ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
QB - Brady not playing with a hernia, Cassel with a full year under his belt
RB - Corey healthy, Faulk healthy, Maroney added.
OL - Light healthy, Koppen (eventually) healthy, Mankins and Kaczur have been through a full year now.
TE - Graham healthy (and OL healthy so he doesn't have to babysit), Watson took a big leap last year, Dave Thomas better/younger/faster than Fauria.
DL - A full year of Seymour, better back-up possibilities for Wilfork
DB - Starks and Poole GONE, Hobbs a full-time starter (with a year under his belt), Geno and Asante played better 2nd half of last year, Scott healthy, James Sanders reported to have taken a leap, Tebucky Jones better than the scrubs we threw against the wall last year.
THE PATRIOTS ARE WORSE AT:
K - AV gone, replaced with rookie. 'nuff said.
WR - Givens gone, Caldwell injury-prone, Chad Jackson dynamic but unproven, That said, by mid-season if Caldwell doesn't get hurt and Jackson is as good as people think, the WR's could be very solid.
THE PATRIOTS ARE ABOUT EVEN AT:
LB (lose Willie, gain a full year of Tedy, Beisel would have to be better and, from all accounts, was like "night and day" by the end of 2006) - could end up improving, but hard to count on Claridge (essentially a rookie), Gardner's a JAG scrub, all others (Roach, Mincey, Woods) are unknown development types, Banta-Cain hasn't shown much (especially in 2005, when IMO he regressed).
There is one important person that you left out of DB's. RODNEY!
He will make it back, win comeback player of the year, make the Prop Bowl, and add another SB championship ring on his finger.
Rodney is the glue to the entire DB.
FEATURED ADVERTISEMENT
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
Also bear in mind that when we say "a healthy [your name here,]" we are also missing the injury we don't know is coming this season. For whatever reason, the Pats just never stay healthy. I see no reason to believe this year will be any different.
Aye, here's the rub. We need to factor in major injuries to four key starters on offense and three key starters on defense, and lesser injuries to eight role players, none of whom we know the names of yet. If you don't believe me, see 2005, 2004, 2003, etc.
__________________
Please, God, don't let us ever suck as bad as the 2011 Cowboys did in the Jets opener.
* * * * *
"I got a little shine on and showed you guys a little taste of my speed."
We know that part of what has made the Pats what they are is effort. They play hard. They play to the whistle. They are a VERY physical team. Is it possible that the mentality that makes them so good is the same mentality that creates more injuires?
Great post, Andy. This seems like a natural flipside of a discussion here last month about Marvin Harrison. Harrison has a reputation for ducking to the ground to avoid hard tackles, but I and others suggested that could be smart strategy for him. To quote myself from the earlier thread:
We're talking about a very slightly built receiver -- at 6' 0" 175 he's quite a bit taller and lighter than Deion Branch. Yet he's managed to maintain a long, productive and healthy career. 10 years in the league with half a dozen missed games, tops.
Then consider how the Patriots treated Branch like fine china last year, holding him out of the entire exhibition phase to protect his health. Everybody's balancing the physical risks with the rewards of all-out play....
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyJohnson
Could it be that we are destined to have more injuries than most teams, but that its a GOOD thing? Playing with a less aggressive mentality and having fewer injuries doesnt sound to me like it would be better.
I'm not sure, it's a matter of degree. The good news is, the team has had tremendous success. The bad news is, they keep hitting the playoffs with whole units decimated and 3rd stringers at key positions. Might it be worth a couple of lost plays during the regular season in order to field an intact team come playoff time?
Nobody plays very hard compared to our Patriots. This is the case according to us, the Patriots' fans.
This analysis only works if either:
1) The Patriots are in a category of their own in terms of toughness, or
2) A coterie of other teams, playing tough, finishing every play, wrapping up on every tackle, etc., also suffers a slew of on-field injuries.
Earlier it was speculated that not having Pittsburgh in the regular season was a bonus for the Pats (since teams that play Pittsburgh seem to get hurt.)
Combine these posts, and you get something like the George C. Scott Patton quote:
"The point isn't to die for your country. The point is getting the other poor son of a ***** to die for his country."
I hate to think this is something the Steelers get that we don't.
So, for those who back the argument, my question is: who else do you consider the "tough, physical" teams in the NFL? It's worth looking at what they've lost to injuries, at least, say, for one year.
If it's not in the same general severity the Pats are putting up with, I think we have to look for other factors.
So, for those who back the argument, my question is: who else do you consider the "tough, physical" teams in the NFL? It's worth looking at what they've lost to injuries, at least, say, for one year.
PFnV
I'm not necessarily backing the argument, but I would say the "tough, physical" teams would include:
Other teams play hard, but perhaps our players are being asked to perform more roles, like starters on special teams. Also, we do have some older players on the roster. Another thing is the fact that we have played more games than anyone else since 2001, and the random chance for injury has to go up the more games you play.
Factually, if you look at it, the Pats have had more injuries than maybe any other team. The 2003 SB Champs were called the 'most inuured' Champ ever, and the 2004 team may have exceeded that. 2005 wasn't really better.
The
04 team was far more injured...and last year was even more so by leaps and bounds. Take a look at the inactive lists of the years and the numbers of injured players..and injury lists.. No doubt, BB did an incredible job to get this team to get the team into the playoffs!!! Why injuries?? That is a good question..and the luck of it all..so few injuries in 02 and yet..no playoffs..I am hoping even a average year of injuries..or even less so.
Linear Mode
