries.

[MDH]

There have been numerous stories about this and such, and just about everyone I have ever read shows there to be no rise in injuries with hurry up offense.

 

Things to also consider that no one ever really talks about in relation of how this is a myth about no huddle potentially causing more injuries:

 

1. Total Play Counts - They ONLY ever focus on offensive play counts. They never show their defensive snap counts and ST snap counts to determine the true TOTAL of plays a team runs each week. People always assume that teams run more total plays with a no huddle, but that is just not always the case. To correlate that a TEAM is in more jeopardy because of more time on the field, then the total number of plays would be what needs to be compared, not just the offense. And defensive play counts in a study I saw had gone down in the case of a no huddle offense. My guess is that is a direct result of two factors...A) Sustained drives due to the success of the hurry up B) Opposing teams slowing their own offense down to help their defense get more rest while on the sidelines.

 

2. Fatigue - This is looked at, but incorrectly. They speculate a lot of times in this discussion that fatigue can lead to more injuries, however, there really is no proof that fatigue makes someone more vulnerable to injuries in games. However, the other side of fatigue that is being over looked is that players who are tired have less explosion, less speed, less power...and a reduction in speed, power, explosiveness, etc will directly reduce the violence of impact and there fore would be a direct factor in an expectation of LESS injuries.

 

3. History - Injuries are rampant all over the league, no matter what type of offense is run. There is no indication that teams who have run more plays have gone on to experience more injuries.

 

1. I agree that defensive play counts need to be looked at as well but it's pretty safe to assume that if total offensive plays are up league wide then so are total defensive plays (since a D has to be on the field against those offenses.)

 

2. This is an interesting point and one I hadn't considered. I wonder if there are fewer injuries in the 4th quarter of games than in the 1st (or 2nd.) It seems like that would be a good indication that fatigue does or doesn't contribute to injuries.

 

3. The problem with your history is that nobody has really looked into it in any great detail. It seems pretty obvious that the more snaps a player plays the more likely it is for him to get hurt. Not because those extra plays are more dangerous but simply because they're additional chances to get injured. As I mentioned in the original post, the Bills are on pace to have 2 extra games worth of snaps this season. I don't think I've ever seen back to back games where absolutely nobody got hurt. It seems that with 168 extra plays there's a fairly strong likely hood that an injury or two would occur.

[Alphadawg7]

1. I agree that defensive play counts need to be looked at as well but it's pretty safe to assume that if total offensive plays are up league wide then so are total defensive plays (since a D has to be on the field against those offenses.)

 

2. This is an interesting point and one I hadn't considered. I wonder if there are fewer injuries in the 4th quarter of games than in the 1st (or 2nd.) It seems like that would be a good indication that fatigue does or doesn't contribute to injuries.

 

3. The problem with your history is that nobody has really looked into it in any great detail. It seems pretty obvious that the more snaps a player plays the more likely it is for him to get hurt. Not because those extra plays are more dangerous but simply because they're additional chances to get injured. As I mentioned in the original post, the Bills are on pace to have 2 extra games worth of snaps this season. I don't think I've ever seen back to back games where absolutely nobody got hurt. It seems that with 168 extra plays there's a fairly strong likely hood that an injury or two would occur.

 

Thanks for the reply and comments. Just one thing though about your reply to item 1. You are mistaken in what you thought I was saying. You are incorrectly looking at the wrong Defense. Your response correlates with the opponents defense being on the field more. My point was about the hurry up offensive teams total play count for the game and the play count of their own defense, not the opponents. In other words, people assume that because the offense is getting more plays in, that their teams total play count is rising (offense, defense, ST). I was saying that it's not always the case because opposing teams have slowed their offense down to give their defense more rest, which then lowers the defensive play count for the team with the hurry up offense. Also the hurry up offense has been relatively successful and that also reduces defensive play snaps.

 

Basically the point is, more offensive snaps does not automatically equate to more total plays run offensively, defensively and ST combined. So for a hurry up offense to theoretically increase opportunity for a team to suffer injuries, then their total play count as a team would have to have a significant increase. Otherwise saying a team as a whole is more vulnerable to injuries just because they are on the field more is fundamentally and mathematically incorrect if the team as a whole isn't running more total plays.

Edited October 3, 2013 by Alphadawg7

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

Two sides to this coin in this thought exercise.

 

Bills are also practicing at accelerated pace. Accelerated practice cadence means athletes are in better condition. Better conditioning equals more resistance to injury.

 

 

Here is another nugget for thought:

 

Opposing defenses are unable to change players and get fresher players in.

 

They cant mix in big and then small players depending on down and distance, so they tend to need the smaller more versatile guys in.

 

In these cases hits and tackles delivered by opposing defenses although greater in frequency maybe be lesser in force as they are delivered by on average more tired and smaller players.

 

If you walk thought the bills players that have been out of games, it's predominantly on the defensive side. Gilmore, brooks, mckelvin, Byrd, Carrington, true there is Goodwin on O.

[Prickly Pete]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/monteburke/2013/10/21/the-spate-of-injuries-in-week-7-demonstrates-that-the-nfl-is-a-league-of-attrition-time-for-a-developmental-league/

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

How many Bills players were out these past 2 weeks using the hurry up?

 

How many teams lost players for the season Sunday who don't run a hurry up?

[Prickly Pete]

How many Bills players were out these past 2 weeks using the hurry up?

 

How many teams lost players for the season Sunday who don't run a hurry up?

 

I'm just updating the thread.

 

I don't know either way, and it's really too early to tell, but I lean a bit towards "yes, it will be a factor in there being more injuries this season"

 

Are season ending injuries the only injuries that count? (Not in my mind, but maybe you feel differently)

 

How many teams that don't run the hurry up, play against team's that run the hurry up? How many times?

 

Like I said, it's too early to tell, and I'm just bumping it up, with an interesting tidbit.