On The Bubble - IMO, Almost All The Battles Are on Defense

supafly said:

Yeah, sorry for including a ridiculous phrase like 'injury proneness' but I couldn't think of another way to say it. "Rate of injury" would have been more appropriate.

Either way, I agree that we're going in circles and should be hoping for better health. As I said though, I was curious as to what I deemed the "regular" yearly situations produced, and shared the results while admitting that I was purposely leaving out the injury ending season in week one of year three.

I realize that you don't care for this analysis, but it does answer the question of how many games he normally misses in years that don't have a season ending injury; and that number is less than I would've expected. For what it's worth, had he only played 2-3 years, I would find this exercise as ridiculous as you're suggesting, but since he's played 5 full years, I do not find it quite as bad as your insinuation.

Click to expand...

Good stuff, but I've got to get some sleep, so let me leave on this one that I think is a good one for your side of the argument, and you'll be able to have the last word for tonight, if you choose:

"Yeah, he's missed a lot of time, but most of it came in one season. For the rest of his career, it's been pretty much just a game or two in any given season. That's not ideal, but we were spoiled by Welker, who was an iron man as a slot guy. Look at guys like Hawkins, Stokely, Edelman, Harvin, Cobb and even Troy Brown. Missing a game or two (or more) in a lot of years seems to be an occupational hazard for slot receivers in today's game."


P.S. I hope you didn't take my posts as trying to run you over. I was actually trying to avoid the 50 page Amendola highjack by getting everything out on the table. If it came off in any way unkind, smartass, or the like, my apologies, because that was not my intent. As I'm sure you know, I consider you one of this board's very best posters. And, on that note,

Have a great night.

I don't see Amendola as made of glass. He's more reckless than anything. He almost killed himself diving for a ball. He popped up from that catch attempt and threw his helmet against the wall going to the locker room. I would probably have laid on the field like a baby. I just can't think of him as anything but extremely tough.

I hope he can have an Edelman-like season, where he doesn't allow himself to get crushed for an extra inch over and over. Gronk will have t protect himself better as well.

supafly said:

YEAR ONE: 100% (was not signed for games 1 and 2, so only played in 14/14)
YEAR TWO: 100% (16 of 16)
YEAR THREE: early season injury in week one, causing him to miss the season
YEAR FOUR: 69% (11 of 16)
YEAR FIVE: 78% (14 of 18)

Click to expand...

LAST 3 YEARS COMBINED: 25 of 50

He's only played 50% of games in the past 3 seasons.

MrNathanDrake said:

LAST 3 YEARS COMBINED: 25 of 50

He's only played 50% of games in the past 3 seasons.

Click to expand...

I get the concern and understand where you're coming from; however, again....the fact that he became injured in week one of the 3rd season really sways the numbers one way or another, which was pretty much my point.

Do I think it's necessarily "fair" NOT to include it? No. I don't think it's totally fair...but when you look at it in a little different kind of light, it may appear that Amendola is able to play through some of these various injuries a bit more than we thought.

Sticky Caulk said:

I don't see Amendola as made of glass. He's more reckless than anything. He almost killed himself diving for a ball. He popped up from that catch attempt and threw his helmet against the wall going to the locker room. I would probably have laid on the field like a baby. I just can't think of him as anything but extremely tough.

Click to expand...

While it probably has no bearing whatsoever on the debate about how much he's made of glass (which has been the debate), the play you are referring to was the one where he broke his collarbone and was considered by many to have a career threatening injury.

He actually hung around to watch the replay review on the big screen (he didn't end up holding on), then promptly went into the tunnel, smashed his helmet against the wall and yelled. I'm sure there's got to be a ton of frustration in getting injured after working so hard throughout the summer/TC, etc.

To elaborate on your toughness factor, not only did he return to the NFL, but he only ended up missing 3-4 games due to the bye week. If he's able to have some better luck, there are many good qualities about him that may help to define what playing for this team is all about. Of course as usual, that injury and luck factor will provide a big "IF."

supafly said:

I get the concern and understand where you're coming from; however, again....the fact that he became injured in week one of the 3rd season really sways the numbers one way or another, which was pretty much my point.

Do I think it's necessarily "fair" NOT to include it? No. I don't think it's totally fair...but when you look at it in a little different kind of light, it may appear that Amendola is able to play through some of these various injuries a bit more than we thought.

Click to expand...

I get it. I understand where you're coming from too. He's no Talib (leaving games due to a BRUISE!) that's for sure.

But if you look at it in a little different light, he's only played 50% of games over the past 3 years.

Hopefully he can stay healthy this year.

Please!

Not another Amendola ***** fest. Is there another thread to continue that insane debate?

ATippett56 said:

Offense (21):

QB (3) - Brady, Garoppolo, Mallett
FB (1) - Develin
RB (3) - Ridley, Vereen, White
TE (2) - Gronkowski, Hoomanawanui
WR (6) - Amendola, Dobson, Edelman, LaFell, Slater, Thompkins
OT (4) - Cannon, Fleming, Solder, Vollmer
OG (1) - Mankins
OC (1) - Connolly

Hypothetical roster competition: 4th running back versus 3rd tight end versus 7th wide receiver

Hypothetical offensive line allotment: 9 (Pick 3 from Devey, Halapio, Kline, Stork, Wendell)

Click to expand...

I can't foresee Belichick allotting more than 25 "offensive" players to the 53 man roster. With that said, the following are serious candidates for the practice squad from an offensive perspective:

Finch/Gray
Halapio/Kline
Jones, Justin
Gallon, Jeremy
Tyms, Brian

supafly said:

I think the bulk of the whole entire forum assumes more than 5 positional receivers to be honest with you.

Who do you cut?

1) Amendola
2) Edelman
3) Dobson
4) Thompkins
5) LaFell
6) Boyce (for first 4 games), followed by Tyms (for rest of the season)

Even if Boyce is cut now, leaving 5 original WRs (plus Slater) for the first month, Tyms will almost definitely be added, making a total of 7--or 6 "true" positional receivers.

I don't think it matters that much whether or not we cut Boyce now, or cut him when Tyms comes off of suspension. Either way, there will be 6 true receivers.

Click to expand...

We cut Boyce now and have 5 true receivers and then we see whether Tyms fits on the team after 4 weeks, depending on what marginal players show in practice and the health of various positions.

What's funny is that the forum was fairly evenly split between whether we would have 5 or 6 receivers (with the smart money on 5 to my mind) until Tyms flashed in game 1, and suddenly, the popular question is which 6 receivers do we keep. We have one #1 receiver and four #2 receivers. With Dobson back and Amendola still upright, there really isn't call for a #6 receiver, unless he can cover kicks and run back kickoffs. Boyce is fighting an uphill battle to stay in town these next two weeks, and even if he does well, he may only be earning himself a job elsewhere. Tyms is biding his time until after someone gets hurt, and if he can't replace them, he gets waived and finds a job elsewhere or sneaks onto the PS.

MrNathanDrake said:

I'm shocked that some people still don't have Chris Jones in as a lock.

He put up 6 sacks in 11 starts as a rookie interior DLineman. I think he showed quite a bit last year, especially considering he was thrown to the wolves. 6th rd pick, got cut, came to New England, learnt a new playbook on the fly, and all of a sudden was starting every Sunday and expected to fill Wilforks shoes.

He did a pretty damn good job. Don't be surprised if he beats Tommy Kelly out for the starting job sometime this season.

Click to expand...

You had me until this last bit. Tommy Kelly outweighs Chris Jones by 20 pounds. Jones can't hold-up against the run the same way as Kelly. He was turned around and swept aside a couple times in limited action this pre-season, whereas Kelly was a dominant force in his admittedly even more limited time. Jones has the technique and toughness to do that job when called upon, but he is at best close to or equal with Kelly in passing situations, but is not to the point where he is likely to start over Kelly (and Easley).

Deus Irae said:

But it's not really just doing that, is it? It's providing a skewed narrative.



16 times 4 equals 64. 14+16+11+12=53

Click to expand...

Minor quibble - wasn't he signed in week 3 the first year? So it'd be 14?

IMO there are two kinds of players who are called "injury prone." There are the guys like Gronkowski, who are felled by a series of significant but unrelated injuries, and guys like Aqib Talib who keep struggling over and over with the same problem areas (hamstring, hip).

Personally, it's the Talib model that worries me the most. You know the issue is always there lurking and will eventually bite you. Whereas the other type is often just riding an unlucky streak -- statistically, it's bound to happen to some players -- and may not roll snake eyes again. E.g. Stephen Neal never put together a 16-game season until well into his career, when he did it 2 years in a row.

Deus Irae said:

Good stuff, but I've got to get some sleep, so let me leave on this one that I think is a good one for your side of the argument, and you'll be able to have the last word for tonight, if you choose:

"Yeah, he's missed a lot of time, but most of it came in one season. For the rest of his career, it's been pretty much just a game or two in any given season. That's not ideal, but we were spoiled by Welker, who was an iron man as a slot guy. Look at guys like Hawkins, Stokely, Edelman, Harvin, Cobb and even Troy Brown. Missing a game or two (or more) in a lot of years seems to be an occupational hazard for slot receivers in today's game."


P.S. I hope you didn't take my posts as trying to run you over. I was actually trying to avoid the 50 page Amendola highjack by getting everything out on the table. If it came off in any way unkind, smartass, or the like, my apologies, because that was not my intent. As I'm sure you know, I consider you one of this board's very best posters. And, on that note,

Have a great night.

Click to expand...

If you think about Welker, he tore his ACL in Week 17 whereas Amendola dislocated his elbow in Week 1 of 2011. Both are season ending injuries except one happened in Week 16 and one happened in Week 1.

Something about Amendola that doesn't come up are his 2009 and 2010 seasons. Where not only did he work his way into a starting role, but returned 116 kicks, 71 punts and only missed two games those two seasons.

The statistical variance on injuries is insane.

patchick said:

IMO there are two kinds of players who are called "injury prone." There are the guys like Gronkowski, who are felled by a series of significant but unrelated injuries, and guys like Aqib Talib who keep struggling over and over with the same problem areas (hamstring, hip).

Personally, it's the Talib model that worries me the most. You know the issue is always there lurking and will eventually bite you. Whereas the other type is often just riding an unlucky streak -- statistically, it's bound to happen to some players -- and may not roll snake eyes again. E.g. Stephen Neal never put together a 16-game season until well into his career, when he did it 2 years in a row.

Click to expand...

I completely agree and couldn't have said it better. The same, nagging injury says a lot more about a player than that one off ACL tear.

I think we should pay more attention to what was said earlier...it's between a 3rd TE, or a 4th RB, or a 7th WR

considering that we can put our new RBs on the PS with less risk, and our #2 TE and thereby our #3 TE even more won't be much of a pass catcher target...and the fact that with 3 RBs and 1 FB we already have 4 runners, and the FB is practicing as a #3 TE too....I'm willing to bet BB is going to have a 7th WR over a 4th RB or a true 3rd TE....it sounds crazy but Boyce and tyms are too good to cut right now, and also considering how easily WRs get hurt and only Gronk is a true pass catcher at TE we need the firepower at WR...

It's possible that BB takes the roster spot from D or elsewhere, but I'm fairly confident we will have 7 (6 true) WRs on the roster opening day...what will happen when Tyms comes back will be very interesting

VrabelJr said:

If you think about Welker, he tore his ACL in Week 17 whereas Amendola dislocated his elbow in Week 1 of 2011. Both are season ending injuries except one happened in Week 16 and one happened in Week 1.

Something about Amendola that doesn't come up are his 2009 and 2010 seasons. Where not only did he work his way into a starting role, but returned 116 kicks, 71 punts and only missed two games those two seasons.

The statistical variance on injuries is insane.

Click to expand...

I'm not rehashing the Welker v. Amendola thing with injuries. It's been done. It's a bad argument on the Amendola side, for multiple reasons.

patchick said:

IMO there are two kinds of players who are called "injury prone." There are the guys like Gronkowski, who are felled by a series of significant but unrelated injuries, and guys like Aqib Talib who keep struggling over and over with the same problem areas (hamstring, hip).

Personally, it's the Talib model that worries me the most. You know the issue is always there lurking and will eventually bite you. Whereas the other type is often just riding an unlucky streak -- statistically, it's bound to happen to some players -- and may not roll snake eyes again. E.g. Stephen Neal never put together a 16-game season until well into his career, when he did it 2 years in a row.

Click to expand...

There's also the little guy playing a big-man's game type of injury-prone. I think Amendola falls into that model. He's tough, but the physics aren't in his favor. Hopefully, a shift to more of a 3rd receiver role will protect him from some of the abuse.

ALP said:

I think we should pay more attention to what was said earlier...it's between a 3rd TE, or a 4th RB, or a 7th WR

considering that we can put our new RBs on the PS with less risk, and our #2 TE and thereby our #3 TE even more won't be much of a pass catcher target...and the fact that with 3 RBs and 1 FB we already have 4 runners, and the FB is practicing as a #3 TE too....I'm willing to bet BB is going to have a 7th WR over a 4th RB or a true 3rd TE....it sounds crazy but Boyce and tyms are too good to cut right now, and also considering how easily WRs get hurt and only Gronk is a true pass catcher at TE we need the firepower at WR...

It's possible that BB takes the roster spot from D or elsewhere, but I'm fairly confident we will have 7 (6 true) WRs on the roster opening day...what will happen when Tyms comes back will be very interesting

Click to expand...

While I'd agree that the FB plus a OL can serve as a 3rd TE, a 7th WR makes less sense than a 4th RB, especially when the RB is a regular on special teams. Bolden plays on 3 or 4 ST units; Boyce on 1, and Tyms none. If anything, because they are only have one RB under contract after this year, they might go for a 5th RB or take Finch over Bolden (if they can find enough suitable ST players who can run, block, and tackle).

The notion that a 6th-string player is too good to cut ignores the fundamental reality that the pre-season is a competition, and if there are a bunch of guys outplaying you at your position, you're going to be hard-pressed to win a job. Boyce might have enough of a pedigree to net the Pats a 7th round draft pick in a trade, if somebody low on the waiver wire priority list wants him enough, but the Pats don't currently have a use for him unless he breaks-out in the very near future. They even have all 5 guys that are ahead of him under contract for next year, too (although Amendola could be cut for economic considerations then). There's no compelling reason to save him for the future if he can't perform now, unlike for example, Zack Moore, who is a unique physical talent at a position of limited depth.

pencilneckgeek said:

We cut Boyce now and have 5 true receivers and then we see whether Tyms fits on the team after 4 weeks, depending on what marginal players show in practice and the health of various positions.

What's funny is that the forum was fairly evenly split between whether we would have 5 or 6 receivers (with the smart money on 5 to my mind) until Tyms flashed in game 1, and suddenly, the popular question is which 6 receivers do we keep. We have one #1 receiver and four #2 receivers. With Dobson back and Amendola still upright, there really isn't call for a #6 receiver, unless he can cover kicks and run back kickoffs. Boyce is fighting an uphill battle to stay in town these next two weeks, and even if he does well, he may only be earning himself a job elsewhere. Tyms is biding his time until after someone gets hurt, and if he can't replace them, he gets waived and finds a job elsewhere or sneaks onto the PS.

Click to expand...

Given the way injuries ravaged the WR corps last season I know /I'm/ more comfortable with 6 real WRs.

MrNathanDrake said:

BB might have trouble parting with a 4th rd pick from just last year.

Click to expand...

Ya I highly doubt that.

rochrist said:

Given the way injuries ravaged the WR corps last season I know /I'm/ more comfortable with 6 real WRs.

Click to expand...

I feel the same way, but I also feel that way about DT based on last year, DB based on several recent years, and RB based on the amount of abuse they take every other play.