Count the St. Louis Rams plague of injuries last season any way you want. The numbers add up to devastation and a significant part of the team's unspectacular 2-14 season. Football Outsiders released their statistical study of team health from the 2011 NFL season, calculated in adjusted games lost, and it reveals that no team fared worse with injuries than the Rams.

A look at the numbers and a big question for 2012 after the jump.

First, a little background on FO's AGL statistics. I'll let them explain.

... the key ideas underlying AGL are that all players don't affect winning and losing equally, and missing a game isn't the only way a player injury affects winning and losing. Injuries to starters, important situational reserves (e.g., nickel cornerbacks), and injury replacements (i.e., new permanent starters) count towards AGL, whereas injuries to benchwarmers don't. Similarly, injuries that land a player on injured reserve affect AGL more than injuries that force a player to be listed as "questionable," which in turn affect AGL more than injuries that lead to a "probable" game status.

The Rams led the league in adjust games lost with 110. Only one team since 2002 has had a higher number, the 2009 Bills. For a little context, the Rams only scored 193 points last season.

The secondary was the hardest hit, obviously. Receivers had a mark of 29 AGL, and Bradford accounted for another 5.7.

Fortunately, injury numbers tend to bounce back from season to season. In 2010, the Rams had only 56.9 AGL, which no doubt helped fuel their 7-9 season.

Just how far will the AGL number bounce back this season? Impossible to say. If the Rams can stay healthier this year, it should help them rebound from a 2-14 season, leading to the question of what's possible with good health.