How Do YOU define "injury prone"

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

The discussion on TSW about the Jags and Titans current RBs and Henry raise the broader issue for me about how one defines a player as injury prone or not.

 

Onvously different folks and teams have different levels of risk aversion and/or willingness to take risks. All NFL players are subject to the real possibility of significant injury and all NFL players can be judged on their ability to play through pain or not. To some degree the concept of a player being injury prone or not and certainly what a GM decides to do about it is far more an art than a science and sometimes a gamble is justifiable and sometimes it ain't depending upon the relative of what happens rather than some absolute standard which is immutable and the same in all cases.

 

However, I am pretty comfortable laying the label of "injury prone" on a player based on objective measurables. Thus. I define injury prone as:

 

1. A player who suffers recurring injuries to one part of his body such that he is forced to missed games by these recurring injuries and is at higher risk for missing games due to new injuries to that place.

 

For example, Gale Sayers was one of the greatest players I ever saw. He had the ability to both avoid hits and when he was hit to nounce back nicely. However, Kermit Alexander hit is knee the wrong way and though i would not lable him as injury prone based on the one hit, the knee was weakened by it. The good news is that he came back from that hit (with the well-chronicled help and competition of fellow RB Brian Picolo) and actually put up over a 1000 yards in a season after the injury.

 

However, once hurt, it diminished his use and performance on KO returns and when the knee was hit again and he was hurt later in his career he clearly became injury prone in relation to the knee and was forced out of the game when he actually had few years left if his knee held out.

 

2. The bigger problem is that I would deem a player injury prone if he seems to come down with a series of different injuries and nicks which cost him gamez. I am quite comfortable in labeling RJ as injury prone not because he was prone to the same injury, but because it seemed to be always something with him and injuries. One hit breaks his collarbone and he is out for a few games. Another hit separates his sternum and he is out for a few games again. Another hit rings his bell and he is out several games with a concussion.

 

I am totally comfortable labeling RJ as injury prone because he simply is prone to miss games with some injury quite alot.

 

From my stanpoint, I think it is way too early to label JP as injury prone despite some puppies expressing that fear. It was an odd injury and perhaps little more than an unepxected aggressive push from Vincent did give him a fracture. Hwever, things happen and it is simply too early to label him as injury prone in my book as he has shown no fear or limitations to taking hits in his collegiate career and a history of injuries has not been the case.

 

Likewise, with Brown with the Titans and Taylor with the Jags, I am actually comfortable with folks labeling both these players as injury prone. Brown seems to have RJ disease as he suffered a third significant injury in practice this year when he broke a bone in practice which has cost him practice time. He did not lose game time because his 3rd year has not started yer. However, given that he has suffered two injuries in his 2 year career which did cost his games and he now has a third injury which occured in a mere practice I think one can comfortably call him injury prone though he is talented.

 

I think there is less of a case to made with Taylor because has actually answered the call 16 time in a season not only in 2003 but also in 2002. However, he is getting a bit long in the tooth already exceeding the average career lemgth of an NFL RB amd givem that his injury last year was his third one which cost him game tme, I think it is reasonable to lable him as injury prone in the Gale Sayers type of way.

 

Henry is interesting, because in my mind he is one injury short of deserving the label injury prone himself. He has had a couple of injuries which cost him time for the Bills. However, his rib injury is actually a tribute to him as a player as he not only played through the pain in 2003 but was effective as a rusher despite the pain. His injury in 2004 strikes me as one where he did not play through the pain but this weenie performance (in my mind) was probably motivated by him giving up on the Bills because he felt they gave up on him by drafting a better RB WM.

 

I can see either the Jags or the Titans deciding to take the Henry risk because things look even worse for prospect Brown or good ol Taylor.

 

Among others who i think this year will determine for me whether they are reasonably labeled injury prone or not is Jonas Jennings. One of the key reasons whu I am quite happy the Bills did not reward him with a contract comparable to SF (I think we could have got him for what would still be a lot but less than his SF deal if we had signed him early) is that my guess is that we will find out this year that JJ is another injury prone player in an RJ like way. The fact he has never played a full season during his four years and that he not only was unable to answer the call for the Bills a couple of times last year, but also failed to finish a couple of other games he started due to knicks strikes me that JJ is simply one of this players prone to injury when hit.

 

It fortunately has not cost him his career at any point or the majority of a seasonn. but i will not be surprised at all if JJ never starts 16 games ever in his career or in fact if injury occurence makes him a clear bust for SF.

[Chalkie Gerzowski]

Steve McNair

[apulshunny]

I'll spell injury prone for you...

 

T - R - A - V - I - S

 

Warrior or not, the dude has racked up some injuries in a short time.

[stevestojan]

Injury prone = prone to getting injured.

 

 

Don't think you needed a 10,000 word essay on it, but that's just me.

[ch19079]

i think there is a diffrence between "injury prone" and "often injured, but plays and plays well".

 

to be called injury prone, you have to consistnatly get injured to a point where you cant play at the level you are used to.

 

all players are injured at one point or another. and play through the injury. T. Henry broke a bone in his leg, and still played. so i dont think of his as injury prone.

 

J. Jennings, is injury prone, IMO, cus EVERY year he misses large amounts of time due to injury.

 

W. Mcgahee is NOT injury prone cus he only had 1 major injury. but if he has another injury than that might change things.

 

i dont like when people are called "injury prone" cus it sounds like its their fault, or they are doign something wrong, while everyone else is doing something right. injuries happen. and it really sucks when it happens more than once.

 

Mr. "break my collar bone twice in 2 seasons" is injury prone.

[nick in* england]

Jonas Jennings was injury prone.

Drew Bledsoe was not.

[Stiffler]

There clearly is something to this. Whether there are distinct "injury prone" athletes or not is easier understood in baseball.

 

Guys that consistently play far less than 162 games for various maladies are injury prone. (From the top of my head) Mike Sweeney, Jim Edmonds, J.D. Drew, Josh Beckett, Larry Walker, Moises Alou, Mark Prior, Gary Sheffield, Kevin Brown. Contrast these guys with those that always play around 160 games: Miguel Tejada, Hideki Matsui, A-Rod, Todd Helton, Mariano Rivera, Bartolo Colon, Mark Buehrle.

 

There has to be more than random injury factor for this. Whether it be stronger core strength, more flexible joints and muscles, higher tolerance for playing hurt, or instincts to avoid bad situational plays. Whatever it is, some athletes got it, and some don't. One key to personel decisions is to avoid guys that don't. It's too early to tell for J.P..

[Talonz]

Injury prone = prone to getting injured.

Don't think you needed a 10,000 word essay on it, but that's just me.

368502[/snapback]

 

 

[BRH]

Injury prone = prone to getting injured.

Don't think you needed a 10,000 word essay on it, but that's just me.

368502[/snapback]

It was actually only 1,105 words. Maybe it just SEEMED like 10,000.

[todd]

I looked it up in the dictionary. Rob Johnson's picture was there.

[Talonz]

It was actually only 1,105 words.  Maybe it just SEEMED like 10,000. 

368568[/snapback]

 

 

Doesn't every post by Fat ? ( No offense to Fat, but most of us simply don't have time to read War and Peace )

[nick in* england]

Doesn't every post by Fat ?  ( No offense to Fat, but most of us simply don't have time to read War and Peace )

368574[/snapback]

I like that you can abbreviate him to FFS. Because that's what I think every time there is a tome to read....!!

 

"FFS hows does he get time to write all this down??!"

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

I like that you can abbreviate him to FFS. Because that's what I think every time there is a tome to read....!! 

 

"FFS hows does he get time to write all this down??!"

368592[/snapback]

 

Actually, my tomes (or screeds or whatever you want to call them) are actually so long due to advances in technology. Now that I have gotten my head fitted with a jack so I can just plug my computer right into my brain and spew forth TSW posts in a flow of unconciousness (as some might notice from my content I am sometimes asleep while I am writing) it has greatly increased the number and length of my posts.

 

Actually, there are several real world factors that contributes top their length.

 

1. Stevetojean is correct that there is no NEED for a 10,000 (or even 1105) word post on most of the topics which peak my interest. Fortunately, TSW and the whole internet for the most part (its main use as best as I can tell is for anonymous gambling and sex-stuff as its usage has gone far beyond the good ol days when it was limited to loftier stuff) have nothing to do with NEED and everything to do with WANT.

 

Most of us Americans (an particularly my lovely wife) seem to confuse need and want all the time. The internet and TSW are wholey optional activities and though 3 words are easily preferable to 3000 in the real picture they are both optional adventures. Whether one chooses to waste time reading a long piece or reading a short piece you are still wasting time in the end.

 

2. The good (but still optional for me as it is for most Americans) news is that I have actually developed methods for earning a dime while I am blathering on TSW. My work involves some monitoring of conference calls and chipping in occaisionally. It has nothing to do with TSW in the least, so as long as I remain plugged into the call and speak when approrpiate or when spoken too, those who pay the bills seem to tolerate me being online at the same time because my work is not harmed at all by my extra-curriculars. There are few things better for me than getting compensated while I am trolling. As these calls sometimes occur at the convenience of other timezones than US time you might also see my submissions happen at off hours.

 

3. I use TSW to think outloud in print about the Bills. At my worst, sometimes I will start with one view of a Bills situation and end up having convinced myself of a contradictory view. Though i usually will not send these rants because even I see the paradox, it is often the case that my posts promote lines of thinking which are pretty on one hand and also on the other hand rather than the typical web blather of taking a position and sticking to it regardless of reality.

 

I really do appreciate any reactions to my posts as I do learn from them, though i must admit they are often not in a form that is good presentation because they are my flow of unconciousness.

 

TSW is a great service because in my mind of the little community we have formed here. Like many I tend to launch in and out (for example i was out of town on work last week so didn't participate as much as I have often) but it is a great thing since is accessible anywhere you have a net connection. I found it way back in 98 when my lovely wife an I were away from Buffalo for a major operation and having the connection to the Bills helped me be distracted from the traumas of surgery and be the caregive my wife needed at the time.

 

My apologies for the long messages and I encourage those who feel like they waste their time to ignore them and I really do appreciate and actually am honored to receive a comment from those who do take the time.

 

Like life, take the best and leave the rest.

[nick in* england]

hehehe i was only kidding anyway!! woah - ilove the long FFS posts... keeps away the boredom of work!!

[stuckincincy]

hehehe i was only kidding anyway!! woah - ilove the long  FFS posts... keeps away the boredom of work!!

368861[/snapback]

 

Soliloquies rule!

[Ramius]

Someone like Isaac Bruce would be injury prone, because earlier in his career, he injured him hammy for like 4 straight seasons...

 

oft-injured and missing games = injury prone

 

a freak hit in training camp that breaks your leg != injury prone, as some here would love to think...

[DPR4444]

Joe Panos?

[BADOLBILZ]

W. Mcgahee is NOT injury prone cus he only had 1 major injury. but if he has another injury than that might change things.

 

368533[/snapback]

 

Incorrect. He tore the ACL in his other knee as a senior in HS. Caused him to redshirt his freshman year at Miami. He then was a backup as a RS freshman and suffered his other knee injury at the end of the following season. Injury prone or not, that's not a lot of miles for two knee reconstructions.