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

[Deus Irae]

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.

There's nothing incongruent about it, and it's obviously not the first time they've played financial games with a high level player. That's the problem, actually. This team still hasn't learned that you don't need to grind every negotiation out as if it were a battle for survival. Since that's happened across the contract guys' spectrum, it's likely that it's a BB issue. It's the frog and the scorpion time and again, unfortunately.

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.

Not a problem...

And on that note, I'll leave you any last word.

 

[RobAllan]

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!

 

[cmasspatsfan]

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.

I get your point on Ahern, not on Gronk

 

[ivanvamp]

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.

Clearly Welker has been more durable. But the gap isn't as wide as the games played would seem, because it was only by sheer luck that Welker's injury happened at the end of a season and not the beginning.

To illustrate using an extreme example, imagine player A suffers an injury in the last preseason game that is freak and serious. In a pile, a lineman is shoved onto him after the whistle, and it snaps his leg Theismann-style. So he's out for the year. Misses 16 games. He's fine every other season for the next 5 years.

Player B suffers the same injury to the same basic body part in the second half of game 16 every year for 5 straight seasons. So he ends up, technically, missing zero games over 5 years, but he gets injured every year.

Using games played, we'd have to say that player A is more injury-prone and less durable. But clearly, this context would mean that such a conclusion is nonsense.

The point of this exercise, clearly, is to illustrate that not all games missed are the same, or indicate the same thing.

 

[RIpats88]

what i'm more curious about, is sitting him thursday because of the short week? (only 3 days of rest) and if the game was on sunday, would he have played

hopefuly that is the case, and they just dont want him to push it and further injure the groin on 3 days of rest

 

[Rob0729]

You know what is funny is that people got all upset when Deion Branch left and juiced when he returned (myself included), yet he is far more injury prone than Amendola. Branch played 11 years and played a full 16 game season only in the 2005 season. No one ever complained about how injury prone he was. Some of the same people who are trashing the Pats for Amendola and his injury history are the same ones who trashed them for letting an injury prone guy like Branch go rather than pay him elite WR money.

 

[fnordcircle]

You know what is funny is that people got all upset when Deion Branch left and juiced when he returned (myself included), yet he is far more injury prone than Amendola. Branch played 11 years and played a full 16 game season only in the 2005 season. No one ever complained about how injury prone he was. Some of the same people who are trashing the Pats for Amendola and his injury history are the same ones who trashed them for letting an injury prone guy like Branch go rather than pay him elite WR money.

Look, all I'm saying is if you ever decide to try out dudes, look me up because you're my favorite poster and I think that is the good basis to forge a loving bond.

 

[fnordcircle]

Man, it is so weird to see images I made at another site show up here. My old PVR, can you believe we watched games in SD?

 

[Rob0729]

Look, all I'm saying is if you ever decide to try out dudes, look me up because you're my favorite poster and I think that is the good basis to forge a loving bond.

I don't know if I should be flattered or get a restraining order.

 

[primetime]

It's the frog and the scorpion time and again, unfortunately.

This is pretty much the perfect metaphor for the way players have been managed over the past decade or so.

 

[supafly]

I find it very reasonable to be concerned over Amendola's potential to miss time, but I do feel somewhat compelled to stick up for what I deem as the "truth" in terms of 3/4 seasons being decently productive under the circumstances. A lot of people keep harping on the "20 missed games" stat, but in all reality 15 of those were due to having a season ending injury. The other 3 yrs he played relatively healthy, at least nothing really out of the ordinary, and I think that is the point that the Amendola "defenders" are attempting to point out. Why don't we hear about Talib's inability to be able to actually complete the season, now in his 6th yr in the NFL? Why is it always about Amendola? I can't help but wonder if the Welker feelings and bitterness sometimes come into play when discussing him? It's probably only natural. After all, it was a very sticky situation that likely should never have happened, and he's a great player--now for a conference rival.

In other words, I personally do not mean to sound like a homer and stick my head in the sand. It's also my personal opinion that Amendola's situation isn't much different from many other players who have had injuries and weren't able to play an entire 16 game slate. Those players include Spikes, Talib, Edelman, Gronk, Hernandez (obviously in the past), and Fletcher. That is mainly the one and only reason why I have stuck up for him. I just feel that his specific situation is somewhat overblown. In the end I don't think that there is necessarily any right or wrong opinion, as it will likely be split down the middle.

The important thing that we all can agree on is this: Amendola obviously has a lot of potential and has indeed proven himself to be a very talented player in multiple areas. The one and only concern is going to be his ability to stay healthy, and I don't think it's necessarily fair to continue to compare him to Welker anymore. He won't be able to stay healthy like Welker did here, possibly due to luck, possibly due to inability to handle a full season, or possibly due to some combination of the two aspects. That is the tradeoff that we will have to deal with over the next several years. The good thing is that Amendola has a high upside and may be doing great things here long after Welker has left the league, so we must remember that this move was made not just for the present, but also the long term.

 

[chumpchange]

I hate to be part of the ITYS (I Told You So) club. But I told you so,

Seriously. You don't have to be a brain surgeon to see this guy is fragile goods and cannot stay on the field. Nobody's questioning his desire to be tough and contribute, but weak flesh trumps strong spirit, and Amendola's flesh is clearly made of glass. Don't know what Bill/Josh was thinking. God, I miss Welker.

 

[AzorianPats]

Seriously. You don't have to be a brain surgeon to see this guy is fragile goods and cannot stay on the field. Nobody's questioning his desire to be tough and contribute, but weak flesh trumps strong spirit, and Amendola's flesh is clearly made of glass. Don't know what Bill/Josh was thinking. God, I miss Welker.

Fragile? Made of glass???? I swear I love this team, but after hearing all the crap about Amendola since he's gotten here, I can see why other fan bases despise us.. Pure stupidity and ignorence.

 

[RhodyPatriot]

I've heard there is a chance DannE will play.
Number one fan TomE Curran has offered to personally massage that problematic groin 'til game time.

 

[AzorianPats]

I've heard there is a chance DannE will play.
Number one fan TomE Curran has offered to personally massage that problematic groin 'til game time.

Speaking of stupidity. .......

 

[Keyser Söze]

Fragile? Made of glass???? I swear I love this team, but after hearing all the crap about Amendola since he's gotten here, I can see why other fan bases despise us.. Pure stupidity and ignorence.

Yeah stupidity to call a constantly injured player as fragile . Get over yourself.

 

[Danger Zone]

Someone should run the numbers.

Welker had a season-ending injury at the end of the year.

Amendola had his at the beginning.

If Welker had missed 16 actual games from his "season-ending" how much closer does that bring them in time lost due to injury?

 

[AzorianPats]

Yeah stupidity to call a constantly injured player as fragile . Get over yourself.

Yes. Stupidity (and ignorence) calling a player "fragile" that came back in the game and was the main reason we came away with a W. Fragile, constantly injured players made of glass don't do that.

 

[RobAllan]

Yes. Stupidity (and ignorence) calling a player "fragile" that came back in the game and was the main reason we came away with a W. Fragile, constantly injured players made of glass don't do that.

I understand the dude is tough as nails.

The guy has missed a ton of games, left that game for a bit, and is missing this one. What part of that doesn't sound like a "constantly injured" player to you? How much do you have to miss for it to be constant? Is it not constant already? Where is your line for this? Please quantify it so we can all know when you're on the same page.

Look, I hope people are right and this is the last hiccup in an otherwise injury-free career. But for RIGHT NOW, yours does not remotely sound like the better argument. It doesn't even sound like it's based on anything other than liking the guy, which is admirable, but does not a logical foundation make. Common sense has to come into play at some point. If the dude misses a ton of games, he is "constantly injured." If the sample size increases and that percentage starts looking better, then it's fair to revisit if it's still true.

 

[Nunchucks]

Yeah stupidity to call a constantly injured player as fragile . Get over yourself.

Why waste time and effort hating on Patriots players when you could waste that time and effort hating on other teams' players?

I don't get why you have to hate on the Patriots.