with the other qbs it was well you gotta draft qb such and such because you need a qb and qbs are such a valuable commodity in today’s nfl…

with luck it was well you gotta draft him cuz he’s the best player available in this draft.

it was pretty much universally agreed that qbs are getting overdrafted because of their position. even bradford. suh was regarded as the best player available, but the rams drafted sam because… he was a qb. in retrospect, mccoy woulda been the best pick but that’s a different argument.

with luck. he was considered the best prospect period. that’s how i saw it.

• This reply was modified 10 years, 4 months ago by InvaderRam.
• This reply was modified 10 years, 4 months ago by InvaderRam.

here’s another article i found interesting. i’ll just include one part but provide the link. i wonder if bradford has narrow notches. i wonder in general how strong his ligaments are. he’s had three severe ligament injuries already in 5 years.

http://www.txsportsmed.com/acl.php

Are certain athletes predisposed to the injury?

Dr. Souryal: My study was the first to describe the link between bony anatomy and ACL tears and to describe the way of measuring it. We found that a certain segment of the population has a bone structure that predisposes them to an ACL tear. The ACL and posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) live in a tunnel at the end of your thigh bone. If that tunnel is very narrow (which you can detect by X-ray), then there’s no room for the ACL to maneuver in cutting activity, and those people are at 26 times more risk of tearing an ACL.

In 1992, we took X-rays of 1,000 high school athletes’ knees and followed them for the next two years. Whenever a player went down with an ACL injury, we looked at his notch. And it was phenomenal: The kids who were blowing out their ACLs all had those narrow notches. We stopped the study early because the numbers were so dramatic. I’m sure that there are a lot of factors that go into ACL injuries — the notch is just one of them — and the biggest question right now is, what lives inside the narrow notch? Does a small ACL live in a narrow notch and tears because it’s never had the room to grow properly? Or does a normal-sized ACL live in the small notch and ruptures because it doesn’t have the room? We don’t have answers because we’re not doing surgery on uninjured people and measuring their ACLs.

As a next phase, we’re waiting for MRIs to get a bit clearer to allow us to measure the normal ACLs in the notches. Maybe in the next couple of years, we’ll be able to answer the question. If it is a normal-sized ACL in the notch, then maybe we can go in there surgically and widen the notch, and perhaps save that person from an ACL rupture. But if it’s an underdeveloped ACL in that narrow notch, you can widen the notch all day long and you’re not going to fix it. Once we get this question answered, maybe we can do something about people with the predisposition.

In ’92, we found that girls have proportionally narrower notches than boys. Does that have anything to do with the fact that ACL injuries are epidemic among females? I don’t know, but I certainly do think that it’s one factor. Other factors have to do with muscle development and neuromuscular coordination, because the boys are encouraged to be active athletically almost from birth. They may develop better neuromuscular coordination and therefore are somewhat protected as they get into high school and college. Girls are not necessarily directed into athletics early in life, and as they become more athletically active in their teens, they may not have the neuromuscular coordination that boys have. The bottom line is that nobody knows for sure. But there’s definitely a higher incidence of ACL ruptures in female athletes than in male athletes.

those discussions weren’t part of the consideration because doctors in the end are businessmen. they’re interested in their bottom line. their interests are often in making the patient feel as positive about their experience as they possibly can. did the doctors go over all the possible scenarios with bradford? did they tell him the risks of a re-tear and the prognosis if it did happen?

the professional athlete. and any patient for that matter. wants better treatment. they want it faster. and they should. but doctors are always going to tow the line between acceptable risk and getting as many patients and cash as they can.

my sense is that they still don’t know a lot about acl surgeries. the wash u article is from 2011. this second article is from 2013. and the sense that i get is that they are still learning about the rehab process. what is most effective? what is the recovery time? they have an inkling. but no concrete answers. my guess is that after 3 years, they still don’t know much. they know more. but still learning.

now is this what they want the public to know? is this what they want the patient to know? that they still don’t know a lot about it? most likely they’d rather keep the patient in the dark and be as positive and reassuring as they can. it’s in THEIR best interests to be that way. and pretty soon we’ll all hear about another success story, and we’ll forget about all the risks of coming back too early.

i’m being too harsh i realize. i’m not trying to paint some dark evil picture. i’m sorry if it’s coming across that way.

and that statement about ap. that was overboard. but i still stand by my opinion that it sounds like to me. the recovery period should be longer. but the public and the athletes want faster and better and doctors and trainers probably feel obliged to comply.

here’s some more articles. i think the basic gist is they don’t know much. which is often the case in science. they just don’t like to admit it.

and these kinds of injuries are hard to study because there are so few athletes like professional ones who are constantly subjecting their joints to undue stress.

adrian peterson is the exception. not the rule.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130711084135.htm

and to be completely honest, doctors have an agenda too.

let’s take professional athlete x.

he goes to doctor a who tells him yes i can do the surgery and get you back on the field within a year.

he then goes to doctor b who tells him yes i can do the surgery but it will take two full years before you see any competitive action.

they then see adrian peterson come back in less than a year.

who do you think they’re gonna take their business to?

people rarely take the time to do the real research. most times they probably don’t even want to hear it.

i believe the nfl wants us to believe that it has been revolutionized. and it may have.

but i have every reason to believe that the nfl brings back players earlier than they really should.

every single article i read has said that the first year back carries a huge risk for a re-tear. why is that? probably because it’s in its initial healing period. wait two years. and the probablity goes down. there’s a reason for that.

• This reply was modified 10 years, 4 months ago by InvaderRam.
• This reply was modified 10 years, 4 months ago by zn.

well. this is what i would do and probably not what the rams would do and probably why i would never even sniff a job in coaching.

now depending on what the doctors say. and i would get like 10 different opinions after they’ve done their separate diagnoses. if i’m confident he has a reasonable chance of coming back from the surgery, i would talk to sam about getting a two year extension at a very low salary. that extension hopefully cuts down on the salary cap impact 2015 would have. i don’t know. i don’t even know if that’s possible. but if it was. that’s what i would do.

i would then tell him to take two full years off. he can practice and get reps but no contact whatsoever. let that knee completely heal. have him wear a heavy brace while he’s practicing.

this benefits bradford. i don’t think it’s in his best interests to shop around for a deal with some other team. he knows this coaching staff. training staff. teammates. he knows the offense. when he comes back. there’s no transition period there. the only thing he has to worry about is getting healthy. unless of course the coaching staff is fired. which who knows. that could happen. target 2016 as his return date.

in the meantime, the rams draft a legitimate qb prospect in 2015 and groom him in the event of any setback or even as competition for sam.

• This reply was modified 10 years, 4 months ago by InvaderRam.

ok. well according to article zn posted he didn’t feel much pain because the newly reconstructed joint hadn’t had time to be properly innervated and didn’t have a blood supply.

also. in an ideal world a player would have 2 years to properly heal but since this is the nfl and we’re not interested in a player’s long-term health they usually are back in less than a year.

on re-tears the rate of return decreases significantly. on the first, it’s 95%. i’ve read that the prognosis usually decreases 2 fold. that article was dated 2013, so i’m thinking that it drops to around 90%. the article i read said 11% i think (or 89%).

the guy doesn’t think bradford is injury prone. i don’t agree, but he’s a doctor. so what do i know? i guess he’s alluding to the fact that re-tears aren’t uncommon in the first year. but so what? they’re running out of options on ligaments they can salvage from other parts of his body. my guess is these other options are less effective. the last resort is using a ligament from a cadaver which has the worst prognosis.

regardless. do i take a chance and come back in a year when i know this is my last chance? or close to it? when i know that it takes two full years for the joint to properly heal. to have a fresh supply of nerves and blood to replenish it. or do i come back in 6 to 9 months and just go for it.

best possible thing for sam is to wait more than a year. that puts him well into the regular season next year. in an ideal world. he doesn’t even play in 2015 taking a full two years off. most he sees is a practice field.

i just see what happened to danario. i don’t want to see the same happen to sam. whether he’s with the rams or not.

• This reply was modified 10 years, 4 months ago by InvaderRam.
• This reply was modified 10 years, 4 months ago by InvaderRam.
• This reply was modified 10 years, 4 months ago by InvaderRam.

he seems to have versatility too. he can line up at defensive tackle or defensive end.

it only seems fair that they pay him this year. the rehabilitation costs alone have to be through the roof. astronomical i would think. and he got injured on the job. so he should be compensated for that. next year though. i don’t know how that all works.

tough tough break. i was so sure he was gonna have a good year this year.

good. i hope the rams wouldn’t want him either. hill’s better than he is…

it does sound cold. from what tackledummy says it sounds like he can’t be cut this year. but i wasn’t thinking about this year anyway. i think they owe him this year.

i’m wondering about next year. would they save any cap space cutting him for 2015? cuz he’s not coming back for awhile.

if they do care about his career. he takes more than a year to come back. look at what happened to danario. and i understand that it’s a different position and different stresses are put on the joints. but that’s two tears in less than a year.

cut him for 2015. i’d even bring him back as a backup qb if he was willing. he might not be. but it’s in his best interests to start out as a backup. if i’m his family, i’m telling him to take a job as a backup qb with an eye toward maybe getting a starting gig in the future.

yeah. we could very likely re-sign him for cheap. and truthfully. the rams would be the best option for him. he knows the team. he knows the coaches. the offense. the players. trying to come back from a second injury AND going to a new team and a new offense? that’s a lot.

i keep thinking danario alexander and what he went through. no. bradford’s a huge risk at this point.

i say go with what you have and reevaluate in the offseason. hill should be fine. i thought he looked alright in the few times i’ve seen him. draft a quarterback next year.

Just saw some doctor a little while ago on ESPN talking about it. He said should be a longer recovery time(a year) and arthritis could be a problem. He said Sam could come back but it’s going to be a long road. I know this doesn’t matter in terms of how the Rams approach this but it was just some general comments on this type of injury.

yeah. i’m no expert. but anytime you operate on the same site twice. the chances of recovering from the second operation plummet. just a guess. and i think that’s true with anything. rebuild something two times. it’s just not the same.

honestly, i’m disappointed but not crushed. rams will survive this. whatever qb goes in there is going into a great situation. but i feel bad for bradford. this is going to be one helluva climb back for him.