03-16-2007, 10:42 AM
|
#2
|
|
In the Starting Line-up
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,389
|
Re: One Way Parcells Was Better Than Belichick
Quote:
Originally Posted by aluminum seats
Injuries. Maybe it's luck of the draw (and obviously is to a certain extent) and maybe I'm relying on a faulty memory, but it seems to me that consistently over the years wherever Parcells went a common theme was an empty injury report. Even this past year in Dallas--when I think most would agree Parcells had sort of lost it as a coach--I remember looking at the injury report in the paper and there was none listed.
What conditioning coach(es)/programs did Parcells use? Was it different that what Belichick does? Seems that over the last few years it's been such a huge problem for the Pats. One game last year I actually realized my enjoyment of the game was being hampered by the fact that I was EXPECTING an injury to occur. With so much talk right now of the Pats FA pickups, I notice a recurring theme of "if we stay healthy" how dominant the Pats will be. That's always the case, of course, but I don't think I'm alone that the threat of injuries just seems too great now. And I'm not sure why.
|
Parcells notoriously doesn't even want to hear about players' injuries.
I am kind of glad that you brought this up, though, because I have a theory. I think that NE is more cautious with some injuries than others. Ted Johnson's claim flies in the face of this, but I think that NE is more willing to sit a guy down than many other teams. This is a large reason why they value depth so much; not because injuries are going to happen, but because they don't want a reason to "have" to play a guy. By getting healing time, that also tees the team up to be healthier than most in the playoffs.
|
|
|