Anyone else concerned about Tomlinson breaking dow (1 Viewer)

[Chase Stuart]

You could say that Holmes injury from last year, an MCL strain not requiring surgery, was just an injury, like a groin pull, but everyone is downgrading him because of this and his injury the year before, also "just" an injury. But each 'injury' starts to eat into production to the point that he becomes just another back.

huge differences between those two:1) Holmes has a history of knee problems. LT does not have a history of groin problems.

Does he? Last year one knee injury caused him to miss games. As far as I can tell, that was the first time a knee ever caused him to miss a game. I know he tore his ACL in college, but I'm not sure if that means a whole lot. Don't even know if it's the same knee.

holmes missed 8 games back when he was with baltimore with a very similar injury to the one he had last year.

Thanks Bloom, I wasn't aware of that. Still I wouldn't be too concerned with a knee injury from 1999. Holmes only has 252 more carries in his career than Tomlinson.

 

[Chaos]

After reading this post, I can't figure if Deep Out is just a tool with a hard on for LT or maybe Jesse Chatman's mother hoping for a big year from her son.

Seriously though, you made your point. Let it go at that. Its all speculation at this time so who are you trying to "convince" anyway?

You read 43 posts and then that's what you chose to say about it?

uh yeah... everything to say has been said although you seem to love to read your own posts because you keep regurgitating the same noise.Injury-wise, anything can happen. Is there some correlation to number of carries /touches with eventually wearing down? Yes, sort of. However as with everything in life, there are extenuating circumstances that must be considered.

Consider this analogy that I hope demonstrates the issues here.

If someone told you that after going through reams of data that 100,000 miles is the point at which all cars start to break down, would you accept that statement? The most common domestic cars do break down even earlier than this. The most common cars from Japan typically last twice as long at least.

I think the argument you pose is more like the initial car statment. What everyone else has been trying to tell you is that LT is a Honda Accord.

Avoid LT at your own risk my tool friend.

 

[DeepOut]

but the fact remains that LT has taken many more hits over the last 4 years than anyone else,

I disagree with this statement.

Cogent analysis.It's hard to be elusive when you're laying on the ground, as unprotected as the next guy, taking late hits than all season, and likely more because of the increase carries, to say nothing of the fact that he's been taking multiple hits per touch through the years because he's been the sole focus of defenses for most of the time and he doesn't go down easily.

No matter how nifty a runner he's been, it's impossible to avoid hits when they're coming 2-3 at a time you're exposed on second efforts or your laying on the ground.

Dude, he doesn't take many hits...I see all of his games. He's a freak.

Oh, I see now - I didn't realize. Faster than a speeding bullet, defies laws of physics, space-time continuum - like that?

 

[Bloom]

        You could say that Holmes injury from last year, an MCL strain not requiring surgery, was just an injury, like a groin pull, but everyone  is downgrading him because of this and his injury the year before, also "just" an injury. But each 'injury' starts to eat into production to the point that he becomes just another back.

huge differences between those two:1) Holmes has a history of knee problems. LT does not have a history of groin problems.

Does he? Last year one knee injury caused him to miss games. As far as I can tell, that was the first time a knee ever caused him to miss a game. I know he tore his ACL in college, but I'm not sure if that means a whole lot. Don't even know if it's the same knee.

holmes missed 8 games back when he was with baltimore with a very similar injury to the one he had last year.

Thanks Bloom, I wasn't aware of that. Still I wouldn't be too concerned with a knee injury from 1999. Holmes only has 252 more carries in his career than Tomlinson.

see my post above - priest strained the knee in 99, missed half the season. strained the knee again in 04, missed half the season. I would think the information gleaned from those two together (when priest tweaks that knee, its months before he can play again) is enough to factor this into his outlook.

 

[Banger]

Deepout, do yourself a favor this year and watch a few Charger games. I think you are looking at #'s and with an Eddie George type back ya, I might agree. In LT's case you need to watch him play to understand. If you watched him you wouldn't have made this post.

 

[DeepOut]

Deepout, do yourself a favor this year and watch a few Charger games. I think you are looking at #'s and with an Eddie George type back ya, I might agree. In LT's case you need to watch him play to understand. If you watched him you wouldn't have made this post.

Well, Banger, Llucks, Chaos et al. I have watched him. As I said, a great running back, elusive, much respect, etc. No doubt about it. Remember though, Alexander beat him by a little last year. And 3.9 ypc is 3.9. If some excuse that based on the groin injury, especially if you emphasize his toughness, you're only making my point.My point about Martin was that from 2001 to 2002 he dropped from 5th in points to 18th in points and stayed at 18th another year. He's closing in on Emmitt et al. for total yards, etc So he's durable, tough etc. Another great back. But for a couple of years there he disappointed FF players by missing his projections by quite a bit.

Anyway, As various of our cohorts have said above, we'll have to see, agree to disagree and so on. A pleasure doing business with all of you. Over and out.

 

[Gr00vus]

Let's not forget Holmes's hip troubles also.If you've seen LaDainian play (and you say you have), then it should be easy to see he doesn't take a beating very often, less so than almost any back currently in the NFL. Also he's not a jack @55, so there's no "funny business" going on in pile ups with guys trying to get a little pay back (if you don't think that goes on, you're naive).Here's more good/bad news if you're considering LaDainian as the #1 pick. The Chargers have made noise about getting Sproles playing time, specifically in passing situations, as they really like what he seems to be able to do in space. Also I think the Chargers know a little more about what they have in Chatman and Burner, and I think they'll get some more carries this year to lighten the load on LaDainian. I really do believe that IF the Chargers can get decent leads in games, Marty will be comfortable givng more 4th quarter/garbage time work to the backups. This should further reduce the wear and tear on LaDainian during the season and keep him more fresh for a possible playoff run. LaDainian is all about winning, so he's not going to pitch a fit about less playing time hurting his stats.So the good news is I expect a lighter work load for LaDainian this season - the down side to that if you're a LaDainian owner is you might not get all the numbers you would like. But I'm fine with that as a Charger fan, and I'd be fine with it as a LaDainian owner if I were lucky enough to get the #1 pick.Being afraid of injuries is valid for every player in the league, you can work yourself up into a fright with anyone if you try hard enough. What I'd like to know is, if you aren't taking LaDainain #1, who are you taking?

 

[BoltBacker]

I wouldn't say he's automatic, but who is in a better situation right now in terms of talent, age, system, supporting cast, etc. to warrant #1 consideration?

That's what I was wondering when I read the title of the post.Has there been a response yet to this question?

 

[BoltBacker]

No...like the other alltime great backs he rarely gets hit squarely.

Until he loses that 1/2 second that makes the difference between getting hit or not. I watched Thurman Thomas alot with the Bills and that's what happened to him and it happened suddenly. Not putting Thurman in LT's class but the point is the same,.I don't care what anyone says, more than 200 touches than any other back over the past 4 years is going to result in alot of hits, particularly when for most of that time he was the sole focus of the defenses as SD's only weapon and because he would not yield to that like some others.

a) That dropoff took a bit longer for Thurman Thomas, LT is still relatively young.

... and his other example of a RB losing "1/2 second that makes the difference" is Marshall Faulk.Am I mistaken or weren't both T.Thomas and M.Faulk franchise RB's up to the age of 30 or more? You won't find many of arguing Tomlinson will NEVER lose 1/2 second but using your own examples Tomlinson can expect to play at a very high level for another FIVE seasons.

 

[zamboni]

I wouldn't say he's automatic, but who is in a better situation right now in terms of talent, age, system, supporting cast, etc. to warrant #1 consideration?

That's what I was wondering when I read the title of the post.Has there been a response yet to this question?

Nope - too much back and forth over if/when Tomlinson will start to slow down, as opposed to the here and now.

 

[Chaos]

Let's not forget Holmes's hip troubles also.

If you've seen LaDainian play (and you say you have), then it should be easy to see he doesn't take a beating very often, less so than almost any back currently in the NFL. Also he's not a jack @55, so there's no "funny business" going on in pile ups with guys trying to get a little pay back (if you don't think that goes on, you're naive).

Here's more good/bad news if you're considering LaDainian as the #1 pick. The Chargers have made noise about getting Sproles playing time, specifically in passing situations, as they really like what he seems to be able to do in space. Also I think the Chargers know a little more about what they have in Chatman and Burner, and I think they'll get some more carries this year to lighten the load on LaDainian. I really do believe that IF the Chargers can get decent leads in games, Marty will be comfortable givng more 4th quarter/garbage time work to the backups. This should further reduce the wear and tear on LaDainian during the season and keep him more fresh for a possible playoff run. LaDainian is all about winning, so he's not going to pitch a fit about less playing time hurting his stats.

So the good news is I expect a lighter work load for LaDainian this season - the down side to that if you're a LaDainian owner is you might not get all the numbers you would like. But I'm fine with that as a Charger fan, and I'd be fine with it as a LaDainian owner if I were lucky enough to get the #1 pick.

Being afraid of injuries is valid for every player in the league, you can work yourself up into a fright with anyone if you try hard enough. What I'd like to know is, if you aren't taking LaDainain #1, who are you taking?

Does Marty have a history of resting his main backs? I don't recall this being true. LT is not injury prone nor does he wear down. Last year was a fluke and he played through it anyway. He lost lots of carries and TDs to Chatman and still produced in the top 5. I think we saw his downside last year while is upside has not been touched yet.

 

[DeepOut]

Guys - I thought we finished this up yesterday.

The point of my question was why no one seemed to be factoring the effects of LT2's workload ( and # of hits) over the past 4 years when making him the overwhelming consensus #1 projected RB pick this year. That's all.

If he gets rested by Schottenheimer, points might drop of somewhat; if he gets dinged as he did last year and Chatman et al take some carries, points might go down: if plays through various dings as he did last year as well as in the past, because he's tough, might not all that catch up to him at this stage of his career as it did with C. Martin? All in all, I think the # of touches a back has, and the hits they lead to, have to be a material factor of some kind in making projections and Tomlinson's an obvious candidiate for this concern due to 200+ touches he's had more than any other back over last 4 years.

Is this factor negated entirely because "he doesn't get hit much' due to his running style? I would suggest it affects it's significance compared to other backs with a different style, but when you include second and third hits which he does take due the very toughness and unwillness to go down easily you all tout, it does add up. And this is the way he runs. Elusive until someone gets hold of him and then fights for more yards more than most and pays for it. Takes uncalled late hit shots on the ground as all backs do, and since he's involved in many more plays than the rest of the backs, he takes more than his fair share of these shots regardless of how well he makes the first or even second man miss. No matter how you slice it, he does get hit alot. If you're sure this isn't true then you don't need to read the rest of this post because we don't agree and it the point has already been made several times now.

But, contrary to some of you, I would say this factor is not negated but modified to some extent due his style. Is it modified to the extent that it makes the "wear and tear" factor immaterial when making projections? Well, that's the question.

To me, I think it is a material factor, and because his projections are already quite close to some other backs I think it has to be factored in determining whehter should unquestionably be rated the #1 back this year.

If it were factored in, I think there is a reasonable one might reasonably figure that his production will fall off enough so that he falls back into the pack between 5-10.

In Tomlinson's case, this fall off may have already begun to some extent, as his fantasy points dropped from 344 in 2003 to 288 in 2004. More than 50 points or nearly 20%. At the same time, Alexander's increased by 38 points or nearly 15%. If it matters, Alexander is two years older but significantly 'younger' in terms of touches over the last four years.

Changes in production to this extent do seem significant to me. Is wear and tear over time a material factor in this? It seems to me it is. Of course, others may disagree. My point is that no one seems to be considering this factor at all.

Will it make LT2's fantasy production fall off the map any time soon, I doubt it, but that wasn't the question. Rather it was, why is he unanimously projected as #1 as he is? Martin is still a good example - great back, tons of carries for several years , various dings catch up for a while, drops off from 5-18th in fantasy points for 2 seasons in the middle of his career and disappoints those taking him in the first round, etc.

So, if any one wants to discuss it from that point of view, great but this stuff about "Tomlinson's great and you're crazy to challenge it" is beside the point and of no use to the discussion.

I'd be happy to get into it with any of you who wants to talk about from that angle.

 

[peter griffin]

I pooped a Cornish game hen.I ate a lava lamp but it wasn't lavaI ate some fiberglass insulation, it wasn't cotton candy like the man said, my stomach itches.

 

[DeepOut]

I pooped a Cornish game hen.

I ate a lava lamp but it wasn't lava

I ate some fiberglass insulation, it wasn't cotton candy like the man said, my stomach itches.

Peter's comment shows that sometimes , in order to get to the bottom of a knotty problem, it's neccesary to think way outside the box.

Mr. Griffin, I salute you - your comments are pithy and insightful.

You and all your ancestors are to be commended.

Oh, and by the way, did you this morning?

 

[Chaos]

Guys - I thought we finished this up yesterday.

The point of my question was why no one seemed to be factoring the effects of LT2's workload ( and # of hits) over the past 4 years when making him the overwhelming consensus #1 projected RB pick this year. That's all.

If he gets rested by Schottenheimer, points might drop of somewhat; if he gets dinged as he did last year and Chatman et al take some carries, points might go down: if plays through various dings as he did last year as well as in the past, because he's tough, might not all that catch up to him at this stage of his career as it did with C. Martin? All in all, I think the # of touches a back has, and the hits they lead to, have to be a material factor of some kind in making projections and Tomlinson's an obvious candidiate for this concern due to 200+ touches he's had more than any other back over last 4 years.

Is this factor negated entirely because "he doesn't get hit much' due to his running style? I would suggest it affects it's significance compared to other backs with a different style, but when you include second and third hits which he does take due the very toughness and unwillness to go down easily you all tout, it does add up. And this is the way he runs. Elusive until someone gets hold of him and then fights for more yards more than most and pays for it. Takes uncalled late hit shots on the ground as all backs do, and since he's involved in many more plays than the rest of the backs, he takes more than his fair share of these shots regardless of how well he makes the first or even second man miss. No matter how you slice it, he does get hit alot. If you're sure this isn't true then you don't need to read the rest of this post because we don't agree and it the point has already been made several times now.

But, contrary to some of you, I would say this factor is not negated but modified to some extent due his style. Is it modified to the extent that it makes the "wear and tear" factor immaterial when making projections? Well, that's the question.

To me, I think it is a material factor, and because his projections are already quite close to some other backs I think it has to be factored in determining whehter should unquestionably be rated the #1 back this year.

If it were factored in, I think there is a reasonable one might reasonably figure that his production will fall off enough so that he falls back into the pack between 5-10.

In Tomlinson's case, this fall off may have already begun to some extent, as his fantasy points dropped from 344 in 2003 to 288 in 2004. More than 50 points or nearly 20%. At the same time, Alexander's increased by 38 points or nearly 15%. If it matters, Alexander is two years older but significantly 'younger' in terms of touches over the last four years.

Changes in production to this extent do seem significant to me. Is wear and tear over time a material factor in this? It seems to me it is. Of course, others may disagree. My point is that no one seems to be considering this factor at all.

Will it makeLT2's fantasy production fall off the map any time soon, I doubt it, but that wasn't the question. Rather it was, why is he unanimously projected as #1 as he is? Martin is still a good example - great back, tons of carries for several years , various dings catch up for a while, drops off from 5-18th in fantasy points for 2 seasons in the middle of his career and disappoints those taking him in the first round, etc.

So, if any one wants to discuss it from that point of view, great but this stuff about "Tomlinson's great and you're crazy to challenge it" is beside the point and of no use to the discussion.

I'd be happy to get into it with any of you who wants to talk about from that angle.

Tool-Boy, I thought you were gone. Your point has been made and refuted soundly. Get lost. This will be Tool-Boy after the season when LT scoffs at the suggestion that he is wearing down.

 

[peter griffin]

sorry, i couldn't this morning. You better stop causing problems here DeepOut, some of these people are making LOUD NOISES!

 

[Gr00vus]

Does Marty have a history of resting his main backs? I don't recall this being true. LT is not injury prone nor does he wear down. Last year was a fluke and he played through it anyway. He lost lots of carries and TDs to Chatman and still produced in the top 5. I think we saw his downside last year while is upside has not been touched yet.

Actually Marty has a history of using backs in tandem, both in Cleveland and Kansas City. However he's never had a back the calibre of Tomlinson. What Marty does do is make the most of the players he has, he's no dummy. There's no point in Tomlinson being in games during garbage time - Marty knows this and he now knows he's got backs who can do just find running out the clock. I expect him to utilize them in order to keep Tomlinson tip top throughout the season. And as I said they are actively planning to get Sproles involved with the offense throughout the game.The thing is, LaDainian's floor at this point is something like what he did in 2004. If you want to worry about a 26 year old running back who's never had a major injury and who's running style precludes taking hard hits having a drop off because he had a few carries over the last 4 years, go nuts. But I doubt you'll find lots of other clear headed views sharing your opinion. And you still haven't answered who you'd rather have at #1, which at this point makes me think you're more interested in trolling than anything else.

 

[Synthesizer]

If you're suggesting that he will break down in 2005 because of his high number of touches each year, don't forget this.....You could have said the same thing after his rookie season, after his 2nd season, after his 3rd season, now after his 4th season, etc etc. He will always had a high number of touches and his running style has helped him to avoid any major injuries. He has just the right twist and turn to avoid taking a bit hit.Every RB who touches the ball a lot also has a higher chance of getting hurt during the year. But I'm no more concerned about Tomlinson getting hurt than W.McGahee, T.Bell, or Keven Jones (guys who haven't touched the ball as much heading into this year).

 

[DeepOut]

Look guys Groovus Synthesizer, et al I couldn't care less about trolling. If you don't agree that a back can wear down over time, fine I think you're wrong, for reasons that are self evident. I've made it clear I think obvious. It's a brutal sport and running back is one the most brutak position. On averageThe life expectancy of a runniIng back in the league is very brief. I know Tomlinson is exceptional as some other backs have been, but even so, he gets beaten up every week and has been doing so every week for 4 years I think it's foolish to argue that his running style materially changes this idea, again for reasons I've explained. Groovus - just because you seem to disagree, keep your 'clear headed' comments to yourself. If anything, I think that the group-think going on on this topic shows a lack of clear thinking. Synthesizer - I know any one can keep going from alot of carries but my point does talk about a given year but the cumulation over time. Again, I've repeated this ad nauseum in earlier posts.And finally, I'm not saying he's anything but great but as with last year his fantasy performance may very well drop again this year, making him on par with other elite backs, rather that an order of magnitude greater. Pick any one of them - Alexander, Holmes, McGahee, the Jones, etc. They all stand a good chance of outdoing Tomlinson this year.He did not outdistance any of them last year by an overwhelming margin given their relative opportunities. Again, I don't have to argue this - the facts show it. Did he outpoint all of them but Alexander, yes. Did outpoint them overwhelmingly, no. Did he drop off 20% in fantasy points from the prior year, yes. Is this in substantial part due to enormous accumulated wear over 4 years, I believe so.So again, from a fantasy point of view, why is he unanimously conceded the number one spot on preseason ratings? Who would I rather take is not to the point, but I easily live with some of the backs mentioned above and not lose sleep that Tomlinson would overwhelmingly out-do them this year. He didn't do it last year and ai think there's a very good chance not only that he won't do it again this year and might in fact be out-pointed by any of several backs. I don't think the risk of one over the other is significant enough to warrant all this uproar.I'm jusyt saying......again and again and again......

 

[Bloom]

the reason that LT is the consensus #1 is that he's the best running back in the NFL. you're overthinking this.

 

[Chaos]

Look guys Groovus Synthesizer, et al I couldn't care less about trolling. I

f you don't agree that a back can wear down over time, fine I think you're wrong, for reasons that are self evident. I've made it clear I think obvious. It's a brutal sport and running back is one the most brutak position. On averageThe life expectancy of a runniIng back in the league is very brief. I know Tomlinson is exceptional as some other backs have been, but even so, he gets beaten up every week and has been doing so every week for 4 years I think it's foolish to argue that his running style materially changes this idea, again for reasons I've explained.

Groovus - just because you seem to disagree, keep your 'clear headed' comments to yourself. If anything, I think that the group-think going on on this topic shows a lack of clear thinking.

Synthesizer - I know any one can keep going from alot of carries but my point does talk about a given year but the cumulation over time. Again, I've repeated this ad nauseum in earlier posts.

And finally, I'm not saying he's anything but great but as with last year his fantasy performance may very well drop again this year, making him on par with other elite backs, rather that an order of magnitude greater. Pick any one of them - Alexander, Holmes, McGahee, the Jones, etc. They all stand a good chance of outdoing Tomlinson this year.He did not outdistance any of them last year by an overwhelming margin given their relative opportunities.

Again, I don't have to argue this - the facts show it. Did he outpoint all of them but Alexander, yes. Did outpoint them overwhelmingly, no. Did he drop off 20% in fantasy points from the prior year, yes. Is this in substantial part due to enormous accumulated wear over 4 years, I believe so.

So again, from a fantasy point of view, why is he unanimously conceded the number one spot on preseason ratings? Who would I rather take is not to the point, but I easily live with some of the backs mentioned above and not lose sleep that Tomlinson would overwhelmingly out-do them this year. He didn't do it last year and ai think there's a very good chance not only that he won't do it again this year and might in fact be out-pointed by any of several backs. I don't think the risk of one over the other is significant enough to warrant all this uproar.

I'm jusyt saying......again and again and again......

Tool-Boy, you are a dope.Here is my attempt at being you.

Ricky Williams is clearly wearing down. He has been overused and as I have painstakenly shown you all this causes wear down. To prove my point I look no furhter than to the fact that Ricky Williams scored zero fantasy points last season. ZERO!!! If anyone disagrees with me that this is a classic case of a back wearing down you do not know what you are talking about.

 

[Tau837]

the reason that LT is the consensus #1 is that he's the best running back in the NFL. you're overthinking this.

 

[Gr00vus]

If you don't agree that a back can wear down over time, fine I think you're wrong, for reasons that are self evident. I've made it clear I think obvious. It's a brutal sport and running back is one the most brutak position. On averageThe life expectancy of a runniIng back in the league is very brief.

I don't think anyone's arguing this - the question is when and why. Tomlinson's shown no sign of problems with this - the burden of proof is on you to show how, and sorry, you just haven't.

Tomlinson... gets beaten up every week and has been doing so every week for 4 years I think it's foolish to argue that his running style materially changes this idea, again for reasons I've explained.

In fact he doesn't. You say you've seen him play enough, but it doesn't sound like you have. The bottom line is he's taken less punishment in four years than Jamal Lewis (for example) does in one.

Groovus - just because you seem to disagree, keep your 'clear headed' comments to yourself. If anything, I think that the group-think going on on this topic shows a lack of clear thinking.

Then again sometimes things are so obvious, everyone can pretty much agree. Such is the case here. Ad hominem attacks do not further your point.

And finally, I'm not saying he's anything but great but as with last year his fantasy performance may very well drop again this year, making him on par with other elite backs, rather that an order of magnitude greater. Pick any one of them - Alexander, Holmes, McGahee, the Jones, etc. They all stand a good chance of outdoing Tomlinson this year.He did not outdistance any of them last year by an overwhelming margin given their relative opportunities.

I don't recall anyone saying that Tomlinson was an order of magnitude better - he's just better enough to merit being a clear #1. We keep asking you to tell us who it is you think should clearly be #1 if not Tomlinson, yet you continue to not answer. Are you waiting for someone else to tell you this?

Again, I don't have to argue this - the facts show it. Did he outpoint all of them but Alexander, yes. Did outpoint them overwhelmingly, no. Did he drop off 20% in fantasy points from the prior year, yes. Is this in substantial part due to enormous accumulated wear over 4 years, I believe so.[

Wait I thought the paragraph before was your final one. Anyway, are you serious? 2003 was a phenominal performance by LaDainian, it's no surprise he dropped off just due to normal statistical regression - and even then he was the #2 performer. I'll take that from the #1 pick any time.So again, from a fantasy point of view, why is he unanimously conceded the number one spot on preseason ratings? Who would I rather take is not to the point, but I easily live with some of the backs mentioned above and not lose sleep that Tomlinson would overwhelmingly out-do them this year. He didn't do it last year and ai think there's a very good chance not only that he won't do it again this year and might in fact be out-pointed by any of several backs. I don't think the risk of one over the other is significant enough to warrant all this uproar.

I'm jusyt saying......again and again and again......


]So go with your convictions and draft someone else with the #1 pick, or trade out of the #1 pick and take your chances with someone like Corey Dillon. Us group thinkers would love to know who that person is, and why you think that. What I find curious is why it's so important to you to have us all agree with a position you haven't supported in any way shape or form. And by supported I mean your detailed statistical analysis of the historical record showing clearly that phenominally talented 26 year old backs who don't take hard hits and have had no significant injuries usually run down after their 4th season in the league solely because they've had a high number of carries those previous 4 years. Included in this analysis would be people like Walter Payton, Emmitt Smith, Barry Sanders and others.

Really, I'm all ears. Until such time you are a bonafide troll, and watching you repeat your little screed is actually entertaining.

Against your mythical "too many carries" problem, consider just my top 10 reasons why LaDainain is #1,

also known as the reasons he is "unanimously conceded the number one spot on preseason ratings" :

1)He's the most talented running back in the NFL

2)He's the focal point of a now potent offense

3)He's 26 years old

4)He's never had a significant injury

5)He's performed at an extremely high level every year in the league

6)He's extremely consistent

7)He's got no lingering contract/malcontent/criminal issues hanging over his head

8)He DOESN'T take a beating when he plays

9)He's been a top 5 performer the last 3 years running

10)He's option 1 at the goalline and in the redzone

There endeth the lesson.

 

[DeepOut]

Groovus - I think you get what I'm saying but are just goofing around now. You ask who I think is clearly the #1 back if not Tomlinson - That's my point. I don't think any of the elite backs have proven they are (as I've said now several times). If you're curious about precedent for a fall off likely due to in part to overuse, as I've said, look at Curtis M. Why did LT drop off to 3.9 ypc last year; Points down 20%; 4th year in a row not being the highest scoring fantasy back in non-point per reception leagues; total yardage down from each of the last two years? Wear and tear, other reason(s)? Who knows? If/when Tomlinson goes down this year I guess we'll possibly have a better idea about whether all the touches he's had have affected him. So, clearly #1 fantasy back? I can't say that. In fact, if he's the #1 fantasy back at all, it will be the first time. As they say - "you can look it up".So, why don't we just watch how it goes this seasonCheersMike

 

[cstu]

It's possible. Few of us can state that we have seen the breakdowns for every NFL runner coming. Tomlinson is the concensus #1 back this year more because of attrition among the other candidates than anything, I think: Holmes is old, Alexander and his contract status, etc.

Watch the preseason games very closely if you have Tomlinson, because that is where his main backup will be determined. My hunch is that mini-me (Darren Sproles) will be the guy you want to handcuff with LT this season, not Chatman.

Michael Turner?

Sproles? I like him but he's 4th string RB.Chatman showed that he could fill in great for LT and Turner has looked good as well. Right now, Chatman is still the backup but I don't seem as any better than Turner, who has a ton of potential.

 

[cstu]

Groovus - I think you get what I'm saying but are just goofing around now.

You ask who I think is clearly the #1 back if not Tomlinson - That's my point. I don't think any of the elite backs have proven they are (as I've said now several times). If you're curious about precedent for a fall off likely due to in part to overuse, as I've said, look at Curtis M.

Why did LT drop off to 3.9 ypc last year; Points down 20%; 4th year in a row not being the highest scoring fantasy back in non-point per reception leagues; total yardage down from each of the last two years? Wear and tear, other reason(s)? Who knows?

If/when Tomlinson goes down this year I guess we'll possibly have a better idea about whether all the touches he's had have affected him. So, clearly #1 fantasy back? I can't say that. In fact, if he's the #1 fantasy back at all, it will be the first time. As they say - "you can look it up".

So, why don't we just watch how it goes this season

Cheers

Mike

Mike, it's clear that you never watched the Chargers last season or you would know why LT only averaged 3.9 YPC - he played with a torn groin for much of the season. It was obvious watching him play that he didn't have his usual burst through the hole, but even so he was able to get 1st downs and score TD's. The impressive thing is that he did so well playing through the injury and being taken out in the 3rd quarter.

 

[peter griffin]

Brick where'd you get a hand grenade?I don't knowI have many leather bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahagony. There were men on horses, and nets, and a man on fire. I threw a trident. Champ I think I ate your chocolate squirrelI ate a big red candle

 

[DeepOut]

cstu - I know he had the groin, I saw how he ran with it - I started this whole thing asking if that wasn't something to consider as a possible indicator of trouble ahead for him. Discrete problem, indicator of things to come? Sometimes it's one, sometimes another. # of touches a contributor to the injury? Maybe, maybe not.But a torn groin seems like a significant injury for many of these guys. Some come back fine, some not so good. I admire LT for playing through it, as with all thes NFL guys , but sometimes with hindsight it's seems not to be the wise thing to have done as far as long term health goes. So as I say - we'll see. And to everybody - How 'bout we wrap this thread up? CheersMike

 

[DeepOut]

Brick where'd you get a hand grenade?

I don't know

I have many leather bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahagony.

There were men on horses, and nets, and a man on fire. I threw a trident.

Champ I think I ate your chocolate squirrel

I ate a big red candle

I like a nice pair of slacks. So fuhgettaboutit.

 

[peter griffin]

people like me because I'm polite and I'm rarely late. (inserts mayonaise into toaster) Years later, doctors will tell me I have an IQ of 48 and am what is called "mentally ######ed."

 

[DeepOut]

The Mexican restaurant Veronica visits with the girls from the station is named "Escupimos en su Alimento". In Spanish, that means, "We spit in your food".

 

[peter griffin]

I read through this whole thread and I must say, Great Knights of Colombus you caused quite a stir. Kind of like when Channels, 4, 2, 9, the Public Access channel and the Spanish news all fought. With tridents. And a man on fire.

 

[DeepOut]

"Where'd you get that suit, the toilet store?"

 

[peter griffin]

even the guy who doesn't know how to talk said something!You've been in third place for 5 straight yearsYea, well you're about to be in dead place!Public access is here, no commercials, no mercy!

 

[DeepOut]

In case anyone cares, first five year stats for Barry Sanders, that most elusive of all backs, who rarely took a solid hit, just like LT:

yr touches points ( incl. TDs)

89 304 259

90 291 274

91 383 286

92 341 217 points 20% < year 3 /B]

93 279 149 points 50% < " "

total touches thru year 4 1119

total touches thru year 5 1398

Tomlinson(his style brother)

yr touches points

01 398 220

02 451 307

03 413 344

04 392 288 18% <year 3

05????????????????????????????????????????

total touches thru year 4 1654 40% +/- > BS

Could be many factors to all this, but touches, even for the slippery LT, looks like one of them to me. Let's see how it works out.

Cheers

 

[DeepOut]

N/A

 

[Gr00vus]

All I'm seeing from those statistics is that if you get less touches, you get less points. LaDainian's worst season was his first, when he'd had ZERO previous NFL carries - was he worn out from his college carries and then somehow got a reset after his rookie season?LaDainian's "drop off" last year is easily explainable - the Charger team got better. The passing improvement is not readily evident from the stats, as the Chargers averaged just about 21 more yards per game passing in 2004 from 2003. The nature of the improvement was who was catching the passes. In 2003, LaDainian had 100 receptions for 34% of the total receptions, the most on the team by 30. In 2004, LaDainian had 53 receptions for 18% of the total receptions. Why? Because a) the receiving corps improved in 2004 from 2003 b) pass blocking improved in 2004 from 2003 leading to much fewer dump off passes. Combining receptions and rushing attempts as the total number of plays a player can be involved in, in 2003 LaDainian was involved in 58% of the Chargers offensive plays, in 2004 LaDainian was involved in 48%. So being involved in 10% less of the offense should go a long way towards explaining the difference in the numbers. I don't think it's unreasonable to attribute the remaining percentage drop to a nagging groin injury.Comparing just about anybody's season to LaDainain's 2003 is ridiculous. He WAS the offense that year. And this was no run and gun, greatest show on turf offense he was playing for. It's a tribute to how good the guy is that he put up those numbers in the face of a low performing supporting cast going up against teams who were entirely keyed to stopping him every single week on every single play.Discount LaDainain at your own risk, I can't think of who has more going for them this year to qualify them as the #1 pick than LaDainian, and that's really all you can ask for in your #1 pick.But I know what's really going on here anyway - you have the #2 pick in your draft, right?

 

[jurb26]

Come on Deepout, you should know by now just from reading this board that not only can LT walk on water, conjure food and water from thin air, but he also does not stand in the backfield... he levitates.

 

[Bloom]

Come on Deepout, you should know by now just from reading this board that not only can LT walk on water, conjure food and water from thin air, but he also does not stand in the backfield... he levitates.

he can bake the most delicious cake...play guitar better than hendrix...

LT is way cool.

 

[jurb26]

Come on Deepout, you should know by now just from reading this board that not only can LT walk on water, conjure food and water from thin air, but he also does not stand in the backfield... he levitates.

he can bake the most delicious cake...play guitar better than hendrix...

LT is way cool.

Indeed, LT is an amazing cat for sure. I do however feel his rep is a bit overstated by neraly all FF sources though. He does not have the same degree of seperation from the field that guys like Faulk and Holmes once had but is projected by the public as such.

 

[DeepOut]

All I'm seeing from those statistics is that if you get less touches, you get less points. LaDainian's worst season was his first, when he'd had ZERO previous NFL carries - was he worn out from his college carries and then somehow got a reset after his rookie season?

LaDainian's "drop off" last year is easily explainable - the Charger team got better. The passing improvement is not readily evident from the stats, as the Chargers averaged just about 21 more yards per game passing in 2004 from 2003. The nature of the improvement was who was catching the passes. In 2003, LaDainian had 100 receptions for 34% of the total receptions, the most on the team by 30. In 2004, LaDainian had 53 receptions for 18% of the total receptions. Why? Because a) the receiving corps improved in 2004 from 2003 b) pass blocking improved in 2004 from 2003 leading to much fewer dump off passes. Combining receptions and rushing attempts as the total number of plays a player can be involved in, in 2003 LaDainian was involved in 58% of the Chargers offensive plays, in 2004 LaDainian was involved in 48%. So being involved in 10% less of the offense should go a long way towards explaining the difference in the numbers. I don't think it's unreasonable to attribute the remaining percentage drop to a nagging groin injury.

Comparing just about anybody's season to LaDainain's 2003 is ridiculous. He WAS the offense that year. And this was no run and gun, greatest show on turf offense he was playing for. It's a tribute to how good the guy is that he put up those numbers in the face of a low performing supporting cast going up against teams who were entirely keyed to stopping him every single week on every single play.

Discount LaDainain at your own risk, I can't think of who has more going for them this year to qualify them as the #1 pick than LaDainian, and that's really all you can ask for in your #1 pick.

But I know what's really going on here anyway - you have the #2 pick in your draft, right?

I don't think the crowd liked that on, Grooveman.

But now I know you're just kidding with me. I know that you know that touches are touches, regardless of what else happens on the team.

On the other hand, if you were serious in making that argument, I think it's time to come to Jesus, my friend

2004 touches

Tomlinson 392

Alexander 376

McAllister 303

James 385

Davis 370

Portis 373

Barber 374,

etc.,etc,.....

All that happened with Tomlinson in 2004 is that he came back to the pack after 3 prior years:

01-03 touches

LT 1262

SA 1055

DM 823

EJ 1052

DD 306 (1 year do the math)

CP 651 (2 years " " "

TB 967

It is what it is.

So, don't make repeat myself again or I'm afraid it will be

"NO SOUP FOR YOU"

 

[cstu]

All I'm seeing from those statistics is that if you get less touches, you get less points. LaDainian's worst season was his first, when he'd had ZERO previous NFL carries - was he worn out from his college carries and then somehow got a reset after his rookie season?

LaDainian's "drop off" last year is easily explainable - the Charger team got better. The passing improvement is not readily evident from the stats, as the Chargers averaged just about 21 more yards per game passing in 2004 from 2003. The nature of the improvement was who was catching the passes. In 2003, LaDainian had 100 receptions for 34% of the total receptions, the most on the team by 30. In 2004, LaDainian had 53 receptions for 18% of the total receptions. Why? Because a) the receiving corps improved in 2004 from 2003 b) pass blocking improved in 2004 from 2003 leading to much fewer dump off passes. Combining receptions and rushing attempts as the total number of plays a player can be involved in, in 2003 LaDainian was involved in 58% of the Chargers offensive plays, in 2004 LaDainian was involved in 48%. So being involved in 10% less of the offense should go a long way towards explaining the difference in the numbers. I don't think it's unreasonable to attribute the remaining percentage drop to a nagging groin injury.

Comparing just about anybody's season to LaDainain's 2003 is ridiculous. He WAS the offense that year. And this was no run and gun, greatest show on turf offense he was playing for. It's a tribute to how good the guy is that he put up those numbers in the face of a low performing supporting cast going up against teams who were entirely keyed to stopping him every single week on every single play.

Discount LaDainain at your own risk, I can't think of who has more going for them this year to qualify them as the #1 pick than LaDainian, and that's really all you can ask for in your #1 pick.

But I know what's really going on here anyway - you have the #2 pick in your draft, right?

I believe LT is the best back in the league right now, however, I'd still prefer Priest based on the system he runs in. You could say that it will be expensive to get LJ compared to Chatman/Turner, but I don't want to carry both of those guys in case LT does get hurt. LT is a warrior, but I prefer having a #1 who has a solid backup when I'm using a pick that high on a RB. Realistically though, it's really a toss up and you gotta be happy with either one.

 

[DeepOut]

jurb26, Bloom - Why can't they see what we see??? I suppose there are none so blind .....but honestly, I am in a glass case of emotion about all this.

 

[DeepOut]

By the way gr00vus - one more thing

NO Mercy - Guppy 1.01 - Tomlinson

 

[cstu]

jurb26, Bloom - Why can't they see what we see??? I suppose there are none so blind .....but honestly, I am in a glass case of emotion about all this.

What was your point again? That LT is more likely than any other NFL RB to get injured because of his touches?

 

[jurb26]

jurb26, Bloom - Why can't they see what we see??? I suppose there are none so blind .....but honestly, I am in a glass case of emotion about all this.

What was your point again? That LT is more likely than any other NFL RB to get injured because of his touches?

I think the overridding point is that LT is not in the same class as guys like Emmitt and Faulk were, but he is projected that way by nearly everyone. I would prefer to take SA ahead of him and knowing some of my leaguemates, some of them would take Manning ahead of him. He is not a nobrainer #1 overall IMO, those other guys were, regardless of your scoring system.

 

[cstu]

jurb26, Bloom - Why can't they see what we see??? I suppose there are none so blind .....but honestly, I am in a glass case of emotion about all this.

What was your point again? That LT is more likely than any other NFL RB to get injured because of his touches?

I think the overridding point is that LT is not in the same class as guys like Emmitt and Faulk were, but he is projected that way by nearly everyone. I would prefer to take SA ahead of him and knowing some of my leaguemates, some of them would take Manning ahead of him. He is not a nobrainer #1 overall IMO, those other guys were, regardless of your scoring system.

I guess the only thing keeping me from locking him down as the automatic #1 is the loss of the Chargers OL coach and slight chance that the OL might regress a bit.

The top 3 RB's IMO:

1. LT - healthy, 26, 5th year, average OL

2. Priest - 32, most dominant RB when healthy, best OL in the league

3. SA - 28, 6th year, one of the best OL's

If you choose SA over LT, then I understand but LT is younger, plays injured, and to almost everyone that has seen him play, the most talented RB in the NFL. It also doesn't hurt that he has a coach that loves to run the ball, especially in the 4th quarter.

 

[DeepOut]

jurb26, Bloom - Why can't they see what we see??? I suppose there are none so blind .....but honestly, I am in a glass case of emotion about all this.  

What was your point again? That LT is more likely than any other NFL RB to get injured because of his touches?

I think the overridding point is that LT is not in the same class as guys like Emmitt and Faulk were, but he is projected that way by nearly everyone. I would prefer to take SA ahead of him and knowing some of my leaguemates, some of them would take Manning ahead of him. He is not a nobrainer #1 overall IMO, those other guys were, regardless of your scoring system.

jurb26 has got it, cstu. But also, I wouldn't I have brought it up in the first place if LT's fantasy production hadn't dropped off by 18% last year( his 4th, as with Sanders, Payton, Smith). 288 pts was his lowest of all but his first year.

I think Drinen's article here http://pro-football-reference.com/articles/iron.

( see article below)indicates that even the best iron men are more prone to losing time to injury than you might expect. This, combined with the enormous number of touches (and hits - a little under 20% more than Sanders in his first 4 years - I use Sanders because everybody on this thread insists LT is really slippery) makes me wary, especially when Sanders F pts dropped 20% year over year in his 4th year and 50% 5th against 3rd year!!!

So i thought it was worth exploring.

-----------------------------------------

Drinen Article

Everybody is an injury risk

Football is a violent game. No player -- not Eddie George, not Brett Favre, not Cris Carter -- is immune to the injury bug.

But some players are seemingly greater injury risks than others. You'll read in countless places this preseason that you should be somewhat wary of Fred Taylor and Ricky Williams, among others, because they've been injured in the past. Well, they certainly have been injured in the past -- neither of them has ever played a full season -- but does it necessarily follow that they are more likely to be injured this year? Common sense says yes, but common sense isn't always right. Further, there are numerous counterexamples.

Robert Smith, James Stewart, and Charlie Garner all had giant "Handle With Care" labels stamped on their foreheads last preseason, but all three turned in healthy and productive 2000 campaigns.

On the flip side, Mike Alstott, Marshall Faulk, and Duce Staley had missed a combined total of 4 games in 13 NFL seasons prior to last year, but they all missed time due to injury in 2000.

Of course, it's not hard to point to examples that confirm the common sense viewpoint, either. The aforementioned Fred Taylor and Ricky Williams would be two. Tim Biakabutuka would be another. But proof by example isn't very compelling. We need to look at this systematically.

The main idea is this: find all players who played a certain number of games one year, and then see how many games they played the next year. If the common sense is correct, then players who played 16 games one year (like Edge James) will be more likely to stay healthy the next year than players who played only 13 games (a la Fred Taylor).

Let's first consider the RBs. I looked at 422 RB seasons between 1988 and 1998. I'll show you a line of data and then explain what it means:

G no. AGNY PFS PFS%

--------------------------

16 233 13.7 111 47.6

Alright, what is all this? This is a summary of the RBs who played in a full 16 games in a given season (that's what the G stands for). There were 233 of them (that's the no. column). AGNY stands for "average games next year." So these 233 backs averaged 13.7 games the year after playing 16. PFS means "played full season" -- this denotes how many of the 233 played a full 16 games the following year. And finally, the 47.6 in the PFS% column tells you that 47.60f all the RBs who played 16 games in one year also played 16 games the next year.

FINE PRINT: the data set consisted of RBs who played at least 8 games and averaged at least 6 fantasy points per game between 1988 and 1998. I threw out any players who retired the next year.

Here is the full set of results:

G no. AGNY PFS PFS%

--------------------------

16 233 13.7 111 47.6

15 68 12.6 30 44.1

14 39 13.4 11 28.2

13 20 14.4 11 55.0

12 16 10.4 3 18.8

11 11 12.6 4 36.4

10 15 12.8 7 46.7

9 15 13.2 5 33.3

8 5 14.4 3 60.0

To smooth out the bumps, let's break that down into groups:

G no. AGNY PFS PFS%

-----------------------------

16 233 13.7 111 47.6

13-15 127 13.1 52 40.1

8-12 62 12.4 22 35.5

The most important piece of information here is the following: of RBs who played a full season one year, less than half of them played a full season the next year. So that's where the title of the article comes from: Everybody is an injury risk. At least based on this data, you shouldn't bet on any running back to play 16 games this year.

Also note that the expected difference between an iron man (16-game performer) and a injury-prone RB (8-12 games) is just over a game. An iron man has about a 50/50 shot at playing a full season next year, while an injury-prone RB has about a 35hance. That's certainly a significant difference, but not as large as I might have guessed.

This is the point where I typically pause and warn readers not to wager their kids' shoe money on this data. There are a lot of reasons why games played isn't a perfect way to measure health. First, it's possible that a player might have been perfectly healthy, but was just benched. I'm not too worried about this one, actually, because I only included players who were fairly productive when they did play (see the fine print above). Another reason for missed games is suspension, and another problem is my inability to distinguish partial games. Eddie George, for example, was credited with 16 games played in 2000, but in one of those, he was injured after one carry and left the game. Morally, he only played 15 games last year, but this study doesn't account for that. So as usual, this is not a perfect study. You can judge for yourself whether it's better than no study at all.

Aha, you say, but Fred Taylor has repeatedly shown that he can't stay healthy. It's not just that he was hurt last year, but he was hurt the year before that (and so on). Maybe the trend will become more clear if we look at two years instead of just one. So we'll do just that. Here's the breakdown by games played in a two year period:

G no. AGNY PFS PFS%

-----------------------------

32 92 14.0 44 47.8

29-31 102 13.2 48 47.1

25-28 61 12.7 20 32.8

17-24 37 12.6 10 27.0

FINE PRINT: all pairs of RB seasons from 1988-1989 through 1997-1998 in which the player averaged at least 5 fantasy points per game in both years.

The spread is a little wider, but there's still not a game and a half difference between the expectation of an RB with a spotless health record and one who missed several games. Again, note that fewer than half (47.8%) of the iron men were able to play 16 games the next year. Football is a rough game, and running back is a rough position.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the situation is somewhat different for wide receivers. Here is the one-season breakdown:

G no. AGNY PFS PFS%

-----------------------------

16 324 14.5 210 64.8

13-15 95 14.1 49 51.6

8-12 42 12.6 17 40.5

And the two-season data:

G no. AGNY PFS PFS%

-----------------------------

32 194 14.7 131 67.5

29-31 119 13.7 68 57.1

25-28 42 13.8 23 54.8

17-24 31 13.1 13 41.9

[same fine print as the RB data]

The difference between a sturdy WR and a fragile WR seems to be roughly equivalent to the difference between a sturdy RB and a fragile RB. But across all levels of injury history, WRs are more likely to stay healthy than RBs are. Again, no real surprise, but it's nice to be able to attach a numerical estimate to the difference.

Now check out the QBs:

======

1-year

======

G no. AGNY PFS PFS%

-----------------------------

16 96 12.9 36 37.5

13-15 97 12.0 26 26.8

8-12 71 10.6 17 23.9

======

2-year

======

G no. AGNY PFS PFS%

-----------------------------

32 34 12.9 15 44.1

29-31 65 12.4 21 32.3

25-28 60 12.6 13 21.7

17-24 43 9.6 10 23.3

[same fine print as the RBs and WRs, but the minimum fantasy point production needed for inclusion was 9 points per game for the 1-year data and 8 points per game for both years for the 2-year data.]

Quarterbacks just flat out shouldn't be expected to play 16 games, except those named Brett Favre. I didn't realize just how grim the situation was. Although from an injury standpoint, it's probably not as grim as it appears here. Since only one QB can play at a time, QBs are probably a lot more likely to lose time due to non-injury reasons than RBs or WRs are. And that is probably skewing these numbers downward a little.

Conclusions

Here is a brief summary of what we've seen here:

Expected Number of Probability of Playing

Player Games This Year 16 Games This Year

-------------------------------------------------------------

Edgerrin James 14 about 50%

Fred Taylor 12 or 13 30 - 35%

Torry Holt 15 65 - 70%

Terry Glenn 13 or 14 40 - 50%

Peyton Manning 13 ? 40 - 50% ?

Chris Chandler 10 to 12 ? 20 - 30% ?

Now don't take this too literally. When I say "Edgerrin James" I really mean "an RB with no recent history of injury." Likewise, "Terry Glenn" is shorthand for "a WR who has been injured quite a bit in the past." (I've got question marks on all the QB estimates because I'm not convinced this is an appropriate way to study them (although I'm not convinced it's not, either).) And of course, every player has his own unique situation that makes him different from the "typical" player who is being assessed here. So this shouldn't be taken as anything other than a rough starting point for your assessments of injury risk.

If the numbers above are about what you would have guessed, then you've got confirmation that your intuition was right on. If not, maybe now you've got something to think about.

Data

 

[cstu]

jurb26 has got it, cstu.But also, I wouldn't I have brought it up in the first place if LT's fantasy production hadn't dropped off by 18% last year( his 4th, as with Sanders, Payton, Smith). 288 pts was his lowest of all but his first year.I think Drinen's article here http://pro-football-reference.com/articles/iron.( see article below)indicates that even the best iron men are more prone to losing time to injury than you might expect. This, combined with the enormous number of touches (and hits - a little under 20% more than Sanders in his first 4 years - I use Sanders because everybody on this thread insists LT is really slippery) makes me wary, especially when Sanders F pts dropped 2)5 year over year in his 4th year and 50% 5th against 3rd year!!!

So anytime a guy's production drops off because of injury you are going to say that he's suddenly more likely to get injured? Using Sanders' numbers is ridiculous since, say this with me, they are two completely different people.I guess by your standards we shouldn't draft any RB's that have been in the league more than 4 years right? This is nonsense and you should know better. Could LT get injured this year? Yes, he's a human being like anyone else. But the thing you should pay more attention to are what injuries he's had compared to other RB's. Not only has LT never had knee problems (unlike most of the top RB's in the league), he's even played through the injuries he has had (ala Emmitt). He's missed 1 game in his entire career (last year) and he was playing with a extremely painful groin injury for half the season. LT injury history

 

[peter griffin]

apparently my son was on something called acid and was firing a bow and arrow into a crowd.