Exactly. Everyone here knows Rashan Gary is ALL OUT! He gives 100%.

From my perspective, the team would be best served with a mindset of trying to protect Rashan Gary from himself in terms of when he returns to action.

That's one of the problems with having so many draft picks in the early rounds. They're going to all have to be delt with at the same time. If you want the best players to play their best, you have to pay them eventually. You can't rely on replacing them with new draft picks.

I hope they have it all figured out, because they knew this was going to happen.

gg, if Gary has a big season in 2023 you are correct, the Packers will be looking at a ton of cash. I also think that Gary will at least check out the FA market just to see what kind of offers he receives.

If he sees that Love can lead the Packers to. an SB similar to Reggie White in '92 when he played against Favre he might decide to stick with the Packers. It becomes a matter of the $$$$ plus what motivates Gary. Does he want to play with a contender, does he want a warm climate team, does he want to remain a Packer, how much will his agent influence his decisions? It's impossible to know at this point.

Based on where we are at today, I would not pay out for Savage or Dillon unless they have huge seasons for the Packers. Dillon maybe but not Savage. What happens with Dillon is also a matter of whether the Packers decide to retain Jones.

There are definitely numerous issues with each decision. However, let the season play out first and then go from there. One play, one game, one season at a time. 2024 will take care of itself when it gets here and it will be here sooner than we know it. Thanks, Since '61

GG,

GBP have hired a specialist to tend to the salary cap, I'm certainly not going to think my shoot from the hip guesstimates are anywhere near accurate. I'm just going to state blatantly obvious things like $20MM / year is a LOT of money, and if star players have the latitude to play for that "little" instead of approaching 20% of the whole team's cap, that makes the whole team better. #52 is one of the best examples of "draft and develop" currently in GB, it would be a shame to do all that for the benefit of some other franchise. We can only hope LVN develops so well; further, we shouldn't be surprised or disappointed that he doesn't appear about to take the league by storm. Fortunately we have depth at edge.

#28 needs blockers to run behind, I still put that mostly on our O line. (And coaches) He's the right tool for very different jobs than #33 and I think he should be evaluated on that basis. Run straight ahead on third and short, punishing anybody who dares try to interfere. His conversion rate is a WAY more valid indicator of success rather than 1,000 yards rushing, just as one example. Our two headed monster probably comes in cheaper than any other stars?

No way can we afford a top FA next year either. Guys like 52 and 28 are worth building the team around IMHO. My gut feeling is maybe we could afford a FA by 2025, but keeping known greats already on the team should probably be a higher priority? I tend to think if anybody can come back from an ACL, #52 can. And yet his position requires such mobility and speed that it might take a full season or more?

He was pretty close to the same last year. What we may never know is how often he can be out there and how long he will hold up is just as unclear. His problem appears to be uncertain durability and longevity.

Forgot to add: If you're looking for matched controls, try this study, which arrived at a very different conclusion from the one you cited. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28467122/ You'll have to add the https://

Approximately 74% (28/38) of athletes who underwent ACLR returned to play at least 1 NFL game, and 61% (23/38) successfully returned to play at least half a season (ie, 8 games). Athletes in the ACLR group who returned retired from the NFL significantly sooner and more often after surgery than their matched controls. In the seasons leading up to their injury, athletes who successfully returned to play started a greater percentage of their games (81%) and made more solo tackles per game (3.44 ± 1.47) compared with athletes in the ACLR group who did not return to play (54% and 1.82 ± 1.17, respectively) and compared with healthy control players (52% and 1.77 ± 1.19, respectively). After the season of surgery, athletes in the ACLR group who returned to play decreased to 57% games started and 2.38 ± 1.24 solo tackles per game, while their matched controls suffered no significant decreases.

"Fair enough, CDH. I have no desire to joust over research papers that I haven't even carefully studied."

I'm not going to defend any of these studies as they all have issues. Personally I have avoided small studies for most of my career because they are, to put it politely, absolute crap because they end up not adding to our knowledge. I had a colleague who would publish similar studies with health outcomes on 30-50 people and nothing held up when large numbers were eventually analyzed.

"When I said that the study was "via" NIH, I simply meant that it could be found on their website, as you can see from the nih.gov domain."

I just wanted to point out that it isn't a NIH study or sponsored by the NIH. For those who don't know, the National Library of Medicine which is part of the National Center for Biotechnology Information maintains the Pubmed database, which is a collection of all the published papers on medical research (mostly in English) from a vast majority of Scientific Journals. The NIH provides funding for the database and the necessary computing resources for anyone to access. Many Scientific Journals allow full access to the entire paper where you can see clearly how they designed their study and more of the raw results that go into the abstract, while others require you or your institution to pay for access. Without looking I think most of the sports medicine journals require a subsription/payment.

"My point is that we cannot just assume that Gary will come back as strong as ever. Do you dispute that?"

The only person with any reasonable information about his recovery chances is the surgeon who performed his procedure. (Having distinct injuries makes this type of analysis even harder). If it was a clean ACL tear with minimal neighboring damage then I would say he has a better than 50/50 chance of returning to pre-surgery performance. One factor supporting a clean surgery is that he is back so quickly. We saw with Bakh that his extended return was due to a host of issues that needed to be addressed with additional procedures to clean up his knee. It's best not to assume anything as I think we all would be wrong based on Bahk and Jenkins pathways back from ACL. I don't dispute that there is still a significant chance that Gary doesn't regain his performance level from pre-surgery. I'm encouraged, with the little data that we have, that the difference might not be that much. But what do I know, I thought Amari Rodgers tape from Clemson looked fantastic.