Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

09 Jan 2013

Robert Griffin III Undergoes ACL/LCL Surgery

The official verdict on RG III's knee: Griffin underwent surgery this morning to repair torn ACL and LCL ligaments in his right knee. Team sources say that they expect him to be ready to play by Week 1 of the 2013 season. But will he be his usual self? It's hard to tell, with recovery time for ACL surgery getting shorter and shorter.

Posted by: Aaron Schatz on 09 Jan 2013

82 comments, Last at 13 Jan 2013, 1:54pm by Jerry


by Phyrre56 :: Wed, 01/09/2013 - 11:50am

Let's be honest about the recovery -- no one knows. He could get an infection. He could push his rehab too hard and have a setback. Best case scenario is that he can play Week 1, probably as a pocket passer with maybe an Aaron Rodgers level of mobility that will improve over time.

by Revenge of the NURBS (not verified) :: Wed, 01/09/2013 - 11:58am

Agreed that it's anyone's guess when he'll be back, and more importantly, when/if he'll be back at full strength.

I also wonder if the events that led up to this, and the backlash that followed, might make Wash a little more cautious in how quickly they rush him back onto the field. If he's questionable come Week 1, I'd like to see them play it a little safer this time around.

by wr (not verified) :: Wed, 01/09/2013 - 12:11pm

Not to mention this is the *second* ACL surgery on the same knee. Which
makes a full recovery a much more dicey proposition.

by sundown (not verified) :: Wed, 01/09/2013 - 2:43pm

I'd argue that Week 1 is a wildly improbable goal...so much so it is irresponsible of the team to even float it out there. Wasn't AP's recover supposedly the quickest in history? That was 9 months. It'd be 8 if RG3 were to make opening week. On a knee that had been previous repaired.

I'm sure a good share of it comes from the Skins' desire to sell season tickets for next year, but they already (arguably) played him when he shouldn't have been and got him hurt. And now they're floating incredibly short estimations for his recovery putting pressure on him to return sooner than he should.

by dmstorm22 :: Wed, 01/09/2013 - 3:38pm

Wouldn't Wes Welker have been the same essentially (injured in Week 17, back for Week 1).

Also, Palmer tore his ACL/MCL, broke his kneecap in a Wild Card game and was back for Week 1.

by Revenge of the NURBS (not verified) :: Wed, 01/09/2013 - 4:09pm

Carson Palmer wasn't ever really the same player after that injury though. Personally, that's my fear for Griffin -- not that he won't be back, but that he won't be "RG3" anymore.

by sundown (not verified) :: Wed, 01/09/2013 - 4:54pm

I don't recall the circumstances, but were the teams saying the day of the surgery for either of those guys that they'd be back for the start of the next season? It's one thing to have the guy recover quickly. It's quite a bit different to instantly pronounce it's expected to be a fast recovery.

If RG3's almost ready to start the season the pressure will be on to throw him out there just to hit the artificial timetable they themselves created. And if he's quite a ways off that timetable, the talk will instantly turn to how he's way behind in his progress. There's already going to be plenty of pressure for him to get back, I see no reason why the Skins should be further adding to that pressure.

by apbadogs :: Thu, 01/10/2013 - 9:32am

Posted below but here would've been more appropriate. Heard this morning that he had BOTH knees cut open. Obviously the right one but also the left knee to harvest a graft to put into his damaged knee. If he is back for ANY part of the season, much less opening week, I will be shocked.

by Anonymous1111111111 (not verified) :: Wed, 01/09/2013 - 12:00pm


by bernie (not verified) :: Wed, 01/09/2013 - 12:10pm

My immediate thought is that unless the injury is some dire catastrophe (a la Robert Edwards), there is no reason to think he won't recover from this and be as good as ever. Things working in hs favour are, he's young, he's in excellent physical condition, he has the best ortho surgeon working on him, and he has an owner who will spare no expense providing everything he needs for a complete recovery.
I mean, there is always a doubt that he may not be able to recover to 100% of his old abilities, but I think we just need to wait and see, which is something the media is not willing to do. They're just salivating over the opportunity to turn this into a doom and gloom scenario, with what ifs and all sorts of possibilities, and who's to blame. And then when he pulls a Peterson and is completely recovered, they can runs months of stories about how incredible his recovery is, and what an amazing athlete and blah blah blah.

by Anonymousse (not verified) :: Wed, 01/09/2013 - 9:31pm

The chance of recovering from a first ACL surgery and having full range of motion is 93% if I remember correctly.

The chance of recovering from the 2nd one? In the 60s.

by Will Allen :: Wed, 01/09/2013 - 12:28pm

It has been fascinatng to me to hear and see the degree to which former NFL players and coaches, with a few exceptions, have circled the wagons around Shanahan, to defend his decision to leave Griffen on the field on Sunday. The most transparently ridiculous are those that yammer about how Griffen wanted to be out there, as if that has anything to do with it. Even the best rationalizations, however, which have tended to come from former qbs, have been pretty weak. I heard Dilfer yesterday start yesterday with the standard "The medical staff cleared him" explanation, and then when asked whether Griffin was playing well enough to be out there, fall back on (paraphrasing) "Well, he still had a successful scramble before the final injury" and (not paraphrasing) "He's the dude", as if RG3 was in his pajamas, swilling white russians. That made me start to think how much Shanahan resembles Steve Buscemi, and who on the Redskins coaching staff was Walter Sobchak.

Notably absent, of course, from Dilfer's rhetoric was any mention of the quality of Griffin's passes, because to do so would be to weaken the Cohen Brothers Theory of Quarterback Evaluation. Call me crazy, but when I see a guy who has greatly reduced mobility, is running with a pronounced limp, and makes a series of off-target throws that he normally makes, I'm going to assume that other athletic moves that the position requires, like, gee, I dunno, getting on a loose ball, may be beyond the player's capability, and that a guy in the number 2 slot who has helped me win a game that year may be the guy to now put on the field.

by mkosteva@gmail.com :: Wed, 01/09/2013 - 12:36pm

I've been listening to Mike and Mike (don't judge, I'm in the car), and you are so right: every former player said essentially the same thing. Except, this morning, once the surgery news broke, I believe it was Schlereth who said "Obviously he should have come out earlier" which I believe is a) a 180 from what he said on Monday, and b) almost assuredly further results-bias.

by Will Allen :: Wed, 01/09/2013 - 12:46pm

I think a lot of these guys are stuck in the 1970s, or even the 80s, when the game was not nearly as passing accuracy oriented. If you saw a major league pitcher, in an important game, even a guy on whom not much money was being risked, limping around between pitches, and missing the target badly, you'd be shocked if the manager left him in, because everybody knows that a pitcher who has an injury, which greatly reduces his ability to throw strikes, isn't worth a damn in terms of winning that game. These guys seem to think there is toughness quotient which will make it tolerable, in the modern NFL, to have passes which are three yards off target. They are wrong.

by mkosteva@gmail.com :: Wed, 01/09/2013 - 12:55pm

another interesting baseball correlation made this morning: in baseball and basketball, you have guaranteed contracts, so you might be more likely to protect your investment (since you *will* be paying for a player with no knees). In football? sure, you've got upfront money, but with the new rookie contract structure, it's going to be lower, and you can cut the player (assuming the cap hit is meaningful).

It's a different age now; broadcasters and ex-players haven't adjusted to it, it seems.

by Will Allen :: Wed, 01/09/2013 - 1:01pm

In the case of Griffin, I'd argue that the draft value they expended in acquiring him, in a league in which a hard salary cap makes rookie talent extremely important to winning percentage, argues pretty strongly for a consrvative approach. If Griffin doesn't come back strong, and they don't get really lucky with Cousins, The Washington Snyders are screwed good and hard. Of course, if they have confidence in Cousins, that argues all the more for him being on the field in the 2nd half last Sunday.

by bhauck :: Wed, 01/09/2013 - 1:50pm

Sunk cost. They need to be conservative because his future services are so valuable, not because they gave up a lot to get him.

by komakoma (not verified) :: Wed, 01/09/2013 - 1:56pm

Well, both. Even if his future services weren't all that valuable, they would need to protect him because they've put themselves in a position of having no other options for the next couple of years.

by bhauck :: Wed, 01/09/2013 - 2:54pm

No, that's the sunk cost fallacy. They are where they are: they need to maximize their success over the next few years. If Griffin were valueless, they shouldn't say "well we paid a lot for him," they should pursue better QB options. Doubly fortunately, he won't be valueless, and they seem happy with the backup QB in the meantime.

by Jb419 (not verified) :: Wed, 01/09/2013 - 8:23pm

JFC. We get it. You aced econ 101.

by Peepshowmopguy (not verified) :: Wed, 01/09/2013 - 11:59pm

Thanks Jb419. That was a meaningful and well thought contribution to the conversation.

by Aaron Brooks Go... :: Wed, 01/09/2013 - 4:48pm

It's more like the sunk cost dilemma. (Ignoring the entire argument about whether the theoretical argument about sunk cost irrationality is actually true in practical application) Constantly changing streams with ever dwindling resources starts to resemble the gambler in the hole constantly doubling down trying to get the one big win to get themselves out.

The Redskins have very few resources at their disposal with which to acquire another QB, and are at a significant competitive disadvantage. There can be a legitimate argument about Griffin v. Cousins, but they have little prospect of acquiring more than journeyman talent with their resources.

by BigWoody (not verified) :: Wed, 01/09/2013 - 1:13pm

Mostly agree. But in RGIII's case, you don't just lose the upfront money, you lose the opportuninty to sign three first round rookies and a second round rookie to low cost contracts. A healthy RGIII may be worth that but his loss would set the Skin's back by half a decade.

by BigWoody (not verified) :: Wed, 01/09/2013 - 1:15pm

Will said it better.

by bhauck :: Wed, 01/09/2013 - 1:49pm

No, you're doing the sunk cost thing. They've already lost the opportunity to sign those rookies at low-cost contracts. What they lose by mismanaging RGIII now is the value of his services for the remainder of his contract. Which, if healthy, are a hell of a lot more valuable than the money they'll be paying him.

by Will Allen :: Wed, 01/09/2013 - 2:14pm

Yes, and if RGIII does not come back to be the same player, they have lost the major avenue by which to replace the subsequent talent void, because the hard cap mostly precludes a free agent shopping spree. It's like a skyscraper window washer selling his safety brake on his cables one moring, so he can buy a new motor with a new primary brake. He better be damned careful with his new equipment until he gets a new safety break, because if he loses what he just traded for, the only possible outcome is utter catastrophe.

(edit) To put it much more simply, the New York Yankees can treat sunk costs very differently from the Washington Redskins.

by DavidL :: Wed, 01/09/2013 - 2:41pm

The lost draft picks aren't relevant as a sunk cost but as the reason why Griffin is not easily replaceable - if injuries end his career, the Redskins have no high draft picks with which to acquire a new starting-caliber QB.

by bhauck :: Wed, 01/09/2013 - 3:02pm

You're ignoring too many other ways of acquiring another QB. They have one they like on the roster. They have lower picks, which many years turn out above-replacement-level starters, if not Russell Wilsons. There may be an affordable free agent. Even if RGIII were going to be out all of 2013, and they had a first round pick, do you really think they'd use it on a QB? If RGIII were never going to play again, and they had the pick, I still think they'd roll with Cousins and sign a veteran backup. So I stand by my point: RGIII is not more valuable because of what was paid for him.

by Will Allen :: Wed, 01/09/2013 - 3:14pm

There is no such thing as an affordable free agent with regard to qbs who you can have substantial confidence in performing at an elite leve. 39 year old guys coming off an arm injury command 20 milion a year. Yes, you may get lucky, but you can't count on getting lucky.

The same applies to drafting qbs. Yes, occasionally somebody will get lucky with a Wilson in the third, or a Brady in the sixth, or even an undrafted Romo. The vast majority of good qbs, however, are 1st round draft picks.

You are correct that Griffin is not more valuable because of what they paid for him, but that isn't the same thing as saying that what was paid for Griffin does not have a significant impact on what it will mean to the Redskins if Griffin does not come back.

by RickD :: Wed, 01/09/2013 - 10:39pm

You cannot ignore the effect "sunk costs" have on their cap situation.

by dryheat :: Thu, 01/10/2013 - 1:29pm

A team can't cut an injured player (assuming injury was in perfomance of his job) without an agreed-upon financial settlement. The player is going to be on the cap for the balance of his contract or until a doctor clears him. If his contract expires and he can't play, he's still getting paid via workman's comp.

by sundown (not verified) :: Wed, 01/09/2013 - 2:50pm

It's not just an RG3 thing...I'm always amazed at how hurt guys can be and still start on Sunday. D-lineman will have their shoulders in braces keeping them from raising their arms, d-backs with fingers/hands so taped up (or even in casts) where it'd be impossible to catch the ball, guys hobbling around. Frequently you wonder how inferior the backups must be to still not be better than the starter despite the guy being a shadow of his normal self.

by BigWoody (not verified) :: Wed, 01/09/2013 - 12:57pm

I said in another thread that Snyder is nuts for not installing a fast artifical surface at FedEx. Shoulda been done last summer. If your franchize QB is a statue like Peyton Manning, the green painted mud to slow down the pass rush makes sense. But the Skin's future is a speed/quickness/shifty guy that can use a fast track. And the latest FieldTurf is said to be very low-injury stuff.

Am I missing something? Was this Shanny's call?

by Mr Shush :: Wed, 01/09/2013 - 8:36pm

You're missing something on the Peyton front: the speed of his decision-making and release means he's damn near unsackable on any surface despite his lack of mobility, and he wants his receivers to be able to get open quickly and predictably. Turf is good for pass offense, especially a very open one, pretty much full stop.

Less sure on the Washington front. It may be that the run/play-action-oriented nature of the Shanahan/Kubiak offense is actually better suited to grass. Not saying it's so, just that it might be.

by speedegg :: Wed, 01/09/2013 - 8:45pm

Actually, turf gives you more traction than grass. A buddy that played football said,"It allows the body to faster than it should." He didn't go into detail about what that means, but said it boosts your performance. You can make sharper cuts and run faster, but need to be careful because you're more prone to injury.

Fields that are dirt don't give you any traction and you can slip. For the few (or I should say 2) football stadiums that are dual use for football and baseball, look at what happens when the players run across the baseball part of the field. It's harder to cut, harder to plant, and your legs can give way.

by dbostedo :: Wed, 01/09/2013 - 10:54pm

"You can make sharper cuts and run faster, but need to be careful because you're more prone to injury."

From what I can recall reading, despite the common assumption, studies trying to prove the injury part have been inconclusive.

And as for the speed and cuts part, does anyone know if this is still true with the advent of things like Field Turf? I know the old carpet-like fields were great for grip, so that made sense. But Field Turf is much more grass like, and I'm not sure it's significantly different than grass.

by Aaron Brooks Go... :: Thu, 01/10/2013 - 4:38pm

I think, anecdotally, a broken in FieldTurf field behaves like a good grass field, but better than a waterlogged or torn up one.

by mrh :: Wed, 01/09/2013 - 1:11pm

Just to present three local examples of former players who thought Griffin should be pulled: Brian Mitchell, Doc Walker, and Trevor Matich. All said as much in the immediate post-game, before the full extent of the injury was known.


by Will Allen :: Wed, 01/09/2013 - 2:01pm

I think it may not be coincidental that the locals are willing to speak out, while the guys who get paid to talk on national networks about the NFL, who have more to risk in alienating prominent coaches, have been nearly unanimous in defending him.

by RickD :: Wed, 01/09/2013 - 10:44pm

I don't have an issue with RGIII wanting to stay in. My issue is with the coach who lets his rookie QB make this decision, and all the players who insist that the job is his to do until his leg falls off.

It's jock culture, and it's dumb.

by dryheat :: Thu, 01/10/2013 - 1:16pm

I'm sure there's at least one lawyer who's contacted Griffin or his agent offering to sue the Redskins for letting him continue to play.

I mean, when the guy's knee isn't working well enough to keep him out of harm's way, putting him on the field is tantamount to gross negligence at best.

by rj1a (not verified) :: Wed, 01/09/2013 - 1:27pm

I find the whole discussion just exposes how horrible our instantaneous analysis of 24/7 sports and random wingnuts on the internet painting themselves as experts whatever the topic may be is. If Shanahan pulled Griffin in the 2nd quarter and Seattle came back to win with Cousins at quarterback, I'd expect all the following to occur:

1.) Griffin to say he could've still played. Redskins fans, at least in partial outside of the few people that really are medical experts and those that just enjoy being contrarians, to use this to direct their fury at Shanahan for pulling him, saying Shanahan was too cautious and this shows why he can't win in the playoffs unless John Elway is quarterback, while lionizing Griffin for wanting to play injured and then they bring up analogies to great athletes of the past that played through injury and it resulted in success (like Elway).
2.) This being used by evidence from some fans that Shanahan should be replaced.
3.) Cousins to be given the Brady Quinn treatment by Redskins fans in the future.
4.) Various media defending and excoriating Shanahan for his decision.

by Revenge of the NURBS (not verified) :: Wed, 01/09/2013 - 1:48pm

"If Shanahan pulled Griffin in the 2nd quarter" is the key there. In the 2nd quarter, I agree, he'd probably be getting lambasted. But in the 3rd or 4th quarter? I'm not so sure. By the 4th quarter, even the TV jabronies were talking openly about how badly Griffin was playing, and he was visibily limping. It's pretty easy to defend taking him out at that point. There'd be some contrarians of course, but I would expect the majority opinion to be in agreement that pulling him was correct.

by Chester Allman (not verified) :: Wed, 01/09/2013 - 1:49pm

I have to agree. While I think he should have come out (speaking objectively, though I'm a 'Hawks fan), it seems to me that there's far too little consideration of how OUTRAGED!! everyone would be if he had been pulled, assuming that Washington had ended up losing anyway. It's like an iron rule: to fans, any notable decision is the wrong one, if my team loses - even if that decision was actually right, and/or had no actual bearing on the outcome.

by Will Allen :: Wed, 01/09/2013 - 1:57pm

Yes, the fans would have been outraged. That has nothing to do with the body of observable evdence clearly indicating that the back up qb should have been in the game, and guys getting paid like Shanahan have an absolute duty to make their decisions based on observable evidence, without regard to how they will be criticized after the fact. That's the price of well compensated leadership.

by Chester Allman (not verified) :: Wed, 01/09/2013 - 5:29pm

No, you're absolutely right. Unfortunately, NFL coaches all too often fail in that kind of duty. And fans, collectively, often demand that they fail in this way.

by AT (not verified) :: Thu, 01/10/2013 - 12:41am

No, they wouldn't have been outraged. Not all of them anyway. It was obvious that Griffin had reinjured himself on the scramble and throw right before the second score in the first quarter. He ran toward the line of scrimmage, planted and pushed backward, and collapsed awkwardly in pain. I was pretty sure he would be seriously impaired after that and it was clear he could hardly walk on the next play.

by rfh1001 :: Thu, 01/10/2013 - 4:38am

And if RG3 had made the sensible decision himself? Cutler?

(Incidentally, I think the answer to my question is probably 'not Cutler'. I think RG3 has a better understanding / control / awareness of the importance of his body language and would have done a lot of limping and furious thumping of ground and standing on the side enraged and we'd have 'got' that there was nothing he could do.)

by Anonymousse (not verified) :: Wed, 01/09/2013 - 9:42pm

Bill Bellichick does things all the time that outrage the blowhards on NE sports radio.

Most coaches should know better than to let the blowhards make decisions for them.

by dryheat :: Thu, 01/10/2013 - 1:19pm

Few coaches in history have the job security of Belichick. Media pressure quite often leads to an axing.

by Will Allen :: Wed, 01/09/2013 - 1:53pm

Shanahan gets paid 7 million a year to make the right decsion, and avoid the wrong decision, without regard to media or public opinion. Given the way Griffin was running, and just as importantly, the inaccuracy with which he was throwing, you no more need to be an expert to conclude that he should not be on the field, than you need to be an expert to know that the person swerving back and forth on the freeway in front of you needs to be off the road. When the so-called quarterbacking experts are reduced to saying, in an effort to argue otherwise, "He's the dude!", you know critical thinking has left the building.

If Shanahan wants to make decisions like a low level manager making 90k a year, then he should apply for that job. I know it is increasingly rare to hold extremely highly paid people to a much higher standard than that, but it is no less regrettable for it being increasingly rare.

by Bobman :: Wed, 01/09/2013 - 2:51pm

@rj1a #15, Agreed. It's a no-win situation for the sh!tty world we live in, but Shanny still has to make the right call. Right for today, for tomorrow, right for the next decade, and right for the kid's health. No call would have pleased everyone and Shanny's grownup enough to understand that. Looks like they would not have won that game no matter what, so we can't really tell if it was right for the day. And we can't quite judge the rest of the equation until he recovers, rehabs, and starts playing again. Maybe RG is fine, and maybe he's not in 2013. But it does look like Shanny abdicated his responsibility. Or just covered his eyes and said "I hope this works." Which is more or less the same thing.

by Raiderjoe :: Wed, 01/09/2013 - 2:30pm

TGIII should have coke out with score 14-0 right afteevhe throw TD to pailsen. Giy obviously in bad shape. Said to friend at exact time. Washington At home up 14-0. Shanarat should have had confidennxw in tema to maintain such lead at home.

by shoutingloudly :: Thu, 01/10/2013 - 2:52pm

_COKE_ out? Before the game's even over? Even Jay Cutler (hell, even @NotJayCutler) wouldn't check out like that. ;-)

But yes, he should've stopped playing — at least, he certainly should've been benched by/during halftime.

by Bobman :: Wed, 01/09/2013 - 2:44pm

Recovery: Why are times faster these days? Superior techniques, or just a few physical freaks like Peterson? NOt sure what to make of it, but Edgerrin James blew out his ACL in week 6 of his third season, after leading the NFL in rushing his first two years. He was an elite back. He had surgery week 7, or mid-late Oct, and made it back for the first game the next year but he was not himself for one whole season after that--there were a lot of attendant little niggling injuries that kept him out of games, or reduced his touches, things that would not have mattered before the ACL. And though he racked up a few more 1,500 yard seasons, he was never really the same. Great consistency and successrate, but maybe had a long run of 15 yards on average after the ACL whereas before that he was good for a few 20-30 yard runs a season. He was renowned as a hard-working, all business beast. Maybe he overdid the rehab?

Peterson on the other hand was injured ten weeks later, had surgery around new years, and was back for game 1, and had one of the greatest RB seasons ever. He may have started "slow" but by mid-season, had arguably the best 8-10 game stretch ever. Does it all come down to physical differences betwen the men pre-injury, genetics, the severity of the injury, the rehab techniques, etc? I dunno, but predicting this stuff is a bit of a crap shoot. AD's fast recovery may well put undue pressure on guys to come back too soon. I have the feeling that if Edge would have waited 6-8 more weeks, he'd have finished 2002 much stronger but it would not have mattered much for his next six seasons. He'd already lost his burst.

Final comment: I blame Steve McNair. That guy played with breaks, bruises, contusions, bone spurs, and once (I swear) with a spear sticking out of his chest. Kept whacking Eddie George when he turned to hand-off, so they broke it off at halftime and removed it post-game. He epitomized the old-school warrior mentality and would seemingly go months without practice (too banged up) but never miss a game and perform pretty damn well. No idea how, but kids these days (or their coaches) see that and say "I can do that". But not everybody can. I'd love to make a cause-and-effect joke irrationally connecting McNair's playing hurt with his premature death, but I am sure it would offend people, so I will refrain. Though if he did have the chance to live into his 50s, I wonder if he'd be a physical wreck. Probably.

Good luck Griffin--I hope to see at least a decade of you, Luck, and Wilson battling in Jan and Feb.

by Will Allen :: Wed, 01/09/2013 - 3:05pm

What I know about orthopedic surgery approximates what I know about the taste of light beer (always struck me as a commie plot), but I wouldn't be surprised if surgical techniques, in terms of having to damage healthy tissue to make necessary repairs, has not made significamt strides in even the very short time since Edge's surgery, and I do know, from having therpists in the family, that rehab techniques have improved a lot in recent years. The cynic in me would not exclude as apossibility some frowned upon pharmacological assistance with regard to Peterson (and I actually don't care much about that stuff anymore).

by Aaron Brooks Go... :: Wed, 01/09/2013 - 5:02pm

Techniques are better, imaging is much better, and the biochemical regrowth procedures are much better.

Basically, it's a much more mature procedure than it was 10 years ago. Also, Adrian Peterson basically has the body of Steve Rogers. He's like football Gordie Howe.

(For all his longevity, Howe almost died on the ice early in his career)

by Raiderjoe :: Wed, 01/09/2013 - 5:45pm

Steve rogers the old expos potcher?

by Aaron Brooks Go... :: Wed, 01/09/2013 - 5:51pm

Captain America

by Raiderjoe :: Thu, 01/10/2013 - 11:10am

The comic book giy? Did not kns had name other than captain America. Only aread Valut of Horror, Tales from the Crypt, Wired Science and Weird fantasy and Weird Scienxd-Fantasy. The EC commics of 1950#. Fun to read espeixkally ones about aliens an d werewolves and swamp beasts when on vacation in Adirondacks.

by Will Allen :: Thu, 01/10/2013 - 12:15pm

Why do aliens, werewolves, and swamp beasts favor vacationing in the Adirondacks? Aliens strike me as the type that woud like 3 days in Vegas, while New Orleans seems just right for swamp beasts. I can see a werewolf really liking a time share in the Adirondacks, I guess.

by Revenge of the NURBS (not verified) :: Thu, 01/10/2013 - 12:56pm

It's vacation. A swamp thing LEAVES the swamp for vacation; everyone knows that.

by Raiderjoe :: Thu, 01/10/2013 - 2:23pm

No . The comics were not about those things jn Adirondacks.

Went on vacation therre and took comics witj me. Deepp woods within wlakign distance of grandfather's house so when reading a comix about aliens in woods or oozing slime thing coming out of pond it make you think about what in those nearby wooodsm. In dayligjt hours wwalked in water and got leech on foot. Also caijft snapping turtle with bare hands and got bunch of toads. Never know. Could have eben slime beast somewhere.

by speedegg :: Wed, 01/09/2013 - 8:38pm

Well, the difference is Adrian Peterson is a physical freak. Peterson had surgery in the morning, that afternoon after the procedure Dr. Andrews said he wouldn't be able to lift his knee for a few weeks. Peterson said,"You mean like this?" and lifted his knee.

Also, the other problem with RGIII (or now maybe RG2.5) is the damage to LCL and surrounding tissue. That will make estimates for return problematic and possibly longer. Generally, I heard a few folks say think of a Carson Palmer type of return. Hopefully, the comparison is just about the timeframe, not performance afterwards. Baseline is 8-10 months, so he'll probably miss part of training camp and might miss the start of the season.

Really hope RGIII bounces back to his old self.

by Nicholas Ray (not verified) :: Wed, 01/09/2013 - 10:06pm

Agreed. People keep pointing to Peterson and saying 'See, he did it', but the fact that we've all been marvelling at what AP accomplished should render any other comparison null and void. Peterson is obviously a genetic marvel, and it was easy to see even as a freshman at Oklahoma. Guys like him are rare. Science has obviously improved, and it's fortunate that Griffin will likely be okay, but when people use the Peterson comparison it's ridiculous. It's not supposed to work that way.

by RickD :: Wed, 01/09/2013 - 10:55pm

But it's not just Peterson. In the last few years, on the Pats alone, we've seen Brady and Welker both come from ACL tears to start the next season seemingly in as good shape as before.

Sports medicine is doing wonders these days.

by PatsFan :: Thu, 01/10/2013 - 8:37am

While Brady and Welker were able to play at a high level the season immediately following their injuries, they really weren't back to their pre-injury performance until the season after that.

by Revenge of the NURBS (not verified) :: Thu, 01/10/2013 - 9:34am

Agreed. Brady's game is also nothing like RG3's. A marginal decrease in speed/burst/agility affects RG3 more than it affects Brady. Brady was also injured in Week 1, not Week 18. He had a year to recover.

by Pat (filler) (not verified) :: Thu, 01/10/2013 - 11:13am

Brady was also injured in Week 1, not Week 18

This isn't stressed enough in your comment. There's no way Brady would've been ready for the season had he had his injury in Week 18: there were complications, and he wasn't even fully done with surgery over a month past his injury.

by Aaron Brooks Go... :: Thu, 01/10/2013 - 4:42pm

If Griffin gets the NFL to change a rule such that it becomes illegal to hit him, like the one Brady had instituted after being Pollarded, he'll be fine.

by MatMan :: Thu, 01/10/2013 - 5:38pm

Am I like the only guy in the world who assumes AP used/is using some sort of PED? We're still living through the "steroid era" of pro sports. "Oh, it's because he's a physical freak... who had an unprecedented recovery time... and also turned in one of the greatest RB seasons of all time... while having access to expensive state-of-the art PEDs and test-defeating agents... at a time when every high-level organized sport in the world suffers illicit PED use."

Andre the Giant was a physical freak. Adrian Peterson's just some guy.

by Aaron Brooks Go... :: Thu, 01/10/2013 - 7:45pm

About the only PED that shows any promise for joint maintenance is direct injections of HGH. Problem with that theory is that his surgeon remarked how good his cartilage was during the surgery -- which means he'd have to have been taking in prophylactically.

Which no one does.

by andrew :: Wed, 01/09/2013 - 5:35pm

It feels to me like the assertion of a return on week one is meant primarily to "prove" that Shanahan did no harm...

"I was corrupt before I had power!" - Random

by Revenge of the NURBS (not verified) :: Thu, 01/10/2013 - 9:24am

There's probably something to that. As someone asked above, what benefit is there to putting an aggressive timetable on his return? The benefit may be to shift blame. If he DOES make it back by Week 1, hey, no harm to foul. If he doesn't, it'll be because he's a slow healer, or the doctors did something wrong. Shanahan is off the hook either way.

by JonFrum :: Wed, 01/09/2013 - 11:08pm

When the announcer said "Well, no one is saying he should come out," I was thinking who is this no one? How does an announcer know what people are saying during the game?

And yes, I thought he was done, and should come out of the game. Within two plays, he did come out of the game. So no, it's not in hindsight. This guy is the heart of your success for ten years. Is one season's playoffs really that important when you know you're not good enough to go deep? It's absurd. This is why you draft Luck.

by apbadogs :: Thu, 01/10/2013 - 9:30am

I heard this morning that he actually had BOTH knees cut open. Obviously the one he tore but alsot the left one to harvest a graft to put into the right knee. I say he misses most, if not all, of next year.

by Mike B. In Va :: Thu, 01/10/2013 - 10:03am

The real question is, did Shanahan do him more damage by leaving him in? Did he tear the ligament on the 2nd touchdown play (it sure looked like it to me) and then just aggravate it to the point where he couldn't go on by the time he twisted it going after the snap? Or is that the play where he tore it?

If it's the latter, Shanny should be lambasted. If it's the former, WTF is up with the 'Skins medical staff?

by shoutingloudly :: Thu, 01/10/2013 - 3:09pm

Yes. This. Though I have to say, we'll never know which play led to how much of his injury. It looked to me like the "last straw" that ended his knee as we know it may have come in the play before his last play. He got tackled in a way that savaged his knee and I was surprised he got up from that—especially considering his history and where he was at that day.

This "2nd-to-last play" theory would be consistent with what came next as well. Going after the fumble wasn't the first time he'd tried to move in a way that could lead to falling down with a torn ACL (because he had no lateral torque on his knee), and it sure wasn't the first time he tried to cut on the $%^& grass at Penny Wise Pound Foolish Stadium. Point is, if we're trying to find the exact moment when his ACL tore, the second-to-last play is perhaps a good place to start looking.

Of course, regardless of the exact moment of the most substantial damage, it's inexcusable to have any player — let alone a franchise QB — in a position where a compromised knee makes such a tear (and the real risk that he may never even walk well, let alone "be RG3" again) infinitely more likely. Making such a callous decision while at the same time making one's team substantially LESS likely to win? That's got Mastermind written all over it.

by kyleawest :: Thu, 01/10/2013 - 11:53am

Even if RG3 does manage to rehab in time for week one he is still going to have missed all the offseason minicamps and training camp. I'd expect that to stunt his development as an NFL quarterback quite significantly.

by Jerry :: Sat, 01/12/2013 - 6:03am

I seem to have missed all the similar outrage about the Seahawks leaving Hauschka in to kick with an injury that put him on IR after the game. Is that because he's just a kicker, Seattle won, or both?

by Insancipitory :: Sat, 01/12/2013 - 7:02am

He's on IR because he might not get healthy for the week following the Falcons should they be so fortunate. It's the Seahawks being dutifully conservative. And they replaced him on kickoffs with Ryan.

The team handled his injury responsibly, made changes to mitigate it, and they didn't play a roll in its aggrevation. Why should there be outrage?

The Redskins should be taking notes.

by Jerry :: Sun, 01/13/2013 - 1:54pm