There are a ton of medical studies demonstrating increased risk -- especially for people who return to competitive sport, especially if the first injury occurred when the person was young, especially for people who carry a lot of weight, etc.
It's not a crystal ball or a death sentence, just a risk factor. Even with the risk factor, he's more likely to stay healthy than not. And it's perfectly reasonable to say "I'll take Easley with a 5x increased risk factor of knee injury, because I believe he's 10x more likely than the next guy to make a major impact on the defense."
As I said earlier, I'm not crossing him off my board by any means. I'm just weighing the injury history in my valuation.
I generally agree with this, other than your (deliberately) inflated numbers for risk of injury (and, accordingly, of increased potential to make a greater impact).
The studies that I'm familiar with (and also based on discussion with orthopedic colleagues) are very crude. There are no universally accepted criteria for return to sports activity. The risk of re-injury ranges from 3% to 49%, a huge variation. There are clearly differences between men and women, some of which may be functional and others anatomic (greater ligamentous laxity, less supportic musculature, etc.). The data pretty consistently show that early return to high-stress activity increases the risk of re-injury. It takes time for ligamentization to occur, and denervation of the affected area may result in abnormal kinematics, especially early on. But there is still no clearly accepted measure that correlates with functional strength and decreased risk of re-injury.
Note that the discussion about Easley has moved considerably in this thread. The OP started with "Pats not drafting Dominique Easley", which was modified to "Opinion: Pats not drafting Dominique Easley" based on statements he made about not liking to watch football recreationally and liking cartoons. Now it's turned into a question of
how early the Pats should consider drafting Easley based on his ACL injury history and risk calculus.
My personal view is that the Pats should do diligence on both issues. No prospects are without concerns, and all should be thoroughly evaluated. Easley has been a team captain and has won awards for tenacity and mental and physical toughness, but he is clearly a guy who marches to the beat of his own drummer, and the Pats should carefully evaluate his commitment to football (which I don't doubt) and whether his personality would be a good fit for the team. They should also carefully evaluate his medical data and get multiple opinions on his likelihood of re-injury, given that he is currently almost 7 months out from his injury. Those factors - along with their evaluation of his skills and potential impact as a prospect - should all be factored in to making a decision as to how high they would use a draft pick on him, just like any other prospect.
I'm all for doing diligence. I'm all for factoring risk factors and other considerations into one's overall draft grade. What irks me is blanket statements like "the Pats won't take Easley because he watches cartoons and doesn't take football seriously" or "the Pats won't take Easley because he has had 2 ACL injuries". Those kind of blanket statements seem premature, and counter-productive.
