We should have resigned W... (not Welker - Woodhead)

[ausbacker]

we have vereen..or did..no need for danny

Every decision is reviewable after the fact Brady_to_Moss. Naturally, the parties who were pulling for one outcome bleat the loudest when that outcome proves to be useful after the fact.

 

[Ring 6]

Your actually funny, I offered to move off this yesterday but you kept following me around like a troll so this is where we have landed, you lying to me and lying to yourself, we both know you kept this going because fighting on forums is fulfilling to you and I indulged you and like a fat chick with a bag of chocolate you just couldn't stop. Today I gave you a good look at yourself in the mirror so you claim your here to talk football just like the fat chick claims she's on a diet after she sees her reflection in the mirror.

I'd tell you to stop lying to me but you need to stop lying to yourself first Andy.

1) Each of my posts was a response to you responding to one of mine.
2) You just doubled down on your level of immaturity
3) I have always been here to talk football, but you have insisted on crying and throwing personal insults.
4) Please don't kill me like all the others you have killed

 

[Ring 6]

So what's the physiological correlation between lower body muscle strains and upper body broken bones?

There isn't one.

 

[mgteich]

I'll say it again. This is out of line.

Please don't kill me like all the others you have killed

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

Every decision is reviewable after the fact Brady_to_Moss. Naturally, the parties who were pulling for one outcome bleat the loudest when that outcome proves to be useful after the fact.

well i know that...but at the time..it was a no brainier becasue who else would they have dumped ect?

 

[ausbacker]

well i know that...but at the time..it was a no brainier becasue who else would they have dumped ect?

Precisely. Everything is easy when you know the outcome. Still, the Patriots are winning and I am hopeful that come January, they would have qualified for the Playoffs with a high seed and a full compliment of non-IRed players available for another Superbowl assault.

 

[Ian]

I'll say it again. This is out of line.

I'd have to agree. Let's move this thread back toward the original intention and remove any references toward the military, etc. That includes both sides (AndyJohnson & Brady6 as neither reference or comment in this thread are relevant. Please also refrain from engaging one another as I see this also has occurred in other threads. Clearly there is a dislike between you two, however, I'd prefer if you both move on and focus on keeping it out of future threads.

 

[Sciz]

My thought now is the NFL is a extremely violent sport and some players bodies are not capable of that type of abuse so in some way whether a broken bone, pulled muscle or torn ligament will suffer some injury no matter what the situation. You may not be able to predict the actual injury but if a players body breaks down in some form every year you should predict something.

So does Amendola have weak collarbones, Vereen have a weak wrist, and Gronk have weak ankle ligaments?

I'm not arguing that there's no such thing as being injury prone. Certain players are definitely more predisposed to certain injuries than others. I'd say it's safe to say that Gronk's back will always be a bit of a risk for re-injury. There are NFL players that have had three torn ACLs. I'd say there's definitely something wrong with their knees or another body part that affects the knees. I firmly believe that Mankins' ankle and calf injuries last season were a direct result of compensating for a recovering knee after ACL surgery.

What bugs me is that the majority of fans don't draw the line between correlations of injuries based on the actual injuries that happened, but rather based on the quantity of injuries. Nobody cares that Jerod Mayo sprained his MCL twice in three seasons, but people are very quick to use lower body muscle sprains to predict upper body broken bones in hindsight and vice versa.

But even that isn't consistent from player to player. In a recent two year span, a certain player had a high ankle sprain, a torn ACL, three broken ribs, and a broken finger. Any player other than Tom Brady, and that player is made out of glass according to fans. Since he's Tom Brady, nobody argues that he's injury prone or that those injuries are at all related. It's not like playing quarterback means anything, because outside of the ankle sprain late in the 2007 season that the team successfully told nobody anything about, we know that all of those injuries were caused by contact, and since football is a game that involves a lot of contact, people expect that football players can remain healthy despite plenty of contact.

So basically, this doesn't come down to Amendola or Vereen or any other given player (although I think those two are great examples). It's the idea that makes no sense to me.


[Posted before Ian's post. If this isn't where you want the thread going, feel free to delete. I have it saved for the next time this conversation inevitably comes up directly. ]

 

[Ring 6]

I'd have to agree. Let's move this thread back toward the original intention and remove any references toward the military, etc. That includes both sides (AndyJohnson & Brady6 as neither reference or comment in this thread are relevant. Please also refrain from engaging one another as I see this also has occurred in other threads. Clearly there is a dislike between you two, however, I'd prefer if you both move on and focus on keeping it out of future threads.

I will do so, but the comment that I don't want to argue with you because I kill people was over the top.

 

[Brady6]

Re: Re: We should have resigned W...

So does Amendola have weak collarbones, Vereen have a weak wrist, and Gronk have weak ankle ligaments?

I'm not arguing that there's no such thing as being injury prone. Certain players are definitely more predisposed to certain injuries than others. I'd say it's safe to say that Gronk's back will always be a bit of a risk for re-injury. There are NFL players that have had three torn ACLs. I'd say there's definitely something wrong with their knees or another body part that affects the knees. I firmly believe that Mankins' ankle and calf injuries last season were a direct result of compensating for a recovering knee after ACL surgery.

What bugs me is that the majority of fans don't draw the line between correlations of injuries based on the actual injuries that happened, but rather based on the quantity of injuries. Nobody cares that Jerod Mayo sprained his MCL twice in three seasons, but people are very quick to use lower body muscle sprains to predict upper body broken bones in hindsight and vice versa.

But even that isn't consistent from player to player. In a recent two year span, a certain player had a high ankle sprain, a torn ACL, three broken ribs, and a broken finger. Any player other than Tom Brady, and that player is made out of glass according to fans. Since he's Tom Brady, nobody argues that he's injury prone or that those injuries are at all related. It's not like playing quarterback means anything, because outside of the ankle sprain late in the 2007 season that the team successfully told nobody anything about, we know that all of those injuries were caused by contact, and since football is a game that involves a lot of contact, people expect that football players can remain healthy despite plenty of contact.

So basically, this doesn't come down to Amendola or Vereen or any other given player (although I think those two are great examples). It's the idea that makes no sense to me.


[Posted before Ian's post. If this isn't where you want the thread going, feel free to delete. I have it saved for the next time this conversation inevitably comes up directly. ]

I just think it's something about the make of the human body like some people can jump really high, well some can handle impact better then others, I don't know that it means anything more then that, but it does appear injured players get injured and durable players don't. I think that was some of the shock for the Wilfork injury because he never came off the field with trainers, had that been someone like Amendola we would have all been like - expected.

 

[Brady6]

Re: Re: We should have resigned W...

I'd have to agree. Let's move this thread back toward the original intention and remove any references toward the military, etc. That includes both sides (AndyJohnson & Brady6 as neither reference or comment in this thread are relevant. Please also refrain from engaging one another as I see this also has occurred in other threads. Clearly there is a dislike between you two, however, I'd prefer if you both move on and focus on keeping it out of future threads.

MG, AB and Ian I appreciate the support it really does mean a lot, that aside I should have just took the high road, the fact is there is way to much to enjoy about this board and far to many members I enjoy, and look forward to discussing pats new with for me to allow myself to get caught up with occasional negative. I apologies to all of you for forcing you to pay witness to my less then admirable behavior.

Brady6

 

[Sciz]

I just think it's something about the make of the human body like some people can jump really high, well some can handle impact better then others, I don't know that it means anything more then that, but it does appear injured players get injured and durable players don't. I think that was some of the shock for the Wilfork injury because he never came off the field with trainers, had that been someone like Amendola we would have all been like - expected.

I think this post does a good job of representing what I see wrong with this line of thinking. Plenty of people have these "thoughts" and "feelings," but other than this weak body theory that people "think" and "feel," all we have is a bunch of correlation without any rational argument for causation. Now with a guy like Dowling, I'd totally buy an argument that his hip reconstruction greatly compromised the smooth operation of his entire lower body. When we're talking about lower body muscle injuries and upper body broken bones, I'm seeing a whole lot of feelings and not a whole lot of anything else.

(I don't mean to attack you with this post. It's just a really good example of the popular opinion.)

 

[Brady6]

I think this post does a good job of representing what I see wrong with this line of thinking. Plenty of people have these "thoughts" and "feelings," but other than this weak body theory that people "think" and "feel," all we have is a bunch of correlation without any rational argument for causation. Now with a guy like Dowling, I'd totally buy an argument that his hip reconstruction greatly compromised the smooth operation of his entire lower body. When we're talking about lower body muscle injuries and upper body broken bones, I'm seeing a whole lot of feelings and not a whole lot of anything else.

(I don't mean to attack you with this post. It's just a really good example of the popular opinion.)

I get what you’re saying and actually agree with it, unfortunately my medical knowledge is limited so I cannot provide you with a proper explanation with tangible context to support it, all I can do is offer my eye test review which is that some players for some reason beyond my scope of knowledge have a disposition to injuries.

On a personal note there were times and experiences in my life where I questioned a lot of the unknowns of life, such as life after death, if god exists, why some of us experience such joy and others experience such sorrow, that was a dark time for me and during it I realized that not everything is going to have a definitive reason behind it. Maybe this question on a lesser scale is in that same fundamental category, maybe there is no explanation for why Amendola is always injured and someone like Welker can take on devastating hits and not miss a beat. I think just like the poor person probably wishes things were different and they had a trust fund like the kid they went to high school with Danny wishes he had the durability that Wes has, it just seems out of his control on some levels.

As far as attacking no worries brother, I did not take it that way at all, like I said you make a valid point, I just don’t know that I would label it a problem anymore than expecting things to change in terms of durability for these players, it is likely just a putting your hand down to pet the dog and get bit to many times type affect, how many times can I say it is not Amendola before I have to come to terms with the fact that it might actually be.

 

[BTTA]

There is always the possibility that, in the context of a handful of relatively similar offers, Woodhead decided he'd rather play in San Diego. Maybe southern CA appealed to him, maybe he wanted to try another team, maybe...

Perhaps to suggest that we could have had him if we simply equaled the Chargers' offer is a bit self important?

 

[PatsFanSince74]

To quote a well-known AFCE HC who shall remain unnamed: "It is what it is!"

What does it matter?

Woodhead, Welker or Whoever?

It's Week Five for cryin' out loud. We're 4--0.
Those guys are gone.
Not here.
Playing elsewhere.
Otherwise occupied.

Were those good decisions? Great decisions? Bad decisions? Awful decisions? I'd be ready to have that discussion in January after 17 weeks of the Regular Season have gone by, but what difference does it make now?

For now, let's support "the team we have" not "the team that some folks want us to have."

 

[BelizePats]

I have to agree with Andy here. The OP is viewing this situation entirely with the benefit of hindsight, which is BS. In year 3 of his contract, Vareen had to play and based on what we saw of him in game 1, there is little doubt that had he not been injured, there is no way you would be calling for Woodhead to have been resigned. Vareens' development meant that Woodhead was no longer needed as rosters simply aren't big enough to carry 2 third down backs.
By letting Woodhead go (and there is no guarantee that he would have resigned had the team wanted him to) we put a better player on the field while saving $ by doing so. The fact that Vareen got hurt does not make this a poor decision by the team. And may I remind the OP that we are 4-0 so its not like the decision to let him go has blown up in the teams face.

 

[Brady6]

We should have resigned W...

I have to agree with Andy here. The OP is viewing this situation entirely with the benefit of hindsight, which is BS. In year 3 of his contract, Vareen had to play and based on what we saw of him in game 1, there is little doubt that had he not been injured, there is no way you would be calling for Woodhead to have been resigned. Vareens' development meant that Woodhead was no longer needed as rosters simply aren't big enough to carry 2 third down backs.
By letting Woodhead go (and there is no guarantee that he would have resigned had the team wanted him to) we put a better player on the field while saving $ by doing so. The fact that Vareen got hurt does not make this a poor decision by the team. And may I remind the OP that we are 4-0 so its not like the decision to let him go has blown up in the teams face.

I wrote the OP and even if Vereen was having a Marshall Faulk like season I would still call for Danny Woodhead, whether others agree or not I am of the opinion that Woodhead could be a contributor in multiple roles on the field that would not have resulted in detriment to Vereen.

As far as it being hindsight or BS I have to disagree because despite my high hopes for Vereen coming into the season if I was asked if he would miss at least 25% of the regular season to an injury I would have said yes, and I would have answered that way based on his history of injuries.

 

[Rob0729]

\We need to stop looking at players who left. They aren't here anymore. It is an exercise in futility.

I will say Woodhead has been far better than I thought he would be in San Diego. I wish him all the best. Time to move on.