- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The health staff will limit this team
Posted on 3/28/22 at 7:49 am to Bronc
Posted on 3/28/22 at 7:49 am to Bronc
I think Nelson is way to conservative, but I respect his opinion. However, every health decision should be made from this point forward with an eye on the playoffs. If any player won't do any permanent damage by playing, it is time to play them. You can't tell me Zion can give you a solid 12-16 minutes today.
1
Posted on 3/28/22 at 7:58 am to Bronc
quote:
Then, when he balls out, you claim, once again without evidence, that it's because the team told the authoritarian medical staff controlling and destroying our chances to compete, to frick off.
lol literally everyone noticed the increase in minutes for CJ, JV< and BI in the second half.
but never mind--- you got it chief. Bronc is the best
Posted on 3/28/22 at 8:00 am to saints5021
quote:
I think Nelson is way to conservative
His methods produce healthier squads over the course of a season than the league average, consistently, over decades.
If upfront conservatism(which none of us have any qualifications to make that judgement) is leading to healthier overall squads, what the hell is the complaint??
Posted on 3/28/22 at 8:01 am to The_Duke
quote:
lol literally everyone noticed the increase in minutes for CJ, JV< and BI in the second half.
but never mind--- you got it chief. Bronc is the best
Drawing the conclusion that a higher minute load in the second half means the team told the medical staff to go frick themselves is quite the leap...Any actual evidence or nah?
...And for Reference, BI played:
25 minutes last night
1st Half: 12 Minutes
2nd Half: 13:40 minutes
So a 1 minute and 40 second difference is the basis you are using to declare the team told the medical staff to go frick themselves??
This post was edited on 3/28/22 at 8:05 am
Posted on 3/28/22 at 8:04 am to The_Duke
Yall please stop engaging this dude 
Posted on 3/28/22 at 8:05 am to 50_Tiger
At some point, athletes have to play through injury, especially during the playoffs.
Posted on 3/28/22 at 8:07 am to saints5021
How do you know BI didnt?
You all start with the presumption your assumptions are true, than make sweeping generalizations off those assumptions
You realize how ridiculously broken that logic is correct??
And again, the net result of Nelson's methods are LESS games missed to injuries.
You all start with the presumption your assumptions are true, than make sweeping generalizations off those assumptions
You realize how ridiculously broken that logic is correct??
And again, the net result of Nelson's methods are LESS games missed to injuries.
Posted on 3/28/22 at 8:15 am to The_Duke
quote:
Grade 1 or 2 hamstring injuries have very ltillte to no reinjury rate. That's a medical fact.
LINK
quote:
Hamstring strain injuries (HSI) are among the most common injuries in the active population, and are notorious for their high rates of re-injury. In the American National Football League for example, HSIs have been reported to account for 12%1 of all primary injuries, and their recurrence rate is remarkable, at 32%.
quote:
The average amount of time missed from sport is 18 days, however, actual time missed is often greater and costly.7 Several authors have identified that the best predictor for a hamstring injury is a prior hamstring injury. There are other risk factors involved in predicting vulnerability to hamstring injury, but none have proven more consistent than prior injury. This is not to say that if one suffers a hamstring injury they will definitively suffer another. However, the probability of re-injuring the same hamstring in the future becomes considerably higher.
quote:
Recurrence rates following hamstring injuries are high with the greatest incidence for re-injury occurring within the first two weeks after return to sport. Increased recurrence rates within this timeframe may indicate continued impairments and functional limitations not be easily identified with traditional return to sport testing. Many non-modifiable and modifiable risk factors for recurrent hamstring injuries exist including, but not limited to; previous injury, increasing age,ethnicity, strength imbalances, inflexibility,and fatigue.
quote:
The majority of injuries are due to the former occurring during participation in sports that require quick changes of direction and explosive maneuvers.
quote:
Within this study, a clinically based classification system was found to provide an effective clinical tool to assess risk of reinjury and return to play time, with Grade II injuries having the great risk for recurrence (24%) followed by Grade I (9.3%).12 This however may have been partly due to a shorter return to play timeframe with moderate soft tissue disruption with grade II injuries.
Hope that helps!
Posted on 3/28/22 at 8:17 am to Parrish
Man, who could of predicted that Duke and 50_Tigers Bawville degree in medical hot taking and Google searching might not be up to snuff??
Posted on 3/28/22 at 11:38 am to Parrish
What you posted is misleading---it's factoring in very serious hamstring injuries (possible tears) and time to recover in their calculations. They even give you a chart that spells out the return dates. BI was diagnosed with a mild hamstring injur--not even grade 1 or grade 2.
but even it was grade 1 or 2, and not the more severe ones--everything we posted is factual. Meaning he should have been returned and his risk of re-injury is very low and close to none.
Here's the chart from your own link:
Classification for Acute Hamstring Strains with Recovery Time*
Clinical Grade AROM Deficit (Compared to uninvolved limb) Return to Sport, days
I <10° 6.9
II 10°-19° 11.7
III 20°-29° 25.4
IV =30° 55.0
but even it was grade 1 or 2, and not the more severe ones--everything we posted is factual. Meaning he should have been returned and his risk of re-injury is very low and close to none.
Here's the chart from your own link:
Classification for Acute Hamstring Strains with Recovery Time*
Clinical Grade AROM Deficit (Compared to uninvolved limb) Return to Sport, days
I <10° 6.9
II 10°-19° 11.7
III 20°-29° 25.4
IV =30° 55.0
This post was edited on 3/28/22 at 11:40 am
Posted on 3/28/22 at 11:42 am to Parrish
quote:
Grade 1 or 2 hamstring injuries have very ltillte to no reinjury rate. That's a medical fact.
quote:This is just amazing
Hamstring strain injuries (HSI) are among the most common injuries in the active population, and are notorious for their high rates of re-injury. In the American National Football League for example, HSIs have been reported to account for 12%1 of all primary injuries, and their recurrence rate is remarkable, at 32%.
Posted on 3/28/22 at 11:42 am to Bronc
quote:
Man, who could of predicted that Duke and 50_Tigers Bawville degree in medical hot taking and Google searching might not be up to snuff??
He literally Googled this info---like wth are you talking about lol
Posted on 3/28/22 at 11:44 am to The_Duke
quote:If you watched the game and still think you're correct, then you're clearly just trolling us or realize you're too far gone to take the L. There is no other logical conclusion at this point.
Meaning he should have been returned and his risk of re-injury is very low and close to none.
You've gone on and on for multiple weeks about how BI should have been 100% a while ago, and everyone watching the game last night obviously saw that even in playing he clearly was not 100%. That alone proves you very, very wrong. Just take your L and shuffle on to the next one.
The only thing that has happened here is the team didn't provide updates. But that has never been your argument. Your argument has been the team is lying and BI should have been cleared and a go 1-2 weeks ago. And again, both arguments proven very, very wrong last night by an obviously not 100% BI playing.
Posted on 3/28/22 at 11:45 am to shel311
That recurrence rate is a reasonable reason to wait for 100%.
Even though I think they are too conservative, it's only fair to point out that CJ and JV were both listed as questionable with injuries yet both played.
Even though I think they are too conservative, it's only fair to point out that CJ and JV were both listed as questionable with injuries yet both played.
This post was edited on 3/28/22 at 11:46 am
Posted on 3/28/22 at 11:46 am to The_Duke
What you're also not taking into account is the injuries that have costed him time this year:
achilles
hip
ankle
now add the hamstring.
Lets say he misses a week because he can't push it that hard. In that week, we lost to memphis, orlando, and charlotte.
We won vs Houston, lost to phoenix, won vs SAS, atlanta, lost to charlotte, won vs chicago, lost to SAS.
he comes back and we win vs LA Lakers
its a risk:reward. He plays, you may have won another 2 games. He aggravates it worse, he's gone for the year...including the said play-in/playoff run.
They're protecting him because he needs to be healthy if you want to get out of the play-in. If we fell behind and were say..9th than I would bet he'd come back a bit earlier, but alas here we are.
achilles
hip
ankle
now add the hamstring.
Lets say he misses a week because he can't push it that hard. In that week, we lost to memphis, orlando, and charlotte.
We won vs Houston, lost to phoenix, won vs SAS, atlanta, lost to charlotte, won vs chicago, lost to SAS.
he comes back and we win vs LA Lakers
its a risk:reward. He plays, you may have won another 2 games. He aggravates it worse, he's gone for the year...including the said play-in/playoff run.
They're protecting him because he needs to be healthy if you want to get out of the play-in. If we fell behind and were say..9th than I would bet he'd come back a bit earlier, but alas here we are.
Posted on 3/28/22 at 11:48 am to TigerinATL
quote:All 3 played. BI played clearly not at 100%. I fail to see the issue.
it's only fair to point out that CJ and JV were both listed as questionable with injuries yet both played.
Like I said, if you watched last night, it is painfully obvious that it's an absurd position to take that BI 100% could have played and was good to go 1-2 weeks ago. Last night killed The Duke's entire premise in a big way.
Posted on 3/28/22 at 11:55 am to shel311
again---the data he posted factored in actual hamstring tears. Of course that's going to raise the number of days it takes to return.
This post was edited on 3/28/22 at 12:12 pm
Posted on 3/28/22 at 11:58 am to shel311
quote:
If you watched the game and still think you're correct, then you're clearly just trolling us or realize you're too far gone to take the L. There is no other logical conclusion at this point.
My point has always been that a 70% BI is better than anything we could sub him for. Last night, even maybe at 80% he gave us 26 in 26 minutes and was incredibly efficient. Players don't have to be 100% to play and have an impact on the game.
If they hadn't simply called it a "mild" hamstring injury and maybe said it was an actual grade 2 or 3 injury-- I don't think many of us would have been upset with the prolonged absence. or if after those 7-10 days, they updated us. How is that too much to ask for?
This post was edited on 3/28/22 at 12:00 pm
Posted on 3/28/22 at 12:01 pm to shel311
quote:
as good to go 1-2 weeks ago.
Strawman--this convo didn't kick off 2 weeks ago.
This post was edited on 3/28/22 at 12:02 pm
Posted on 3/28/22 at 12:02 pm to The_Duke
You are moving goalposts again, literally his first article:
To which that article also goes on to speak about the lifetime reoccurrence probability of full hamstring injuries, which is notably high.
Your argument is to essentially take a guy that is theoretically only 70% recovered from one of the most re-injury prone injuries, to come back at 70%. When, already last night, he definitely wasn't close to 100% even on a minutes restriction and multiple practices to ramp up. Risking not just re-aggravation in the short term, but potentially creating a career-long increased probability of hamstring injuries and issues.
I am very glad you don't actually have any medical credentials or make health decisions about actual human beings.
quote:
Hamstring strain injuries (HSI) are among the most common injuries in the active population, and are notorious for their high rates of re-injury. In the American National Football League for example, HSIs have been reported to account for 12%1 of all primary injuries, and their recurrence rate is remarkable, at 32%.
To which that article also goes on to speak about the lifetime reoccurrence probability of full hamstring injuries, which is notably high.
Your argument is to essentially take a guy that is theoretically only 70% recovered from one of the most re-injury prone injuries, to come back at 70%. When, already last night, he definitely wasn't close to 100% even on a minutes restriction and multiple practices to ramp up. Risking not just re-aggravation in the short term, but potentially creating a career-long increased probability of hamstring injuries and issues.
I am very glad you don't actually have any medical credentials or make health decisions about actual human beings.
This post was edited on 3/28/22 at 12:06 pm
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News