Is there a greater chance of reinjury than normal injury? Will this player perform at a lower level?

a little to both; you are unlikely to notice the former (its just too unlikely to start). the second is noticeable IMO but i have only had a couple major injuries and so my sample size is pretty limited and really off of personal experience alone, i cannot definitively say anything. i don't know that anyone really can - but it seems to be fairly safe to assume there is a non-zero impact, but one that is minor to moderate in nature. i haven't seen players tank due to injury and roughly would break ties in the NT lineup over it but that's about it.

I actually think injuries need to be a larger part of the game engine IMO. I know I have a small sample size but I have never had a player miss a game in three years. I feel that this part needs to addressed

The big injuries are so infrequent, they should be taken out, like they are in GD. Durability would be so much more meaningful if it was treated realistically, with wear and tear building up cumulatively with playing time over the course of a season, especially on players who have low stamina and durability. In that case, they may play 25 minutes one game, and only be at 90% to start the next. Players may need a game off to fully recover, or at least more time on the bench during stretches of the season, if they don’t have optimal stamina/durability for the scheme and the role they’re playing.

The way it is now, a coach is out of their mind to even consider durability while recruiting or gameplanning, they’re so rare. But an injury to a key player can take you completely out of the running and ruin a season. So basically it doesn’t matter, except when it actually just randomly ruins your season, in cases you could never plan for or do anything about. It’s just nonsense game design.

<end rant>

Posted by shoe3 on 1/12/2021 9:04:00 PM (view original):
The big injuries are so infrequent, they should be taken out, like they are in GD. Durability would be so much more meaningful if it was treated realistically, with wear and tear building up cumulatively with playing time over the course of a season, especially on players who have low stamina and durability. In that case, they may play 25 minutes one game, and only be at 90% to start the next. Players may need a game off to fully recover, or at least more time on the bench during stretches of the season, if they don’t have optimal stamina/durability for the scheme and the role they’re playing.

The way it is now, a coach is out of their mind to even consider durability while recruiting or gameplanning, they’re so rare. But an injury to a key player can take you completely out of the running and ruin a season. So basically it doesn’t matter, except when it actually just randomly ruins your season, in cases you could never plan for or do anything about. It’s just nonsense game design.

<end rant>

Can't disagree with any of that. I don't look at Durability at all for any reason.

I have had injuries.. I am actually glad they are infrequent. I don't plan for them unless they happen.