[DJ's left nut]

So when I saw it was reinforced and read up on it, it didn't actually make me feel a lot better.

Because originally I was of the belief that the procedure was one of those 'better safe than sorry' things. Maybe not absolutely vital, but probably the safest approach with the best long-term outcomes.

Then I looked up when that double-grafting approach is used. It's typically used in instances when the tear is catastrophic and/or an earlier repair fails or needs revised.

Saying "Yeah, we did it the really really extreme way -- a way we've known how to do for years and still DON'T do it very often" -- doesn't make me feel a lot better.

An analogy would be "hey, this guy has a shoulder issue. We could've just done an arthroscopic procedure but instead we went in there and aggressively replaced the entire capsule...y'know, just to be safe..."

All that would tell me is that the 'scope WOULDN'T have worked. The thing you normally do for similar injuries wouldn't have gotten the job done. So you had to do the extra aggressive one that you DON'T normally do because it carries with it additional risks.

In this case, the graft is doubled over, right? Wouldn't that just make it MORE taut? Wouldn't that make it MORE likely that he loses flexibility and full range in the joint?

They didn't do it this way to be extra double safe while the folks that did it on Jimmy Graham were like "eh, **** it - the bare minimum will do..."

No, they did it this way because they HAD to.

But hey, when you have a reporter out there tossing out about 5% of the story that she got secondhand from a guy who's clearly vested in controlling the narrative, you should absolutely subject it to its most optimistic possible reading, right?

This double graft thing shouldn't be setting anyone's mind at ease.