annual hammy discussion

HarleyHog · Post by **HarleyHog** » Sun Aug 21, 2011 4:14 pm

Yet again, the horrible hamstrings are tweaking at camp. Has anyone ever done a statistical analysis compared to other teams? It always seems the skins get a lot of hammy injuries, and the discussion often comes back to a questioning of training staff and techniques. Do we have a problem, or is the rate of occurrence commensurate with that for other teams? Are we doing something different than other teams or are ham pulls par for the course?

frankcal20 · Post by **frankcal20** » Sun Aug 21, 2011 4:25 pm

I think it's all BS in my opinion.

HarleyHog · Post by **HarleyHog** » Sun Aug 21, 2011 4:28 pm

Is that to say you think the rate of occurrence is normal? Or perhaps that the " hammy tweak" is just a way of being amongst the sick, the lame, and the lazy? Or something else?

Red_One43 · Post by **Red_One43** » Sun Aug 21, 2011 4:28 pm

I have had the same thoughts.

All I could find is this:

http://www.footballrescue.com/hamstring.htm

In addition to explaining the injury it advertises items to lessen the chances of pulling a hammy, but apparently the Redskins aren't using this brand or they don't work.

tribeofjudah · Post by **tribeofjudah** » Sun Aug 21, 2011 4:41 pm

What up with LL #30 tweekin his hammy...
If it ain't one thing....it's another.

frankcal20 · Post by **frankcal20** » Sun Aug 21, 2011 4:43 pm

The old Hammy strain is the #1 training camp injury that vets use to not have to work out or play in preseason games. I don't know if it's the player, coaches or a combination but come regular season, these guys are fine.

HarleyHog · Post by **HarleyHog** » Sun Aug 21, 2011 4:57 pm

frankcal20 wrote:The old Hammy strain is the #1 training camp injury that vets use to not have to work out or play in preseason games. I don't know if it's the player, coaches or a combination but come regular season, these guys are fine.

I think that thought too at times, although with the imaging technology in use these days, it would seem like a hard thing to fake.

tribeofjudah · Post by **tribeofjudah** » Sun Aug 21, 2011 5:03 pm

HarleyHog wrote:
frankcal20 wrote:The old Hammy strain is the #1 training camp injury that vets use to not have to work out or play in preseason games. I don't know if it's the player, coaches or a combination but come regular season, these guys are fine.
I think that thought too at times, although with the imaging technology in use these days, it would seem like a hard thing to fake.

Perhaps the coaches are just "fakin" it and bluffing.....NO?

frankcal20 · Post by **frankcal20** » Sun Aug 21, 2011 5:08 pm

Keep in mind that Coach knows what he's got in LL. He'll be ready to play but what he doesn't know is what he's got in some of the other younger safeties. How easy to give these guys more reps in practice/games instead of really risking injury to your star players like LL or CC.

fredp45 · Post by **fredp45** » Sun Aug 21, 2011 6:50 pm

It's the curse of the redskins...for nearly 2 decades...not sure how you younger fans can do it, you're true fans for sure. I've been around for the crappy skins in the 70's, then the very good Skins of the 80s and 90s. 3 Super Bowls. We were a great team, great organization, not a laughinstock.

I believe all my pro teams are cursed!!! O's, Caps, Wizards, SKins...at least the Terps have done something the past decade!

I see the light at the end of the tunnel for the Skins...another good off-season and we'll be a playoff team.

andyjens89 · Post by **andyjens89** » Sun Aug 21, 2011 7:04 pm

fredp45 wrote:I've been around for the crappy skins in the 70's

91-52 with 5 playoff appearances from 1970-79 is crappy?

The 60's skins were crappy, maybe that's what you were thinking of.

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Sun Aug 21, 2011 7:46 pm

andyjens89 wrote:
fredp45 wrote:I've been around for the crappy skins in the 70's
91-52 with 5 playoff appearances from 1970-79 is crappy?

The 60's skins were crappy, maybe that's what you were thinking of.

He means the 1870's... they were horrible... and very boring.

Red_One43 · Post by **Red_One43** » Sun Aug 21, 2011 7:59 pm

andyjens89 wrote:
fredp45 wrote:I've been around for the crappy skins in the 70's
91-52 with 5 playoff appearances from 1970-79 is crappy?

The 60's skins were crappy, maybe that's what you were thinking of.

Don't forget our first Super Bowl experience was in the 70's which was quite crappy until Mike Bass returned Garo Yepremian's fumble 49 yards for a TD for what I believe is still the only fumble return for a TD.

Chris Luva Luva · Post by **Chris Luva Luva** » Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:55 am

come on fellas, most of yall have been following the game way longer than me. u should know that hammy pulls are always an issue with players who are injured. they're constantly working out, and doing things to try to stay in shape while trying to mend. in the process of trying to do extra work to appease coaches and to remind fit, they over compensate and pull a hammy. happens all the time, we've seen this before. it's the preseason, don't get bent out of shape. let the boy sit, it may actually get him more time for the achillies to rest too.

HarleyHog · Post by **HarleyHog** » Mon Aug 22, 2011 11:57 am

The point being raised isn't about the reality that hamstrings do get injured, but instead about the annual frequency of those injuries. The abbreviated preseason has given less time for them to accumulate this year, but in the past few seasons it seemed like about 10% of the players in camp would end up with some sort of hammy issue. I live in the San Francisco bay area, and it seems like the 49er and Raider reports don't reference hamstrings nearly as much as Skins' reports do. Maybe that is because I don't follow them via online fan sites, or maybe its because our training staff is deficient in the stretching and warm up department. All I know is 8-12 hams out of 80 guys (previous years)has always seemed too high to me.

die cowboys die · Post by **die cowboys die** » Mon Aug 22, 2011 12:01 pm

it's gotta be the shoes

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/07/barefoot/