Okay. Fine. Let's get deeper into this.
1) Ryan Tannehill's ACL was never "fixed." So that part of your analogy is flawed.
In late 2016, Ryan Tannehill had a Grade 2 sprain of his ACL. This is a partial tear. The tear itself does not heal, so it cannot be "fixed" without surgery. If you would like to use your friend Google and research "treatment for Grade 2 ACL sprain," you'll note that Grade 2 sprains are tricky. Sometimes the treatment chosen is rehab and bracing to strengthen the weakened knee. Sometimes it's surgery. The reference you keep bringing up here, Dr. James Andrews,
is one of the people who recommended that the non-surgical route would be sufficient. Everyone who recommended that and thought it would be fine...was wrong.
2) Your analogy suggests that there were two completely separate tears to Ryan Tannehill's knee. Please point out any medical report from Dr. James Andrews, Dr. Seuss, or Zippy The Wonder Horse where there were two separate tears in Ryan Tannehill's knee. So that part of your analogy...is also flawed.
What occurred is that in August, after rehab and bracing, the knee gave way. If one wanted to get all snooty, one could point out that the ACL
still never completely tore. But that would be silly. The point is that it was now evident that he couldn't get by with bracing and rehabbing. So it was obvious that surgery was necessary to repair it.
If you want to argue the semantics of whether "re-injuring" the exact same tear in his ACL that was never repaired in the first place counts as two separate injuries, you're picking at minutia. It doesn't make him any more injury prone. If anything, it now makes him less injury prone than before he had the surgery.