Mack Herron
Pro Bowl Player
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2006
- Messages
- 15,110
- Reaction score
- 21,141
I can see Brady easily putting up a 42 spot on the Rex's defense on Thursday night without Amendola.
What do you see now?
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.I can see Brady easily putting up a 42 spot on the Rex's defense on Thursday night without Amendola.
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.
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!
...and if my aunt had a penis and a pair of testicles, she'd be my uncle.
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?
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?
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.
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.
And my point was that such an argument is specious.
And my point was that such an argument is specious.
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:
"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.
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
He's missed 23 games in the last two seasons