Poll: Did UW fix Watson and/or Stokes?

[sharpe1027]

You made the original statement. I have provided just as much evidence as you have.

[Scott Campbell]

I voted Watson. But it's a monkey throwing a dart vote.

[texaspackerbacker]

What do you mean by fixed is the key here.

They probably lowered the odds of the injury reoccurring, but it's a fact there's no way to 100% prevent injuries.

You actually got something right in this post. In your others, not so much. You failed to mention how old you are or were during the Lombardi era. I was around and late teens, early twenties then, and I'm here to tell you, there wasn't remotely close to as many games lost to injury back then. Now partly, maybe that was due to playing through things that they sideline players for now, but regardless of that, the stupidity (IMO) of "eating right" absolutely has not done any significant good injury-wise.

[sharpe1027]

Eating right might not matter. There weren't less injuries back then.

Following an initial higher rate of
significant injuries (two or more games
missed) during the first five years of
study (1960 through 1964), injury rates
have not changed significantly and av¬eraged 0.7 per game.
2. The rate of major injuries (eight or
more games missed) has declined significantly (r,= -
.56; P<.01) from 1960 to
1985.
3. Rates of injury on turf and grass
did not differ significantly when cor¬
rected for games played on each
surface.
4. The lower extremity, particularly
the knee suffered the most injuries of
any site on this team. However, the rate
of major injuries to the knee declined
from 1969 to 1985.
5. The high rates of major injury on
special-teams play noted during the
first nine years have shown a significant
decline from 1969 to 1985 (P =
.04).

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...De80mizWYWI0ZR

[bobblehead]

yea, I remember reading about Max ordering Grub hub fast food all the time. He would use his smart phone. And don't get me started on his video game habit on the Nintendo.

edit: I forgot I was addressing Tex. That was sarcasm Sheldon.

[texaspackerbacker]

Those injury stats end 39 years ago. It certainly seems like there are more games missed due to injury now in the past 5, 10, 15. 20 years than way back when.

Thanks for labeling it, bobblehead, but who the hell is Sheldon.

[sharpe1027]

Poster makes claim with no evidence. Calls out another poster for having no evidence when they disagree. Second poster provides evidence supporting, but not completely proving their point. First poster claims evidence isn't of any value because it's not perfect. Fails to offer any evidence and claims victory in the discussion.

Congrats on your victory.

More recent stats exist. If you're right, they would can help you prove your point that injuries have to gone up from the 60s, but you won't bother.

[texaspackerbacker]

Whine on hahahahaha.

My original claim that you speak of was that diet crap - "eating right" have little or nothing to do with injuries or that lack of them. Or were you referring to the evidence I cited - that Maxie, Fuzzy, really nobody back in those days ate the way imbecilic nutrition Nazis of the present would like people to. I'm pretty sure that claim isn't even controversial. I further surmised that there seemed to be a helluva lot less players sitting out games than now ....... To which you provided your "evidence" - a study showing what? That after increasing the first four years of the study (60+ years ago), there was a gradual decrease in injuries from about 1964 until the end of the study - 39 years ago! You yourself stated that diet didn't seem to have much to do with it. My assessment of that set of conclusions of the study was: BFD.

Did I say that injuries have gone up since the '60s? Or that it seems like more games missed due to injuries since then - even as a percentage of games played?

Does that about sum it up? hahahaha

[sharpe1027]

You said there were far less games missed for injuries back then. That's false, unless you have the stats to prove it. I'll wait

[bobblehead]

First, the game was entirely different back then so who cares how the "injury" rates compare. Half the time those guys just went out and played on a bad hammy until they couldn't walk. They wore leather helmets, so no one in their right mind lead with the crown. I could go on and on.

Second, diet doesn't affect injuries? There are only about 700 Trillion studies saying you are wrong so I won't even bother just because you ate a big mac and didn't blow your ACL playing tennis against a Philippino lady in a Retirment community. I'm positive you are correct and that directly translates to Watson running 30 MPH to beat a guy to the corner. In other news I ate a candy bar yesterday and didn't develop diabetes so all that hub bub is bullshit too.

[call_me_ishmael]

Those old players would get destroyed in today’s game lmao. Stupid comparison. I’m sure Tex’s comparison as an overweight retiree occasionally beating older, fatter retirees at tennis is the same as the top .01% of athletes. What a world.

[Patler]

First, the game was entirely different back then so who cares how the "injury" rates compare. Half the time those guys just went out and played on a bad hammy until they couldn't walk.

That's my feeling, too; and I was a fan during the Lombardi era. Guys played with their "trick" knees and shoulders, and suited up so long as they could get their jersey on. In the early Lombardi years roster sizes varied but were in the mid 30s until stabilizing at 40 in the late 1960s. Most significant to this discussion, there were no inactive lists. Everyone on the roster dressed for a game. Injured players dressed even if there was no intention for them to play. They were there "just in case" because there was no one to take their place. If a player was too injured to play now, but would be back in a month, he stayed on the roster, probably dressed, but may not have played. Injuries were not always publicized, so you often didn't know why someone didn't play. Often, seriously injured player might still play a snap or two. Technically, they didn't miss a game.

Players had to minimize their injuries, because if they were out too long the only alternative for the team was to cut them, until IR came around but that meant they were out for the rest of the year.

[Patler]

Those old players would get destroyed in today’s game lmao. Stupid comparison.

Yes and no. Many (most) of those older players, playing as they did then, if inserted into todays game, would get destroyed. Some (e.g. Jim Brown, Willie Wood, probably Jim Taylor) would still make their mark. Others, if given the opportunity to train and practice as today's players have, would still be good. Forrest Gregg would be 35-40 pounds heavier; just like if Joe Thonmas played in the 1960s he would have done so at maybe 260 lbs instead of 300 and probably would have been just as good for then.

Heck, in the '60s players didn't even do extensive weight training. It was thought to be detrimental to their flexibility, making them "muscle-bound". Gale Gillingham was one of the earliest to commit to extensive weight training.

So, wrt the topic, are today's players more injury prone because they are simply too big and too fast for the human framework? Consequently, do they injure themselves and others because of their size and speed?

[smuggler]

Stokes will never be the same. There's hope for Watson.

[RashanGary]

Awesome post, Patler.


I get a kick out of how most people argue that those guys couldn’t play today. Have human beings changed so much in 70 years that they’re a completely different physically superior species now?

With training many of them probably could have played today.


Here’s where I estimate that many and maybe most probably couldn’t play today. The population was what? Half the size then. Black people rarely played. It’s safe to say you’d end up skimming more cream off of 2 gallons of raw milk than 1 gallon. And 2:1 isn’t the ratio we’re talking about here. Sports has become one of the ways people become extremely wealthy in more recent years. Many who would not have played then would give it a try now. Football was also newer and less popular than baseball and even basketball. Not to mention there seem to be a few physical traits that are found more often in black people or mixed people and not many black people played.

Probably, most of them didn’t have the athletic potential, even with training to compete with the best of the much larger pool of competition that we have today.

But when you did get one of those super rare ones, like Don Hutson, they end up outperforming the league so drastically that as long as football is popular, you’ll never see again. I’ll bet Hutson could have played.

I’m not nearly as well versed in watching the 60s players play as Tex and Patler, so I have to go off of stats and second hand information, but I’ll bet Patler hit the nail on the head with the guys he picked and I’ll bet there are a bunch more in that 50 year early span who could have not only played, but excelled today.

I would think the entire 50 year span of early NFL athletes could produce at least as much legitimate NFL talent as one draft today. One of them might even be the GOAT at one of the positions even today. Never know.

But to brush it off as a conversation that shouldn’t be had because there is no way one of them could ever play today, that’s a lot asinine.