Danny Amendola: Injury "prone"?

[Vinnie25]

Um... yeah... and the answer to the riddle, "what's big and red and eats rocks" is "a big red rock eater."

Exactly, why over think things when sometimes it's just easy

[HUbison]

"Snead is smart enough to know that none of those injuries are indicative of future performance. Snead is also smart enough to know that anyone using the term "injury prone" in relation to Danny Amendola is in a foolish position reserved for the flat earth society."

Thats a total cop-out. Instead of using what Snead might be thinking as a cover to insult people who disagree with you, man up and insult me outright.

Ill do you the same courtesy: Its fine you don't think Danny is injury prone, and it might be true. Just don't act like an idiot and pretend to know the "truth" of the matter, when in reality you have an opinion just like everyone else.

Actually, Swatter, you were nowhere on my mind when I made that post. In fact, the last post I addressed to you, I acknowledged that you made a good point from the Farr interview.

I believe you have incorrectly personalized my previous post, and subsequently lashed out with personal attacks.

Now, as to your attack of me:

1. I neither had, nor currently have, a desire to insult you personally.

2. I dare not pretend to know what anyone is thinking. Rather it's fair to say that Snead is a smart man, and as such I would assume he understands concepts such as AV's example of statistical dependence/independence and how that would apply to Amendola.

3. Everyone has the right to an opinion. Not all opinions are right.

[AvengerRam]

I posted this in 2006. I see things have not changed:

AvengerRamblings (Vol. III): "Injury-Prone, and Other Silly Terms Fans Use"

How many times have you heard (or read) a fan or sportswriter using the term “injury prone.” It’s so common, I’d submit, that the term is generally accepted as a legitimate characteristic to assign to a player. But what does the term really mean?

The most basic definition would be a player who possesses a tendency to become injured. Makes sense, right? But this is football! It could be validly argued that the only players who don’t have a tendency to become injured are those who never leave the bench (and even they often get injured in practice).

Nonetheless, fans and sportswriters continue to use this term as if it is a meaningful way to describe players. Perhaps they know something I don’t. Maybe they have access to medical records that demonstrate that certain players have a bone density deficiency that renders them more susceptible to fractures. Maybe they are able to discern from a player’s history just how tensile his ligaments are, or whether he has inflexible cartilage.

A better explanation is pure analytical laziness. If a player has been injured often, he must be more susceptible to injury, right? Of course, by that logic, if a bird craps on your shoulder, that means you are “bird crap prone.”

This is just one of the many silly terms fans use. Terms that are commonly used, but have little or no true meaning. Here are some others:

“Bust.” We all know what this term is supposed to mean – a player who comes into the league with great expectations that are unfulfilled. The reason why the term is silly is because its used in absurd contexts. I’ve actually heard fans call players “a bust” before their first preseason is completed. I’ve heard fans call players “a bust” when they are injured before they have a chance to prove themselves. I’ve heard fans call players “a bust” because, as first round draft choices, they fail to make the Pro Bowl (for a fun project, count the number of first round draft choices there are in the league and compare it to the number of players who make the Pro Bowl – imagine that! The can’t all make it each year!).

“Possession receiver.” What makes a receiver a “possession receiver”? The number of catches per game? The number of first downs per game? Average yards per catch? The percentage of catches as compared to drops? No, I don’t think any of these stats are considered when this term is used. Rather, the term seems to be reserved for receivers who are slow (and, in most cases, lacking a certain amount of melanin), or old.

“Shut-down cornerback.” The truth is, no cornerback can consistently “shut down” opposing WRs (particularly not with today’s illegal contact rules). Nonetheless, when fans or sportswriters wish to describe a top notch CB, the term “shutdown” if often used. Funny thing is, usually the CBs who get the most accolades are the ones with a lot of interceptions. But if a CB is truly great in coverage, the ball is rarely thrown his way, so he might have few or even no interceptions.

“High motor player.” Some players aren’t very big, aren’t very fast, don’t seem to have extraordinary strength, but are always around the ball. I think players like that frighten the analysts. They challenge the very notion that with a tape measure, a scale and a stopwatch, you can learn everything you need to know about a player. So, rather than admit that they are not very good at rating prospects, they make up a term: “he’s got a great motor!” They might as well say “this player is really good and I can’t explain why.”

The list goes on and on. Sometimes, I think sports fans could challenge politicians in a cliché competition. But you… my faithful readers, are different. You will avoid such hackneyed phrases in favor of quality analysis. You will challenge those who fall back on these terms when they have nothing to say, but can’t bear not to hear the sound of their own voices. You will never suggest that a shut-down cornerback who was a bust because he is too injury prone should switch to offense and become a possession receiver because he’s got a really good motor.

Right?

[Curly Horns]

This has been an interesting thread which I have enjoyed following.

I find it fascinating how we reason ourselves out of terms like "injury prone" and into terms such as "bad luck"

[VegasRam]

Some thoughts;
Swatter - you lose. I went back and read every post in the thread, and have no idea how you came up with that, 1), and 2), if you've been on this board any time at all, you would know that Hub just doesn't do that, period.
The only reason posters stoop to using insults, (as you did, my friend), is usually due to not being able to logically and/or factually support their arguments/opinions.
And in Hub's, (and AV's) case, you cannot out-fact or out logic them - trust me, I've tried.

Av - (thought 2), nice resurrection. Maybe a new feature could be the top 100 posts of the year, (based on likes received, I suppose), to be published during these slow times.

[berg8309]

And yet there are some players who, even though the injuries are un-related, are always injured. Some guys just have bad luck.

Truth of the matter is, whether your injuries are related or not, or whether you can truly be called "injury prone" or not, you have to be on the field to get a big contract, unless you are a truly special player. Teams simply aren't going to pay through the nose for a player who hasn't been on the field, for whatever reason. I think DA will find that out when he hits free agency.

[VegasRam]

If I had to pick a dog, I'd go with "injury-prone" as a catch-all phrase for "unable-to-stay-on-the-field".
Regardless of how you define it, the end result has been the same, and while I agree the the past is not a predicter of tomorrow, one should fsactor it in one's decision.

And I love DA, really love him, but his body of work, imo, doesn't warrant the high salary interest in him. Looks to me like Bartell all over again:

Somehow, the press get ahold of someone, and just pound the holy **** out of it, and the guy ends up getting the big payday.
What amazes me, (given the above conjecture as fact), is that otherwise intelligent GMs overpay as often as they do, as a result of thje over-hyping of said player(s).

And had Welker not had the carreer he's had, and had DA's agent not started the rumor that NE was interested in his client, (thus causing all the other teams to think, "well, if the GREAT ONE thinks he's good..."), his name would not be on the same lists as Wallace and Jennings, etc.

[HUbison]

And yet there are some players who, even though the injuries are un-related, are always injured. Some guys just have bad luck.

Very good. So then let's apply this to Amendola. He spent 4 years at Texas Tech and 2 years in St. Louis without injury. Rather good luck, I'd say.

Then has his 3 injuries over the past 2 seasons. Bad luck, indeed.

So, then can we agree that Amendola has shown both good and bad luck? Thereby saying that neither one nor the other can be attributed to Amendola as a defining characteristic?

And if so, then how can either be used to attempt to predict Amendola's future health (or luck, as it were)?

So, I guess what I'm saying is that luck is random. (Shocking....I know!)

[HUbison]

and while I agree the the past is not a predicter of tomorrow, one should fsactor it in one's decision.

You can guarantee Snead is factoring it in.

[berg8309]

Very good. So then let's apply this to Amendola. He spent 4 years at Texas Tech and 2 years in St. Louis without injury. Rather good luck, I'd say.

Then has his 3 injuries over the past 2 seasons. Bad luck, indeed.

So, then can we agree that Amendola has shown both good and bad luck? Thereby saying that neither one nor the other can be attributed to Amendola as a defining characteristic?

And if so, then how can either be used to attempt to predict Amendola's future health (or luck, as it were)?

So, I guess what I'm saying is that luck is random. (Shocking....I know!)

Luck is random, but I'm not willing to discount two years of bad luck and say they are behind him. It's definitely a "what have you done for me lately" league, and what Amendola has done lately is be treated by doctors.

I've said before I hope he comes back with the Rams. However, until he does play the next season without injury, I'm not going to just dismiss his past injuries. Players certainly overcome bad luck. Some guys come in with the "injury prone" label and then go on to never get hurt again. Amendola may never suffer so much as a paper cut again, but until he stays on the field for a whole season, I'd be hestiant to hand him a big money long-term deal.

I also think other teams will have the same line of thinking, and won't be lining up with blank checks in hand hoping that DA chooses them. I think he'll have to take a short 1-2 year deal, rebuild his value on the field, and then hope to cash in.

[HUbison]

A lot of excellent stuff in here, berg. Please walk with me....

Luck is random, but I'm not willing to discount two years of bad luck and say they are behind him.

But if luck is random, then why not discount the past two years of bad luck? (Or rather I should say 3 days over the past two years; the rest of the time was just recovery from the bad luck.) But if you're not willing to discount the past two years, why discount the 6 "good luck" years prior?

It's definitely a "what have you done for me lately" league, and what Amendola has done lately is be treated by doctors.

Then we're in luck (no pun intended). Because most recently Amendola has been completely healthy. He finished the season at 100%.

However, until he does play the next season without injury, I'm not going to just dismiss his past injuries.

So, if he plays all 16 games, but gets hurt in the 4th quarter of the last game of the season, which keeps him out of the first month of the off-season, you would still say he's unlucky?

Players certainly overcome bad luck.

Can they? Or does this notion simply speak to the random (ie. unpredictable) nature of this whole situation?

Some guys come in with the "injury prone" label and then go on to never get hurt again.

So someone that fans have deemed "injury prone" turn out to be completely healthy. Hmm, interesting.

I also think other teams will have the same line of thinking, and won't be lining up with blank checks in hand hoping that DA chooses them.

I certainly hope you're right. I'd love nothing more than the Rams to be his only suitor.

[berg8309]

I gather that you feel that none of Amendola's past injuries are a problem for you. Are you saying you'd be fine with a 5 year big money deal for DA? Because that's my hesitation, giving him the big multi-year deal.

[HUbison]

I gather that you feel that none of Amendola's past injuries are a problem for you. Are you saying you'd be fine with a 5 year big money deal for DA? Because that's my hesitation, giving him the big multi-year deal.

That would depend on the definition of big money.

[HUbison]

I gather that you feel that none of Amendola's past injuries are a problem for you. Are you saying you'd be fine with a 5 year big money deal for DA? Because that's my hesitation, giving him the big multi-year deal.

I apologize; I did not completely answer your question.

1. You gather correctly that none of Amendola's past injuries are a problem for me.

2. I'd be fine with a 5-year "proper" money deal for DA. I think yesterday's Hartline deal is a good gauge. It is at best a ceiling. But I would hesitate to even approach that amount on the top end. Four year, $22M is right around where I would be comfortable, give or take. Five year, $27M would be okay as well.

[berg8309]

That would depend on the definition of big money.

So 5 years wouldn't be a deal breaker. The obvious risk to my approach is that if Danny proves that yes, those injuries were just a stroke of bad luck, has a fantastic season, he would be a free agent again who could most definitely demand a big contract. As opposed to now where I don't believe he's in a position to make that demand.

Part of Danny's problem is that even with the strong finish his NFL resume is still a bit thin. Only only full season played out of 5, with one entire year spent on the practice squad and another he started on the PS. Then again, it is a passing league, and the WR crop is a bit thin.

At the end of the day, I think we can agree that we both want Danny back in a Rams uniform. He isn't the most electric player out there, but he does his job and does it well.