SouthNYfan

Actually, that is what historical data is used for, to assess risk. His risk is high, even if they believe he is healthy enough to play right now, nobody has any idea if that knee will hold up, or if he can even perform in a game, not just pass an MRI

I never said somebody wasn't going to take a huge risk on him. They might. This entire discussion is whether the bills should. My entire argument with you is that you are shrugging off the injury and acting like he's gonna be 100% ready to rock minimal risk. We have a coach and gm who like healthy, low risk players (see: Sammy trade) My opinion is, based on his injury, we shouldn't go for him, as he is a massive injury risk, as well as a massive risk to not even return to the average at best form he displayed pre injury. Yet you continue to act like he's good to go, no problems, and refuse to acknowledge not only the severity of the injury, but also the factual evidence of the history of these injuries in others.

Over 80% never return to sport. That's a fact. I've seen clinical presentation of this, as well as many other injuries in high level athletes, whom I've rehabilitated myself. Historical data and my own personal experience are what backs my opinion. Yes, an opinion is just that, an opinion. Some opinions are better informed and more likely than others In this case, yours has zero evidence behind it that Teddy can return to his PLOF and mountains of history to say he cannot. Your only leg to stand on (pun intended) is shaky and unsupported.

What are you talking about? I'm saying that usually there is Neuro or arterial damage, so him saying nothing else major is most likely in reference to those things being okay. Learn to read. And yes, that's right, based on Smith's injury, he had a very small chance to ever play again. Just like Teddy's injury, there is less than a 20% chance to return to sport, and even then, a high risk for that knee to collapse. My professional experience combined with historical data for the injury Teddy sustained is why I have stated that he is a massive risk and not worth betting on. Your responses are dismissive of statistical historical evidence related to his injury and the informed professional opinion of myself and a couple others. Go back to your Google degree and whatever rock you are hiding your head under to ignore facts.

No problem dude. 26corner obv has a better informed assessment though.

Physical therapist, specialize in sports and traumatic orthopedic injuries. Treated from high school up through professional level athletes in every sport. (Including a former Globetrotter, though I can't give names for any legally) Worked with many high end surgeons, David Altchek at HSS being probably the most well known. My former classmate was in the rehab team for the USC Trojans for a couple of years. I asked her about Bridgewater, she laughed and said anybody who thinks he isn't a massive risk is fooling themselves. Sigh. You're either very persistent or refuse to inform yourself. The knee dislocation was the major problem. He was saying there wasn't anything arterial or Neuro most likely. His statement is akin to saying : -there was no major damage other than the gunshot to the chest -there was no major damage other than the roof collapsing on the house -there was no major damage other than the engine exploding in the car Give it up man.

Yes he planted and twisted, noncontact. The anatomical facts are that at least one collateral ligament (MCL and or LCL) must be torn, as well as at least one (usually both) cruciates (ACL and or PCL) It is rare to only tear one of the cruciates, so it seems he got lucky. The knee capsule is also ruptured in some form 100% of the time. These are the indisputable anatomical facts of his injury. -at least one cruciates (he tore his ACL) -at least one collateral (they didn't specify) -some form of joint capsule rupture (this is probably the worst part of it) There is basically less than a 20% chance any athlete with this injury can return to full competition. As far as anybody knew he had a healthy knee prior to the injury. I think you are stating that I'm implying he wasn't healthy before the injury. I'm saying that even if he was cleared by Minnesota MDS, he still hasn't had any NFL game contact, so assuming he is healthy enough to sign and bet a season on is reckless or uninformed at best.

You obviously still have not researched what injury he had. Continue to say you trust Minnesota team doctors instead of actual knowledge of the mechanics of his injury.

How is Chad going to help? The only way I see is he points an AK47 at Kirk cousins and tells him to sign with Denver

I trust my judgement based on my professional opinion in regards to knee injuries, especially of this magnitude. What expertise do you have with regards to knee/sports injuries other than Google?

He was injured on August 30th, 2016. He was cleared to practice October 16th, 2017. That is 13.5 months. He played in the game on December 17, 2017. That's 15.5 months before entering a game. Learn math.

Throwing out a blanket statement that they exercised due caution doesn't fly either. They cleared him 12 months after the injury. A typical ACL is 9-10 months to be cleared for sports. Keep saying you know better than everybody. Bottom line is you're down playing his injury because for whatever reason you've fallen in love with the guy.

He wants Bridgewater. That's all that he cares about. He's choosing to downplay facts regarding the injury.

Actually it is. Team doctors cleared a guy to play who they shouldn't have. This happens all the time. Your assertion that "because Minnesota cleared him he's okay" is contradictory to track records of team doctors, rgiii was a perfect example. Feel free to ignore the rest of the post.

I know! That's my point. Bradford's multiple knee issues is still less traumatic than Bridgewater. I don't want either. If forced to choose, I'd still takes Brad based on my professional knowledge.

I dunno. The Redskins let rgiii play with no LCL and limping. Grant Hill was supposedly in litigation with the Pistons former doctors over clearing him to play after his career altering ankle injury. There are massive lawsuits and such regarding concussions and having guys being cleared when they shouldn't. I know every injury is different. His injury, regardless of that, was severe, period, there is no such thing as a "minor dislocation" with a knee. There is severe, more severe, and amputation. That's pretty much it. I think it's not a risk worth taking due to the mechanics of that injury. If you think otherwise you either: A) didn't do much research on that Or B) are cool with that high risk Based on how you're down playing it, and saying "let the docs see" etc I'm going to say it's probably A.

No. The specific injury he sustained. I have seen it twice clinically. It's a mess. Do a little research on the injury he sustained. He's a massive risk, even short term. You sign him as a starter to bridge to the young guy you draft, then his knee explodes three games in, and you're throwing your rookie to the wolves and there goes the plan. No thanks.

My first hand knowledge of that specific injury says he isn't worth the risk. LOLOL that's awesome.

Kinda like "hold my beer and watch this"

I think all that hair varnish he's been using for decades has rotted his brain.

I noticed the peroneal nerve /perineal nerve mixup and laughed myself silly. I'm a physical therapist, specialize in sports /Ortho rehabilitation. Like I've said earlier. Even if his knee checked out okay from physicals, the damage sustained to the joint capsule would be irreparable, and a ticking time bomb. One hard cut and his knee will most likely explode faster than magicians paper.

LOLOL!! YEP. ????

Except your logic is flawed because rgiii's game logs don't show a regression until after his injury. His effectiveness literally plummeted. I'm not saying there wasn't a chance he'd be "figured out" I'm saying that we can never know because the injury derailed him before we even got to that point. Right. Never said they weren't. But somebody said the browns could do #1 and #4 for him. I said that's absurd.

I feel like you and I are the only ones actually looking at the specifics of his injury. Everybody is just like "ehhh it was a knee. No big deal. He took Year off and is okay" while at the same time discounting Bradford. I'm not big on either one because of their injury histories. They are both a hard pass for me. Having said that, I would still take Brokeford over Brokewater, even with the fact that he's had: -two throwing shoulder AC joint sprains (missing 4 then 11 games) -three minor ankle sprains to the same ankle, which he rushed back from them, just making them worse (missing 6, 1, and 3 games) -two ACL full tears on the same knee, back to back years (9 and 16 games) -diagnosed concussion (2 games) -separated AC joint again (2 games) -knee swelling and scope on the previously torn twice ACL knee (missed whole season, but that was due to keenum not knee, he would have played if need be) Yes, I'd still trust his knee over Bridgewater.

Jimmy is worth the risk for somebody like us, throwing pick 21&22 for him, if we thought that was acceptable to do for any other QB in the draft, I think he's equal or better than them. Cleveland? No f*cking way would they even consider #1 and #4 .