Quote:
Originally Posted by TwistedChief
This is the crucial point that many in here are missing.
We're not just rolling the dice on an average case for this injury. So it's not like we have a player who just got injured yesterday and we're mapping out the odds of his future without having any of the relevant details.
We have medical professionals looking at the specifics of THIS CASE post-surgery and after some meaningful level of recovery. If you think our medical team is a bunch of ****ing morons, then fine. If you think Reid and Veach were so desperate for this pick despite the fact that we traded back a slot to take him, then fine.
But there's real evidence the team did real work on the medicals and felt like he's probably going to be in the top 10% of whatever recovery study people want to throw out there.
So please, spare us all with the bland statistics. We have a case 1 of 1 with unique details, and the team clearly felt good enough to go in this direction.
|
Yep. I think the missing element in the studies that people are quoting is that the teams absorbed the injury when the player was on the team. It's not like they had the option to not have the player on the team.
The Chiefs looked at Mr. Simmons after the injury and recovery. They had the opportunity to pass on him if they weren't seeing recovery. So that brings up the question of when it's possible to tell that a player is making a strong recovery or not. The Chiefs are obviously comfortable that they're evaluating Mr. Simmons at a point in time where his recovery can be thoroughly evaluated, and they're comfortable with it.
I don't care if only 20 percent of players come back if we're able to determine that he's in that 20 percent before we draft him.