Quote
PARAM
He's got an issue with his left knee. It was surgically repaired in 2014. That's part of the "wear and tear", maybe even the genesis of the wear and tear. The 'oh my god, it's something else' because it happened in week one and 'wear and tear doesn't happen in week 1' is much ado about nothing. Wear and tear is culmulative….over a career (including NCAA/NFL). It flared up in week one probably because he doesn't play in preseason. Had he played in preseason, perhaps it flares up then, in fact likely, all things being equal.....before week one....which would have the 'you-don't-get-wear-and-tear-in-week-one crowd' really speculating. Reality is this....surgically repaired/manageable/can flare up any time....training camp, preseason, regular season, postseason. If it were something that was 'an injury' or 'extremely serious', the Rams wouldn't have paid him that healthy bonus in March.
Depends on whether or not you think "wear and tear" is a euphemism. Or if you just assume, with no basis for it, that it literally only means wearing down over time from extensive play.
Let's act for a moment like we actually know that it's the latter--that "wear and tear" just literally means wearing down over time. If we assume that, can you name me any another examples of a player for whom the cumulative effects of overuse and so on had a direct effect on them in the first game of a season? To the point where they experience debilitating pain and inflammation? Is that a common thing? I am not saying someone gets banged up in game 1--that does happen. But no one said he got banged up. They said that the pain and inflammation he experienced in December he also experienced in September. We don't know the cause of that (I don't, you don't) but we do know it happened twice. We know that because they said it.
Besides, Gurley, being an experienced NFL back, would know the difference between YOUR version of what "wear and tear" means---ordinary cumulative effects of just playing--and something unusual, and different from that. He did not talk like the game 1 situation was the usual thing. And therefore the reason anyone says it wasn't the usual thing is directly because of him. It's based on his own remarks about that episode. So there is very good reason to assume something that was NOT ordinary was going on. We know that based on Gurley's own words, and McVay's too.
And remember, McVay himself directly said in December that the situation with pain and inflammation (which was so bad they sat him for 2 weeks) was "similar" to the week one episode, an episode TG himself described as "bad."
Everyone who discusses this is really speculating because there is no hard medical evidence to go on. You certainly do not present any (because you can't any more than anyone else can). But the idea that the episode in December was similar to the episode in September is based directly on things Gurley and McVay both said about the September episode.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/05/2019 04:56AM by zn.
