Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Update: Danny Amendola could miss 3-6 weeks
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> New England Patriots
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Pats#1


Joined: 19 Aug 2011
Posts: 5992
Location: Plymouth, MA
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 10:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Deadpulse wrote:
Pats#1 wrote:
jofos wrote:
Pats#1 wrote:
Tzimisce wrote:
Billy Spikes wrote:
Quote:
Source: Danny Amendola is not going to have sports hernia surgery. Return now in framework of a few weeks


https://twitter.com/kguregian/status/380075005935378432
does foregoing the surgery put him at more of a risk to reaggravate it?


From him being trying to practice on it and now foregoing surgery it definitely feels like he is trying to rush to get back as quickly as possible instead of making sure its fully healed. That's all speculation on my part of course, but how could not having the surgery be the better of the two choices when it is so early in the season?

I'm no doctor so there very well could be good reason to not do the surgery, but it just feels like he is putting a lot of pressure on himself to get back as quickly as possible because I'm sure he wants to play but more so is putting a lot of pressure on himself trying to shake the whole injury prone title he has.

Idk, I just want him 100% before coming back.


http://www.sportsherniasouth.com/Sports-Hernia-Surgery-Questions.html

A few years ago we had two players with sports hernias in August a few weeks before the season started. On was a Jr the other a Sr, the senior didn't want to miss anytime so he opted to go to therapy. The JR had surgery. The therapist a guy named Bob Fleming, who must have been Mr. Miyagi's teacher, told me he could have the guy back 100% in 3 weeks. The kid played the first game two weeks later and never had an issue. The other player came back 4 weeks after the surgery and his parents said had he been a senior they would have not done the surgery so he would have missed time.
A sports hernia is a hit or miss thing that depends on the person most of the time. With that said as much as I would like to see some one that can catch and run routes on the field this weekend we need long term health. Surgery or not I just hope that he isn't rushed back.


Yea, I figured it was more of a case by case basis on what the best route to go is, but I just hope they aren't looking at the WR corps right now and having that be a factor in their decision.

The Pats really don't need to win right now, they need to win later.


They can get by the Bucs like they did the Jets IMO, risky but doable. We have very little chance against the Falcons without one of Gronk or Amendola back.


I think it's highly unlikely we get the bye for the playoffs...so I really don't care about losing to an NFC team at this point.

If it's between playing it Safe with Amendola and Gronk, or losing to the Bucs and Falcons, I'll take losing all day considering the situation we are in right now.

I can put up with all the media coverage talking about Brady and the Pats being over the hill and sucking....what I can't put up with is going into the playoffs and losing again with some of our best players playing injured.
_________________


Sig credit: Deadpulse
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Deadpulse


Joined: 16 Oct 2008
Posts: 9766
Location: Boston MA
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 10:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't think anyone on the Patriots payroll thinks that losing is acceptable.
_________________

Sigs-Taking Requests
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pats#1


Joined: 19 Aug 2011
Posts: 5992
Location: Plymouth, MA
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 10:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Deadpulse wrote:
I don't think anyone on the Patriots payroll thinks that losing is acceptable.


I'm not saying they should throw the games...I'm saying making sure that they don't bring players back too early, especially ones as important as Gronk and Amendola, so that their injuries are lingering for the whole season, should be priority #1, not winning 1 or 2 extra games in the regular season against non conference opponents.

I want to see the Pats win as many games as possible just as much as everyone else, but I'd rather them have a mediocre regular season while making sure they keep everyone healthy for the playoffs, then a very good regular season and enter the playoffs with their star players having nagging injuries.
_________________


Sig credit: Deadpulse
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Deadpulse


Joined: 16 Oct 2008
Posts: 9766
Location: Boston MA
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 10:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pats#1 wrote:
Deadpulse wrote:
I don't think anyone on the Patriots payroll thinks that losing is acceptable.


I'm not saying they should throw the games...I'm saying making sure that they don't bring players back too early, especially ones as important as Gronk and Amendola, so that their injuries are lingering for the whole season, should be priority #1, not winning 1 or 2 extra games in the regular season against non conference opponents.

I want to see the Pats win as many games as possible just as much as everyone else, but I'd rather them have a mediocre regular season while making sure they keep everyone healthy for the playoffs, then a very good regular season and enter the playoffs with their star players having nagging injuries.


I get this, but whose to say these two losses coupled with the inevitable ones from later on don't keep us out of the playoffs? Whose to say we are unhealthy anyways later on and miss the playoffs? I understand wanting to not rush them back, but these are professionals across the board in a league whose #2 concern right after making money is player safety. They will be back when they are ready to be back.
_________________

Sigs-Taking Requests
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mcmurtry86


Joined: 02 Mar 2010
Posts: 25688
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 11:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Deadpulse wrote:
Pats#1 wrote:
Deadpulse wrote:
I don't think anyone on the Patriots payroll thinks that losing is acceptable.


I'm not saying they should throw the games...I'm saying making sure that they don't bring players back too early, especially ones as important as Gronk and Amendola, so that their injuries are lingering for the whole season, should be priority #1, not winning 1 or 2 extra games in the regular season against non conference opponents.

I want to see the Pats win as many games as possible just as much as everyone else, but I'd rather them have a mediocre regular season while making sure they keep everyone healthy for the playoffs, then a very good regular season and enter the playoffs with their star players having nagging injuries.


I get this, but whose to say these two losses coupled with the inevitable ones from later on don't keep us out of the playoffs? Whose to say we are unhealthy anyways later on and miss the playoffs? I understand wanting to not rush them back, but these are professionals across the board in a league whose #2 concern right after making money is player safety. They will be back when they are ready to be back.


Yeah, you can't just say "I'd rather lose now" or "losing now is OK because Gronk and Amendola need to be healthy later"

What if Wilfork blows out his knee in November right when Gronk and Amendola are 100%? Or some weird string of luck costs them a game somewhere?

In a 16 game season where 1 game is usually the difference between a bye and a 1st round matchup and 1-2 games might decide the division this year, there are no preferred losses. The Pats need to do everything they can to win every game in front of them because you never know what will happen months from now. Maybe Brady has to miss a game or 2. Maybe the team gets screwed by a bad call from a ref etc etc. Every game is a must win and should be treated as such by the coaching staff. That doesn't mean play guys if they have high chances of re-injury, but if they're cleared to play, they need to play.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pats#1


Joined: 19 Aug 2011
Posts: 5992
Location: Plymouth, MA
PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 12:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcmurtry86 wrote:
Deadpulse wrote:
Pats#1 wrote:
Deadpulse wrote:
I don't think anyone on the Patriots payroll thinks that losing is acceptable.


I'm not saying they should throw the games...I'm saying making sure that they don't bring players back too early, especially ones as important as Gronk and Amendola, so that their injuries are lingering for the whole season, should be priority #1, not winning 1 or 2 extra games in the regular season against non conference opponents.

I want to see the Pats win as many games as possible just as much as everyone else, but I'd rather them have a mediocre regular season while making sure they keep everyone healthy for the playoffs, then a very good regular season and enter the playoffs with their star players having nagging injuries.


I get this, but whose to say these two losses coupled with the inevitable ones from later on don't keep us out of the playoffs? Whose to say we are unhealthy anyways later on and miss the playoffs? I understand wanting to not rush them back, but these are professionals across the board in a league whose #2 concern right after making money is player safety. They will be back when they are ready to be back.


Yeah, you can't just say "I'd rather lose now" or "losing now is OK because Gronk and Amendola need to be healthy later"

What if Wilfork blows out his knee in November right when Gronk and Amendola are 100%? Or some weird string of luck costs them a game somewhere?

In a 16 game season where 1 game is usually the difference between a bye and a 1st round matchup and 1-2 games might decide the division this year, there are no preferred losses. The Pats need to do everything they can to win every game in front of them because you never know what will happen months from now. Maybe Brady has to miss a game or 2. Maybe the team gets screwed by a bad call from a ref etc etc. Every game is a must win and should be treated as such by the coaching staff. That doesn't mean play guys if they have high chances of re-injury, but if they're cleared to play, they need to play.


If they are 100% ready to come back then by all means bring them back, every game is important. But if there was a choice of playing now with a higher risk of re-injury, or sitting out another week or two, I would rather have the latter.

I think the Pats are good enough to win the AFCE without the help of Amendola and Gronk. I know i'm thinking too far ahead, but I can't help but be concerned about the health of the team come playoff time.
_________________


Sig credit: Deadpulse
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Deadpulse


Joined: 16 Oct 2008
Posts: 9766
Location: Boston MA
PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 12:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pats#1 wrote:
mcmurtry86 wrote:
Deadpulse wrote:
Pats#1 wrote:
Deadpulse wrote:
I don't think anyone on the Patriots payroll thinks that losing is acceptable.


I'm not saying they should throw the games...I'm saying making sure that they don't bring players back too early, especially ones as important as Gronk and Amendola, so that their injuries are lingering for the whole season, should be priority #1, not winning 1 or 2 extra games in the regular season against non conference opponents.

I want to see the Pats win as many games as possible just as much as everyone else, but I'd rather them have a mediocre regular season while making sure they keep everyone healthy for the playoffs, then a very good regular season and enter the playoffs with their star players having nagging injuries.


I get this, but whose to say these two losses coupled with the inevitable ones from later on don't keep us out of the playoffs? Whose to say we are unhealthy anyways later on and miss the playoffs? I understand wanting to not rush them back, but these are professionals across the board in a league whose #2 concern right after making money is player safety. They will be back when they are ready to be back.


Yeah, you can't just say "I'd rather lose now" or "losing now is OK because Gronk and Amendola need to be healthy later"

What if Wilfork blows out his knee in November right when Gronk and Amendola are 100%? Or some weird string of luck costs them a game somewhere?

In a 16 game season where 1 game is usually the difference between a bye and a 1st round matchup and 1-2 games might decide the division this year, there are no preferred losses. The Pats need to do everything they can to win every game in front of them because you never know what will happen months from now. Maybe Brady has to miss a game or 2. Maybe the team gets screwed by a bad call from a ref etc etc. Every game is a must win and should be treated as such by the coaching staff. That doesn't mean play guys if they have high chances of re-injury, but if they're cleared to play, they need to play.


If they are 100% ready to come back then by all means bring them back, every game is important. But if there was a choice of playing now with a higher risk of re-injury, or sitting out another week or two, I would rather have the latter.

I think the Pats are good enough to win the AFCE without the help of Amendola and Gronk. I know i'm thinking too far ahead, but I can't help but be concerned about the health of the team come playoff time.


We are only 3 points better than the two worst teams in our division without them. I am not so sure the AFCE is a anywhere close to a forgone conclusion.
_________________

Sigs-Taking Requests
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pats#1


Joined: 19 Aug 2011
Posts: 5992
Location: Plymouth, MA
PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 1:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Deadpulse wrote:
Pats#1 wrote:
mcmurtry86 wrote:
Deadpulse wrote:
Pats#1 wrote:
Deadpulse wrote:
I don't think anyone on the Patriots payroll thinks that losing is acceptable.


I'm not saying they should throw the games...I'm saying making sure that they don't bring players back too early, especially ones as important as Gronk and Amendola, so that their injuries are lingering for the whole season, should be priority #1, not winning 1 or 2 extra games in the regular season against non conference opponents.

I want to see the Pats win as many games as possible just as much as everyone else, but I'd rather them have a mediocre regular season while making sure they keep everyone healthy for the playoffs, then a very good regular season and enter the playoffs with their star players having nagging injuries.


I get this, but whose to say these two losses coupled with the inevitable ones from later on don't keep us out of the playoffs? Whose to say we are unhealthy anyways later on and miss the playoffs? I understand wanting to not rush them back, but these are professionals across the board in a league whose #2 concern right after making money is player safety. They will be back when they are ready to be back.


Yeah, you can't just say "I'd rather lose now" or "losing now is OK because Gronk and Amendola need to be healthy later"

What if Wilfork blows out his knee in November right when Gronk and Amendola are 100%? Or some weird string of luck costs them a game somewhere?

In a 16 game season where 1 game is usually the difference between a bye and a 1st round matchup and 1-2 games might decide the division this year, there are no preferred losses. The Pats need to do everything they can to win every game in front of them because you never know what will happen months from now. Maybe Brady has to miss a game or 2. Maybe the team gets screwed by a bad call from a ref etc etc. Every game is a must win and should be treated as such by the coaching staff. That doesn't mean play guys if they have high chances of re-injury, but if they're cleared to play, they need to play.


If they are 100% ready to come back then by all means bring them back, every game is important. But if there was a choice of playing now with a higher risk of re-injury, or sitting out another week or two, I would rather have the latter.

I think the Pats are good enough to win the AFCE without the help of Amendola and Gronk. I know i'm thinking too far ahead, but I can't help but be concerned about the health of the team come playoff time.


We are only 3 points better than the two worst teams in our division without them. I am not so sure the AFCE is a anywhere close to a forgone conclusion.


Nothing is foregone conclusion, but the Pats played their two worst games we've seen in a while offensively and still got the wins.

We don't play our next division game for another 5 weeks, I think (hope) that the offense would be better then they were the first two weeks of the season, more so than the other AFCE teams.

We should definitely have Gronk by then, so really my main concern is rushing Amendola back after this groin injury, and I know from experience that they very much tend to linger if not given the proper time to heal.
_________________


Sig credit: Deadpulse
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
m haynes


Joined: 29 Jan 2011
Posts: 843
PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 4:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My concern is that we win the east and make it to the dance. I would develop the rookies and try to protect the injured the best you can. Pats win 6 games only and make it great. Do I want to win, heck ya, but I consider this a transitional year. What I have seen so far making the playoff is going to be a challenge.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
24isthelaw


Joined: 15 Nov 2010
Posts: 7726
Location: Where the Patriots are
PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 8:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

m haynes wrote:
My concern is that we win the east and make it to the dance. I would develop the rookies and try to protect the injured the best you can. Pats win 6 games only and make it great. Do I want to win, heck ya, but I consider this a transitional year. What I have seen so far making the playoff is going to be a challenge.


How can you be so convinced this is a "transition year" when the defense hasn't looked this good since 2006?
_________________

Adopt-a-Patriot: Marcus Forston - Practice squad (0 tackles, 0 sacks)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
mcmurtry86


Joined: 02 Mar 2010
Posts: 25688
PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 8:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

24isthelaw wrote:
m haynes wrote:
My concern is that we win the east and make it to the dance. I would develop the rookies and try to protect the injured the best you can. Pats win 6 games only and make it great. Do I want to win, heck ya, but I consider this a transitional year. What I have seen so far making the playoff is going to be a challenge.


How can you be so convinced this is a "transition year" when the defense hasn't looked this good since 2006?


The defense has looked good against 2 bad offenses. Even then, the run defense was shaky last week. I'm going to wait until they face a competent offense before proclaiming them to be a quality unit. If they fare well in Atlanta, we'll know they're for real.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
24isthelaw


Joined: 15 Nov 2010
Posts: 7726
Location: Where the Patriots are
PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 8:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcmurtry86 wrote:
24isthelaw wrote:
m haynes wrote:
My concern is that we win the east and make it to the dance. I would develop the rookies and try to protect the injured the best you can. Pats win 6 games only and make it great. Do I want to win, heck ya, but I consider this a transitional year. What I have seen so far making the playoff is going to be a challenge.


How can you be so convinced this is a "transition year" when the defense hasn't looked this good since 2006?


The defense has looked good against 2 bad offenses. Even then, the run defense was shaky last week. I'm going to wait until they face a competent offense before proclaiming them to be a quality unit. If they fare well in Atlanta, we'll know they're for real.


Yes. But looking at recent history...

1. The defense usually looks God-awful against bad offenses.

2. The defense has consistently trended upwards as the season progresses.

For the defense to come out of the gate looking good, even if it is versus bad offenses, is a great sign.

Not saying they are a top unit or anything, but the feeling of having a defense that doesn't need to be carried is something I'd almost forgotten, because its been so long.
_________________

Adopt-a-Patriot: Marcus Forston - Practice squad (0 tackles, 0 sacks)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
m haynes


Joined: 29 Jan 2011
Posts: 843
PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 11:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

24isthelaw wrote:
m haynes wrote:
My concern is that we win the east and make it to the dance. I would develop the rookies and try to protect the injured the best you can. Pats win 6 games only and make it great. Do I want to win, heck ya, but I consider this a transitional year. What I have seen so far making the playoff is going to be a challenge.


How can you be so convinced this is a "transition year" when the defense hasn't looked this good since 2006?
I look at the offense and see 4 rookies and three starting players gone from last year squad. I still worry about defense. They looked good against two rookie QBs. I also worry about the speed and coverage from our LBs. How will adjust to this new style of offense played in todays game. They brought in Collins another rookie I hope he can help in this area during the season.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NextBigThing


Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 22782
Location: Beat Of My Own Drum
PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dennards INT & Chandlers sacks were the only genuinely nice plays the d made last week. Both of Talib's picks were hilarious poor passes which most FF posters would have been able to intercept. Hill's fumble was just Hill being Hill; let snot act like he didn't burn the coverage before fumbling.

That said, on paper, our d-line, line backers, and secondary all seem to be at the highest level in years. As somebody else already noted, the only players who seem to be struggling are WILFORK and SPIKES, both of which I think will come around.
_________________
A sunny disposition is worth more than fortune. Young people should know that it can be cultivated; that the mind like the body can be moved from the shade into sunshine. Thine own reproach alone do fear
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Canton


Joined: 29 Nov 2012
Posts: 371
Location: Virginia
PostPosted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 10:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

1. For the defense to be playing at an extremely high level the last few weeks from the start is no fluke, and is a very good sign. Because normally even against bad offenses, they would still struggle but they have made a complete turn around in my opinion, and is the best its been in years.

2. Julian Edelman to me, when healthy is a superstar and I think that is skillset is as good as anybody for his size or lack there of. Don't think that his leading the league in receptions along with Andre Johnson is a fluke by any stretch of the imagination because its not. Healthy, and this guy is an absolute gamer at the receiver position.

3. Stevan Ridley and the running game will get back on track.

4. The rookies will turn those drops into receptions I believe.

5. Eventually Gronk, Vereen, and Amendola will be back.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> New England Patriots All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 7 of 9

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group