Which Tua trolls? The lovers or the haters?FYI I was here almost 20 years before I was banned for getting into it with a bunch of Tua trolls. As far as your post is concerned I will say “DUH.” It was satire.
Which Tua trolls? The lovers or the haters?FYI I was here almost 20 years before I was banned for getting into it with a bunch of Tua trolls. As far as your post is concerned I will say “DUH.” It was satire.
FWIW bro, while I responded to you, I wasnt blaming or accusing you at all. If I came across that way, I apologize.I’m a fan of Tua’s and want him to succeed. To be clear, I wasn’t making a point specifically about Tua, or his injuries.
What I did do was share scientific clinical research in rebuttal to the blanket comment athletes are not prone to injury, since these studies suggest genetics do play apart in overall risk.
Your fourth paragraph about general causation/correlation really is most germane to the conversation I hoped would spark.
Agree it’s a slippery slope.
So would "always injured" be a better term to use? Is it just about word play to you?Im saying this is a slippery slope we are on right now.
If you can isolate a gene that proves athletes are more prone to certain types of injury than others, you may as well test for it and eliminate that athlete from consideration for employment.
If the argument is that the body does not produce adequate collagen to prevent an ACL injury, how on earth does that equate to being inclined to suffer concussions more readily?
When an athlete has injuries to a specific muscle, ligament, or tendon, I can see the possibility of genetics being a cause, as well as malnutrition, or improper rehab. Re-injuring a pre-existing condition is commonplace. Genetic deficiencies are common in other areas as well.
But my issue here, is how this all pertains to Tua.
The kid hasnt injured the same body part twice in his career, with the exception of his concussion issues last year. Cartilage issues dont force a femur to blast through a hip socket. Cartilage issues dont prevent a brain from being concussed.
This Injury prone debate has been spurred by people who simply dont like the kid, and im ****ing sick of it.
Show me that Tua has a genetic propensity for injury and I might consider it. Until then people need to stfu about it.
EDIT: After thinking about this more, I would be more tolerable of people calling Tua "Reckless", rather than injury prone. I just dont think his size or genetic make up have anything to do with his injuries.
Sure. What percentage of games encompasses "always"?So would "always injured" be a better term to use? Is it just about word play to you?
So it is word play. "Very often injured" better for ya?Sure. What percentage of games encompasses "always"?
To me, always means 100%
Seems excessive to me.So it is word play. "Very often injured" better for ya?
Haters. They’re all gone now. Lol.Which Tua trolls? The lovers or the haters?
No
- Can Bills contend without Josh Allen?
- Can Jets contend without Aaron Rogers?
- Can Chiefs win a Superbowl without Patrick Maholmes?
- Can Bengals contend without Joe Burrow?
- Can Dolphins contend without Tua...yes!
No No, I'm not talking about Tua specifically. I know this thread is about that but I'm talking about in general, for you, because you seem to get all up in arms about how people say injury prone or how they phrase this issue.Seems excessive to me.
Missing 2-4 games a year seems to be within normal limits of most QB play. Very often would imply more than 50% of games.
IF he misses more than 25% of our games he will need to be replaced. That should make you happy. In that event we will need to tank to get a top QB in the 2024 draft.
Yea, it comes down to reliability, or as Parcells would say, "The best ability is availability"No No, I'm not talking about Tua specifically. I know this thread is about that but I'm talking about in general, for you, because you seem to get all up in arms about how people say injury prone or how they phrase this issue.
Personally I would say so far, Tua is often injured or "injury prone" (with the meaning being, he is injured a lot, that is how most people use that phrase, not saying its right, because technically its not), and his absence directly effected our team in the last two years.
But in general, there are players that are on the injury list, a hell of a lot more than others. See Devante Parker, for basketball see Anthony Davis. Either way you phrase it, it doesn't take away from the fact
Yeah…right!Nah.
Show me a QB that hasnt been injured and I might agree.
Show me medical records that Tua has osteoporosis and I might agree.
There is no such thing as being injury prone. Tua has the same chance at being injured as any other QB.
IF, Tua is hurt again, and proves he is more susceptible to injury than other human beings then we need to tank the season and get another QB in the draft. Mike White and Skylar Thompson arent carrying us.
And then Marino became "Injury Prone" and never made it back to the Superbowl. Right?Yeah…right!
Tua has just been unfortunate…..
I’ve been watching this game a long time…there are definitely players more prone to injury than others….
Humans are not all the same in regards too physical durability, and there can be multiple reasons for this including style of play…..
I’m not optimistic about Mike White but I have not ruled out Skylar Thompson developing more in year 2?
I’m not sure why some think only 1st round picks can develop and make a substantial 2nd year jump?
Tua got pulled twice as a rookie and didn’t finish the season….he improved in year 2.
Marino pro bowled as a rookie, then posted the greatest QB season in NFL history in Year 2.
Hopefully Skylar will make a big jump in year 2 regardless of Tua’s health status.
I'm not worried, but it isn't the same game being played today, and since that accomplishment hasn't been duplicated in a half century, it isn't all that comforting anyway.You guys worry too much.
In our only undefeated season we plucked a QB from the waiver wire and started him when our starting QB went down.