Another drama queen QB

[woodbuck27]

it doesn't matter one bit how a-rod looks in practice or how he "feel". all that matters is the x-ray at this point.

and IMO he shouldn't even be practicing. if you have something that is trying to mend and you keep moving the thing around, you're only going to prolong the healing time

Get that into the Packer Lambeau Field Suggestion Box.

ATTENTION TT/MM !!

Maybe it'll land in the:

" Geeee I Wasn't Aware Of That " file.

[woodbuck27]

Sorry...this is PackerRats.

Sorry Captain....This ..........IS ...................................Packerrats.

[sharpe1027]

I declared nothing except to say the Green Bay Packers, McKenzie in particular, handled a "star" player with a similar injury in a certain time frame. It's more than reasonable to apply that same approximate time frame to this situation.

I did not say there is "no chance" he comes back before then so stop reading absolutes into my posts and reacting with your feelings. Just set your expectations according to past precedent. Some of "you fuckers and the media" have been acting like Rodgers could come back as early as 2 weeks after his injury.

Want more? How about next time you spend 2 minutes gathering some facts?

Quick web searches provide the following:





Here's an actual NFL study on the matter.

http://ajs.sagepub.com/content/38/10/2092.abstract

^ that's 3 out of 19 players.

If the average was 7.3 weeks, it seems possible that some healed in 6 weeks. Two at 6 weeks and 4 at 8 weeks is about right. Expecting Rodgers back this week doesn't seem like much of a stretch from your research.

[CaptainKickass]

If you overstated, cool. No harm, no foul but lets not pretend here. Don't paint me as someone that was reading too much into your original post.
And your study says that non-displaced clavicle breaks healed in an average time of 7.3 weeks, doesn't that lend itself more to the argument than it can be less than 9 weeks than that it'll take precisely 9 weeks?

That's right. I'm painting YOU specifically. And, it's MY study. I did the work myself.

The 9 week period is based on Woodson and McKenzie. It is a fact that Woodson was out for 9 weeks, trying to get back in, but held out by McKenzie.

Sorry...this is PackerRats.

Holy fucking shit Batman!!! I thought I was trapped in a glass case of emotion this whole time!!

I think the prognosis for distal fracture is different from middle third. Are you assuming Rodgers's injury happened in the middle third?

I'm assuming 2 things. Jack and Shit. Aren't you assuming what you "think" is correct in that statement?

Sorry Captain....This ..........IS ...................................Packerrats.

Well, I guess you really told me Woody! I thought I was at ParkerRats or maybe even PorkerRats for a little while.

And a huge round of applause to you all for ganging up on a Captain and providing zero facts or evidence, much less any material to claim or support a counter-argument.



Well fucking done everybody!!


.

[woodbuck27]

That's right. I'm painting YOU specifically. And, it's MY study. I did the work myself.

The 9 week period is based on Woodson and McKenzie. It is a fact that Woodson was out for 9 weeks, trying to get back in, but held out by McKenzie.




Holy fucking shit Batman!!! I thought I was trapped in a glass case of emotion this whole time!!



I'm assuming 2 things. Jack and Shit. Aren't you assuming what you "think" is correct in that statement?




Well, I guess you really told me Woody! I thought I was at ParkerRats or maybe even PorkerRats for a little while.

And a huge round of applause to you all for ganging up on a Captain and providing zero facts or evidence, much less any material to claim or support a counter-argument.



Well fucking done everybody!!


.

No Captain...You did very good.

You had a hypothesis and strapped it to Packerrats and the 'bucking horse' that is Packerrats tried to toss it.

Every post on this thread served all that contributed to your thread in terms of added learning.

Are we really any further along in examing the Aaron Rodgers absence from the field of play?

I believe the answer to that lies in simply being patient...waiting until he toss's his next TD.

GO PACK GO !

[red]

If the average was 7.3 weeks, it seems possible that some healed in 6 weeks. Two at 6 weeks and 4 at 8 weeks is about right. Expecting Rodgers back this week doesn't seem like much of a stretch from your research.

expecting him back anytime now if fine

its fucking nuts that people have been expecting him to be back any time now for the last 5 weeks

[woodbuck27]

expecting him back anytime now if fine

its fucking nuts that people have been expecting him to be back any time now for the last 5 weeks

Yes but 'THE PACKER LOYAL' are listening to Mike McCarthy and his ;

It's week to week pronouncements. That's all they will go on or believe.

Isn't there something to be said for innocence...naivety?

[RashanGary]

I think he'll play.


1. He's younger than Woodson, and should heal faster
2. He plays quarterback, not safety
3. He's a more valuable player
4. We have a 2 game season, and we're guaranteed a playoff home game with 2 wins
5. He's going to push really hard to play and MM is a risk taker


I have hope. I just have a feeling.

[woodbuck27]

I think he'll play.


1. He's younger than Woodson, and should heal faster
2. He plays quarterback, not safety
3. He's a more valuable player
4. We have a 2 game season, and we're guaranteed a playoff home game with 2 wins
5. He's going to push really hard to play and MM is a risk taker


I have hope. I just have a feeling.

All very good but in his assessment of the final word Dr. Patrick McKenzie will professionally ignore all that JH.

He'll want the bone to be 100% ... A-OK before Aaron Rodgers can play.

[Packman_26]

That's right. I'm painting YOU specifically. And, it's MY study. I did the work myself.

Ok then. What a dickhead I am for thinking that when you quote me and say to stop reading absolutes in your posts and reacting with my feelings that you are actually talking about me. And you brought up the study so yes I called it your study. That's what you grab onto, if I said your study rather than the study?

And a huge round of applause to you all for ganging up on a Captain and providing zero facts or evidence, much less any material to claim or support a counter-argument.

What material is it that should be supplied? My entire premise is that we don't know enough about the injury to determine if he would miss 3 weeks (like Dukes QB did this year), 9 weeks like Woodson or something entirely different. You then supplied a study that rather clearly states that the length of time a player misses has a direct correlation with the severity and location of the injury. That's been the point I've been maintaining the whole time.
The fact of the matter is you said you don't know how anyone could think he could be back any sooner than 9 weeks based on Woodsons injury when only the Packers know if Rodgers injury is like injury Woodson had. I can't speak for anyone else that "ganging up" on you, but I just don't agree with a statement like that based on the limited information we have. Rodgers may very well miss 9 weeks just like Woodson did, but there is no way to know it.

[CaptainKickass]

Ok then. What a dickhead I am

Awww. It's OK sugarbumps. Apology accepted.

Rodgers may very well miss 9 weeks just like Woodson did, but there is no way to know it.

Again, the last 5ish weeks of "is he coming back today?" have been a wee bit over the top. I never said "I know" when he's coming back. I only said that this is what the expectation should be based on evidence and historical data. Furthermore, I said it the day after the injury.

Of course there's no way to "know" ya big doofus.



Or IS there?

Also - is it me or does Miss Cleo sound a "wee bit Scottish"?

[hoosier]

Want more? How about next time you spend 2 minutes gathering some facts?

Quick web searches provide the following:

Here's an actual NFL study on the matter.

http://ajs.sagepub.com/content/38/10/2092.abstract

that's 3 out of 19 players.

I think the prognosis for distal fracture is different from middle third. Are you assuming Rodgers's injury happened in the middle third?

I'm assuming 2 things. Jack and Shit. Aren't you assuming what you "think" is correct in that statement?

I read somewhere that Rodgers's fracture was thought to be on the distal side, but I can't find it now. I'm not assuming anything except that the recovery time can vary quite a bit depending on where the fracture is located. Your earlier post, however, did imply that you thought Rodgers's recovery time could be mapped onto the spectrum described in the study.

[Pugger]

does this look like a guy who would text dick pics?

Gawd, that's a terrible picture of our fabulous QB.

[Pugger]

And this statement changes anything how?

Here's another thought: If Rodgers (being the franchise QB he is and all) is more important than Woodson was, wouldn't it stand to reason that Rodgers would be held out longer?

Only if their injuries were similar. Rodgers never had to wear a sling where Woodson did from day one. Aaron has been throwing rockets at practice this week. He may not play on Sunday but by the time we play Chicago it will be 8 weeks and Aaron can finish what he started against the bares 2 months ago.

[George Cumby]

Gawd, that's a terrible picture of our fabulous QB.

The 70's pornstar stache is what really makes me not want to boink him.