Deshaun Watson tore his ACL in practice today, apparently

[Myk]

I personally think surfaces are overrated when it comes to sever injuries, at least with FieldTurf. Seems like a lot of the recent injuries have been on grass like Watsons because the surface is less even and/or varies in traction. Not all artificial fields are equal but FieldTurf seems a good compromise.

But no surface, no friction, no injuries. At least not from the surface. Need zero-G jet pack games.

Fify

Didn't need fixed.
Labium=plural of labia
Shoulder=labrum

 

[iueyedoc]

But no surface, no friction, no injuries.

Sounds like a K-Y slogan

 

[iueyedoc]

And then even more comically stating that you had never heard of a person with 3 ACL tears, implying that somehow that risk couldn't be determined to be even greater.

The odds of a bomb being on an airplane in which you are traveling is approximately 1 million two one.

The odds of there being two bombs are 1 million times one million to one.

Next time you travel, to increase your odds of there not being a bomb (in so much as one that would cause you harm), you should bring your own.

I was thinking the Bears should just Gillooly both knees of all their draft picks and give them a red shirt year then they could play the rest of their careers worry free.
In fact the NFL should add a new PSA to their Play 60 effort, call it Tear 2. Get that shit out of the way in grade school.

 

[Myk]

Sounds like a K-Y slogan

Cutler could have an ad campaign. Prevent labia tears.

 

[remydat]

A perfect define your terms moment. The injury prone moving target argument. We had one injury prone WR in White and broken bones is not generally considered a recurring type of ding. Wheaton had a bad shoulder last year and that' pretty much his history and completely unrelated to his groin. Wright and Cam have been reliable. Other than White, none of our WRs were injury prone. Why I questioned it earlier.

It's funny because sometimes he has a relatively defendable position but will drift enough to negate it... like the WR comment. I'm personally more of the opinion that Watson risk of more problems related to this are only slightly higher than happenchance but it's purely opinion and I won't argue it as fact with silly references. So much of this sort of thing is genetics, how they heal and how strong the other structures are. For all we know, he may be more prone to injury without a previous ding. Something that's difficult to factor into additional injury studies.

Lol White has missed 2 whole seasons due to injury. There comes a point where it's just stupid to rely on him returning healthy or ever being a good WR. It's not a matter of whether bone injuries are recurring. It's a matter of he's done nothing to indicate he's worthy of being counted on.

Likewise there comes a point where amassing a WR core with 4 guys who you have no idea are still productive players due to recent injuries is just stupid.

Taking a chance one or two of these guys may be defensible. Taking a chance on 4 of them at one time at one position is stupid. The argument was never about their individual risk of reinjury. The argument was compounding the risk by having these 4 guys at the same position none of whom have proven they are still good players post injury.

I know of no team that has stacked a position with so many questionable players aside from the Bears.

 

[remydat]

I was thinking the Bears should just Gillooly both knees of all their draft picks and give them a red shirt year then they could play the rest of their careers worry free.
In fact the NFL should add a new PSA to their Play 60 effort, call it Tear 2. Get that shit out of the way in grade school.

I think you don't understand correlation vs causation. If 2 knee injuries are 5 years apart then it's much harder to prove that the first led to the second.

The study stopped at 24 months. There is no data beyond that to ascertain whether 3 years has an increased or decreased link to the prior knee injury. You are making assumptions that really have no basis in the study cited as the people in charge of the study would likely tell you that you can't just take results over 24 months and project them out beyond that. That's not very scientific at all as again you likely reach a point where trying to link the injury in one knee to an injury in the other years later is dubious.

Furthermore the study wasn't even of football players but of general athletes. There is nothing to suggest that the results of general athletes should be applied to football players as I would think football has a greater risk of ACL injuries than whatever unnamed sport that these men and women were playing. So the healthy group of these general athletes likely sustain ACL injuries less frequently than the healthy group of NFL players thereby skewing the results since I don't the females included in this study for example play a sport where they are violently hit as much as football players are.

 

[The Hawk]

The one I got was Levofloxacin. The class is fluoroquinolones. Broad spectrum, so for me, instead of figuring out what pneumonia I had just hit it with a broad spectrum antibiotic.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2921747/

I don't doubt the surfaces are causing some of the injuries. But one recent year had multiple Achilles tears, which you'd think would be rare. With a class of medicines linked to it it made those who knew about it wonder.

That's interesting. What were you doing when you ruptured you achilles?

 

[The Hawk]

So the guy that always crybabies about alleged slights about his poor vision making blind jokes.

I did it on purpose, jerk-off. Thanks for being stupid once again. As for you alleged slights comment, the entire board knows how you have mocked my injuries and attacked me for a long time. As for the crybaby shit, you are the one who depends(pun also intended) on your little pals to help you defend yourself.

 

[iueyedoc]

I think you don't understand correlation vs causation. If 2 knee injuries are 5 years apart then it's much harder to prove that the first led to the second.

The study stopped at 24 months. There is no data beyond that to ascertain whether 3 years has an increased or decreased link to the prior knee injury. You are making assumptions that really have no basis in the study cited as the people in charge of the study would likely tell you that you can't just take results over 24 months and project them out beyond that. That's not very scientific at all as again you likely reach a point where trying to link the injury in one knee to an injury in the other years later is dubious.

Furthermore the study wasn't even of football players but of general athletes. There is nothing to suggest that the results of general athletes should be applied to football players as I would think football has a greater risk of ACL injuries than whatever unnamed sport that these men and women were playing. So the healthy group of these general athletes likely sustain ACL injuries less frequently than the healthy group of NFL players thereby skewing the results since I don't the females included in this study for example play a sport where they are violently hit as much as football players are.

Honestly never seen anyone try to be so purposefully ignorant to try and defend a previously made stupid statement.

 

[iueyedoc]

I did it on purpose, jerk-off. Thanks for being stupid once again. As for you alleged slights comment, the entire board knows how you have mocked my injuries and attacked me for a long time. As for the crybaby shit, you are the one who depends(pun also intended) on your little pals to help you defend yourself.

:hawked:

 

[remydat]

Honestly never seen anyone try to be so purposefully ignorant to try and defend a previously made stupid statement.

Honestly never seen a doctor make so many Scott Bakula quantum leaps based on a failure to understand the limitations of a scientific study.

 

[Bearly]

Lol White has missed 2 whole seasons due to injury. There comes a point where it's just stupid to rely on him returning healthy or ever being a good WR. It's not a matter of whether bone injuries are recurring. It's a matter of he's done nothing to indicate he's worthy of being counted on.

Likewise there comes a point where amassing a WR core with 4 guys who you have no idea are still productive players due to recent injuries is just stupid.

Taking a chance one or two of these guys may be defensible. Taking a chance on 4 of them at one time at one position is stupid. The argument was never about their individual risk of reinjury. The argument was compounding the risk by having these 4 guys at the same position none of whom have proven they are still good players post injury.

I know of no team that has stacked a position with so many questionable players aside from the Bears.

The chance was White who is under contract and was still one of our best 3 on the field. No one said he wasn't a risk, even if bones aren't normally associated with recurrence. The other injuries were normal minor football stuff that's expected in any and every career. Might as well give up watching the game if you think any of those other situations injury prone.

 

[Bearly]

Honestly never seen a doctor make so many Scott Bakula quantum leaps based on a failure to understand the limitations of a scientific study.

They are only proofs if you like them. The shit you dismiss while representing minutia as proof is dumbfounding. Excluding White which we all agree is injury prone even though his injuries seem more unlucky than anything else, you just called our WRs injury prone before camp. You said Pace was to blame for bringing in injury prone guys when none have had a major injury at that time while arguing that Watson is not injury prone when he's had 2 of the same major injuries.

 

[Gustavus Adolphus]

This is all a false flag for the ligament surgical complex.