Injuries in Dallas - Should Woicik Go?

[casmith07]

As everyone is well aware not only here at CowboysZone, but also in the media, the Dallas Cowboys seem to have a bit of a problem staying healthy.

“<Insert Player> is made of glass!”

“Day to Day, then to IR with this training staff.”
​

“It’s Jerry’s fault!”​

These are some of the lamentations read on this site as well as others. However, one of them might hold some water, or at least provide some eyebrow-raising when it comes to discussing just who’s fault it is for what seems like the never-ending “injury bug” for this team.

We all remember Joe Juraszek. Solid coach, never really heard his name for anything until he came down with health issues and departed the team after the 2010 season going into 2011. In 2011, the Cowboys turned to a blast from the past in Mike Woicik, who would be responsible for strength and conditioning, or in other terms, getting players healthy and keeping them healthy, aside from the standard “strength and conditioning” duties involving weight lifting and cardiovascular fitness.

I did some research, and while I tried to dig up injury history for the New England Patriots from Woicik’s first year in 2000 to his last in 2010, the only available database online (PFF) went back to 2009 for annual injury reports. The numbers there are aggregate numbers, meaning they are the total number of times a particular status was reported on the injury report each week, for the season, absent any specifics. There are much more detailed tables available on the site (who was questionable which weeks, who was on IR, etc.), however, my brief observations are meant to be used as a cursory glance to see just what the problem is.

Interestingly, the numbers trend in favor of Mike Woicik’s presence on each team’s coaching staff being responsible for more of the soft tissue style injuries that result in a Probable or Questionable designation, and the likelihood that the players would overcome those injuries and be able to participate in game action throughout the season.

Prior to 2011 (the year Woicik Era II began in Dallas), Dallas Cowboys players played 27% of the time more with a reported injury (P, Q, D, Out, IR, or PUP) than New England. After 2011? New England’s guys played with an injury 33.1% more than our Boys.*

While I understand that this is basic, rudimentary research, and it does not take into account certain reports in full, and their respective context (Tom Brady to IR for 16 weeks in 2011; The Kitna season in 2010; players who "play through it"), I think that the basic overview is somewhat shocking. As we know, injury reports can in fact be fudged. However, with a reported injury, the probability that the player will in fact play I believe is a testament to the training staff being able to make a proper diagnosis and put players not only on a proper rehabilitation program during weekly practices, but also a foundational strength and conditioning program for preventing injuries in practice, in games, and as seasons wear on. In summary, I believe that the competence of this strength and conditioning staff in Dallas is certainly open to criticism and is somewhat questionable, despite me not previously being a believer of the “bad training staff” mindset.

What do you think? Talk about it!

*For specific seasons or injury report designations, I will be happy to discuss and provide specific numbers in this thread as I have the time.

 

[SportsGuru80]

They didn't have this issue in New England or his first stint with the Cowboys.

 

[DeaconMoss]

A witch doctor with funny smelling herbs or reinstating the "white house" may be the only thing that gets this team healthy and ready to play.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Look around the league please.

 

[RS12]

LOL! I read post upon post when he was hired about how he was going to turn water into wine. Looks like that didnt quite happen.

 

[casmith07]

Look around the league please.

Did you read the OP at all?

 

[Setackin]

I just think advancements in Healthcare have passed him by...

 

[AbeBeta]

Did you read the OP at all?

After being dinged by the league for not reporting injuries, the Pats responded by reporting every single ache and pain.

Not more injuries. Just a total screw you directed at the league.

Another example of how statistics mean sweet fa without context

 

[KB1122]

Something isn't right. But did the team address it, as they said they would? I don't know the answer to that.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

After being dinged by the league for not reporting injuries, the Pats responded by reporting every single ache and pain.

Not more injuries. Just a total screw you directed at the league.

Another example of how statistics mean sweet fa without context

How many weeks was Brady on the injury report as probable? Ha

 

[Szczepanik]

Flexibility and Stabilization training must not be trained efficiently here. Only thing I can think of.

 

[CowboyMike]

After being dinged by the league for not reporting injuries, the Pats responded by reporting every single ache and pain.

Not more injuries. Just a total screw you directed at the league.

Another example of how statistics mean sweet fa without context

How many weeks was Brady on the injury report as probable? Ha

The data Casmith provided refers to players that did and did not play. In other words, when an injury was reported, Cowboys played more often than the Patriots prior to 2011 and less often after 2011.

So if Cowboys player A had a hammy and was rated as questionable, he was more likely to play than Patriots Player B with a hammy that was also questionable. After 2011 that all switched.

This data voids the "Belichick just reported everything" argument because that stance counts on the fact that Patriots with a reported injury still played. Cas's data shows that exact opposite. If anything the fact that Belichick reported every little thing and the Pats still didn't play as many injured players as the Cowboys actually makes the data more powerful.

 

[casmith07]

For example - in 2010, under Mike Woicik's program, Patriots players listed as "Questionable" played with that injury designation on the report only 32.56% of the time (86 iterations reported, 28 times played). By contrast, the Cowboys, under Joe J, played 40/58 times for a rate of 68.97%.

In 2012, after a full year under Woicik, the Cowboys players only played when "Questionable" 51.96% of the time (53/102). New England? 71.37%, or 172 out of 241. As @CowboyMike pointed out, sure - perhaps Belichick was reporting more guys as Questionable to thumb his nose at the league (which I acknowledge in the OP, if anybody read it); still, when you're comparing Woicik against Woicik, the numbers are similar -- fewer guys recover and are available for a game to play under Woicik than not under Woicik, regardless of the overall numbers of the injury reports over an entire season.

As I said, I believe it is a testament to the staff. Under different guidance, despite players being listed as "Questionable" or "Probable" (which, by the way, aren't "how injured" they are, but simply speak to their practice participation), players were able to go through rehab in practice and then play on Sundays more often under a different S&C staff than under Woicik's watch.

He might have been a pro in 1992, but I am concerned that the staff's methods are outdated for what is a new and different kind of professional athlete now, nearly 30 years later. Why do people acknowledge different eras when comparing position players, but refuse to do the same thing when it comes to something that has changed radically in the last 25 years like strength training and conditioning?

 

[Alexander]

I just think advancements in Healthcare have passed him by...

The restrictive access under the new CBA hurts dinosaurs like him. I firmly believe programs like what Philadelphia runs, which are like college models, will become the standard. Jones really needs to hire some consultants this off-season to look into it.

 

[Alexander]

For example - in 2010, under Mike Woicik's program, Patriots players listed as "Questionable" played with that injury designation on the report only 32.56% of the time (86 iterations reported, 28 times played). By contrast, the Cowboys, under Joe J, played 40/58 times for a rate of 68.97%.

In 2012, after a full year under Woicik, the Cowboys players only played when "Questionable" 51.96% of the time (53/102). New England? 71.37%, or 172 out of 241. As @CowboyMike pointed out, sure - perhaps Belichick was reporting more guys as Questionable to thumb his nose at the league (which I acknowledge in the OP, if anybody read it); still, when you're comparing Woicik against Woicik, the numbers are similar -- fewer guys recover and are available for a game to play under Woicik than not under Woicik, regardless of the overall numbers of the injury reports over an entire season.

As I said, I believe it is a testament to the staff. Under different guidance, despite players being listed as "Questionable" or "Probable" (which, by the way, aren't "how injured" they are, but simply speak to their practice participation), players were able to go through rehab in practice and then play on Sundays more often under a different S&C staff than under Woicik's watch.

He might have been a pro in 1992, but I am concerned that the staff's methods are outdated for what is a new and different kind of professional athlete now, nearly 30 years later. Why do people acknowledge different eras when comparing position players, but refuse to do the same thing when it comes to something that has changed radically in the last 25 years like strength training and conditioning?

The only issue with looking at New England is that they play games with injury reports a lot. You don't know what is legitimate or sandbagging.

 

[casmith07]

Something isn't right. But did the team address it, as they said they would? I don't know the answer to that.

Because Mike Woicik is still employed, and because we have heard nothing of a new training program from the coaching staff, players, or front office, I am going to assume that no, it was not addressed to the extent that is probably necessary to fix the problem.

 

[casmith07]

The only issue with looking at New England is that they play games with injury reports a lot. You don't know what is legitimate or sandbagging.

As I said, the sandbagging doesn't necessarily matter. The percentages, regardless of whether Belichick over-reported or not, still bear out that players were essentially hurt beyond reasonable recovery more often under Woicik than not under Woicik.

What you're saying would be a little more powerful if Woicik's percentages were better with New England first, but they're nearly the same for both teams above and below the "Woicik Line" as I labeled it on my spreadsheet (2010-2011 offseason being the time he switched over.)

I'm going to dig even further around the internet to see if I can compile weekly injury reports for the 2000-2008 seasons as well. It will probably take a lot more legwork, but I think a larger sample size will give my theory either more weight or make it look like bunk. Either way, I'm curious.

 

[burmafrd]

reports are jokes. Who actually plays is what you look at and that record does not support all the slobbering that was done here when Woicik came back.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

I think they should get rid of Woicik. The CBA has changed the way players can practice so those pulls and tears can happen. While I don't agree with Alexander a lot, we should look at a collegiate S&C coach as they have to deal with college players on a limited basis due to NCAA rules. If the Eagles go another year without many injuries, it's time that we look at what Chip Kelly is doing to keep players healthy.

There are other issues as well contributing to the injuries. The one that everybody neglects is that we throw too much. Historically, defensive players are twice as likely to get injured as offensive players. The more you throw the ball, the more time the defense will be on the field.

I could be wrong on this, but I believe New England's injuries ramped up in 2007 when they started to throw the ball far more often. This is the same thing we've had an issue with since Garrett became the HC...throwing the ball too often.

I also remember the one thing Andy Reid and company did in Philadelphia when he was the HC...stockpile on D-Linemen. Why? Because with Reid's heavy pass to run ratio...his D-Line was more likely to get burned out. And what happened to Reid in KC this year? His defense got burned out and was hideous in the playoffs.

I believe if we really want to reduce the likelihood of injuries, we need to get the pass to run ratio at 55/45 or better for the year and try to go no worse than 60/40 in individual games. Instead we were at 64/36 for the season and were as bad as 85/15 in some games.




YR

 

[Doomsday101]

I don't think the issue is Woicik, players do much of the conditioning on their own to begin with. I think much of it falls to the individual player. Now some injuries there is nothing anyone can do to prevent. Lawrence with a broken foot is not something the training staff can prevent or Lee's knee injury. As for Hamstrings the Cowboys have done things to try and prevent including extensively stretching at the quarter point and halfway point of their practice sessions.

Some of these strains that are taking place are normal and it appears Cowboys are being overly cautious with them and holding guys back when they have tightness or soreness