Another Oh-oh for the NFL: Pats over injuries?

[PatsFanInVa]

Ladies and gentlemen, I submit for your respectful consideration the possibility that the Pats' avoidance this year of the injury bug may not be coincidence.

It happens that we're having our first relatively injury-light year in recent memory, during the first year on FieldTurf instead of mud. So far so good, and far be it from me to jinx anything.

But what if there is a causal relationship?

The teams from 01-04 won 3 out of 4 Super Bowls while absolutely depleted by injuries.

Fast forward... 07 is a special year for many reasons, and we may never look upon its likes again.

But it seems to me there is reason to believe we will see relatively healthy teams late into the season more often.

Oh, and we're not built to be "small, fast, and swarming..." so there's another possibility shot to sh**.

Okay, just wanted to share my latest quasitriumphalist observation before going to work and getting my ego squashed

PFnV

 

[Pat the Pats Fan]

Okay, just wanted to share my latest quasitriumphalist observation before going to work and getting my ego squashed

PFnV

Didn't realize we worked at the same place......

 

[xmarkd400x]

I don't quite get how the title matches up with the body of your post.

The Patriots went to field turf and now have less injuries. This may or may not be a coincidence.

How is this "oh-oh" for the NFL?

 

[Ootball]

"How is this "oh-oh" for the NFL?"

Well, speaking on behalf of the NFL, I can tell you that the lack of injuries on the Patriots just makes this year more of a wash for the rest of us, since most of the other teams - already nowhere near the Pats - have been hit by the injury bug.

We'll make sure never to punish you again. Break any rule you want, and we'll just let it slide. After all, no matter what it is, I'm sure "everybody does it."

We don't want incur this kind of karma again. We'll be good.

 

[godef]

Ladies and gentlemen, I submit for your respectful consideration the possibility that the Pats' avoidance this year of the injury bug may not be coincidence.

It happens that we're having our first relatively injury-light year in recent memory, during the first year on FieldTurf instead of mud. So far so good, and far be it from me to jinx anything.

But what if there is a causal relationship?

The teams from 01-04 won 3 out of 4 Super Bowls while absolutely depleted by injuries.

Fast forward... 07 is a special year for many reasons, and we may never look upon its likes again.

But it seems to me there is reason to believe we will see relatively healthy teams late into the season more often.

Oh, and we're not built to be "small, fast, and swarming..." so there's another possibility shot to sh**.

Okay, just wanted to share my latest quasitriumphalist observation before going to work and getting my ego squashed

PFnV

Quasimodo who?

 

[CTPatsFan]

It is quite a coincidence, but it may not be far off. The grass field was allowed to get to that state, it could have been kept pristine if that were the desire. I'll never second guess BB on the football field but when it comes to turfgrass management...

As a grass guy that's kind of the pisser, the Field Turf became a necessity because of the poor maintenance and grow-in practices. But everything is/was in place for a natural grass field that could have performed every bit as well as the Field Turf does. It never had a chance. Thanks to an ideal playing surface, though, the Pats seem to be reaping the benefits.

Ironically I have the Fall '07 N.E. Sports Turf Mgr. Assoc. magazine on the top of the pile on my desk and the cover story is how the Gillette field crew laid sod over the Field Turf (because many teams refuse to play on artificial surfaces) for the early and quarter-final games of the Gold Cup back in May and June. The plan was to lay sod, use it for 2 weeks, discard it and lay more sod. Instead the field super convinced them to let him try to keep the initial install down for the full 4 weeks and did so successfully. They did the same thing Sept. 10-13 for another international match and got it all cleaned out and ready to go for the Chargers game on the 16th.

I'm one that jokes about football being meant to be played in the mud and dirt but the fact is the field should never be allowed to get to that level.

O.K. off my grass rant.

 

[Plunk It]

The "Fall '07 N.E. Sports Turf Mgr. Assoc. magazine"? Wow.

 

[CTPatsFan]

The "Fall '07 N.E. Sports Turf Mgr. Assoc. magazine"? Wow.

Exciting stuff!

 

[Lloyd_Christmas]

The "Fall '07 N.E. Sports Turf Mgr. Assoc. magazine"? Wow.

Being a computer guy by trade, I was certain we had the monopoly on nerds. Apparently a few escaped to other trades.

 

[JJDChE]

Isn't this the 2nd year with the FieldTurf?

 

[CTPatsFan]

Isn't this the 2nd year with the FieldTurf?

They installed it last year prior the Chicago game.

 

[CTPatsFan]

Being a computer guy by trade, I was certain we had the monopoly on nerds. Apparently a few escaped to other trades.

Dirt nerds.

 

[reflexblue]

Quasimodo who?

You know that Hunch back dude.

 

[reflexblue]

Ladies and gentlemen, I submit for your respectful consideration the possibility that the Pats' avoidance this year of the injury bug may not be coincidence.

It happens that we're having our first relatively injury-light year in recent memory, during the first year on FieldTurf instead of mud. So far so good, and far be it from me to jinx anything.

But what if there is a causal relationship?

The teams from 01-04 won 3 out of 4 Super Bowls while absolutely depleted by injuries.

Fast forward... 07 is a special year for many reasons, and we may never look upon its likes again.

But it seems to me there is reason to believe we will see relatively healthy teams late into the season more often.

Oh, and we're not built to be "small, fast, and swarming..." so there's another possibility shot to sh**.

Okay, just wanted to share my latest quasitriumphalist observation before going to work and getting my ego squashed I

PFnV

I've wondered the same thing. What accounts for the low incidence of injuries this year? Luck? Your insight very well could be the answer,its the only difference from past years. When it was installed the ceo of the company said that there was a lower incidence of lower body injuries which is what plauged the Pats for many years. So far so good.

 

[Bostonian1962]

So the Patriots were much more injured when they were on grass?

Isn't that just another thing to teach the kids about the importance of saying no to drugs?

Nuff said.

 

[reflexblue]

So the Patriots were much more injured when they were on grass?

Isn't that just another thing to teach the kids about the importance of saying no to drugs?

Nuff said.

Grass no, mud yes.

 

[TomBrady'sGoat]

Haven't they been practicing on FieldTurf for years?

The change you've mentioned only affects every other game. They haven't been getting hurt as much during away games and practice also, which are not accounted for by the new FieldTurf at home.

Is there less contact in practice? Are they just lucky? Those both seem like possibilities.

 

[psychoPat]

Regress To The Mean

....
The change you've mentioned only affects every other game. They haven't been getting hurt as much during away games and practice also, which are not accounted for by the new FieldTurf at home.

Is there less contact in practice? Are they just lucky? Those both seem like possibilities.

How about ? .... Regressing To The Mean.

(Would explain the Colts also.)

 

[DarrylS]

I always thought the high incidence of injuries was due to the previous extended season, and did not have as much to do with field conditions. These guys who play all 19 games bodies do not have sufficient time to recover, and take a beating for 3 or 4 additional games.. have thought this for a long time now.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

Re: Regress To The Mean

How about ? .... Regressing To The Mean.

(Would explain the Colts also.)

But not penalties when playing the Colts.......just the opposite......