Here's how I look at this draft

[c_hawkbob]

It was always the ankle.

And being ready for game 1 is not the same thing as being the same player he was before the injury in game 1.

[HumanCockroach]

I agree, but it doesn't mean "not" being the same either. Honestly, does anyone actually know he had surgery at this point? I have seen both stated in varying locations. Seattle hasn't said ( or at least not officially anywhere I've seen) and Rawls hasn't said either on Twitter or FB or interview. So I'm not even sure he even HAD surgery, or any ligament damage of any kind ( which would DRASTICALLY reduce recovery time, and effectiveness on the field).

I know his cast is off and he's starting to work out ( which to me at least bodes well for 100% effectiveness 4 months from now) but nothing I've seen confirms surgery, ligament damage etc. Just a bunch of conflicting reports.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

Everything I'm reading says he avoided surgery. Brock Huard reported on Dec 14 that rawls didn't need any plates or screws, "no long-term ramifications". Ligament damage, yes, but no surgery.

https://twitter.com/brockespn/status/676466395618500609
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2579 ... and-return

HC's rotoworld links says the same.

Hopefully that means a full recovery by Week 1. Fingers crossed.

[c_hawkbob]

I have no doubt he had ligament damage, and no idea if he had surgery. But I have heard plenty of people that know more about it than you or I describe it as a "second year back" type of injury not to expect 100% right away. But you go on ahead.

[HumanCockroach]

Do you have a link? I've searched but I can't seem to find anything. I certainly would be interested in reading up on it.

Without there being a need for surgery, the odds of it being severe ligament damage is pretty much 0%. The only way to repair severe ligament damage I'm aware of is through surgery. Is there another way?

[burrrton]

But I have heard plenty of people that know more about it than you or I describe it as a "second year back" type of injury not to expect 100% right away.

What does "Second year back type injury" mean? Honest Q.

The only way to repair severe ligament damage I'm aware of is through surgery. Is there another way?

Ruptures? Yes. If it's just torn to some degree, it depends on that (and what your definition of "severe" is). Assuming your definition jibes with mine, though, you're correct.

[obiken]

Wow! Its just an ankle! come on CBob how bad can an ankle be in 4-5 months??

[RiverDog]

Wow! Its just an ankle! come on CBob how bad can an ankle be in 4-5 months??

It could be a career ending injury for a running back. They can't plant their foot and drive off it if their ankles are anything less than 100%. The fact that the Seahawks aren't counting on him despite his unarguably stellar rookie season is all the evidence I need to conclude that his successful recovery is anything but a forgone conclusion.

[HumanCockroach]

What recent RB has had a career ending fractured ankle that required no surgery? I'm not going to claim there's * no possibility* that he won't be 100% ( though based on zero surgery, no ruptured tendons, no need for screws or plates I would definitely lean more to the positive side of it). That said, career ending? Don't you think that is not just a touch, but a country mile over any realistic expectation?

I honestly cannot even come up with a RB who's career ended over a fractured ankle that didn't require surgery ever, much less the last twenty to thirty years.

[RiverDog]

What recent RB has had a career ending fractured ankle that required no surgery? I'm not going to claim there's * no possibility* that he won't be 100% ( though based on zero surgery, no ruptured tendons, no need for screws or plates I would definitely lean more to the positive side of it). That said, career ending? Don't you think that is not just a touch, but a country mile over any realistic expectation?

I honestly cannot even come up with a RB who's career ended over a fractured ankle that didn't require surgery ever, much less the last twenty to thirty years.

Ryan Grant, Danny Woodhead.

Besides, as I said, the Hawk's posture regarding the running back position suggests to me that they are very nervous about Rawls injury.

[HumanCockroach]

What? Danny Woodhead still plays football ( Chargers)

http://www.nfl.com/player/dannywoodhead ... areerstats

Grant ruptured multiple tendons, that required surgery, and still played two more years after the injury ( not to mention the 6 years he played before the injury. Retiring at a typical age of 30)

So I ask again. What modern era RB has had a career ending injury from a broken ankle that didn't require surgery? None that I know of ( based on those two examples none that you know of either).

[EmeraldBullet]

Lot's of times with ligaments if the tear is partial surgery is optional. Not sure why you wouldn't opt for the surgery though unless it really isn't that bad. Without surgery it seems like it might take a while for Rawls to recover enough to be able to preform. It's all speculation though as I don't know exactly what his injury is or what treatment he has received.

I will say the fact we drafted 3 RB in the draft probably means something.

[obiken]

River after 11 months and an ankle I think he will be fine.

[NorthHawk]

These days when ligament surgery is performed it is common to get into rehab quickly.
He had a cast on, so might that have been or still be a factor in his recovery or schedule?

[HumanCockroach]

His cast is off and he's been running for over a month ( April 1st). Doesn't mean he won't have a setback, but at this point he's running and walking pain free, and rehabbing strength.

[monkey]

Besides, as I said, the Hawk's posture regarding the running back position suggests to me that they are very nervous about Rawls injury.

What posture?
All they've EVER said is he'll be back to 100% before the season starts. They've never once waved from that ever.
Their entire posture has been NOTHING BUT positive that he'll be back.

I keep saying, you guys reading something more into the three RB's drafted are missing the point.
We're losing Marshawn Lynch, and Fred Jackson, and it's just a matter of time before they either cut or trade Michaels. We had THREE RB's to replace, so they drafted THREE RB's. Plus we needed multiple RB's to fill specific roles, we needed one to be the primary power running backup to Rawls, and another to be the primary third down back to replace Fred Jackson, and we needed so competition behind those guys to push the lot.
Hence all the RB's. I just can't understand why everyone is still acting so surprised that we took so many, WE HAD TO! We had literally, ONE good RB on the whole roster, ONE. Thomas Rawls, and that's it.
How is that at all suggestive of any anti Rawls posture? The only posture that is suggestive of, is they learned their lesson about not letting injuries decimate their depth at RB again.

[c_hawkbob]

What they DO is much more telling than what they SAY.

[NorthHawk]

They aren't going to replace Marshawn at his best, so this is an opportunity to keep the emphasis on running, but with a number of different styles. We might even be better on 3rd downs with Prosise, and still be tough with Rawls and one of the draft picks platooning. Running back by committee isn't always the best thing, but with full buy in, it might work.

[HumanCockroach]

Don't they always go into training camp with 6 or 7 running backs? There was three rookie backs last year as well, and also Lynch, Micheal, Turbin...

[NorthHawk]

It looks like they have been trying to find the replacement for Lynch for a few years.
It was an obvious thing to prepare for and they took a few shots in the draft and UFA.
We'll see how these guys look in a few months.

[monkey]

What they DO is much more telling than what they SAY.

What they DID was fill two (likely) retirements, and get someone to push Michaels, (probably out the door).
Drafting three RB's when we had virtually ONE, isn't necessarily saying anything about Rawls injury. It IS ABSOLUTELY saying that Lynch and Jackson are gone, and needed to be replaced though.

EDIT: If there's any "stance" you could read anything into, it's the stance they are taking on C Mike, who they already traded once, and now have brought in a bunch of guys to replace him.

[c_hawkbob]

Jackson was never more than a short term deal anyway, and we've been planning on Lynch's retirement for a couple years now. Rawls, before the injury was the obvious heir apparent for Lynch, but now that he's a question mark (and the fact that the team sees him as a question mark is the point) the team took the unprecedented (in the 7 round era) step of drafting 3 running backs in the same draft and you're telling us it's not an unusual "posture" for the team to take because of something they said. I'm merely pointing out that actions speak louder than words.

# of RB's drafted in the Pete Carroll era:

2010: 0
2011: 0
2012: 1
2013: 2
2014: 1
2015: 0
2016: 3

4 in six years and then 3 in one. I'm not saying it means Rawls' career is over, but I'm in agreement with Dog that it at least means they recognize that we may need a plan B.

[monkey]

Jackson was never more than a short term deal anyway,

Yes, but he still needed to be replaced, short term deal or not. Now Prosise will do just that.

and we've been planning on Lynch's retirement for a couple years now.[/b]

Knowing that the day is soon coming when he retires, and actually planning are two different things. Until recently, they'd known that he would soon be retiring, at the draft, they implemented another part of a plan to replace him.
Again, this doesn't really say anything at all about Rawls, except that, he was essentially the only RB we had, and we needed several more.

[HumanCockroach]

When was there any season, for any team, where there was no need for a plan B? There's always a plan B ( and a plan C and sometimes a plan D)... Using the backs drafted to assume concern over Rawls seems to be a rather large assumption. I believe Turbo was drafted to back up Lynch after letting Forsett go ( plan B before him) Rawls was plan B following Turbo... There's always been a plan B coming into the season, until this year under Carroll ( depending on how you want too view Micheal. It doesn't appear they are as confident in Micheal as plan B as they did in Forsett, Turbo and Rawls) it doesn't make it unique that with those guys on the roster they didn't feel the need to draft a RB, but without a "confident" plan B they did.

Each situation is unique, all three instances they were confident going into the season, isn't it possible ( or even likely) that without that confidence they addressed the thinness of the position? Creating competition creates nothing but positives. It pushes the guys already here, while giving the staff to pick the best players possible.

[c_hawkbob]

Knowing that the day is soon coming when he retires, and actually planning are two different things. Until recently, they'd known that he would soon be retiring, at the draft, they implemented another part of a plan to replace him.
Again, this doesn't really say anything at all about Rawls, except that, he was essentially the only RB we had, and we needed several more.

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree if you honestly believe that our drafting three RB's says nothing about Rawls. Seems to me you're turning an uncharacteristically blind eye to the obvious evidence to the contrary.

And ObS, yes, Collins is the Hammer (Pete's words) and Prosise is the third down back that will be asked to catch a lot of passes.

[HumanCockroach]

So exactly what Monkey said? ( plan B the hammer, and a replacement for Jackson)? Interesting you can play both sides of the fence.

[NorthHawk]

Maybe it was just one of those times when need matched opportunity so everyone wins.

[c_hawkbob]

So exactly what Monkey said? ( plan B the hammer, and a replacement for Jackson)? Interesting you can play both sides of the fence.

If you're trying to insult me at least speak in coherent sentences.

There is no fence between drafting players you can use and a part of the need for those players being an injured starter, both things really can be true in the real world (and almost always are).

[obiken]

I know C-bob Human has become a bigger loose cannon than Trump!

[HumanCockroach]

If I was trying to insult you Bob, I would just do it.

You're assuming stuff, you haven't the foggiest idea about ( again) and then clarifying something by repeating what Monkey said, that you disagreed with ( ie playing both sides of the fence). It isn't an insult to point it out.