Is Danny Amendola fragile, reckless or unlucky?

[AvengerRam]

Here's a question that the Rams will have to consider: why has Danny Amendola been injured so often?

I submit that there are three possible answers:

1. He is fragile: Certain players seem - usually, but not always, smaller players - seem to be more susceptible to injury than others. While there's no "test" for fragility, sometimes that seems to be the best (and least favorable) explanation.

2. He is reckless: We admire a guy who dives for the ball and is willing to take a hit, but that style of play can lead to injuries. I think many of us came to appreciate Isaac Bruce's practice of avoiding big hits, as it probably lengthened his career. Is Danny too reckless?

3. He is unlucky: Sometimes, an injury is just dumb luck. In a sense, that is what you hope for when you sign a player with an injury history: that the past was bad luck and won't repeat itself.

So which do you think applies to Danny?

[chucknbob]

I don't think Danny knows the meaning of "step out of bounds." Part of what has made him so successful and poplar around here is that he's willing and able to catch the ball knowing he's about to get slammed.

My vote is for reckless.

[Rammed]

Considering it's different injuries on different parts of his body, I went with unlucky. But most likely it's a combination of all of the above.

[emuen]

I voted fragile

His last two injuries came in situations were he really didn't do anything reckless. One he turned around mid air to catch a pass, hurting himself in the fall. The other he injured his foot running a route.

Could just be bad luck though.

[AvengerRam]

Considering it's different injuries on different parts of his body, I went with unlucky. But most likely it's a combination of all of the above.

Of course, you're right that its probably a combination of all three. However, in assessing whether to make a financial committment to Danny, I think there would be a greater comfort level if he is believed to be "unlucky" or even a litter "reckless" than if he is regarded as "fragile."

I, by the way, went with "reckless" as the primary reason for Danny's injuries. He seems to avoid big hits okay, but he'll dive for every ball, which can be dangerous (particularly on turf).

[berg8309]

He suffered an injury this year so rare the Rams medical staff had to call the other teams to find a case study of it happening to another NFL player, but none of them had one.

As a result, I went with unlucky.

[general counsel]

Of course, you're right that its probably a combination of all three. However, in assessing whether to make a financial committment to Danny, I think there would be a greater comfort level if he is believed to be "unlucky" or even a litter "reckless" than if he is regarded as "fragile."

I, by the way, went with "reckless" as the primary reason for Danny's injuries. He seems to avoid big hits okay, but he'll dive for every ball, which can be dangerous (particularly on turf).

Fair question Av, but to me, essentially beside the point. The issue for the Rams is durability, (ie the effect of missing games) rather than the underlying cause of why he hasn't been on the field full time over the past two or three years. I appreciate your point, which is to say that the decision on whether to pay him big money is based on what will happen in the future, rather than the past, but i am of the view that past performance is the best predictor of future performance, in addition to the concept that guys dont tend to get more durable as they get older. I am not sure why Danny has issues staying on the field, but i know that is a reality and I dont see that changing if we are talking about big money. Again, i would love to have him back and i am not saying that should be only on the cheap, but i dont think it should be at the level of a legitimate number one receiver and certainly not at the expense of being able to resign Jackson. Personally, i think its a combination of size and recklessness, the idea that at his size, he has to compensate by giving 1000% effort to gain every possible inch on the field, and that leads to injuries. The great Isaac Bruce made a career out of avoiding huge hits over the middle when he could. Did he lose some yards here and there? Sure. But he also was a very durable guy over the course of his career and increased the liklihood of maximizing his impact by doing what he could to avoid injuries.

ramming speed to all

general counsel

[AvengerRam]

Fair question Av, but to me, essentially beside the point. The issue for the Rams is durability, (ie the effect of missing games) rather than the underlying cause of why he hasn't been on the field full time over the past two or three years. I appreciate your point, which is to say that the decision on whether to pay him big money is based on what will happen in the future, rather than the past, but i am of the view that past performance is the best predictor of future performance, in addition to the concept that guys dont tend to get more durable as they get older. I am not sure why Danny has issues staying on the field, but i know that is a reality and I dont see that changing if we are talking about big money. Again, i would love to have him back and i am not saying that should be only on the cheap, but i dont think it should be at the level of a legitimate number one receiver and certainly not at the expense of being able to resign Jackson. Personally, i think its a combination of size and recklessness, the idea that at his size, he has to compensate by giving 1000% effort to gain every possible inch on the field, and that leads to injuries. The great Isaac Bruce made a career out of avoiding huge hits over the middle when he could. Did he lose some yards here and there? Sure. But he also was a very durable guy over the course of his career and increased the liklihood of maximizing his impact by doing what he could to avoid injuries.

ramming speed to all

general counsel

If the Rams simply looked at past durability, I would be surprised if they offered Danny anything more than a modest one-year contract.

But I disagree with your premise... I think you do have to look at the cause. That's why there is more cause for concern about a guy like RG3 - who is likely injured because of his size and style of play - than Ben Roethlisberger, who is big and has been hurt in more "fluke" situations.

I agree with your conclusion, though. I want Danny back, but not at a premium price.

[NJ Ramsfan1]

In my opinion, Danny's lack of self preservation is the root cause of all his problems. His high-octane style of play lends itself to him being at risk of injury.

I voted for "reckless".

[fliptalianstallion]

He's reckless, if he could learn a thing or two from Welker, it's that he should avoid playing more than what his body is capable of.

[live4ramin]

A slant receiver must be reckless, it's what he does.

Danny is small and therefore fragile.

We are unlucky.

[Vinnie25]

33% - fragile
33% - reckless
33% - unlucky
1% - I'm drunk, therefore I do not care

[AvengerRam]

A slant receiver must be reckless, it's what he does.

Danny is small and therefore fragile.

We are unlucky.

With an answer like that, you should be running for office somewhere.

[AvengerRam]

33% - fragile
33% - reckless
33% - unlucky
1% - I'm drunk, therefore I do not care

Considering that you posted that at around 5:30 p.m. (Pacific Time) on a Monday, I think you might have a problem.

[RealRam]

Unlucky. But to justify that notion I'll have to say DA is definitely reckless.

Seriously, that injury when he hurt his clavicle and suffered internal damage was as freaky as it was costly. I can still see him in game vs AZ, falling awkardly on that right shoulder while trying to protect the ball under his mid torso. It probably would have taken very little to result in a much less serious injury and thus not miss any games. A bad break, i.e., unlucky.

I say we need Danny Amendola! And unlike a DX type of WR that was already damaged goods, I'm rooting for DA to come back full-season strong. [Yikes, odds not favorable!]