Jimmy Graham to work out with Russell Wilson this offseason

[Anthony!]

it take s6-8 weeks of not playing to get over them,

Nope. Not true even for non-professional athletes who lack the advanced rehab options that Wilson has access to.

Hmm some random guy on the net or the experts, hmmm i will go with the experts 6-8 weeks.

Time to put up or shut up. Link to the "experts" who claimed 6-8 weeks recovery time for Wilson.

I will even do you one better and only talk about the high ankle sprain

Here is the verification it was a high ankle sprain

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/09/nfl...wles-new-york-jets-jim-caldwell-detroit-lions


Here is what an MD says about them

https://michaelgleibermd.com/news/common-nfl-injuries-unrealistic-recovery-expectations/ Notice 6 weeks to up to 4 months and that is without playing NFL games on it every week

Now Wilson also had a pectoral injury and a sprained MCL

 

[penihawk]

I believe "nagging" is the correct term here? :2thumbs:

 

[Seymour]

Are you guys really critiquing this informal practice session video? Tell me you're not.

LMAO!!
For once I agree with Sioux.

 

[Seanhawk]

Are you guys really critiquing this informal practice session video? Tell me you're not.

Absolute joke show.

 

[dadof3]

Are you guys really critiquing this informal practice session video? Tell me you're not.

He needs to get the ball out quicker

 

[bigskydoc]

I will even do you one better and only talk about the high ankle sprain...

Google search = Winning!

I'm still waiting for links to "all the experts" who specifically discuss Wilson's various injuries and the timeframe for his return to play from them. The expert you linked to is talking about typical recovery time from a lower ankle sprain. This is quite a different injury from the syndesmotic, high ankle, sprain suffered by Wilson.

Now, where might we find input from a couple of physicians, one of whom is an orthopedic surgeon who deals with these types of injuries on a daily basis, who have watched the video in order to give an opinion on the severity of the injuries and the likely timeline for a return to play?

Since you chose to focus on the high ankle sprain, let's ask what is unique about Wilson's injury that would suggest he would be on the lower end of the mean time to return to play? Mechanism.

Unlike most high ankle sprains, Wilson's foot wasn't planted when he was injured. This means that he was able to absorb a portion of the rotational force over a greater percentage of his leg than is typical for a high ankle sprain.

While no one can definitively say how significant the injury was, without seeing the MRIs, we can make a pretty good judgement based on seeing the mechanism of injury, and watching his play afterwards. Neither of these clues suggest he would be outside the mean, 3 week, time for return to play from a high ankle sprain.

 

[Anthony!]

I will even do you one better and only talk about the high ankle sprain...

Google search = Winning!

I'm still waiting for links to "all the experts" who specifically discuss Wilson's various injuries and the timeframe for his return to play from them. The expert you linked to is talking about typical recovery time from a lower ankle sprain. This is quite a different injury from the syndesmotic, high ankle, sprain suffered by Wilson.

Now, where might we find input from a couple of physicians, one of whom is an orthopedic surgeon who deals with these types of injuries on a daily basis, who have watched the video in order to give an opinion on the severity of the injuries and the likely timeline for a return to play?

Since you chose to focus on the high ankle sprain, let's ask what is unique about Wilson's injury that would suggest he would be on the lower end of the mean time to return to play? Mechanism.

Unlike most high ankle sprains, Wilson's foot wasn't planted when he was injured. This means that he was able to absorb a portion of the rotational force over a greater percentage of his leg than is typical for a high ankle sprain.

While no one can definitively say how significant the injury was, without seeing the MRIs, we can make a pretty good judgement based on seeing the mechanism of injury, and watching his play afterwards. Neither of these clues suggest he would be outside the mean, 3 week, time for return to play from a high ankle sprain.

Dude a MD is an expert I supplied links were is your have not seen any. So lets see your biased, non-expert opinion or a REAL MD.. NO brainer you loose

 

[Largent80]

I will even do you one better and only talk about the high ankle sprain...

Google search = Winning!

I'm still waiting for links to "all the experts" who specifically discuss Wilson's various injuries and the timeframe for his return to play from them. The expert you linked to is talking about typical recovery time from a lower ankle sprain. This is quite a different injury from the syndesmotic, high ankle, sprain suffered by Wilson.

Now, where might we find input from a couple of physicians, one of whom is an orthopedic surgeon who deals with these types of injuries on a daily basis, who have watched the video in order to give an opinion on the severity of the injuries and the likely timeline for a return to play?

Since you chose to focus on the high ankle sprain, let's ask what is unique about Wilson's injury that would suggest he would be on the lower end of the mean time to return to play? Mechanism.

Unlike most high ankle sprains, Wilson's foot wasn't planted when he was injured. This means that he was able to absorb a portion of the rotational force over a greater percentage of his leg than is typical for a high ankle sprain.

While no one can definitively say how significant the injury was, without seeing the MRIs, we can make a pretty good judgement based on seeing the mechanism of injury, and watching his play afterwards. Neither of these clues suggest he would be outside the mean, 3 week, time for return to play from a high ankle sprain.

Dude a MD is an expert I supplied links were is your have not seen any. So lets see your biased, non-expert opinion or a REAL MD.. NO brainer you loose

DUDE...BigSkyDoc IS A DOCTOR !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And, he is not LOOSE.

 

[semiahmoo]

I will even do you one better and only talk about the high ankle sprain...

Google search = Winning!

I'm still waiting for links to "all the experts" who specifically discuss Wilson's various injuries and the timeframe for his return to play from them. The expert you linked to is talking about typical recovery time from a lower ankle sprain. This is quite a different injury from the syndesmotic, high ankle, sprain suffered by Wilson.

Now, where might we find input from a couple of physicians, one of whom is an orthopedic surgeon who deals with these types of injuries on a daily basis, who have watched the video in order to give an opinion on the severity of the injuries and the likely timeline for a return to play?

Since you chose to focus on the high ankle sprain, let's ask what is unique about Wilson's injury that would suggest he would be on the lower end of the mean time to return to play? Mechanism.

Unlike most high ankle sprains, Wilson's foot wasn't planted when he was injured. This means that he was able to absorb a portion of the rotational force over a greater percentage of his leg than is typical for a high ankle sprain.

While no one can definitively say how significant the injury was, without seeing the MRIs, we can make a pretty good judgement based on seeing the mechanism of injury, and watching his play afterwards. Neither of these clues suggest he would be outside the mean, 3 week, time for return to play from a high ankle sprain.

Dude a MD is an expert I supplied links were is your have not seen any. So lets see your biased, non-expert opinion or a REAL MD.. NO brainer you loose

DUDE...BigSkyDoc IS A DOCTOR !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And, he is not LOOSE.

LOL. Madness. Love it!

 

[Anthony!]

I will even do you one better and only talk about the high ankle sprain...

Google search = Winning!

I'm still waiting for links to "all the experts" who specifically discuss Wilson's various injuries and the timeframe for his return to play from them. The expert you linked to is talking about typical recovery time from a lower ankle sprain. This is quite a different injury from the syndesmotic, high ankle, sprain suffered by Wilson.

Now, where might we find input from a couple of physicians, one of whom is an orthopedic surgeon who deals with these types of injuries on a daily basis, who have watched the video in order to give an opinion on the severity of the injuries and the likely timeline for a return to play?

Since you chose to focus on the high ankle sprain, let's ask what is unique about Wilson's injury that would suggest he would be on the lower end of the mean time to return to play? Mechanism.

Unlike most high ankle sprains, Wilson's foot wasn't planted when he was injured. This means that he was able to absorb a portion of the rotational force over a greater percentage of his leg than is typical for a high ankle sprain.

While no one can definitively say how significant the injury was, without seeing the MRIs, we can make a pretty good judgement based on seeing the mechanism of injury, and watching his play afterwards. Neither of these clues suggest he would be outside the mean, 3 week, time for return to play from a high ankle sprain.

Dude a MD is an expert I supplied links were is your have not seen any. So lets see your biased, non-expert opinion or a REAL MD.. NO brainer you loose

DUDE...BigSkyDoc IS A DOCTOR !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And, he is not LOOSE.

Good he supposedly a Doctor still does not mean he is right, as I posted and there were plenty more saying the same thing. So he loses.He can also go on KJR or 710 and find the audio tape of shows around when Wilson got hurt were they said it as well.

 

[semiahmoo]

Google search = Winning!

I'm still waiting for links to "all the experts" who specifically discuss Wilson's various injuries and the timeframe for his return to play from them. The expert you linked to is talking about typical recovery time from a lower ankle sprain. This is quite a different injury from the syndesmotic, high ankle, sprain suffered by Wilson.

Now, where might we find input from a couple of physicians, one of whom is an orthopedic surgeon who deals with these types of injuries on a daily basis, who have watched the video in order to give an opinion on the severity of the injuries and the likely timeline for a return to play?

Since you chose to focus on the high ankle sprain, let's ask what is unique about Wilson's injury that would suggest he would be on the lower end of the mean time to return to play? Mechanism.

Unlike most high ankle sprains, Wilson's foot wasn't planted when he was injured. This means that he was able to absorb a portion of the rotational force over a greater percentage of his leg than is typical for a high ankle sprain.

While no one can definitively say how significant the injury was, without seeing the MRIs, we can make a pretty good judgement based on seeing the mechanism of injury, and watching his play afterwards. Neither of these clues suggest he would be outside the mean, 3 week, time for return to play from a high ankle sprain.[/quote]


Dude a MD is an expert I supplied links were is your have not seen any. So lets see your biased, non-expert opinion or a REAL MD.. NO brainer you loose[/quote]

DUDE...BigSkyDoc IS A DOCTOR !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And, he is not LOOSE.[/quote]

Good he supposedly a Doctor still does not mean he is right, as I posted and there were plenty more saying the same thing. So he loses.He can also go on KJR or 710 and find the audio tape of shows around when Wilson got hurt were they said it as well.[/quote]
----------------------------------------------

Yes, we need audio proof now!
Contact the NSA. They are sure to have them. They have everything.
Sshhh, they are listening to us right now...

 

[SoulfishHawk]

His leg could be broken in 6 places and dangling on the ground and people would still complain that he's not playing hard enough, and that he's not really that hurt :mrgreen:

 

[Tical21]

His leg could be broken in 6 places and dangling on the ground and people would still complain that he's not playing hard enough, and that he's not really that hurt :mrgreen:

I never saw a single person EVER question how hard he plays. Both his leg injuries occurred very early in the season. By week 10, the leg was 85%, which is about where everyone's legs are by that time. Does anyone disagree with those two points?

The concern is that once his leg got significantly better, his play did not. With his hurt leg, we had to rely on him making reads quickly and getting the ball out in a place the receivers could catch it, and he showed to be alarmingly underwhelming at doing so. Even against mediocre defenses in games where he was protected pretty well. A high ankle sprain from week 1 simply doesn't qualify as a sufficient excuse for that. It became quite obvious that if we're going to ever focus our offense around Russell, and not have an elite running game to lean on, he still has a lot of getting better he needs to do. He's improved pretty steadily, so we should expect that he'll get there, but he's not as far along yet as a lot of us thought and hoped he was.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

His leg could be broken in 6 places and dangling on the ground and people would still complain that he's not playing hard enough, and that he's not really that hurt :mrgreen:

I never saw a single person EVER question how hard he plays. Both his leg injuries occurred very early in the season. By week 10, the leg was 85%, which is about where everyone's legs are by that time. Does anyone disagree with those two points?

The concern is that once his leg got significantly better, his play did not. With his hurt leg, we had to rely on him making reads quickly and getting the ball out in a place the receivers could catch it, and he showed to be alarmingly underwhelming at doing so. Even against mediocre defenses in games where he was protected pretty well. A high ankle sprain from week 1 simply doesn't qualify as a sufficient excuse for that. It became quite obvious that if we're going to ever focus our offense around Russell, and not have an elite running game to lean on, he still has a lot of getting better he needs to do. He's improved pretty steadily, so we should expect that he'll get there, but he's not as far along yet as a lot of us thought and hoped he was.

I'm not saying he can't improve - in fact, I often point out where he could, and how he brings a lot of his sacks down on himself.

But Wilson had to carry the offense last year with the worst supporting cast of his career - no consistent run game and an OL that is often described as "worse than Ann Coulter". He responded by breaking his passing record. WITH injuries and Earl Thomas' absence forcing the offense to carry more. His deep bomb accuracy was epic as ever. You've probably forgotten some of the unbelievable throws he made. He is still an elite QB. And, lest everyone forget again - he got us to the divisional round of the playoffs.

From that perspective, it's hard to argue that Wilson's trend is downward. If 11-6-1 is his floor, I'll take it.

 

[semiahmoo]

His leg could be broken in 6 places and dangling on the ground and people would still complain that he's not playing hard enough, and that he's not really that hurt :mrgreen:

I never saw a single person EVER question how hard he plays. Both his leg injuries occurred very early in the season. By week 10, the leg was 85%, which is about where everyone's legs are by that time. Does anyone disagree with those two points?

The concern is that once his leg got significantly better, his play did not. With his hurt leg, we had to rely on him making reads quickly and getting the ball out in a place the receivers could catch it, and he showed to be alarmingly underwhelming at doing so. Even against mediocre defenses in games where he was protected pretty well. A high ankle sprain from week 1 simply doesn't qualify as a sufficient excuse for that. It became quite obvious that if we're going to ever focus our offense around Russell, and not have an elite running game to lean on, he still has a lot of getting better he needs to do. He's improved pretty steadily, so we should expect that he'll get there, but he's not as far along yet as a lot of us thought and hoped he was.

I'm not saying he can't improve - in fact, I often point out where he could, and how he brings a lot of his sacks down on himself.

But Wilson had to carry the offense last year with the worst supporting cast of his career - no consistent run game and an OL that is often described as "worse than Ann Coulter". He responded by breaking his passing record. WITH injuries and Earl Thomas' absence forcing the offense to carry more. His deep bomb accuracy was epic as ever. You've probably forgotten some of the unbelievable throws he made. He is still an elite QB. And, lest everyone forget again - he got us to the divisional round of the playoffs.

From that perspective, it's hard to argue that Wilson's trend is downward. If 11-6-1 is his floor, I'll take it.

Last year's O-Line was nowhere near as good as Ann Coulter. Certainly not as tough or intelligent.

 

[Anthony!]

His leg could be broken in 6 places and dangling on the ground and people would still complain that he's not playing hard enough, and that he's not really that hurt :mrgreen:

I never saw a single person EVER question how hard he plays. Both his leg injuries occurred very early in the season. By week 10, the leg was 85%, which is about where everyone's legs are by that time. Does anyone disagree with those two points?

The concern is that once his leg got significantly better, his play did not. With his hurt leg, we had to rely on him making reads quickly and getting the ball out in a place the receivers could catch it, and he showed to be alarmingly underwhelming at doing so. Even against mediocre defenses in games where he was protected pretty well. A high ankle sprain from week 1 simply doesn't qualify as a sufficient excuse for that. It became quite obvious that if we're going to ever focus our offense around Russell, and not have an elite running game to lean on, he still has a lot of getting better he needs to do. He's improved pretty steadily, so we should expect that he'll get there, but he's not as far along yet as a lot of us thought and hoped he was.

Hmm I am glad you THINK his legs should have been 85% by week 10, however you don't know that and in fact Doug Baldwin made it clear that Wilson was playing hurt all year, as I already showed from a Doctor that it takes a long time to recover and that was from only 1 of his 3 injuries and it is even longer when you keep playing on it. As to where you thin he should be well who are you? just a fan who really has no clue and has no clue how the injuries impacted him, Also last I checked you don't speak for every one else or even " a lot of us" You speak for your self and that is all. As to the rest of your assessment your opinion I and other would disagree I mean as you have repeatedly done you are forgetting the Pectoral injury and you assume his legs at some point were e85% which again Doug Baldwin made clear was not the fact. But hey I understand why let facts get in the way of a good story.

 

[bigskydoc]

Dude, a MD is an expert. I supplied links. Where is are yours? Have not seen any. So, let's see. Your biased, non-expert opinion, or a REAL MD?? NO brainer. You [sic]loose.

You got me. I'm loose. Cheap and easy too.



You want links? I thought you would never ask!








You still haven't provided one link where an expert evaluates any of Wilson's injuries and concludes it will be a 6-8 week recovery time. In fact, the only recovery time mentioned in your links for any of his injuries is the 2-4 weeks for a typical grade 2 MCL sprain (and I still haven't seen any reliable grading of his MCL injury).

This takes nothing away from Wilson's toughness. I honestly felt that he should sit against the Rams, and consider sitting against the Niners. However, nothing about his leg injuries suggested, at the time, that he should sit out for 6-8 weeks.

Even elite QB's have down years.

 

[semiahmoo]

Dude, a MD is an expert. I supplied links. Where is are yours? Have not seen any. So, let's see. Your biased, non-expert opinion, or a REAL MD?? NO brainer. You [sic]loose.

You got me. I'm loose. Cheap and easy too.



You want links? I thought you would never ask!








You still haven't provided one link where an expert evaluates any of Wilson's injuries and concludes it will be a 6-8 week recovery time. In fact, the only recovery time mentioned in your links for any of his injuries is the 2-4 weeks for a typical grade 2 MCL sprain (and I still haven't seen any reliable grading of his MCL injury).

This takes nothing away from Wilson's toughness. I honestly felt that he should sit against the Rams, and consider sitting against the Niners. However, nothing about his leg injuries suggested, at the time, that he should sit out for 6-8 weeks.

Even elite QB's have down years.

Brutal takedown. Well done sir! And yes, RW had a down year for sure. Showed up heavy and slow, got injured, and too often, played dumb.

Hoping for much better things this season.

 

[nash72]

His deep bomb accuracy was epic as ever. You've probably forgotten some of the unbelievable throws he made.

I thought his accuracy was horrible last season. Seemed like he missed a lot of receivers down the field in my opinion.

 

[erik2690]

His deep bomb accuracy was epic as ever. You've probably forgotten some of the unbelievable throws he made.

I thought his accuracy was horrible last season. Seemed like he missed a lot of receivers down the field in my opinion.

The people I see on Twitter who do yearly deep ball accuracy charts said he was near the top in accuracy again last year. I think 3rd was what I saw. I think Carr was 1st. I don't know if there's a perfectly objective measurement but like I said there's a few sites/people who seem really into charting deep ball specifically for every season.

Edited to add: found one sites rankings

Accuracy Percentage on 20+ Throws: 57.8% (4th)

This person gave him a B+ overall on deep ball throws for the season. He tracks both 16+ and 20+ air yard throws. To me 20+ seems more like a true "deep ball".

None of this disproves that he missed receivers or anything like that, but it suggest that relative to his peers he didn't have any sort of bad year on deep balls.