Look guys, after reading through these responses, I feel like I've entered the Twilight Zone, with some of the shoddy logic and inane thinking going on here.
DaSkinz Baby wrote:I think you need to check more sources. The injury is a tear to his LCL which is a longer heal time than an ACL.
Not true .. it's the exact opposite. LCL is less recovery time than an ACL, by an estimated 2 months.
SkinsJock wrote:I am done reading about "the knee" OR hearing from quacks
ALL THAT MATTERS to me is what Dr Andrews says and intimates ...
Congratulations ... the most illogical post of the month. The general prognosis for recovering from a multi-ligament reconstruction is nowhere near 6 months, and that number shouldn't even enter a reasonable conversation. The history is clear, and those who simply state the facts are not "Quacks" ... these other voices are qualified surgeons who have done many of these same procedures and know what the realistic recovery times are.
Your first clue to the absurdity of this alleged 6 Month recovery window is the fact that Adrian Peterson's recovery is considered unprecedented and miraculous, and his recovery took over 8 months, and by all accounts, able to perform, but not "fully healed" because full healing takes 12 months. But to say you don't care what anyone else says other than Andrews is a confession that you really have no grasp of the details and context of the situation, and why the doctor might sugar coat the more realistic expectations for recovery. Frankly, you are ignoring the politics clearly at play here, and the fact that both Andrews and Shanahan now own this debacle equally. We've already seen Andrews backtrack on statements he made that caused a mini-controversy which placed Shanahan in an unfavorable light. So I wouldn't take Andrews soft-shoe as some form of biblical fact.
grampi wrote:I'll bet anyone a steak dinner he's ready to play the 1st preseason game...
The idiom "a fool and his money are soon parted" comes to mind here.
Gentlemen ... lets use our heads for something other than a place to put our Redskin caps on backwards, OKAY?
For those oblivious to the politics surrounding this issue, listen up. Andrews made some comments that the media jumped on like a dog on a bone and came after Shanahan with hard questions about his honesty ... and of course, we are then presented with the "miscommunication" explanation, and technically, Andrews revised his statements accordingly. Now, moving forward, we have the Seattle game, with Andrews on the sidelines, ostensibly monitoring RG3's status, as he limps around the field, clearly not right, and Shanahan making the decision to allow him to continue playing, with the safety net of having Andrews there as a quasi-endorsement for that decision. In lieu of Andrews telling Shanahan outright ... he can't play anymore ... Shanahan has this inbuilt buffer for any criticism or fall out, and by the same token, the Doctor cannot do anything but agree, if he did not directly object to RG3 remaining in the game. So what could he possibly say after the fact?
After the game, the initial secrecy or unwillingness to provide a definitive diagnosis is a red flag. We have this "question mark" about the extent of the damage, and told that they would reserve judgement on the ACL, and perform the LCL reconstruction and look at the ACL while doing so. Then the story shifts again to say that both will be reconstructed, and surgery is scheduled immediately.
In another thread, I told you all that during time of going to Florida for re-examination, Shanahan would be combing through the film, looking for evidence to support the notion that the additional injury occurred late in the game, rather than much earlier, which we saw with our own eyes during the second series in the 1st Q, and the subsequent total inability of RG3 to function ... run or pass accurately for the next 3 quarters of play. And low and behold, sue-prise sue-prise, Shanahan comes out with his evidence that he thinks it was the sack just prior to the bad snap, knee buckling event late in the 4th quarter that caused the additional injury.
That of course is "plausible" when looking at the film. Heck, such damage can occur without contact at all, and without definitive visual evidence other than the collapse of the quad muscles releasing when the ligament goes. (which we do have visual evidence of it happening in the 1st quarter!!!). Furthermore, the damage could be cumulative, occurring over the course of play from that point forward ... the already damaged LCL, could have given way in the 1st Q ... and that additional instability allowed for the ACL injury later ... or the ACL could have torn in the 1st Q. NOBODY CAN SAY with any rock solid degree of certainty. But what is certain ... and one best not overlook this fact .... the sack which Shanahan claims is when the additional injury occurred was a result of a player who was incapable at that point of escaping the pass rush, or protecting himself. So either way, it does not exonerate Shanahan or the Doctor for the poor judgement in allowing RG3 to continue playing until he physically could no longer remain on the field.
Now if you were born yesterday ... if your butt just fell off the cabbage truck yesterday afternoon, then you might miss this clear exercise of damage control and C-Y-A going on here ... but for anyone else that isn't an infant, the situation is a little more evident. The fact is, it would look T-E-R-R-I-B-L-E for both Andrews and Shanahan if anyone believed that additional injury occurred in the 1st quarter, and they both agreed to allow RG3 to continue playing, and risking ADDITIONAL DAMAGE to his knee for 3 bloody quarters of live football action, to include called bootleg plays, one of which was called in the freaking 4th quarter!!!!
Am I the only one willing to look beneath the surface, or scrutinize this official "narrative"? Come on ... this isn't rocket science .. just common sense boys.
Even Shanahan himself said that anyone who would ignore the Doctor's advice to pull him from the game should be "fired". Of course, that's a self serving statement since it is obvious that the Doc apparently made no such recommendation, so both Andrews and Shanahan are now in bed together on this, and both have everything to loose, credibility and integrity wise, by not sticking to the same conclusion favorable to themselves.
And if you were the doctor or Shanahan, which story would you prefer to offer the owner of this wrecked Lamborghini .... 1) that he'll be good as new for the upcoming season ... or 2) that he'd better resign himself to using his backup car for most of 2013, as his prized race car is pretty banged up?
I hope Snyder has the intelligence to see through this CYA smokescreen, but I'm afraid, even if he does, doing anything other than supporting Shanahan could place the Redskins organization in legal jeopardy of negligence in the safety of the player ... so it's probably going to just be swept under the rug.
!!!!
AND .. that's the 'good news' .... 
