Rob Gronkowski out of surgery, infection has cleared

[patfanken]

If Gronk is going to have this back surgery next month, I really wouldn't mind sticking him on PUP to start the season. That way he can go through his full recovery and have a few weeks to practice with the team and get conditioned again.

Obviously the media (and a lot of fanboys) will cry doom if Gronk isn't on the field Week 1, but I think it would be a wise move if that were the case. He's young and one of the most dominant forces in the league. Don't jeopardize his career over early season games. Bring him back week 8 or 9 fully healthy for the home stretch.

Healthy Gronk Week 8-Playoffs > Semi-Healthy Gronk Week 1

And just what indication is there that he even HAS a back problem??????????

To this point he has fully participated in the off season conditioning program. Has there been a single report that he's been anyway limited????????

He has been very visible at many charitable events. Has there been a single report that anyone has seen him limp or even wince making a sudden movement bending or twisting??????

If he was having the kind of back problems that would require surgery, why was he allowed to participate in the Newtown CT football clinic. Does a guy with back problems dire enough to require surgery spend a full day chasing after a bunch of kids all day????????

I just need to have at least some of these questions answers. I would have thought that most of the people here would be sophisticated enough not to treat rumors like they are fact.

 

[Raymond]

If Gronk is going to have this back surgery next month, I really wouldn't mind sticking him on PUP to start the season. That way he can go through his full recovery and have a few weeks to practice with the team and get conditioned again.

Obviously the media (and a lot of fanboys) will cry doom if Gronk isn't on the field Week 1, but I think it would be a wise move if that were the case. He's young and one of the most dominant forces in the league. Don't jeopardize his career over early season games. Bring him back week 8 or 9 fully healthy for the home stretch.

Healthy Gronk Week 8-Playoffs > Semi-Healthy Gronk Week 1

Bull****, If Gronk is healthy, he should be playing. He is a beast and fans deserve to see him. Pollard pulled a ***** move in 11 twisting his leg after he raped the donkeys the week before. Last year was a fluke injury. Has any Pats fan seen a broken arm on a play like that ? You people talk like he's Ras I. Grow a nutsack, watch your team, and enjoy it.

 

[BTTA]

And just what indication is there that he even HAS a back problem??????????

This is being reported in several places. Perhaps it is all an echo chamber, there is nothing to it, and you are right.

On the horizon is back surgery, and that will be tackled next. As we learned Friday, a back problem has crept into the picture. According to a source, the surgery avenue will be explored in a month's time as doctors will decide if a piece of disc needs to be removed.

Gronkowski had an MRI performed recently due to discomfort he had been experiencing from a disc problem during the past season and beyond. Now if Gronkowski does have that surgery, the combined recovery time with the arm is roughly four months - assuming no setbacks.

As for his status to play during the season, according to a source close to the team, it will be a coach's decision whether Gronk starts the season on the physically unable to perform list, which would put him out the first six weeks, or not.​

 

[mgteich]

1) Belichick doesn't answer such questions with honesty. He never has.

2) Be real, Ken. No, we didn't have PROOF that those who read the reports of the possibility his last surgery and the one before that and the one before that. We never do.

3) To me, "a lack of sophistication" is shown by a position that suggests that a player is healthy no matter how many reports we see, no matter how many surgeries the player has, and no matter what injuries he has had in the past.

4) Apparently, Gronkowski is going to see a doctor about back issues. One can choose to ignore this until the patriots confirm all the details of his circumstance, or one can make conclusions from the meagre speculation and reporting that is out there. I choose Option 2, knowing that I will be wrong a lot of the time.

5) I think it is NOT reasonable to ignore all the reports that Gronk has ALREADY had a precautionary MRI on his backs, associated with issues that started last year and will have a consult in 3-4 weeks. The report is that this situation "could" require surgery.

6) Ken, it is certainly a reasonable position not believe anything unless it comes from the team or from the player's doctor. However, such an approach is not that of the vast majority in the media or on message boards. IMHO, we should seek imperfect information, rather than ignoring it.

I just need to have at least some of these questions answers. I would have thought that most of the people here would be sophisticated enough not to treat rumors like they are fact.

 

[patfanken]

This is being reported in several places. Perhaps it is all an echo chamber, there is nothing to it, and you are right.

On the horizon is back surgery, and that will be tackled next. As we learned Friday, a back problem has crept into the picture. According to a source, the surgery avenue will be explored in a month's time as doctors will decide if a piece of disc needs to be removed.

Gronkowski had an MRI performed recently due to discomfort he had been experiencing from a disc problem during the past season and beyond. Now if Gronkowski does have that surgery, the combined recovery time with the arm is roughly four months - assuming no setbacks.

As for his status to play during the season, according to a source close to the team, it will be a coach's decision whether Gronk starts the season on the physically unable to perform list, which would put him out the first six weeks, or not.​

Oh I acknowledge that i could be 100% wrong on this, but you'd THINK that if his having back problems bad enough to require surgery, that there would have been even a sliver of evidence that he was limited llast season because of it, its limited him in some way during the off season conditioning drills, or at his MANY public appearances. Before these rumors sprang up, has there been a SINGLE report of Gronk limping, or wincing because of this "bad back".

People seem to have forgotten that since the Pats have drafted him, Gronk played in 43 consecutive games over three years, and has NEVER missed a single snap because his BACK was bothering him. The only games he's miss in his entire 3 year career has been for either a sprained ankle or a broken arm.

Its particularly irritating to me that without a SINGLE shred of visible evidence Gronk is being looked at as an injury prone player and rumors of his back problems are treated as inevitable fact

Like I said, it all could be very well true, but not a SINGLE person, other than myself is even questioning this pure speculation.


AGAIN - If anyone has seen him limp, wince, or miss a single workout or public event because of his back please let me know, because if you haven't please explain to me why we are even talking about Gronk's back. That was a problem from FOUR years ago.

 

[chasa]

thank god, i was worried they would have to amputate the arm.

 

[Rhodey]

Honestly, I've moved on from Gronkowski. I'm now looking at Jake Ballard and have high hopes. Cheers!

 

[mgteich]

On message board, we test for back problems by seeing if someone limps or winces. In the real world, Gronk has had an MRI and will have a doctor evaluate his back. Which appraoch is more reasonable to you?

And is really not possible for an injury from 4 years ago to be bothering Gronk at all?

Yes Gronk is tough. He will probably be 100% be midseason or before. He will do what needs to be done.

BTW, if I played through a injury last year, had an MRI and have a future appointment with a doctor, I don't think that I would avoid playing catch with the kids unless a doctor said that I should avoid such physical activity.

 

[Kontradiction]

Oh I acknowledge that i could be 100% wrong on this, but you'd THINK that if his having back problems bad enough to require surgery, that there would have been even a sliver of evidence that he was limited llast season because of it, its limited him in some way during the off season conditioning drills, or at his MANY public appearances. Before these rumors sprang up, has there been a SINGLE report of Gronk limping, or wincing because of this "bad back".

People seem to have forgotten that since the Pats have drafted him, Gronk played in 43 consecutive games over three years, and has NEVER missed a single snap because his BACK was bothering him. The only games he's miss in his entire 3 year career has been for either a sprained ankle or a broken arm.

Its particularly irritating to me that without a SINGLE shred of visible evidence Gronk is being looked at as an injury prone player and rumors of his back problems are treated as inevitable fact

Like I said, it all could be very well true, but not a SINGLE person, other than myself is even questioning this pure speculation.


AGAIN - If anyone has seen him limp, wince, or miss a single workout or public event because of his back please let me know, because if you haven't please explain to me why we are even talking about Gronk's back. That was a problem from FOUR years ago.

An MRI plus a visit to a doctor on top of a possible surgery usually indicates that the problem is current, not just from FOUR years ago. How serious the issue is would be the concept that's up for debate. But it does seem to be an issue, going forward.

 

[BradyFTW!]

On message board, we test for back problems by seeing if someone limps or winces. In the real world, Gronk has had an MRI and will have a doctor evaluate his back. Which appraoch is more reasonable to you?

And is really not possible for an injury from 4 years ago to be bothering Gronk at all?

Yes Gronk is tough. He will probably be 100% be midseason or before. He will do what needs to be done.

BTW, if I played through a injury last year, had an MRI and have a future appointment with a doctor, I don't think that I would avoid playing catch with the kids unless a doctor said that I should avoid such physical activity.

This issue is unrelated to the back surgery that he had in college. In 2009, the worry was re: whether or not he had spinal stenosis (the same thing that caused USC to refuse to play Jarvis Jones). The issue that they're evaluating now is a disk injury, which is unrelated.

I really wish that this bit of misinformation would stop being spread, if not everywhere then at least on this board. All back injuries are not the same, and he's clearly feeling the effects of a new injury that he suffered, most likely last year. By all accounts, it is not a serious injury.

 

[mgteich]

Thank you for the clarification. The error is mine. The reports are with respect to an injury suffered last year. No one has tied this back injury to the concerns in 2009.

As far as whether the current back issue is serious, I suppose that depends on what one means by "serious". In any case, we will likely no more in a month or so.

This issue is unrelated to the back surgery that he had in college. In 2009, the worry was re: whether or not he had spinal stenosis (the same thing that caused USC to refuse to play Jarvis Jones). The issue that they're evaluating now is a disk injury, which is unrelated.

I really wish that this bit of misinformation would stop being spread, if not everywhere then at least on this board. All back injuries are not the same, and he's clearly feeling the effects of a new injury that he suffered, most likely last year. By all accounts, it is not a serious injury.

 

[Avenger]

Oh I acknowledge that i could be 100% wrong on this, but you'd THINK that if his having back problems bad enough to require surgery, that there would have been even a sliver of evidence that he was limited llast season because of it, its limited him in some way during the off season conditioning drills, or at his MANY public appearances. Before these rumors sprang up, has there been a SINGLE report of Gronk limping, or wincing because of this "bad back".

People seem to have forgotten that since the Pats have drafted him, Gronk played in 43 consecutive games over three years, and has NEVER missed a single snap because his BACK was bothering him. The only games he's miss in his entire 3 year career has been for either a sprained ankle or a broken arm.

Its particularly irritating to me that without a SINGLE shred of visible evidence Gronk is being looked at as an injury prone player and rumors of his back problems are treated as inevitable fact

Like I said, it all could be very well true, but not a SINGLE person, other than myself is even questioning this pure speculation.


AGAIN - If anyone has seen him limp, wince, or miss a single workout or public event because of his back please let me know, because if you haven't please explain to me why we are even talking about Gronk's back. That was a problem from FOUR years ago.

he missed practice before the @buf game, prior to putting up a 100+ yard game, so it probably isn't a huge deal and is relitively minor

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Rob Gronkowski must be so relieved to know that, if he isn't comfortable with the medical advice he's getting from his Doctors, he can come to this Forum where, apparently, half the members are Board-certified Orthopedic surgeons who have opinions on his reported injuries, his possible injuries and his prognoses on all fronts. It's a mark of Gronk's own personal generosity that he even pays the doctors who have actually examined and treated him when he can get so much advice here for free.

I'm just glad that reports are good so far. Hopefully, he will be able to play next season at the level he expects of himself.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Thank you for the clarification. The error is mine. The reports are with respect to an injury suffered last year. No one has tied this back injury to the concerns in 2009.

As far as whether the current back issue is serious, I suppose that depends on what one means by "serious". In any case, we will likely no more in a month or so.

No worries at all, part of the reason why it bugs me is because I've only seen the correct information reported once, while incorrect conjecture is reported all over the place. Hard to get the right info when almost nobody is reporting it

 

[ctpatsfan77]

No worries at all, part of the reason why it bugs me is because I've only seen the correct information reported once, while incorrect conjecture is reported all over the place. Hard to get the right info when almost nobody is reporting it

To borrow an old adage, a lie can get halfway around the world and get naked pics on TMZ before the truth can get its boots on.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

No worries at all, part of the reason why it bugs me is because I've only seen the correct information reported once, while incorrect conjecture is reported all over the place. Hard to get the right info when almost nobody is reporting it

Why should anybody even be "reporting" it? Why are we even concerned about what might be "correct information" and what might qualify as "incorrect conjecture?"

This is between Gronkowski and those close to him and it is between Gronkowski and the Patriots.

We have no control over any of this. Knowing or not-knowing the details isn't going to make any difference in our lives, unless we're making book in Vegas or planning to place a large off-season wager.

Why don't we just let this play itself out, ignore the media reports and wish Rob Gronkowski a speedy recovery?

We will know what we need to know in August or September, won't we?

 

[vyrago]

Excellent. Still plenty of time for the worriers.

Worriers gonna worry.

 

[mgteich]

Let's extend that logic.

Why read reports of OTA's? Why watch films? Why watch camp or the preseason. After all, we can do nothing about whether a player is going to be on the roster and be productive this year.

The reality is that message boards and the media are places to speculate, with imperfect information, regarding players and the coming season.

Many factors affect the likelihood of a play to produce from the beginning of the season onward. Many emphasize college production. Many emphasize the combines, We see much in the OTA's and camp. And we see a lot in the preseason. But, about all these things, we can do nothing.

And so it is with injuries. Injuries affect the likelihood of player production. Arguably, the seriousness, frequency and nature is important, as well as whether the condition is chronic. Rehab times are important.

So, we can ignore Gronkowski's injury and just presume that he will be 100% for Game One.
After all, we cannot affect the outcome.

The bottom line is that WE can NEVER affect the outcome of any player. We can observe, evaluate and speculate. We can report and analyze the observations, evaluations and speculations of others.

So, to me, it is reasonable to whether Gronkowski will be at 100% to start the season. If nothing else, such analysis might mean that we take closer looks at the competition for backup TE spot(s) and whether we will carry 3, 4 or 5 TE's.

Why should anybody even be "reporting" it? Why are we even concerned about what might be "correct information" and what might qualify as "incorrect conjecture?"

This is between Gronkowski and those close to him and it is between Gronkowski and the Patriots.

We have no control over any of this. Knowing or not-knowing the details isn't going to make any difference in our lives, unless we're making book in Vegas or planning to place a large off-season wager.

Why don't we just let this play itself out, ignore the media reports and wish Rob Gronkowski a speedy recovery?

We will know what we need to know in August or September, won't we?

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Let's extend that logic.

Why read reports of OTA's? Why watch films? Why watch camp or the preseason. After all, we can do nothing about whether a player is going to be on the roster and be productive this year.

The reality is that message boards and the media are places to speculate, with imperfect information, regarding players and the coming season.

Many factors affect the likelihood of a play to produce from the beginning of the season onward. Many emphasize college production. Many emphasize the combines, We see much in the OTA's and camp. And we see a lot in the preseason. But, about all these things, we can do nothing.

And so it is with injuries. Injuries affect the likelihood of player production. Arguably, the seriousness, frequency and nature is important, as well as whether the condition is chronic. Rehab times are important.

So, we can ignore Gronkowski's injury and just presume that he will be 100% for Game One.
After all, we cannot affect the outcome.

The bottom line is that WE can NEVER affect the outcome of any player. We can observe, evaluate and speculate. We can report and analyze the observations, evaluations and speculations of others.

So, to me, it is reasonable to whether Gronkowski will be at 100% to start the season. If nothing else, such analysis might mean that we take closer looks at the competition for backup TE spot(s) and whether we will carry 3, 4 or 5 TE's.

Simple answer. OTA's and Film comprise (for the most part) public information. A guy's health is not public.

Sure, it's reasonable to wonder about a player's status, but in this case the speculation is vacuous since the information is and will likely remain private until we can observe his play in the aforementioned public ways. I just don't get wasting time on what is unknown and, for the time being at least, indeed unknowable.

"Closer looks at the competition." Isn't that what Belichick and his staff will do based on their observation of how folks play and on the medical reports they have?

 

[Synovia]

Simple answer. OTA's and Film comprise (for the most part) public information. A guy's health is not public.

I'm guessing you've never heard of the mandatory injury reports that NFL teams put out every week.