RGIII health status thread

[riggofan]

You can't compare Rodgers to Griffin.

Why not? Aren't they both QBs who have been injured?

Griffin hasn't played a full season, and this is ONLY his third year.

He was benched for three games last year. Was he injured last year and I missed it?

And you really don't think the injury from 2012 hampered Griffin's play for 2013?

Of course he was hampered by the surgery last year. Where did I say he wasn't and what does that have to do with being injury prone?

Look, all I'm saying is that calling him "injury prone" is meaningless. If you want to say he's soft, too small, has weak bones or something then say that. Say that he doesn't protect himself well enough so he's not reliable. That's a valid criticism. Otherwise, injury prone is just the same thing as calling him unlucky.

[Deadskins]

No sane person can say he was fully 100% healed and ready to go in 2013

Really? No sane person? Hyperbole doesn't make for a stronger argument.

[Deadskins]

When I am correct in something, I don't find it necessary to change my initial points. You did.

Please show me where I did this.

The fact you highlight things doesn't mean they are wrong

No, it doesn't. But the fact that I highlighted the exact instances where you were wrong, means that I was trying to help you understand why they were wrong.

[markshark84]

I think its only meaningful if/when the injuries have piled up and affected a player's ability.

If we were to apply this standard to RGIII, then he has only played 11 NFL games in his career (out of 32 games (i.e., 17 games in 2012, 13 in 2013, and 2 in 2014) where injury hasn't had an affect on his ability. Some people on here will argue that RGIII was absolutely 100% healthy and ready to repeat in 2013, but I think most sane people understand the ACL injury did affect his ability and production that year.

I think you make some good points with regards to Rodgers, but if you take all the games he was a starter in, he has only missed 9 games in the past 7 seasons. He also had a consecutive start streak of 45 games, which is pretty impressive. Knick nack, one game here or there injuries -- like a hamstring or concussion -- I don't think make someone "injury prone" ---- unless they add up to multiple (>3) games a year on a pretty consistent basis.

I was having a Ben Tate vs. Adrian Foster debate a couple days before the season and was told by a large contingent of people that Ben Tate is "insanely" (their words) injury prone to the point of being worthless. He missed a total of 8 games in 2011, 2012, and 2013 at (outside of OL) arguably the most injury-inducing position in the game. I found that to be a little crazy, but I personally think they have been proven correct.

[StorminMormon86]

Double post.

[StorminMormon86]

Why not? Aren't they both QBs who have been injured?

Rodgers has won a Superbowl. Despite his injuries, a team would be a little more willing to deal with them rather than moving on wondering if the backup could step up and fill his shoes. For example: was there ever a thought in any Packers fans mind last year that Flynn would keep the starting job if he played well? No. Completely different with our current situation. Not saying that the organization has given up on Griffin, not by a long shot, but still it's apples and oranges to compare the two.

He was benched for three games last year. Was he injured last year and I missed it?

Did you miss out on the first couple of weeks of his play? I don't know if he was gun shy, playing scared, or still not 100%, but if people believe Griffin was healthy in 2013, than we are in for some serious trouble.

Of course he was hampered by the surgery last year. Where did I say he wasn't and what does that have to do with being injury prone?

He's injury prone because he's had 2 major injuries to his legs (his biggest asset on the field according to some) in only 3 years in the NFL. Look at Joe Flacco. He's overrated by Baltimore fans (annoyingly too), but I don't think that guys ever missed a snap.

Look, all I'm saying is that calling him "injury prone" is meaningless. If you want to say he's soft, too small, has weak bones or something then say that. Say that he doesn't protect himself well enough so he's not reliable. That's a valid criticism. Otherwise, injury prone is just the same thing as calling him unlucky.

I don't think he's soft, or weak. His play style in 2012 set him up to get injured, which ultimately happened.

[markshark84]

When I am correct in something, I don't find it necessary to change my initial points. You did.

Please show me where I did this.

The fact you highlight things doesn't mean they are wrong

No, it doesn't. But the fact that I highlighted the exact instances where you were wrong, means that I was trying to help you understand why they were wrong.

I was only wrong once and that was an off-subject issue with Ray. I have been correct on ALL other accounts (unless you could last week's game for RGIII's leaving with injury count --- then it's 5 and not 4). I can't force you to take off your homer-goggles. NOTHING in your posts were factually based. Here are all the "facts" you have provided thus far:
1. he (RGIII) has missed only 1 start due to injury
2. RGIII played 13 games in 2013
3. He (Cousins) has appeared in 8 games for the Redskins -- has nothing to do with RGIII and his injuries, but I don't have many actual facts to list. But as on 9/17/14 (the date of your post) that fact is WRONG. Counsins has played in 9 games.

That's it. Literally. That is all the support you have given me. 1 incomplete stat, 1 stat that's irrelevant in that we are discussing the games he didn't play; not the ones we did; and a stat that is wrong.

Then there are your highlighted gems that I wrote where you "prove me wrong" with your great statistical support.......:
- no one on earth can deny RGIII is injury prone --- YOUR RESPONSE: "No, Robert wasn't hurt in 2013." -- you missed my point completely. did i say anything about 2013 in that statement? 1 season means very little if he gets hurt in all the others.
- I'd love to hear your thoughts on what caused his performance drop in 2013. He may not have sustained an injury in 2013, but there is no denying he was "hurt". --- your response is just an excuse laden piece that is wrong. it actually made me think back to Campbell (hence the reference) when he was given every excuse: new OCs, OL, WRs, Defense, HC, literally everything was used. Listen, if you want to keep your blindfold on and stay in denial, that is on you.
- facts are facts -- which is what I give you. you have answered with opinions and WRONG facts on why my correct facts are wrong.......
- then you proceed to say he has "only" missed one game due to injury --- I tried to at least get something beneficial by showing that "only missing one" game is an inadequate response and an answer that doesn't TRULY provide a clear picture of RGIII's injury history. The "1 game" statement was merely spin on your part in an attempt to keep those homer goggles on.
- what about the other 4 he has had to leave due to injury? - again that was rhetorical; I would say you understand this by now, but who knows.
- the ENTIRE season we had to endure in order for him to be rehabilitated? -- YOUR RESPONSE: "Third, it's obvious that you hold last year's record against RGIII, but that is not only incorrect in that he only played 13 of the games (and was the QB for the only wins of the season), but the defense and STs also played a major role in the outcome" --- what should I reply? I try not to get personally offensive on the board, but come on. Yes, I hold RGIII's record against him --- HE PLAYED IN THE GAMES. And you argue like RGIII going 3-10 as a starter is a good thing..... Then you blame it on D and ST. MORE JC-LIKE EXCUSES. And I NEVER even discussed record. I LITERALLY ONLY talked about "RGIII's PERFORMANCE". Why did you go into record? You don't listen to what I'm saying. There was a difference in pure offense between those 2 years. Our offense (with RGIII) averaged 21 ppg in 2013 and 30 in 2012...... or is this "twisting facts".....
- we would barely have any idea what Cousins could do at the QB position.... -- YOUR RESPONSE: "we DO barely have any idea what Cousins can do at QB" --- am I supposed to take your opinion on this? Based on this exchange, I'll pass. We know what Counsins can do, his strengths, limitations, offense he is comfortable in, etc. Did we "know" what guys like Rodgers were capable of entering 2008? No. That was the point you missed.

I hope you can read this and clear things up, but I realize it takes a lot to actually get thru to you.

Like I said, you can believe what you want. I'm a HUGE skins fan, but I'm not a disillusioned one. I call them like I see them. To say RGIII isn't prone to injuries AT THIS POINT in his career, based on the past 3 years, is wrong. He's been hurt WAY too much to think otherwise --- and the only way to think otherwise is if you are a disillusioned, blinders-on, fan --- and I get that. I think we need fans like that; I'm just not one of them.

[riggofan]

I think its only meaningful if/when the injuries have piled up and affected a player's ability.

If we were to apply this standard to RGIII, then he has only played 11 NFL games in his career (out of 32 games (i.e., 17 games in 2012, 13 in 2013, and 2 in 2014) where injury hasn't had an affect on his ability. Some people on here will argue that RGIII was absolutely 100% healthy and ready to repeat in 2013, but I think most sane people understand the ACL injury did affect his ability and production that year.

I take your point, but I was thinking a little more long term. What you're describing is just that it took RGIII most of last year to recover from the ACL injury. Do you think he won't be able to recover from the ACL injury and still play at a high level?

That's sort of what I was getting at. You see some of those RBs for example who tear the ACL, lose their explosiveness and are never able to come back.

I don't claim to know the answer re: RGIII btw. We didn't really get to see him enough this year to know for sure.

[SkinsJock]

it's too early to put that label on him - I agree that he's been hampered by his injuries but I don't agree that he's injury prone

the term is not right in this case but then again there are a bunch of fans that don't see the same qualities in this player that I do

that's what fans do - they disagree about almost everything

the HC has indicated that he doesn't think the term is correct for this player - he has a better idea on this than most here do

[riggofan]

Rodgers has won a Superbowl.

We're not comparing whether the two QBs are super bowl winners or not. We are questioning whether or not they are both "injury prone". I just showed you Rodgers' injury history and HE IS INJURY PRONE. That's my point. INJURY PRONE IS A MEANINGLESS CRITICISM.

Did you miss out on the first couple of weeks of his play? I don't know if he was gun shy, playing scared, or still not 100%, but if people believe Griffin was healthy in 2013, than we are in for some serious trouble.

What does that have to do with being injury prone? You said he got injured every year. He didn't. He got injured in 2012. He never got injured in 2013. He was recovering from surgery last year and wasn't fully healthy. I'm not sure why you're arguing that point. You're demonstrably wrong.

I don't think he's soft, or weak. His play style in 2012 set him up to get injured, which ultimately happened.

Yes, exactly! So if people want to criticize RGIII, then freaking say he's reckless or something. Calling him "injury prone" is like calling me "prone to finding pennies" because I frequently find pennies in parking lots.

[EA7649]

Tony Gonzalez think he should see a sports shrink. I actually think this could be a good idea for him to do while he's out for 10 weeks. http://sports.yahoo.com/news/tony-gonza ... 0AcJdXNyoA

[SkinsJock]

Tony Gonzalez thinks he should see a sports shrink.
I actually think this could be a good idea for him to do while he's out for 10 weeks.

I do not agree that this is a good idea

Who stated that Griffin would be out for 10 weeks?

[Deadskins]

When I am correct in something, I don't find it necessary to change my initial points. You did.

Please show me where I did this.

The fact you highlight things doesn't mean they are wrong

No, it doesn't. But the fact that I highlighted the exact instances where you were wrong, means that I was trying to help you understand why they were wrong.

I was only wrong once and that was an off-subject issue with Ray. I have been correct on ALL other accounts (unless you could last week's game for RGIII's leaving with injury count --- then it's 5 and not 4). I can't force you to take off your homer-goggles. NOTHING in your posts were factually based. Here are all the "facts" you have provided thus far:
1. he (RGIII) has missed only 1 start due to injury
2. RGIII played 13 games in 2013
3. He (Cousins) has appeared in 8 games for the Redskins -- has nothing to do with RGIII and his injuries, but I don't have many actual facts to list. But as on 9/17/14 (the date of your post) that fact is WRONG. Counsins has played in 9 games.

That's it. Literally. That is all the support you have given me. 1 incomplete stat, 1 stat that's irrelevant in that we are discussing the games he didn't play; not the ones we did; and a stat that is wrong.

Then there are your highlighted gems that I wrote where you "prove me wrong" with your great statistical support.......:
- no one on earth can deny RGIII is injury prone --- YOUR RESPONSE: "No, Robert wasn't hurt in 2013." -- you missed my point completely. did i say anything about 2013 in that statement? 1 season means very little if he gets hurt in all the others.
- I'd love to hear your thoughts on what caused his performance drop in 2013. He may not have sustained an injury in 2013, but there is no denying he was "hurt". --- your response is just an excuse laden piece that is wrong. it actually made me think back to Campbell (hence the reference) when he was given every excuse: new OCs, OL, WRs, Defense, HC, literally everything was used. Listen, if you want to keep your blindfold on and stay in denial, that is on you.
- facts are facts -- which is what I give you. you have answered with opinions and WRONG facts on why my correct facts are wrong.......
- then you proceed to say he has "only" missed one game due to injury --- I tried to at least get something beneficial by showing that "only missing one" game is an inadequate response and an answer that doesn't TRULY provide a clear picture of RGIII's injury history. The "1 game" statement was merely spin on your part in an attempt to keep those homer goggles on.
- what about the other 4 he has had to leave due to injury? - again that was rhetorical; I would say you understand this by now, but who knows.
- the ENTIRE season we had to endure in order for him to be rehabilitated? -- YOUR RESPONSE: "Third, it's obvious that you hold last year's record against RGIII, but that is not only incorrect in that he only played 13 of the games (and was the QB for the only wins of the season), but the defense and STs also played a major role in the outcome" --- what should I reply? I try not to get personally offensive on the board, but come on. Yes, I hold RGIII's record against him --- HE PLAYED IN THE GAMES. And you argue like RGIII going 3-10 as a starter is a good thing..... Then you blame it on D and ST. MORE JC-LIKE EXCUSES. And I NEVER even discussed record. I LITERALLY ONLY talked about "RGIII's PERFORMANCE". Why did you go into record? You don't listen to what I'm saying. There was a difference in pure offense between those 2 years. Our offense (with RGIII) averaged 21 ppg in 2013 and 30 in 2012...... or is this "twisting facts".....
- we would barely have any idea what Cousins could do at the QB position.... -- YOUR RESPONSE: "we DO barely have any idea what Cousins can do at QB" --- am I supposed to take your opinion on this? Based on this exchange, I'll pass. We know what Counsins can do, his strengths, limitations, offense he is comfortable in, etc. Did we "know" what guys like Rodgers were capable of entering 2008? No. That was the point you missed.

I hope you can read this and clear things up, but I realize it takes a lot to actually get thru to you.

Like I said, you can believe what you want. I'm a HUGE skins fan, but I'm not a disillusioned one. I call them like I see them. To say RGIII isn't prone to injuries AT THIS POINT in his career, based on the past 3 years, is wrong. He's been hurt WAY too much to think otherwise --- and the only way to think otherwise is if you are a disillusioned, blinders-on, fan --- and I get that. I think we need fans like that; I'm just not one of them.

Blah, blah, blah. That's rehashing the exact same mistakes you made in each other post. You keep incorrectly quote me as saying RGIII missed only one game, when what I actually said was he missed one START. This was one point I highlighted, and have now corrected you on three times. Do you understand the difference? Then, in your "highlighted gems" rant, you proceed to put my responses with the wrong items. Look at the highlighted above. Too funny! Give it up dude, asked and answered.

[EA7649]

Tony Gonzalez thinks he should see a sports shrink.
I actually think this could be a good idea for him to do while he's out for 10 weeks.

I do not agree that this is a good idea

Who stated that Griffin would be out for 10 weeks?

Why do you feel that its not a good idea? And I meant out until week 10* the bye week and getting a week to do 1st team reps. There has been reports by Gruden he'll have a brace on for 10 days, 4-6 week recovery...that leads up to after the bye. My thought process

[SkinsJock]

Griffin's psyche isn't a worry - it's going to take time for him to play QB the way that Gruden wants him too - what we saw in the first game was not good but I thought that he showed that he's making progress and the game plan at the beginning of the second game looked like it was going to include plays that he's more comfortable with

Griffin just needs time on the field in order to become the weapon that Gruden wants at QB - Cousins is more familiar at this time with what Gruden wants but his upside is not as high as what Griffin will be able to achieve given time

this is a setback but he's not lacking for confidence in his ability to play QB and to learn how to do it better - he just needs time

there is no timetable for his return - he will be back on the field soon ... then he has to wait for his next shot at starting

[StorminMormon86]

We're not comparing whether the two QBs are super bowl winners or not. We are questioning whether or not they are both "injury prone". I just showed you Rodgers' injury history and HE IS INJURY PRONE. That's my point. INJURY PRONE IS A MEANINGLESS CRITICISM.

Ok, not going to argue the point with Rodgers vs. Griffin. You could make the argument that both are injury prone.

What does that have to do with being injury prone? You said he got injured every year. He didn't. He got injured in 2012. He never got injured in 2013. He was recovering from surgery last year and wasn't fully healthy. I'm not sure why you're arguing that point. You're demonstrably wrong.

I never said he got injured every year. I said he's had major injuries on both of his legs in a short 4-5 year period. I'm not arguing that Griffin wasn't healthy last year. There seem to be some fans that think he wasn't playing "hurt" or "not healthy" (take your pick) in 2013.

Yes, exactly! So if people want to criticize RGIII, then freaking say he's reckless or something. Calling him "injury prone" is like calling me "prone to finding pennies" because I frequently find pennies in parking lots.

Wouldn't injury prone and reckless be one and the same if applying it to football?!

[StorminMormon86]

Griffin's psyche isn't a worry

Did you miss the entire 2013 season, or this years preseason?

[FLWSkin]

I don't think a guy struggling because he isn't 100% physically after a horrible knee injury and is struggling somewhat to pick up an offense that makes him do things he has never done before warrants needing a psychiatrist. I think that's reaching a lot. Oh and btw, when that guy was struggling last year we still had the 9th rated offense in football and while struggling in the new offense, moved the team down the field in week one and was done in by two turnovers, one of which he had nothing to do with, and some pretty crappy offensive line play. I think the 24 hour news cycle with about 15 different shows looking to fill time lead to questions like this.

[SkinsJock]

Griffin's psyche isn't a worry

Did you miss the entire 2013 season, or this years preseason?

I could care less about his childhood or last season ... the past is done, nothing you can do about it - focus on the future

Griffin is not thinking about anything but doing what Gruden needs done at QB - did you not see the first few plays and how well he did

you aren't keeping up with what Griffin is trying to do here - he's learning a new system and he's having to learn a different style of play

[u]it will take time[/u] and he's making progress according to Gruden

Griffin is not lacking in his confidence in his ability to play the way Gruden wants nor is he lacking in confidence in his ability to excel

this kid has the mentality to excel on the playing field - he's an olympic caliber athlete - not many have that mental capacity

[riggofan]

Wouldn't injury prone and reckless be one and the same if applying it to football?!

Hmm. I don't know. A guy could have had injuries every year without being reckless, don't you think? Aaron Rodgers for example.

Its just semantics. I think you and I are in agreement about what the injury issue is with Griffin.

[DarthMonk]

... Griffin is not thinking about anything but doing what Gruden needs done at QB ...

Doubtful. History says otherwise. I am concerned about his psyche as well. Once he's fit - and I'm sure he will be if given time - it will all be about the mental side of the game.

[SkinsJock]

we shall see - i think he's making a lot of progress and as he gets more time on the field he will be fine ...

I also think the staff are going to let him do his thing more as time goes on ...

it's all good ... I don't think he needs or gets mental help ... we shall see

[StorminMormon86]

Its just semantics. I think you and I are in agreement about what the injury issue is with Griffin.

Yep, pretty much.

[emoses14]

I don't think a guy struggling because he isn't 100% physically after a horrible knee injury and is struggling somewhat to pick up an offense that makes him do things he has never done before warrants needing a psychiatrist. I think that's reaching a lot. Oh and btw, when that guy was struggling last year we still had the 9th rated offense in football and while struggling in the new offense, moved the team down the field in week one and was done in by two turnovers, one of which he had nothing to do with, and some pretty crappy offensive line play. I think the 24 hour news cycle with about 15 different shows looking to fill time lead to questions like this.

[Countertrey]

Doubtful. History says otherwise.

Care to explain?