Report: Danny amendola ‘almost certain’ to miss jets game

detpatsfan said:

I can see Brady easily putting up a 42 spot on the Rex's defense on Thursday night without Amendola.

Click to expand...

What do you see now?

Rob0729 said:

Not trying to have it both ways. I wanted the Pats to have both guys even if that was pretty much unlikely to happen.

And saying Amendola made catches that Welker couldn't catch is also not trying to have it both ways. There are ways the current Welker is better than Amendola, dependable hands is not one of those ways.

And I will pick which one the Pats would have been better off keeping when the season is over. There is no law that requires me to make a decision now. I have always said that we will not know if the Pats made the right decision until at least the end of the year. I am sticking to it. It is stupid to make a definite decision on who they should have kept before we even see how the season plays out. What if Welker hits the age wall before the season is over? What if Amendola comes back in the Tampa game and ends up with a 1500 yard, 10 TD season. It is far too early to make any decisions.

Click to expand...

Yada. Yada. Yada. Blah. Blah. Blah.

Welker or Amendola?

I am not considered by anyone who knows me to be "stupid" by any objective definition of that term so, yes, I believe that it is indeed reasonable to ask you, since you are speaking at length on this subject, a very, very simple question, while acknowledging that none of us can know the future and that hindsight is always 20/20.

So, again.

"Based on what we know today about the two players, whom would you prefer the Patriots to have on their roster today, September 10, 2013 at around 5:30PM Eastern US time: Welker or Amendola?"

A one word answer will suffice.

My answer is "Welker." What is your's?

RobAllan said:

It is one possibility. (The Edelman and Thompkins numbers may or may not prove to be high.)

The point is that, just like you're doing with these numbers, it's completely fictitious and based on nothing. We can't even go by prior season production because the guys are all new or new starters.

It's fine to be optimistic if that's your viewpoint but to present it as fact like we have something to go on like it's going to calm down the interwebz is silly. TB12 can get us out of almost anything, but he still has to throw to someone. Hopefully someone steps up!

Click to expand...

Every prediction is based on fiction and is made up. Here's what I base this on:

(1) We've seen Edelman have big games before. (1/3/10 vs. Hou - 10 rec, 103 yes; last week - 7 rec, 79 yes; 9/20/09 vs. NYJ - 8 rec, 98 yds) - He's capable of a 9 rec, 100 yd game.

(2) Thompkins in both the preseason and in week 1. Last week he had 4 rec for 42 yds. He had a 12 yd reception go incomplete because he forgot to drag the other foot. He dropped a 5 yd TD pass. That would have given him 6 rec for 59 yds. I just projected him at 6 rec, 60 yds. Hardly unrealistic.

(3) Boyce/Dobson. I'm hardly predicting anything spectacular. Between the two of them, just 4 rec for 35 yards. The preseason showed that if they play enough they're capable of *that* anyway.

(4) Hooman. Again, just a minor amount of production. Hardly anything outrageous.

(5) Ridley/Washington. Well, since Washington will replace Vereen, I expect a few balls thrown his way. And he's very good in that role, so it's not crazy to expect him to make a few yards.

(6) I may be going out on a limb with the Sudfeld projection, but I don't think it's crazy that he could catch a ball or two.

Long story short, it's very reasonable to project the numbers I did. Who knows if it'll happen, but it's very reasonable.

Deus Irae said:

...and if my aunt had a penis and a pair of testicles, she'd be my uncle.

Click to expand...

I think the point is that Welker suffered a serious injury as Amendola has. And the kind of injury it was made it such that it was just "lucky" (in a manner of speaking) that it happened in week 17 instead of week 1. So average number of games played isn't necessarily the best calculus for how durable a player is. It's a factor.

PatsFanSince74 said:

Yada. Yada. Yada. Blah. Blah. Blah.

Welker or Amendola?

I am not considered by anyone who knows me to be "stupid" by any objective definition of that term so, yes, I believe that it is indeed reasonable to ask you, since you are speaking at length on this subject, a very, very simple question, while acknowledging that none of us can know the future and that hindsight is always 20/20.

So, again.

"Based on what we know today about the two players, whom would you prefer the Patriots to have on their roster today, September 10, 2013 at around 5:30PM Eastern US time: Welker or Amendola?"

A one word answer will suffice.

My answer is "Welker." What is your's?

Click to expand...

Which heals quicker? Groin injuries or butterfingers?

PatsFanSince74 said:

Yada. Yada. Yada. Blah. Blah. Blah.

Welker or Amendola?

I am not considered by anyone who knows me to be "stupid" by any objective definition of that term so, yes, I believe that it is indeed reasonable to ask you, since you are speaking at length on this subject, a very, very simple question, while acknowledging that none of us can know the future and that hindsight is always 20/20.

So, again.

"Based on what we know today about the two players, whom would you prefer the Patriots to have on their roster today, September 10, 2013 at around 5:30PM Eastern US time: Welker or Amendola?"

A one word answer will suffice.

My answer is "Welker." What is your's?

Click to expand...

I'm glad you are the master of how people should think on this board. Sorry, but I don't work that way.

Right now it is Welker because he is playing this week. Two days ago it was Amendola because was everything Welker was and is five years younger. Next week, who knows?

Whatever either our opinions are right now, they could be 100% wrong because neither of know what is going to happen this season. I don't get why you need an answer to anyone's opinion at this exact moment. It is irrelevant to anything. The only thing that matters is the results of the entire season.

My one word answer is Welkendola.

They could have had both Amendola and Welker and still been comfortably under the cap.

Um, why are there still arguments and comparisons about Welker? He's not on this team anymore. It doesn't matter if fans want him back or prefer him over Amendola. He's not with us, so who cares about who's more injury-prone, who's tougher, who makes more catches, etc. It won't make a difference this season because WELKER IS NOT HERE. He's so 2012. Let's move on.

ivanvamp said:

I think the point is that Welker suffered a serious injury as Amendola has. And the kind of injury it was made it such that it was just "lucky" (in a manner of speaking) that it happened in week 17 instead of week 1. So average number of games played isn't necessarily the best calculus for how durable a player is. It's a factor.

Click to expand...

"You've got bingo."

If one believes that freak name-your-injury injuries means a player is "fragile" or "injury prone" it obviously doesn't matter when in the season the player has it. Thus pointing to number of games missed, for those kinds of injuries, is pretty meaningless.

I draw a distinction between stuff like Welker blowing his knee out, or Amendola's clavicle injury, or especially Gronk's two injuries and stuff like the constant muscle pull issues I vaguely recall Bethel Johnson having.

There's nothing (yet) about Amendola's injury history that indicates he's somehow "structurally unsound". Now, if he recovers from the groin pull and then tweaks a hammy, and recovers from that and pops a quad, etc., that could be a different story.

And on the flip side you'd have to be an idiot to call Amendola injury-prone if some thug like Pollard intentionally dove into his ankle and sprained it and then when he recovered from that, some other thug helmeted his wrist and broke that.

In other words you have to look at the actual injuries and the context of the injuries. Just looking at number of injuries and number of games missed, without context, is foolishness.

ivanvamp said:

I think the point is that Welker suffered a serious injury as Amendola has. And the kind of injury it was made it such that it was just "lucky" (in a manner of speaking) that it happened in week 17 instead of week 1. So average number of games played isn't necessarily the best calculus for how durable a player is. It's a factor.

Click to expand...

And my point was that such an argument is specious. Games missed are games missed. Furthermore, since people are going there, he's a bit of data:

Welker: 9 years in league
1 game missed in 2004 (healthy DNP and cut, as I recall)
2 games missed in 2009
1 game missed in 2010

That's 4 games missed in those 9 years. So, even if you were to include the DNP game AND add in a full 16 game season missed, he'd still only have missed 20 games over that time (more than 140 games). Amendola's already missed that in his last two years.

That being said, homers will be homers, and logic will be wasted on them, so there's no real need to continue with this. I hope Amendola is able to play on Thursday. If not, I wish him a full and speedy recovery.

To be fair to Amendola and his injuries, he would probably be full-go if this was a Sunday night game. Unfortunately, the league has Thursday night games which are terrible for the fans (buy NFL Network or you can't watch) and the players (enjoy your 3 days of rest before playing again!), but I'm sure they're great for profits.

I can't see Danny not playing. Tough this game out and then you have a long break to heal up. And with gronk, we will improve immensely.

Meanwhile gronk is somewhere playing backyard wrestling with friends

None of this would have been a issue if the patriots two knucklehead tight ends would have stayed clean.

Now danny has to take the full workload.

Deus Irae said:

And my point was that such an argument is specious.

Click to expand...

You only think it's specious because it's at odds with what your cranio-rectal inversion on this whole topic has come up with.

Presumably you believe that Welker's knee injury was a fluke, isn't a sign of being injury-prone, and therefore was unrelated to playing time.

If so, that means it could have happened any week of the season.

Therefore it was pure luck and not any indication of Welker's lack (or presence) of injury-proneness that it happened in Week 17.

Likewise, it would have been pure luck and not any indication of Welker's lack (or presence) of injury-proneness if it had happened in Week 1.

Thus the fact that Welker missed zero regular season games from that injury instead of 2, or 3, or 7, or 15 is pure luck and doesn't say a single damned thing about how injury-prone (or not) he is.

It's BS to look at games missed absent context. To take an extreme, what if player X missed 23 games over three years because each year he was intentionally and maliciously targeted and injured by a defender? You can't be dumb enough to look at the count of games missed and call such a player "injury-prone".

I hope.

Deus Irae said:

And my point was that such an argument is specious.

Click to expand...

Comedy gold, since in reality it is your argument that is specious. That's not even arguable within the confines of logic.

Run DMC said:

Julian Edelperson as our #1 with a band of unproven rookies. Spread is 13 pts!
I'll take the Jest to cover that all day and then some. This is going to be a close one.
PS, you can bet your azz Edelman will be on IR before the season is over as well. Our 1 and 2 are two injury prone white guys. What a fustercluck. :bricks:

Click to expand...

Name your action....I will be glad to spot you those points (and take your money).

rlcarr said:

"You've got bingo."

If one believes that freak name-your-injury injuries means a player is "fragile" or "injury prone" it obviously doesn't matter when in the season the player has it. Thus pointing to number of games missed, for those kinds of injuries, is pretty meaningless.

I draw a distinction between stuff like Welker blowing his knee out, or Amendola's clavicle injury, or especially Gronk's two injuries and stuff like the constant muscle pull issues I vaguely recall Bethel Johnson having.

There's nothing (yet) about Amendola's injury history that indicates he's somehow "structurally unsound". Now, if he recovers from the groin pull and then tweaks a hammy, and recovers from that and pops a quad, etc., that could be a different story.

And on the flip side you'd have to be an idiot to call Amendola injury-prone if some thug like Pollard intentionally dove into his ankle and sprained it and then when he recovered from that, some other thug helmeted his wrist and broke that.

In other words you have to look at the actual injuries and the context of the injuries. Just looking at number of injuries and number of games missed, without context, is foolishness.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's relevant what type of injury knocked him out. He's had what I would call "exotic" injuries and routine injuries. He's missed 23 games in the last two seasons and, one game into this one, is already looking to miss a game with his new team. If that isn't the definition of a guy that is prone to injury, bad luck or not, then I don't know what is. Like I said, hopefully he get can better soon because we're sure as hell going to need him.

Deus Irae said:

Please cite to those posts. If they're there, I'd love to see the context, because my gripe has been about the team lowballing Welker, not that the team never made him an offer.

Here's a thread that summed up my position at the time:

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/1017122-welker-never-coming-patriots.html

Click to expand...

Well, you're stating that the Pats number 1 priority was Welker, then saying they lowballed the number 1 priority. That's incongruent thinking but maybe your views have evolved. This was never intended to be a "gotcha" type post although reading my first post again I can see why you took offense and I apologize for that.

We actually did it. We are fielding an offense (although just for a week) worse than 2006.

WR1 Caldwell>Edelman
WR2 Gaffney>Thompkins (until proven otherwise)
TE1 Watson> Hooman
TE2 Thomas> Mulligan
RB1 Maroney< Ridley
RB2 Dillon>Blount
3rd down RB Faulk >Bolden/Washington

Imagine taking away Julio Jones and Roddy White from the Falcons, or Bryant and Witten from the cowboys.

The Patriots 2013 week 2 offense will go down as one of the worst fielded in NFL history. Let's go Tom!

KontradictioN said:

He's missed 23 games in the last two seasons

Click to expand...

Actually, for what it's worth-- he's missed 20 in the last 2 seasons.

15 of those came in the 2011 season when he got hurt in the very first week and missed the rest of the season.

The other 5 came last year in 2012. He played in 11/16 games last season.