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

[ctpatsfan77]

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.

Food for thought: between their last Super Bowl victory and the bye week, the Patriots have played 46 regular-season and post-season games.

 

[Pujo]

Well, I think if someone wants to do some research, and it isn't gonna be me, the next step is to figure out where (at home or away, and if away on what kind of surface) the Pats injuries from the past couple of years have occured.

Interesting how the Colts have a ton of injuries this year, though.

 

[Pujo]

Brady has been doing a good job avoiding injuries, but he is way over do for a blown out knee.

I guess some people get all the breaks, pun intended.

 

[CTPatsFan]

Interesting how the Colts have a ton of injuries this year, though.

Small felines.

 

[nashvillepatsfan]

ummmm, can we stop talking about injuries...i dont want to jinx anything

 

[alamo]

We're barely more than halfway through the season, it's too early to congratulate ourselves on injuries. We will get hit, it's almost inevitable. And for all the injuries during the SB seasons none were to our most important players, i.e. no Freeney-type injuries.

And don't forget, the type of injury that puts a player out a few games but allows him back for the playoffs has in the past been GOOD for us... the experience the replacements get is invaluable. This is the main reason Indy is still to be feared. It's a long season.

 

[ligermark]

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

Wrong. The 2001 team was probably the healthiest team you'll ever see. The Pats haven't had a real healthy year since, though 2006 wasn't that bad, aside from the huge loss of Harrison. This team is really due for a healthy year and I hope it continues.

 

[shakadave]

Good thoughts above. I have one more to contribute, that I've been wondering about for weeks....

You know when you're a great RB like Sanders or Payton, you rarely get hit hard because the defenders have to be so worried about missing the tackle? Could our increased talent on offense be sort of accomplishing that? Moss & Co. have defenses so quaking that the last thing on their minds is teeing off on us.

Actually here's a second thought. Some coach I recently read quoted (who coached offense at BYU, was it?) said that O-linemen get injured less pass blocking than run blocking, or at least get worn down less. Are we passing more this year?

A lot of the other reasons above sound good, too.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Good thoughts above. I have one more to contribute, that I've been wondering about for weeks....

You know when you're a great RB like Sanders or Payton, you rarely get hit hard because the defenders have to be so worried about missing the tackle? Could our increased talent on offense be sort of accomplishing that? Moss & Co. have defenses so quaking that the last thing on their minds is teeing off on us.

Actually here's a second thought. Some coach I recently read quoted (who coached offense at BYU, was it?) said that O-linemen get injured less pass blocking than run blocking, or at least get worn down less. Are we passing more this year?

A lot of the other reasons above sound good, too.

Lots of reasons, but I think I like the mud/turf difference regardless. It would be interesting to go injury-by-injury over the last few years to find out what we can... just like Pujo, I'm not going to be the one.

We have a wonderful discussion here brewing (it's on other threads as well,) regarding "regressing to the mean." The idea is that everything evens out. This is a very salient explanation in the absence of causality. I don't think either the presence or absence of causality is proven... we'd have to look at injuries to say that. If our injury rash from 02 onward was on OTHER PEOPLE'S fields, well, we'd be looking at a secondary effect at best (i.e., if something about the mud-to-a-real-field shift was responsible.)

I distrust arguments about teams being "due" for anything, the basic "regression to the mean" equivalent. Yeah, Brady was "due" for a 50 touchdown season, since he hadn't had one before. But I think the presence of Moss, Stallworth, and Welker also influenced the possibility of such an outcome.

Similarly, we have a very tempting, but possibly spurious connection to pursue, i.e., the possibility that the change in turf has been a godsend. We also have several other possibilities mentioned above.

Maybe one or another of us will be able to turn up answers(home vs. away injuries, practice injuries, etc.)

But I know one thing: That Marquis Hill thing? Nothing to do with turf.

I am so very, very sorry.

PFnV

 

[reflexblue]

From what I remember we've had a great deal of injuries at Hines field. The turf is lose, a lot of bad footing issues there since it was built. It has been commented on several times by those calling the games.