Surgery for Hearst tomorrow!
John Walsh
operation on his left ankle. This latest operation is to remove a small
piece of bone that has regrown in his ankle.
"Sources close to Hearst said the surgery did not represent a setback in
his ongoing rehabilitation."
J.W.
King Pineapple
John Walsh <j1w...@lava.net> wrote in message
news:3A5D6D6E...@lava.net...
If it were his FIRST operation, I would agree with the closing statement,
but my guess is that since it's his 3rd operation that you may see him
"lose" a step as a result. This is what I'm worried about with RW in New
Orleans.
poldy
"King Pineapple" <saddl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
That's a ridiculous claim. The surgery itself causes trauma and he
can't put weight on that ankle for an extended period, during which his
muscles atrophy. He'll have to rehab to build it back up, in addition
to regaining range of motion of the joint.
Rob Whiteman
Not a setback? The guy's been out for TWO years.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
King Pineapple
poldy <h...@nospam.kfu.com> wrote in message
news:hyn-39AAC3.1...@news.rdc1.sfba.home.com...
My point is based on personal experience and that of others. No matter what
any "medical professional" will tell you, you're NEVER any "better" after
invasive surgery, especially of the bone type, especially in the long run.
Especially if you're a running back.
poldy
"King Pineapple" <saddl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Hmmm. Some athletes weren't slowed down that much by surgery. In fact,
a common response is that they're better for the rehabilitation because
it makes the person rehabbing get on a regular regimen where they may
not have always done so before. That was my experience.
But I remember Orel Herscheiser had surgery and built up a lot of upper
body muscle in rehab. Not that it necessarily did him any good...
frames
before commenting, it would have been perfect!! You arrogant twit!!
Spike wrote:
> Such complete and utter bullshit I couldn't even force myself to
> comment on it when I first saw it.
John Walsh
Sorry, but the additional surgery is to remove excess bone and scar
tissue. That should give him back the flexibility that would signal a
"gain" in that step. Most of his problems are related to the excess
bone that grew as a result of his previous surgeries.
If they get him to move the joint while he rehabs, he should do much
better. His first two surgeries involved spending time with the joint
immobilized. As a result, this allowed scar tissue to form that limited
the motion in his joint. Because of all the bone graft material, the
grinding of bone to make room for the graft, bone gets seeded into the
tissue.
With the rich blood supply, bone will grow in places that it doesn't
normally grow. That is probably what happened to Hearst. They removed
the "heterotopic" bone near the joint to increase his range of motion.
I'm betting that once he gets his flexibility back, he'll have no
problems playing again.
How did Ricky do during the last playoff game, King?
msniner
"Spike" <Spike@Emmitt's.Ranch> wrote in message
news:runu5tcig4uo6iamj...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 19:47:08 +0000 (UTC), Phillip Geiger
> <gei...@cs.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>
> >: "Sources close to Hearst said the surgery did not represent a setback
in
> >: his ongoing rehabilitation."
> >
> >Complete and utter bullshit.
>
> Such complete and utter bullshit I couldn't even force myself to
> comment on it when I first saw it.
Bill Williams
or someone else, it doesn't matter as we can get by with most anyone at
that position. My recommendation (drumroll frames) is beef up the
corners and fire the coaches.
goni...@my-deja.com
It's the off-season you moron, it's not like it happened in training
camp. Still, we all appreciate your insightful and newsworty post....
msniner
"Bill Williams" <bw88...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:793-3A6...@storefull-158.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Bill our CB's are not midgets with the exception of Webster
who has two INT's.
frames
could use some stronger backup and help on nickle and dime. As for firing
coaches, if one listens to you, there are no good coaches. So we may as well
keep what we have!!!
John Walsh
>
> John Walsh <j1w...@lava.net> wrote:
> : CBS Sportsline reports that Garrison Hearst will undergo his third
> : operation on his left ankle. This latest operation is to remove a small
> : piece of bone that has regrown in his ankle.
>
>
> Especially considering the cap problems, the 49ers can't keep paying
> him to drive back and forth between the hospital and the rehab facility.
>
> : "Sources close to Hearst said the surgery did not represent a setback in
> : his ongoing rehabilitation."
>
> Complete and utter bullshit.
>
> --
> Phil Geiger
> gei...@cs.ucdavis.edu
If they renegotiate his contract, he won't be that big a liability to
the cap. He deserves the chance to come back, if he can. That's not to
say that they should keep him around, but he still deserves the chance,
right?
msniner
and he does deserve that chance.
BW
> and he's been out too long.
Yeah, and all the "experts" said Joe Montana would never play again
after tearing ligaments in his throwing arm in the '91 Pre Season and
missing two years.
BW
--
Remove both letters "x" in email address to reply.
frames
Spike wrote:
> The
> guy is 30 years old and has started 16 games in a season only once out
> of a possible eight.
frames
Spike wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 08:33:36 -0800, frames <fra...@mcn.org> wrote:
>
> >All ancient history Spike, it's NEXT season that this is all about now!!
>
> That's the point. I don't think Hearst has a "next season" in him.
frames
case, the Cowboys should really clean house this coming season and dump about
7-8 starters!!
Spike wrote:
> As long as the 49ers are dumb enough to keep him on the payroll, sure.
> They'll push him to come back. He'll come back and play 8 games or so
> before he gets hurt and the whole process will start over again.
>
BW
Thank god you cleared that up for me, Spike.
>Besides, Montana actually played in a game for the Chiefs in 1992.
Try this: he played the last half of a game for the 49ers on MNF vs the
Detroit Lions in 1992.
I'll have to start explaining myself since this stuff FREQUENTLY seems
to be beyond your grasp. Joe Montana suffered an injury that virtually
no other professional athlete had overcome, and at the age of 35, almost
every so-called "expert" wrote him off. Bone heals better than
ligaments. THEREFORE, it is possible that Hearst has a chance, and I
believe a damned good one, of returning.
Oh, but it's not the same type of injury.
True, however the analysis remains the same. Players often come back
now from injuries that 25 years ago would have been career ending.
If Hearst makes it back, great. If not, then it was a valiant effort.
I worked in a hospital for 5 years, so I know a little something about
the "odds" and all that stuff, but why don't we give him a chance before
we write him off?
John Walsh
Why the drum roll, genius? That's the same rant you've mouthed all
season.
Rob Whiteman
Sure, let's go sign Derek Loville. He can do the job.
Take away the running game, and Garcia doesn't go to the Pro Bowl.
ColStripe
"John Walsh" <j1w...@lava.net> wrote in message
news:3A5D6D6E...@lava.net...
John Walsh
> : the cap.
>
> Renegotiating contracts was what got us into this cap mess in the first
> place.
>
> : He deserves the chance to come back, if he can. That's not to
> : say that they should keep him around, but he still deserves the chance,
> : right?
>
> just have to cut your losses and move on.
>
> If Hearst agreed to renegotiate his contract down to the league minimum,
> with no signing bonus, sure keep him. Maybe an incentive based contract
> would work. But be realistic - what are the chances of ANY athelete
> agreeing to a massive pay cut? A real pay cut, that is, not just a
> postponed raise disguised as a pay cut.
>
> --
> Phil Geiger
> gei...@cs.ucdavis.edu
Actually, he hasn't had any kind of chance, Phil. Surgery and the loss
of circulation didn't provide him with anything close to an opportunity
to prove whether he could play or not play. Sure, I'd cut him if he
can't make it, however, he's always been a reasonable player and willing
to do anything for the team.
J.W.
Ian Westcott
:> We're not talking about Joe Montana.
: Thank god you cleared that up for me, Spike.
:>Besides, Montana actually played in a game for the Chiefs in 1992.
: Try this: he played the last half of a game for the 49ers on MNF vs the
: Detroit Lions in 1992.
: I'll have to start explaining myself since this stuff FREQUENTLY seems
: to be beyond your grasp. Joe Montana suffered an injury that virtually
: no other professional athlete had overcome, and at the age of 35, almost
: every so-called "expert" wrote him off. Bone heals better than
: ligaments. THEREFORE, it is possible that Hearst has a chance, and I
: believe a damned good one, of returning.
Quite frankly, quarterbacks can often afford to lose a little mobility.
Running backs like Hearst need to be at the point where they were before
the injury began. If, say, Garcia has an injury like Hearst's, it
wouldn't be nearly so career-threatening as it is for the running back.
--
Ian Westcott Rakarra@IRC
rak...@pacbell.net
Leonard
Rob Whiteman wrote in message <9403cg$dhj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
And neither does Owens. Take away Garcia and Garner can buy a ticket to the
game too.
BW
> layoff and be worth a damn?
Arnold Schwarzenegger retired from professional body building in 1975
and returned in 1980 to take the Mr. Olympia World Championship. George
Foreman returned from a 10 year layoff in professional boxing and
captured the IBF Heavyweight Title Nov. 5, 1994. After beginning 1996
as the No. 1 ranked cyclist in the World, Lance Armstrong in October of
the same year was diagnosed with Testicular Cancer which had spread to
his brain and lungs, and given a 50/50 chance to survive the initial
chemotherapy. In May, 1998 he began competing again and in 1999, won
the Tour de France.
I could go on, but I think the point has been made.
> Hasn't everyone been giving him a chance? 2+ years and counting since
> he's played.
Gosh, you're right. Just because he doesn't meet the SPIKE IMPOSED
DEADLINE, he MUST be washed up.
Time to put up or shut up, if you've got the nads: I'll wager you right
now that Hearst will make it back and play in the NFL in 2001, or I'll
stay out of the Cowboys NG for one year from the day he announces his
retirement. If he makes it back, you stay out of the 49ers NG for a
year starting the day of his first game back.
Whaddya say?
BW
That's right!!! Man I'd forgotten that when Montana tore the ligaments
in his THROWING ARM and was in so much pain he couldn't pick up a menu
in a restaurant in the summer of '92, EVERYTHING was just peachy keen
since his mobility was intact.
BW
> >> layoff and be worth a damn?
> >
> >Arnold Schwarzenegger retired from professional body building in 1975
> >and returned in 1980 to take the Mr. Olympia World Championship.
>
> flex his muscles, and was able to come back and stand around and flex
> his muscles a whole two years later. Good for him.
I see you don't know much about bodybuilding, but then that really
doesn't surprise me. BTW, 1980-1975 = FIVE years.
>
> >George Foreman returned from a 10 year layoff in professional boxing and
> >captured the IBF Heavyweight Title Nov. 5, 1994. After beginning 1996
> >as the No. 1 ranked cyclist in the World, Lance Armstrong in October of
> >the same year was diagnosed with Testicular Cancer which had spread to
> >his brain and lungs, and given a 50/50 chance to survive the initial
> >chemotherapy. In May, 1998 he began competing again and in 1999, won
> >the Tour de France.
>
> Since when is Oct. '96 to May '98 "2+ years"?
It was 1 1/2 years until he returned and over 2 years until he reached
the top again. No comment on Foreman? Oh, and I almost forgot that
slouch Mario Lemieux and his insignificant return after a mild
affliction like Hodgkin's disease.
>
> >I could go on, but I think the point has been made.
>
> Sure has. You don't have one. Lump Hearst's situation into the above
> and have someone start singing "one of these things doesn't belong
> here".
Spike, have you graduated yet? I mean Sesame Street is probably more
your speed and I've already explained this many times. If you haven't
gotten it by now, it's a lost cause.
>
> The obvious thing that doesn't belong is Hearst. Schwarzenegger was
> able to train during his layoff, George Foreman was able to train, as
> was Lance Armstrong. Hearst has barely been able to run in a straight
> line when he has been able to run at all (which isn't really that
> much) over the past two years.
Hearst was back up to speed at the end of 2000, but since the 49ers were
eliminated from the playoffs, they did the prudent thing and held Hearst
out of the line up. There's also a huge difference between training and
stepping in the ring with a young, hungry 220 lb fighter ready to tear
your head off.
> I don't think there's really a question, now. He IS washed up. The guy
> has barely broken a trot in OVER TWO YEARS.
Unless all the reporters who saw him running in practice were lying,
he's back up to speed.
>
> >Time to put up or shut up, if you've got the nads: I'll wager you right
> >now that Hearst will make it back and play in the NFL in 2001,
>
> OK. So what are the parameters of "worth a damn"? I mean c'mon, the
> 49ers could keep him around like a lump of dead wood like they have
> for the past couple of years, but what good would that do?
>
ALL RIGHT, now we're getting somewhere. I take it you mean 1,000 in a
season. Also, he could sustain an injury of a different kind that would
sideline him, but none the less, you're on!
John Walsh
>
> On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 09:31:21 GMT, BW <zl1v...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >I'll have to start explaining myself since this stuff FREQUENTLY seems
> >to be beyond your grasp. Joe Montana suffered an injury that virtually
> >no other professional athlete had overcome, and at the age of 35, almost
> >every so-called "expert" wrote him off. Bone heals better than
> >ligaments. THEREFORE, it is possible that Hearst has a chance, and I
> >believe a damned good one, of returning.
>
>
> >Oh, but it's not the same type of injury.
>
> >True, however the analysis remains the same. Players often come back
> >now from injuries that 25 years ago would have been career ending.
>
> layoff and be worth a damn?
>
> >I worked in a hospital for 5 years, so I know a little something about
> >the "odds" and all that stuff, but why don't we give him a chance before
> >we write him off?
>
> he's played.
When the last time any player took two years away from the game and came
back? Why not Hearst? Is there a law that says he can't? Nothing about
injuries and healing is set in concrete.
Bill Williams
Ian Westcott
:> Quite frankly, quarterbacks can often afford to lose a little mobility.
: That's right!!! Man I'd forgotten that when Montana tore the ligaments
: in his THROWING ARM and was in so much pain he couldn't pick up a menu
: in a restaurant in the summer of '92, EVERYTHING was just peachy keen
: since his mobility was intact.
Interesting. And was Montana any good after he left the 49ers?
msniner
"Rob Whiteman" <carme...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:9403cg$dhj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Richard Lucido
>
> Take away the running game, and Garcia doesn't go to the Pro Bowl.
That kind of goes both ways though too. Garner probably wouldn't have had
the year he had w/o help from the passing game.
As for signing Derrick ".5 yards and a cloud of dust" Loville, thanks, but
I'll pass. The possiblility of losing Garner is real though. His contract
demands will probably be in excess of what the 49ers can afford, and that
may not be all bad. He is 29 and faded down the stretch. The 49ers are
pretty high on Terry Jacksno and very high on Paul Smith. Chances are also
good that they will take a RB somewhere in the draft, and PFW is saying it
might even be in rd 1. To lose him might very well be an upgrade. Then
again it could just as easily turn out to be a serious downgrade as well
which would probably put too much pressure on Garcia.
BW
>
1,000 yards rushing for anybody in the NFL. I obviously can't predict
if the 49ers will trade him, but he'll give it a go somewhere.
Bet?
BW
Not really. He ONLY reached the AFC Title game in '93 and then the
playoffs with a first round loss to Miami in '94. And then there was
that MNF game at Denver in '94 when he lead KC on a last second scoring
drive that Elway probably still has nightmares over.
BW
>
> That kind of goes both ways though too. Garner probably wouldn't have had
> the year he had w/o help from the passing game.
OK people, say it with me: football is a T-E-A-M sport.
I don't think anyone is going to confuse Dilfer or Collins with Montana
or Young any time soon, but guess whose in the Superbowl this year?
Care to guess how they got there? Hint: see first line of reply.
Richard Lucido
> > That kind of goes both ways though too. Garner probably wouldn't have
had
> > the year he had w/o help from the passing game.
>
> OK people, say it with me: football is a T-E-A-M sport.
Ok, I'll bite, where in my post did you derive the conclusion that I felt
football wasn't a team sport?
Arjun Rau
wrote:
You mean players' success depends, in some way, on their teammates? ;)
Take away Moss and Carter and Smith and Culpepper doesn't go to the Pro
Bowl. Take away Culpepper, Moss and Carter and Smith doesn't go to the
Pro Bowl. Etc, etc, etc.
Cheers,
Arjun
Leonard
Arjun Rau wrote in message <190120010854547819%mins...@poetic.com>...
Sounds like a team sport. I think that concept is being lost by the players
all too quickly. Then you get a group that plays together like a team and
its Super Bowl time.
>Cheers,
>Arjun
BW
> football wasn't a team sport?
Richard,
Sorry if I mislead you, but the response wasn't directed at you
specifically, but at those who keep posting, "if it wasn't for ____,
then ____ doesn't go to ___ Bowl, etc."