I know we all fear injuries, but halfway through the season not one player has been put on injured reserve. Seems a bit unrealistic, no?

IR is a choice so while there are candidates, the choice has been made not to up to this point. In lieu of that, it is not unrealistic

Nobody will put a player with a minor injury on the IR unless they are stockpiling players. My point was that there are relatively no injuries in the league serious enough to warrant IR. In real life, over the course of a season teams generally have at least a few injuries which put players out of commission for the rest of the season. This puts a premium on having a quality bench in order to be competitive. For instance, in the NFL, there are already about 150 players on the IR - and they have played less than half a season. That's an average of about 5 players per team.

Please don't encourage more injuries. I have guys on teams I run that are out 10 games or whatever, whereas the NFL might put them on IR, I choose not to. Again, it's a preference IMO.

No disrespect intended. Again, my point is that there are few injuries which require you even to have to consider whether to put a player on IR. Sure, it's possible to keep a player on the roster even though he may unavailable for an extended period of time. But can you keep three or five or seven or more such players on your roster and still succeed. I think not considering the stress of significantly more playing time on the rest of your roster - fatigue issues would both compound your injury issues and negatively affect performance on the field. As I mentioned before, it places a premium on developing a bench (which should ideally consist of players that compliment your starters and otherwise fit your system).

To be sure, I am not commenting on the amount of injuries in total. There are a significant number of teams in the league which report a lot of minor injuries, i.e., where the player is probable for the next game. However, there does not appear to be a realistic probability of a player incurring a season ending injury.

Please note that I don't like injuries any more than the next guy. But they are (or should be) a component of the game. Otherwise, we might as well turn injuries off altogether.

Jdavid: What sayeth you?

Wow, I couldn't disagree more with your comments.


The injuries seem just about right as they affect the game, and greatly at times, but don't ruin it. I have 10 injured players currently...including 3 players out 6-9 weeks, ouch! Is that not bad enough??


We don't want to make the whole thing a crappy experience by getting reamed with multiple season ending injuries! Why would anyone want to play a game like that?

I appreciate where you're coming from. I'm only commenting on how unrealistic the game is with regard to the lack of really serious injuries. In real life, every team typically has 4-10 players struggling with injuries every game. That's in addition to having to put several other players on IR at some point during the season.

As I mentioned before, I think the total number of injuries reflected in the game is fairly accurate. I especially like the fact that players can be hurt during the game yet continue to play. (Although I am not sure whether some injured players come out of the game for a period of time before they reenter.)

I'm content with the game as it is. But to the extent that the injury feature remains unrealistic, it is not a true simulation - and less "fun" for someone who wants as much realism as possible.

P.S. I just read the blog on injuries (http://blog.myfootballnow.com/2013/11/how-to-deal-with-player-injuries.html) that answers my question about a player returning to a game during which he was injured. Yes, he might depending on the severity of the injury. But he must sit out at least one play.

Again, having a roster with several on IR is not realistic in RL, nor desired from a gaming standpoint.

Also, you contend that increasing injuries would add more "fun"? Not at all!!

Look, I get your point. You prefer "fun" over realism. Nothing wrong with that if it is your preference.

As I mentioned, I'm content to play the game as it is. I was simply commenting on a very unrealistic aspect to it. (Yes, I prefer it be a true simulation (or as true as one can get in a virtual reality) - but that's just me. On what other aspects of RL should we compromise in the name of "fun". More or fewer sacks than in RL? No fumbles? Players who live for eternity?)

I recognize that the game is still a work in progress. My only goal was to comment on an aspect of it which could bear some tweaking in my opinion. (From reading previous postings, this subject has come up before as the game was thought to have too many injuries.)

Anyway, please check this website (http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/injuries/pup). I think you will then have to admit that having a roster with several on IR is indeed realistic in RL. Since the beginning of the NFL season, about 90 players have gone on IR (about 3 per team). About 60 players were put on IR during pre-season (about 2 per team). In fact, there is not a single team without someone on IR. And the NFL has played fewer games than we. Those are facts - not my opinion. Check it out!

This is a game, not RL.

Your tone sounds somewhat subtly condescending.

The game is excellent IMO, not in need of getting blasted with injuries. Refs **** in RL so should we litter our game with crappy calls too?