Whatever week this is - Non B2B Champs games

[SpeedFlex27]

8 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

The Bombers let Ellingson come back early and he didn't last a whole game. Are you suggesting that Ellingson deserved it and that the entire Bombers organization looks really bad? Of course not. What's different about Rourke and the Leos?

Just. Go. Away.  You're just a pest. 

Edited October 26, 2022 by SpeedFlex27

[Brandon]

3 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

And again, that's not the argument, but nice try.

If you think it's horrible for BC to bring Rourke back 'early', but it's OK for the Bombers to bring Ellingson back 'early', then your problem isn't with bringing players back early. Your problem is with BC doing it.

I'd assume a young QB who *can* be hurt on every single play by massive dlinemen/lbers and who will be the face of the franchise and he alone can make or break a team is a bit different from an older receiver who may see real contact on 10 or so plays primarily by much smaller dbs tackling him from behind and who if he does go down the team has 5 suitable replacements.... is kind of a different situation.

[Bigblue204]

16 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

And again, that's not the argument, but nice try.

If you think it's horrible for BC to bring Rourke back 'early', but it's OK for the Bombers to bring Ellingson back 'early', then your problem isn't with bringing players back early. Your problem is with BC doing it.

context matters in this case. The individuals each team brought back absolutely plays a part in the argument.

[bearpants]

there are many factors when comparing the two players' situations:

- who the player is (like or not, that matters)
- what injury he had
- did it require surgery?
- what is the typical time frame for return?
- what are the chances of re-injury?
- and maybe most importantly... if he were to get re-injured, how does that effect his future?

If Rourke does get re-injured... the same injury... I don't think it necessarily reflects poorly on the Lions... but the medical staff should/will have some tough questions to answer

[TBURGESS]

1 hour ago, Bigblue204 said:

context matters in this case. The individuals each team brought back absolutely plays a part in the argument.

The argument is that the BC organization looks really bad for bringing Rourke back 'early' & if we do the same thing, obviously with a different player, we don't look bad. It's not that Rourke is ahead of schedule, because that's a fact.

No context needed. Is it OK to bring back a player who thinks he's ready and who gets the Dr's OK even if he doesn't last the game? I say yes and it doesn't matter the player or the injury or how far ahead of the curve he is or the team the brings him back.

@Brandonevery player who steps on the field can get hurt any play they are in. That's a statement of fact, not an argument for or against bringing Rourke or Ellingson back.

@bearpantsAll the things you talk about are taken into consideration before allowing the player to get back on the field. It doesn't matter if the player is a Bomber or a Lion, a young guy or an old guy, a receiver or a QB, a guy whose going to play 10 snaps or one who will play a quarter.

For those who still don't get it: Teams that bring a player back before they are expected to be back do it with the best information that they have, full risk assessment, the Dr's & the players OK. When it doesn't work out, it doesn't make the organization look bad & it doesn't mean that the organization was pressuring the player. Is possible that the org did pressure them, but the simple fact that they played doesn't mean that a true statement.

 

[17to85]

30 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

No context needed

Boy did you just sum up your entire philosophy there....

You need context with everything because it is a bad look for a team to gamble with their young franchise player with his entire career ahead of him... while it's not nearly such a bad look for an old receiver to gamble coming back because he's nearly done anyway. 

[WBBFanWest]

Multiple people trying to argue with he who shall not be swayed concerning that which cannot be defined.  For TBurg, best week since about 2015!

[TBURGESS]

4 minutes ago, WBBFanWest said:

Multiple people trying to argue with he who shall not be swayed concerning that which cannot be defined.  For TBurg, best week since about 2015!

I can be & have been swayed by facts.

[WBBFanWest]

2 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

I can be & have been swayed by facts.

Oh yea, but the trick is to never ever admit it or stop arguing until they surrender.  I've seen your playbook.

[TBURGESS]

51 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Boy did you just sum up your entire philosophy there....

You need context with everything because it is a bad look for a team to gamble with their young franchise player with his entire career ahead of him... while it's not nearly such a bad look for an old receiver to gamble coming back because he's nearly done anyway. 

You're on the "it's OK to gamble with an old guy, but not a young guy" side. I disagree. A gamble is a gamble. Some work out. Some don't. 

1 minute ago, WBBFanWest said:

Oh yea, but the trick is to never ever admit it or stop arguing until they surrender.  I've seen your playbook.

Nope, not even close. Just cuz several people disagree with me doesn't mean they're right or I'm wrong.

[WBBFanWest]

1 minute ago, TBURGESS said:

Nope, not even close. Just cuz several people disagree with me doesn't mean they're right or I'm wrong.

Nope, not going to follow the playbook.  Please refer to my tag line...

[17to85]

5 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

You're on the "it's OK to gamble with an old guy, but not a young guy" side. I disagree. A gamble is a gamble. Some work out. Some don't. 

It's not just about old vs. Young. Also have to consider the position and relative importance to a team. Reality is that qbs are a hell of a lot harder to replace than receivers are and quarterbacks mean so much more to a team. I don't want winnipeg playing games with Collaros health, but a guy like Ellingson? Ehhhh big deal. 

Bc should be treating Rourke very carefully because he is that important to them not only on the field but as part of their brand rebuilding. 

 

[Booch]

I just don't get how some...well one think that an injury requiring surgery, and has a known recovery time of longer than what Rourke has had done, and has likely not even had the second surgery done yet, to actually complete the process, so likelihood of serious re-injure is anywhere close to the same thing as a different player who had a strain/sprain lingering soft tissue injury which basically just required rest, and no intrusive treatment for it...regardless of age/position....explain that one to me...how is that similar in any way?

And from experience, and circumstance there are many times a "team doctor" will give a player the go ahead if they choose....but always with a caveat (which we will never be privy to btw) doesn't make it right...or doesn't mean it's wise...but it happens...I do know that the staff here won't even if the player says he good, but I do know BC staff has...Lucky asked, and was allowed to re-enter a game with a broken hand, why Campbell allowed that, and didnt say sorry dude but no certainly raises an eyebrow or two.

I hope that if BC gets here he does play...so there no "ya buts" cause there surely will be if/when we beat them, and am not concerned who is at qb as we mainly  handled them just fine with a lesser lineup than what we will field come WF...

Edited October 27, 2022 by Booch

[Booch]

to put into context that injury, and timeframe....17 professional soccer and rugby players were studied in recovery

the time from injury to fixation ranged from 8 to 31 days, and hardware was removed at 16 weeks postoperatively. One athlete retired after a ligamentous injury; the remaining 16 players returned to training and full competition. Excluding the retired player, the mean time to return to training was 20.1 weeks (range, 18-24 weeks) and to full competition was 25.3 weeks (range, 21-31 weeks). There was a significant difference between the mean time to return to competition for rugby (27.8 weeks) and soccer players (24.1 weeks; P = .02) and for ligamentous (22.5 weeks) compared with bony injuries (26.9 weeks; P = .003). Three patients suffered deep peroneal nerve sensation loss, from which 1 patient did not fully recover.

Conclusion: Return to competitive elite-level soccer and rugby is possible after surgically treated Lisfranc injuries. Return to training can take up to 24 weeks and return to playing up to 31 weeks, with bony injuries taking longer.

Now do the math...Rourke had his surgery the week of Aug the 21st....thats what...10 weeks at most from initial surgery, and not including the hardware removal at 16 weeks post surgery....so how is he totally healed and at no risk for serious re-injure....do tell....so obviously the BC doctors are NOT adhering to the proper recovery time...let alone even taken out the hardware as it's not medically proven to be removeable until 16 weeks...which is around the 3rd..4th week of Nov at earliest....and before anyone even tries to dispute and say...yeah thats one study....that is different...blah blah blah....that is the timeline for this healing process in all studies, and occurrences

so based on that either 1) Rourke is not human 2)B.C has a secret sports medicine program for faster healing or 3) they rolling the dice and being less than ethical 4) Rourke is just a dumb tool and signed a waiver to play...and likely ruining any NFL shot in the spring

I think I will go with options 3 and 4...

[Booch]

a little more to chew on as well as to why rushing it is just plain dumb and could severely hinder his future production

League participation and game performance were collected 1 season prior to injury and up to 3 seasons after injury. Statistical analysis was performed, with P≤.05 being significant. A total of 47 athletes (NFL=35, rugby=12) with Lisfranc injuries were identified, having 23 ligamentous injuries and 24 fractures. Thirty-five (75%) were treated operatively. Among NFL players, 29 (83%) returned to play, taking 10.0±2.9 months to do so. Overall, NFL players started fewer games 2 and 3 seasons following surgery (P=.002 and .035, respectively) and showed a significant decline in performance 1 season after return compared with preinjury levels (21%; P=.05). Offensive players had a significantly greater decline in statistical performance compared with defensive counterparts (P=.02). Although professional NFL athletes return to play at a high rate (83%) following Lisfranc injury, their league participation and performance is significantly decreased on return. Ligamentous and bony injuries have similar prognoses; however, offensive players show greater declines in performance compared with defensive players. To best guide therapy, players, coaches, and team physicians should be aware of the impact of Lisfranc injuries on career performance and longevity. [Orthopedics. 2018; 41(4):e479-e482.].

[Booch]

is that facts enough that BC medical team is obviously skirting the healing issue? whoever says no is frankly an idiot and just arguing otherwise for the sake of arguing and or just hearing themselves speak

[Saidin]

I'll never forget what team 'doctors' did for Tua.  I'll never forget the image of his hand after the 2nd concussion.

[Geebrr]

I honestly hope he is healed and ready to go.

This was from an article about the #2 pick in the 2022 draft:

Recovery from a Lisfranc injury depends on exactly what was damaged and how severe that damage is. Some milder nondisplaced Lisfranc injuries can heal on their own in a month or two if immobilized and rehabbed properly. 

More serious Lisfranc injuries require surgery, and the recovery will depend on the degree of displacement to the bones. When the Lisfranc ligament is torn the bones shift out of place. The recovery following the repair of a significant Lisfranc ligament tear is typically nine to 12 months. Basketball activities can be slowly reintroduced sooner, but playing in a live game won’t come for a while. 
 

He will be right into the fire - so no excuses. 

 

[Sard]

54 minutes ago, Booch said:

to put into context that injury, and timeframe....17 professional soccer and rugby players were studied in recovery

the time from injury to fixation ranged from 8 to 31 days, and hardware was removed at 16 weeks postoperatively. One athlete retired after a ligamentous injury; the remaining 16 players returned to training and full competition. Excluding the retired player, the mean time to return to training was 20.1 weeks (range, 18-24 weeks) and to full competition was 25.3 weeks (range, 21-31 weeks). There was a significant difference between the mean time to return to competition for rugby (27.8 weeks) and soccer players (24.1 weeks; P = .02) and for ligamentous (22.5 weeks) compared with bony injuries (26.9 weeks; P = .003). Three patients suffered deep peroneal nerve sensation loss, from which 1 patient did not fully recover.

Conclusion: Return to competitive elite-level soccer and rugby is possible after surgically treated Lisfranc injuries. Return to training can take up to 24 weeks and return to playing up to 31 weeks, with bony injuries taking longer.

Now do the math...Rourke had his surgery the week of Aug the 21st....thats what...10 weeks at most from initial surgery, and not including the hardware removal at 16 weeks post surgery....so how is he totally healed and at no risk for serious re-injure....do tell....so obviously the BC doctors are NOT adhering to the proper recovery time...let alone even taken out the hardware as it's not medically proven to be removeable until 16 weeks...which is around the 3rd..4th week of Nov at earliest....and before anyone even tries to dispute and say...yeah thats one study....that is different...blah blah blah....that is the timeline for this healing process in all studies, and occurrences

so based on that either 1) Rourke is not human 2)B.C has a secret sports medicine program for faster healing or 3) they rolling the dice and being less than ethical 4) Rourke is just a dumb tool and signed a waiver to play...and likely ruining any NFL shot in the spring

I think I will go with options 3 and 4...

Option 5) Rourke is Wolverine

If he comes out of this without further injury, then I think that should be his new nickname.

[Jesse]

40 minutes ago, Saidin said:

I'll never forget what team 'doctors' did for Tua.  I'll never forget the image of his hand after the 2nd concussion.

Dave Dickenson collapsing on the sidelines for his final start in Calgary...

[WBBFanWest]

15 minutes ago, Sard said:

Option 5) Rourke is Wolverine

If he comes out of this without further injury, then I think that should be his new nickname.

so... it's either going to be Wolverine or Stumpy.  Going to be a fun night!

Edited October 27, 2022 by WBBFanWest

[Tracker]

Apart from the medical clearance, much will likely depend on Rourke's subjective opinion, and driven athletes have been known to outright lie about their injuries so as to get right back into the action. Rourke doesn't impress me as that foolhardy, but who knows?

[TBURGESS]

14 minutes ago, Booch said:

is that facts enough that BC medical team is obviously skirting the healing issue? whoever says no is frankly an idiot and just arguing otherwise for the sake of arguing and or just hearing themselves speak

Congrats! You've shown, using actual data, that Rourke is way ahead of schedule, something that no one was questioning in the first place.

Of 28 players (11 offensive, 17 defensive) who suffered Lisfranc injuries between 2000 and 2010, two never returned to the NFL. The median time to return was 11.1 months from the time of injury, and three players returned in less than three months. If the bones are where they are supposed to be treatment in a non-walking cast for 6 weeks may be enough. Najee Harris suffered lisfranc injury during preseason and was ready to go 4 weeks later, and he's a RB. It's not an impossible timeline, but it's certainly not the norm.

I'm no Dr., just a guy with Google, who doesn't pretend that I know more than the Dr's. From my googling: There are different levels of Linsfranc surgery. Ligaments can be stretched, partially or fully torn to removing cartilage, bone & fusing joint(s) in the foot. Google doesn't help with which level of surgery Rourke had, but they did call it a Linsfran sprain, which likely means it wasn't the worst case scenario. Maybe they opened him up and the bones were still where they were supposed to be. If you know more than google, please let me know.

Only an ID10T would conclude that being ahead of schedule means that Rourke isn't human or that BC has a secret program for faster healing or that or the Dr's are being less than ethical or that Rourke is a dumb tool giving up his chance at the NFL in the spring or that the medical team is obviously skirting the healing issue. It most likely means that Rourke's not fully healed & is willing to play through the pain. I don't think anyone expects a 100% Rourke this year. I certainly don't.

The question becomes what kind of harm can he do coming back before he's fully healed? He could re-injure and start recovery over again, he could re-injure and have a longer recovery time, or he might not re-injure it at all. The team and Rourke must think that the the chances of re-injuring it in a quarter of football this week is low enough to let him play. I hope they're right.

 

 

[Geebrr]

Even if he feels ok now (to whatever extent that is) you don’t practice getting hit or having a 300 lb guy fall on you. 
 

 

[Booch]

Najee Harris had a.minor strain..came back fast yup..and is a shell of what he was

Rourke had surgery..with hardware to correct bone and tendon...one worst case scenario for Linsfranc.. so no way in hell he is ahead of schedule as it's not possible for that particular healing process...sure maybe plus minus a week or so...not months...and how I know what type...I asked someone I know in lions organization who told me extent...so him coming back before hardware out..and minimal heal time regardless how he "feels" in a non game situation is pretty dumb