Sorry if there is an article about this somewhere but I'm just getting into the cheatsheets and it occured to me that positions and overall value (i.e., total points predicted for a season) are shaped pretty significantly by the potential for injury and lost games. For example, a major part of the debate between Vick and Rogers comes down to number of games expected to be on the field. Many people predict Vick will score more per game but he will be hurt more often, play less and lose value. Are these kinds of predictions valid and genrally accurate? It seems intuitive, especially with players who have a pattern of injuries in their history, but even in these cases - should this be counted statistically into the value charts, or should it just have a "caution" sign on the number?