Camp Report 8/1/14

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
Alan said:
A couple of things:

I didn't make any assertion. I merely explained what the meaning of the word prone is.

But I do agree with the concept. Let me ask you a question wrstdude, do you think a player of diminutive stature like Austin or the Honey Badger is of greater risk of injury than someone who is of a weight and strength that is more appropriate for their job? Let's face it, when a little guy slams into a big guy the little guy is more likely to get injured. So that's one way.

In addition, there are some guys like that very same Austin who, do to their extreme elusiveness, is able to avoid more big hits than someone like Tre Mason. So that's another way.

Genetically speaking, there are so many variables that would favor or disfavor a certain body type. Bone thickness varies with virtually everyone. Thicker bones are less likely to be broken. But are they more brittle? How big are your tendons. How much fast twitch muscle do you have. Those are just a few of the multitude.

But that doesn't mean that many injuries have nothing to do with any of those variables that make someone more prone to injury. Many are just bad luck. That's why I hadn't planned on arguing one side or the other. I only said something because I like words. :)
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say yes or no on that. There are definitely players more susceptible to injury for one reason or another but size just doesn't play the factor that some claim.

Take Danario Alexander for example as a guy who has an issue...he's not just unlucky.
 
CoachO said:
I'm sorry guys,, didn't mean to start a panic, LOL But when you consider the consequences of NOT having Saffold, with Joseph not practicing today either, it just make for a OH NO, kind of moment leaving practice.
Click to expand...
No worries, man.

Everyone else, come on....this is going to be minor, and as far as all the theories out there, coming from someone with a huge injury past, but who also has studied, and knows his own family history--4 generations of football players, so far.... There is some truth, IMO, to all of your concerns, and there are freak occurrences also. Bottom line, is that there are too many factors to be able to figure this out. I am tightly wound, my son is very limber, my dad was in between. My pops only injury was NOT from playing football. I have had, major, hamstring, lower back, and neck injuries, etc. My son, had most of his injuries from playing baseball, but had some in football too, but of the freak variety.

Anyone can get injured, some people are lucky. I played, and practiced, full bore, all the time...it takes a toll, but for me, there was no other way, and I don't regret it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wrstdude
jrry32 on the fence:
I wouldn't say yes or no on that. There are definitely players more susceptible to injury for one reason or another but size just doesn't play the factor that some claim.

Take Danario Alexander for example as a guy who has an issue...he's not just unlucky.
Click to expand...
I'm not giving any of the variables a fixed percentage of the risk increase. I merely note that they are a factor. What weight you want to give it is up to you. Like almost everything, being injury prone is the result of a combination of factors that vary with each individual.

But...I think there are variables that are bigger culprits than others and for me, the biggest one is playing style. Do you not agree?
 
Alan said:
I'm not giving any of the variables a fixed percentage of the risk increase. I merely note that they are a factor. What weight you want to give it is up to you. Like almost everything, being injury prone is the result of a combination of factors that vary with each individual.

But...I think there are variables that are bigger culprits than others and for me, the biggest one is playing style. Do you not agree?
Click to expand...
Alan, I think that players who give over 100% are more likely to get injured. Let me use Adrian Peterson as an example.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alan
Alan said:
A couple of things:

I didn't make any assertion. I merely explained what the meaning of the word prone is.

But I do agree with the concept. Let me ask you a question wrstdude, do you think a player of diminutive stature like Austin or the Honey Badger is of greater risk of injury than someone who is of a weight and strength that is more appropriate for their job? Let's face it, when a little guy slams into a big guy the little guy is more likely to get injured. So that's one way.

In addition, there are some guys like that very same Austin who, do to their extreme elusiveness, is able to avoid more big hits than someone like Tre Mason. So that's another way.

Genetically speaking, there are so many variables that would favor or disfavor a certain body type. Bone thickness varies with virtually everyone. Thicker bones are less likely to be broken. But are they more brittle? How big are your tendons. How much fast twitch muscle do you have. Those are just a few of the multitude.

But that doesn't mean that many injuries have nothing to do with any of those variables that make someone more prone to injury. Many are just bad luck. That's why I hadn't planned on arguing one side or the other. I only said something because I like words. :)
Click to expand...

Again, and why I said outside genetic factors that weed the rest of us poor saps out, I don't see how two athletes who are in the top <1% of the population have a genetic predisposition to injury compared to their peers. At that level it can only be bad luck.
I'm certainly arguing semantics, so I think I have a problem w/ the word prone in this context. I think risk is a more apt way to describe the potential for injury of a professional football player. By playing football they have a greater risk of injury, but it doesn't necessarily mean they're prone to injury. Does that follow?
 
  • Like
Reactions: PhxRam
CoachO said:
I'm sorry guys,, didn't mean to start a panic, LOL But when you consider the consequences of NOT having Saffold, with Joseph not practicing today either, it just make for a OH NO, kind of moment leaving practice.
Click to expand...
I totally get it man. But some people are acting like they'll be out for the season lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: CoachO
DR RAM to the max:
Alan, I think that players who give over 100% are more likely to get injured. Let me use Adrian Peterson as an example.
Click to expand...
Agree. The flight part of fight or flight isn't there by accident.
 
My take on the larger injury question is this, can people be genetically predisposed to injury playing football more so than others? I suppose it's possible. I haven't seen any scientific evidence demonstrating such a condition exists, but maybe it's out there and I just haven't heard it.

Does playing style effect injury? I think that's possible too.

But at the end of the day, football's a really violent game folks. You get in a car wreck 60 times in a three hour period and get up and do it some more in practice. Almost anyone (read: professional) who has been doing it for a couple years gets hurt doing it, to the point where they're missing practices and missing games. To me it's kinda like asking if certain school teachers are more disease prone than others. You hang out with sick kids a lot more than the general population, you get sick. You play a violent game for a living, you get hurt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PhxRam
wrstdude with part of the solution:
Again, and why I said outside genetic factors that weed the rest of us poor saps out, I don't see how two athletes who are in the top <1% of the population have a genetic predisposition to injury compared to their peers. At that level it can only be bad luck.
I'm certainly arguing semantics, so I think I have a problem w/ the word prone in this context. I think risk is a more apt way to describe the potential for injury of a professional football player. By playing football they have a greater risk of injury, but it doesn't necessarily mean they're prone to injury. Does that follow?
Click to expand...
A couple of things (as usual:LOL:).

The fact that the players might be in the top 1% of the population is immaterial. Football players are being compared to other football players and not to the other 99%. It's relative. At the same time, as I already said, most of it is due to the nature of the game. It's a violent sport like you said and when accidents and bad luck occurs in violent situations there are often injuries involved. But when proclaiming someone to be injury prone you are comparing him to others in the same profession. That's why it's relative.

As for does that follow, yes it doesn't necessarily mean they are prone to injury. It doesn't preclude it either.
 
Alan said:
A couple of things (as usual:LOL:).

The fact that the players might be in the top 1% of the population is immaterial. Football players are being compared to other football players and not to the other 99%. It's relative. At the same time, as I already said, most of it is due to the nature of the game. It's a violent sport like you said and when accidents and bad luck occurs in violent situations there are often injuries involved. But when proclaiming someone to be injury prone you are comparing him to others in the same profession. That's why it's relative.

As for does that follow, yes it doesn't necessarily mean they are prone to injury. It doesn't preclude it either.
Click to expand...
Nice post...but I am sooo confused now....JK.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alan
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back