Jump to content

2020 NFL Draft Discussion

CWood21

By CWood21
in Green Bay Packers

 Share

Recommended Posts

AlexGreen#20

AlexGreen#20

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, Skippy said:

Bulaga isn't stupid. He loves GB, he knows his knees are a mess. His bed bud is Baktiarri. I think he's the type of guy that will want to sign a 2 year deal and just be done with football after that. It truly wouldn't shock me if he retired at the end of this season anyways. Players are getting out of the game earlier than they use to, especially linemen. 

Does Bulaga consider his knees to be a mess? Do we have any indication that he has some form of structural damage in either? I've seen nothing to indicate he has any kind of meniscus issue or bone on bone rubbing.

He has an ACL tear in each knee, but he hasn't done either of them twice and both were clean tears with no additional ligament damage.

As clean as the ACL repair surgery is, and considering that he was a young man when they happened, his knees very likely aren't nearly as bad as Packers fans cringe about. 

In his own mind, he probably considers his knees to be fine.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
squire12

squire12

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Does Bulaga consider his knees to be a mess? Do we have any indication that he has some form of structural damage in either? I've seen nothing to indicate he has any kind of meniscus issue or bone on bone rubbing.

He has an ACL tear in each knee, but he hasn't done either of them twice and both were clean tears with no additional ligament damage.

As clean as the ACL repair surgery is, and considering that he was a young man when they happened, his knees very likely aren't nearly as bad as Packers fans cringe about. 

In his own mind, he probably considers his knees to be fine.

You do realize hat the initial trauma that tears the ACL is what is believed to start the clock on degenerative changes to the joint. 

The concomitant meniscus or other structural pathology is not necessary, though other pathology likely accelerates the degeneration.

Add to that , the carrying of 300+ pounds and the requisite training to play football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AlexGreen#20

AlexGreen#20

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, squire12 said:

You do realize hat the initial trauma that tears the ACL is what is believed to start the clock on degenerative changes to the joint. 

The concomitant meniscus or other structural pathology is not necessary, though other pathology likely accelerates the degeneration.

Add to that , the carrying of 300+ pounds and the requisite training to play football.

It was my understanding that the degenerative changes in the knee were caused by the meniscus tear that occurs in about half of ACL tears, or any bone defects that create protrusions up into the meniscus (or microfractures) rather than just simple bone bruises.

So while degenerative changes often start with an ACL tear, they're not at all guaranteed.

Obviously I'm not an orthopedic doctor, but that was my understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AlexGreen#20

AlexGreen#20

Posted
Posted (edited)

Just looking at the secondary on this thing, by Passer Rating we've got:

King 91.1 with 2 TDs (568 snaps 689 yards)

Alexander 84.9 with 2 TDs (711 snaps 571 yards)

Amos 85.1 with 0 TDs (717 snaps 297 yards)

Savage 97 with 2 TDs (541 snaps 167 yards)

Williams 80.1 with 2 TDs (530 snaps 214 yards)

Brown 117.5 with 0 TDs (48 snaps)

Redmond 102.1 with 0 TDs (276 snaps)

Sullivan 33.9 with 0 TDs (175 snaps)

Greene 74.1 with 0 TDs (71 snaps)

Jackson 152.9 with 1 TD (69 snaps)

Campbell 92.4 with 0 TDs (63 snaps)

Hillman 0.0 with 0 TDs (4 snaps)

Nobody in the secondary is really killing us. For the most part the guys playing real snaps have been pretty average.

Martinez 104.0 with 1 TD (359 yards allowed)

Z Smith 80 with 0 TDs

P Smith 48.8 with 0 TDs

Fackrell 74.3 with 0 TDs

Goodson 118.1 with 1 TD

Gary 107.6 with 0 TDs

Burks 39.6 with 0 TDs

+++++++

Overall:

Rating 91.4

TDs: 14 (3 missing)

Yards: 2805

++++++++

Pressure wise (Pressures/Hits/Sacks):

Z Smith 10/12/10 (586 snaps)

P Smith 9/7/10.5 (598 snaps)

Fackrell 2/6/.5 (260 snaps) [shout out to Fackrell for having the exact opposite season in pressure/sack ratio as last year.]

Gary 1/1/1 (174 snaps)

Clark 6/1/1.5 (602 snaps)

Lowry 4/2/0 (452 snaps)

Adams 0/0/0 (153 snaps)

Lancaster 0/0/1.5 (269 snaps)

Overall:

35 hurries (26th in hurry percentage)

33 knockdowns (11th in knockdown percentage)

28 sacks (19th in sack percentage)

14th in overall pressure percentage.

900 snaps from Lowry/Lancaster/Adams producing a combined line of 4/2/1.5 is nothing short of unacceptable.

Gary's complete lack of production has been discussed.

Edited by AlexGreen#20
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pacman5252

pacman5252

Posted
Posted
41 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Just looking at the secondary on this thing, by Passer Rating we've got:

King 91.1 with 2 TDs (568 snaps 689 yards)

Alexander 84.9 with 2 TDs (711 snaps 571 yards)

Amos 85.1 with 0 TDs (717 snaps 297 yards)

Savage 97 with 2 TDs (541 snaps 167 yards)

Williams 80.1 with 2 TDs (530 snaps 214 yards)

Brown 117.5 with 0 TDs (48 snaps)

Redmond 102.1 with 0 TDs (276 snaps)

Sullivan 33.9 with 0 TDs (175 snaps)

Greene 74.1 with 0 TDs (71 snaps)

Jackson 152.9 with 1 TD (69 snaps)

Campbell 92.4 with 0 TDs (63 snaps)

Hillman 0.0 with 0 TDs (4 snaps)

Nobody in the secondary is really killing us. For the most part the guys playing real snaps have been pretty average.

Martinez 104.0 with 1 TD (359 yards allowed)

Z Smith 80 with 0 TDs

P Smith 48.8 with 0 TDs

Fackrell 74.3 with 0 TDs

Goodson 118.1 with 1 TD

Gary 107.6 with 0 TDs

Burks 39.6 with 0 TDs

+++++++

Overall:

Rating 91.4

TDs: 14 (3 missing)

Yards: 2805

Interesting. The median starting qb passer ratings is like 92, the secondary overall has been at least average. You’d like to see guys step and at least have a lockdown guy (I’m sure Jaire’s bad Dallas game scews the numbers).

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2019/passing.htm

 

It’s interesting Burks is so low. It would be nice if the coaches gave him more snaps. I get though his college tape was trash against the run

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Joe

Joe

Posted
Posted
56 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Nobody in the secondary is really killing us. For the most part the guys playing real snaps have been pretty average.

Correct, it's what's in front of it that's killing us...

 

9 minutes ago, pacman5252 said:

It's interesting Burks is so low. It would be nice if the coaches gave him more snaps. I get though his college tape was trash against the run

We can't stop the run so...there you go...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AlexGreen#20

AlexGreen#20

Posted
Posted
34 minutes ago, pacman5252 said:

Interesting. The median starting qb passer ratings is like 92, the secondary overall has been at least average. You’d like to see guys step and at least have a lockdown guy (I’m sure Jaire’s bad Dallas game scews the numbers).

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2019/passing.htm

 

It’s interesting Burks is so low. It would be nice if the coaches gave him more snaps. I get though his college tape was trash against the run

Burks hasn't played enough snaps for his to really mean anything. He's only been targeted once.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
squire12

squire12

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

It was my understanding that the degenerative changes in the knee were caused by the meniscus tear that occurs in about half of ACL tears, or any bone defects that create protrusions up into the meniscus (or microfractures) rather than just simple bone bruises.

So while degenerative changes often start with an ACL tear, they're not at all guaranteed.

Obviously I'm not an orthopedic doctor, but that was my understanding.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7810787/  Injury + surgery (essentially another trauma to the joint that affects the homeostasis of the joint environment affects long term joint health)

Quote

Follow-up data are presented for the patients divided into four groups: I, early stable, no reconstruction; II, early unstable, no reconstruction; III, early reconstruction; and IV, late reconstruction. No patient changed occupation because of the knee injury. Hours per year of sports participation and levels of sports participation decreased in all groups. Joint arthrosis was documented by radiograph and bone scan. Joint surface injury abnormalities observed at surgery and meniscal surgery showed greater abnormalities by radiograph and bone scan scores (P < 0.05). Reconstructed patients had a higher level of arthrosis by radiograph and bone scan.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21036116/  It is impossible to restore the joint to the native state

Quote

 Our research has demonstrated that after ACL reconstruction, excessive tibial rotation is still present in high-demanding activities that involve both anterior and rotational loading of the knee. These findings seem to persist regardless of the autograft selection for the ACL reconstruction. Our results also suggest an impairment of neuromuscular control after ACL reconstruction, although muscle strength may have been reinstated. These abnormal biomechanical patterns may lead to loading of cartilage areas, which are not commonly loaded in the healthy knee and longitudinally can lead to osteoarthritis.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24214929/  ACL injury is bad, returning to high demand sports adds to the stress and long term health of the joint

Quote

RESULTS:

Nine studies were included for systematic review, of which 6 studies were further included for meta-analysis. One hundred twenty-one of 596 (20.3%) ACL-injured knees had moderate or severe radiologic changes (Kellgren & Lawrence grade III or IV) compared with 23 of 465 (4.9%) uninjured ACL-intact contralateral knees. After ACL injury, irrespective of whether the patients were treated operatively or nonoperatively, the relative risk (RR) of developing even minimal osteoarthritis was 3.89 (P < .00001), while the RR of developing moderate to severe osteoarthritis (grade III and IV) was 3.84 (P < .0004). Nonoperatively treated ACL-injured knees had significantly higher RR (RR, 4.98; P < .00001) of developing any grade of osteoarthritis compared with those treated with reconstructive surgery (RR, 3.62; P < .00001). Investigation of progression to moderate or severe osteoarthritis (grade III or IV only) after 10 years showed that ACL-reconstructed knees had a significantly higher RR (RR, 4.71; P < .00001) compared with nonoperative management (RR, 2.41; P = .54). It was not possible to stratify for return to sports among the patients undergoing ACL reconstruction.

CONCLUSION:

Results support the proposition that ACL injury predisposes knees to osteoarthritis, while ACL reconstruction surgery has a role in reducing the risk of developing degenerative changes at 10 years. However, returning to sports activities after ligament reconstruction may exacerbate the development of arthritis.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20713644/  ACL injury is bad, though it is better to have just ACL injury vs ACL injury + other concomitant pathologies

Quote

RESULTS:

One hundred eighty-one subjects (82%) were evaluated at the 10- to 15-year follow-up. A significant improvement over time was revealed for all prospective outcomes of knee function. No significant differences in knee function over time were detected between the isolated and combined injury groups. Subjects with combined injury had significantly higher prevalence of radiographic knee osteoarthritis compared with those with isolated injury (80% and 62%, P = .008), but no significant group differences were shown for symptomatic radiographic knee osteoarthritis (46% and 32%, P = .053).

CONCLUSION:

An overall improvement in knee function outcomes was detected from 6 months to 10 to 15 years after ACL reconstruction for both those with isolated and combined ACL injury, but significantly higher prevalence of radiographic knee osteoarthritis was found for those with combined injuries.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10921633/ 

Quote

We sought to determine how the status of the meniscus and articular cartilage observed at the time of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction affects results at 5 to 15 years after surgery. Objective follow-up was obtained on 482 patients at a mean of 7.6 years after surgery. Subjective follow-up was obtained on 928 patients at a mean of 8.6 years after surgery. Patients with both menisci present had significantly better KT-1,000 arthrometer scores than did patients with any part of the medial or both menisci removed. Stepwise regression analyses determined that a partial or total medial or lateral meniscectomy and damaged articular cartilage significantly lowered the final subjective total score. Patients with both menisci present and normal articular cartilage had a mean subjective total score of 94, and 97% had normal or near normal radiographic ratings on a weightbearing 45 degrees posteroanterior radiographs. The overall International Knee Documentation Committee rating was normal or nearly normal for 204 of 235 patients (87%) with both menisci present, 52 of 74 patients (70%) with partial or total lateral meniscectomies, 71 of 113 patients (63%) with partial or total medial meniscectomies, and 36 of 60 patients (60%) with both menisci removed. We concluded that the long-term subjective and objective results of a successful anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction are affected by the status of the menisci and articular surface.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
squire12

squire12

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

Are you trying to say big guys put more strain on the bone to muscle join (the cartilage) over time ? The post you were replying to (by @AlexGreen#20  ), was much clearer.

Yes they do.  Just trying to make it understood that the ACL injury itself is a contributing factor in the likely development of knee arthritis.  It is less likely if it is just an ACL tear with no other structural pathology.  But being 300+ pounds and going through the rigors of NFL training and conditioning is not a great thing for knees after ACL injury and surgery.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
AlexGreen#20

AlexGreen#20

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, squire12 said:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7810787/  Injury + surgery (essentially another trauma to the joint that affects the homeostasis of the joint environment affects long term joint health)

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21036116/  It is impossible to restore the joint to the native state

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24214929/  ACL injury is bad, returning to high demand sports adds to the stress and long term health of the joint

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20713644/  ACL injury is bad, though it is better to have just ACL injury vs ACL injury + other concomitant pathologies

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10921633/ 

 

Isn't that last study exactly what I stated?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
squire12

squire12

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Isn't that last study exactly what I stated?

Not disagreeing that it is worse to have cartilage injury AND ACL injury.  But having the ACL injury is also not good for long term health of the knee from an arthritis perspective.  

I am not sure if any of us know if the Bulaga injuries involved any level of meniscus or other cartilage damage that was addressed at the time of surgery or subsequent surgeries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...