[Goose]

Many project him to be the 2nd-3rd RB drafted in 2018 [in the 1st or 2nd round].  If he runs 4.3x, this will likely be solidified. There is not major improvement to be gained by returning to college.  If anything, as a RB, his draft stock will drop due to an additional year of punishment in college as a RB only has so many carries in his body.

I agree, but for other reasons. First, will Love have a better year next year than this year? This year, he put up some monster, unheard of  numbers. Yes, they would have been better numbers if he was not injured, but is it probable that he will beat those numbers next year? Probably not a good bet. There is some "regression to the mean" expectation here. There are many forces, like KJ's improvement, that may result in Love putting up smaller numbers while actually being as good or better next year than this year. Worse still, like CMAC, he will be measured against what he did this year. If he doesn't do quite as well, it will be labeled "failure".
Second, if he does get hurt again, he will for sure get the "injury prone" tag hung on him. For a smaller sized guy, that is a disaster. His size already works against him. Couple that with a (bogus or not) "fragile" label, his draft stock really drops. The probability of a running back getting "dinged up" is pretty high. Not worth the risk because the downside is much greater than the potential benefit.
Love may not agree with the above evaluation. It is also possible that he agrees with the evaluation, fully understands the risks, and comes back anyway. If he does come back, in my opinion it will not be to improve his draft stock. It will be because he thinks he can help the team, he wants to graduate, and he likes being at Stanford. 

[Goose]

Many project him to be the 2nd-3rd RB drafted in 2018 [in the 1st or 2nd round].  If he runs 4.3x, this will likely be solidified. There is not major improvement to be gained by returning to college.  If anything, as a RB, his draft stock will drop due to an additional year of punishment in college as a RB only has so many carries in his body.

I agree, but for other reasons. First, will Love have a better year next year than this year? This year, he put up some monster, unheard of  numbers. Yes, they would have been better numbers if he was not injured, but is it probable that he will beat those numbers next year? Probably not a good bet. There is some "regression to the mean" expectation here. There are many forces, like KJ's improvement, that may result in Love putting up smaller numbers while actually being as good or better next year than this year. Worse still, like CMAC, he will be measured against what he did this year. If he doesn't do quite as well, it will be labeled "failure".
Second, if he does get hurt again, he will for sure get the "injury prone" tag hung on him. For a smaller sized guy, that is a disaster. His size already works against him. Couple that with a (bogus or not) "fragile" label, his draft stock really drops. The probability of a running back getting "dinged up" is pretty high. Not worth the risk because the downside is much greater than the potential benefit.
Love may not agree with the above evaluation. It is also possible that he agrees with the evaluation, fully understands the risks, and comes back anyway. If he does come back, in my opinion it will not be to improve his draft stock. It will be because he thinks he can help the team, he wants to graduate, and he likes being at Stanford. 

[stupac2]

[quote author=Remy74 link=topic=18294.msg217377#msg217377 date=1512662092]
Many project him to be the 2nd-3rd RB drafted in 2018 [in the 1st or 2nd round].  If he runs 4.3x, this will likely be solidified. There is not major improvement to be gained by returning to college.  If anything, as a RB, his draft stock will drop due to an additional year of punishment in college as a RB only has so many carries in his body.

I agree, but for other reasons. First, will Love have a better year next year than this year? This year, he put up some monster, unheard of  numbers. Yes, they would have been better numbers if he was not injured, but is it probable that he will beat those numbers next year? Probably not a good bet. There is some "regression to the mean" expectation here. There are many forces, like KJ's improvement, that may result in Love putting up smaller numbers while actually being as good or better next year than this year. Worse still, like CMAC, he will be measured against what he did this year. If he doesn't do quite as well, it will be labeled "failure".
Second, if he does get hurt again, he will for sure get the "injury prone" tag hung on him. For a smaller sized guy, that is a disaster. His size already works against him. Couple that with a (bogus or not) "fragile" label, his draft stock really drops. The probability of a running back getting "dinged up" is pretty high. Not worth the risk because the downside is much greater than the potential benefit.
Love may not agree with the above evaluation. It is also possible that he agrees with the evaluation, fully understands the risks, and comes back anyway. If he does come back, in my opinion it will not be to improve his draft stock. It will be because he thinks he can help the team, he wants to graduate, and he likes being at Stanford.
[/quote]

Why wouldn't Love get that tag this year? He's been injured in both of the past two years, ie whenever he had to carry any workload at all. (I know that the 2016 injury wasn't during the season, but he was the primary back during the offseason and got hurt then, that still matters.)

[stupac2]

[quote author=Remy74 link=topic=18294.msg217377#msg217377 date=1512662092]
Many project him to be the 2nd-3rd RB drafted in 2018 [in the 1st or 2nd round].  If he runs 4.3x, this will likely be solidified. There is not major improvement to be gained by returning to college.  If anything, as a RB, his draft stock will drop due to an additional year of punishment in college as a RB only has so many carries in his body.

I agree, but for other reasons. First, will Love have a better year next year than this year? This year, he put up some monster, unheard of  numbers. Yes, they would have been better numbers if he was not injured, but is it probable that he will beat those numbers next year? Probably not a good bet. There is some "regression to the mean" expectation here. There are many forces, like KJ's improvement, that may result in Love putting up smaller numbers while actually being as good or better next year than this year. Worse still, like CMAC, he will be measured against what he did this year. If he doesn't do quite as well, it will be labeled "failure".
Second, if he does get hurt again, he will for sure get the "injury prone" tag hung on him. For a smaller sized guy, that is a disaster. His size already works against him. Couple that with a (bogus or not) "fragile" label, his draft stock really drops. The probability of a running back getting "dinged up" is pretty high. Not worth the risk because the downside is much greater than the potential benefit.
Love may not agree with the above evaluation. It is also possible that he agrees with the evaluation, fully understands the risks, and comes back anyway. If he does come back, in my opinion it will not be to improve his draft stock. It will be because he thinks he can help the team, he wants to graduate, and he likes being at Stanford.
[/quote]

Why wouldn't Love get that tag this year? He's been injured in both of the past two years, ie whenever he had to carry any workload at all. (I know that the 2016 injury wasn't during the season, but he was the primary back during the offseason and got hurt then, that still matters.)

[Langdude]

Position switches need to be done with care. 

Someone who actually played O-line at a level beyond HS should chime in, but my woefully limited experience is that switching O-line positions, especially between guard and tackle, is just not on the same level of disruption as most other position switches.

Exhibit A: David Bright

Exhibit B: An anecdote from the NFL that includes Andrus Peat:

Three players have started at two different positions -- Kelemete at left guard and right guard, Peat and left guard and left tackle and rookie Ryan Ramczyk at left and right tackle. Kelemete also played right tackle in Week 1, and all three players have seamlessly switched positions in at least one game.

...

Coach Sean Payton, who's been coaching in the NFL for 20 years, said he "can't recall" seeing an offensive line display so much versatility.

...

And the Saints' offensive numbers show just how well the line has done. New Orleans is one of just two teams to rank in the top 10 in the NFL in passing and rushing yards per game, ranking second through the air and seventh on the ground. The Saints are averaging 4.3 yards per carry and have allowed just eight sacks, the fewest in the league. 

http://www.nola.com/saints/index.ssf/201...satil.html

Exhibit C: Jesse Burkett
Exhibit D: David Yankey
Exhibit E: Khalil Wilkes
Exhibit F: Chase Beeler

Look, I'm not saying that switching positions on the OL is easy, nor does it happen a lot. But it does happen. Why? Because the goal is always to have the five best OLs out there if at all possible. As we have seen (Owen Marecic, Eric Cotton, Richard Sherman, Dallas Lloyd), Stanford is not afraid of making position switches if the coaches think it will help the player or the team.

Here's another case in point: This past year. The line was projected to be Bright-Fanaika-Burkett-HeBIG-Tucker. Then we discovered that Tucker wasn't that great, and neither was Fanaika. We tried moving Tucker inside and put Devery Hamilton at RT, and that didn't work; Tucker was just not that good (at either position, not just guard). So we ended up moving Bright inside (to replace Fanaika, who still hasn't shown the chops to be a starter), and put Hamilton at LT until Little was ready, and a renewed A.T. Hall at RT. We could have gone on tinkering with different guard combos, including Nick Wilson, but the goal was to get the best five out there.

So, if Hall or Sarell are able or amenable, as I noted, they'll move to LG or RG. My point is this: If neither of them are able or amenable at this point, then I am not sure they are good enough to start anyway.

-m.

[Langdude]

Position switches need to be done with care. 

Someone who actually played O-line at a level beyond HS should chime in, but my woefully limited experience is that switching O-line positions, especially between guard and tackle, is just not on the same level of disruption as most other position switches.

Exhibit A: David Bright

Exhibit B: An anecdote from the NFL that includes Andrus Peat:

Three players have started at two different positions -- Kelemete at left guard and right guard, Peat and left guard and left tackle and rookie Ryan Ramczyk at left and right tackle. Kelemete also played right tackle in Week 1, and all three players have seamlessly switched positions in at least one game.

...

Coach Sean Payton, who's been coaching in the NFL for 20 years, said he "can't recall" seeing an offensive line display so much versatility.

...

And the Saints' offensive numbers show just how well the line has done. New Orleans is one of just two teams to rank in the top 10 in the NFL in passing and rushing yards per game, ranking second through the air and seventh on the ground. The Saints are averaging 4.3 yards per carry and have allowed just eight sacks, the fewest in the league. 

http://www.nola.com/saints/index.ssf/201...satil.html

Exhibit C: Jesse Burkett
Exhibit D: David Yankey
Exhibit E: Khalil Wilkes
Exhibit F: Chase Beeler

Look, I'm not saying that switching positions on the OL is easy, nor does it happen a lot. But it does happen. Why? Because the goal is always to have the five best OLs out there if at all possible. As we have seen (Owen Marecic, Eric Cotton, Richard Sherman, Dallas Lloyd), Stanford is not afraid of making position switches if the coaches think it will help the player or the team.

Here's another case in point: This past year. The line was projected to be Bright-Fanaika-Burkett-HeBIG-Tucker. Then we discovered that Tucker wasn't that great, and neither was Fanaika. We tried moving Tucker inside and put Devery Hamilton at RT, and that didn't work; Tucker was just not that good (at either position, not just guard). So we ended up moving Bright inside (to replace Fanaika, who still hasn't shown the chops to be a starter), and put Hamilton at LT until Little was ready, and a renewed A.T. Hall at RT. We could have gone on tinkering with different guard combos, including Nick Wilson, but the goal was to get the best five out there.

So, if Hall or Sarell are able or amenable, as I noted, they'll move to LG or RG. My point is this: If neither of them are able or amenable at this point, then I am not sure they are good enough to start anyway.

-m.

[BostonCard]

Position switches need to be done with care. 

Someone who actually played O-line at a level beyond HS should chime in, but my woefully limited experience is that switching O-line positions, especially between guard and tackle, is just not on the same level of disruption as most other position switches.

Exhibit A: David Bright

Exhibit B: An anecdote from the NFL that includes Andrus Peat:

Three players have started at two different positions -- Kelemete at left guard and right guard, Peat and left guard and left tackle and rookie Ryan Ramczyk at left and right tackle. Kelemete also played right tackle in Week 1, and all three players have seamlessly switched positions in at least one game.

...

Coach Sean Payton, who's been coaching in the NFL for 20 years, said he "can't recall" seeing an offensive line display so much versatility.

...

And the Saints' offensive numbers show just how well the line has done. New Orleans is one of just two teams to rank in the top 10 in the NFL in passing and rushing yards per game, ranking second through the air and seventh on the ground. The Saints are averaging 4.3 yards per carry and have allowed just eight sacks, the fewest in the league. 

http://www.nola.com/saints/index.ssf/201...satil.html

Exhibit C: David Yankey, who went from guard to tackle and back to guard seamlessly.  I believe he was a consensus all-american at tackle in 2012, and at guard in 2013.

BC

[BostonCard]

Position switches need to be done with care. 

Someone who actually played O-line at a level beyond HS should chime in, but my woefully limited experience is that switching O-line positions, especially between guard and tackle, is just not on the same level of disruption as most other position switches.

Exhibit A: David Bright

Exhibit B: An anecdote from the NFL that includes Andrus Peat:

Three players have started at two different positions -- Kelemete at left guard and right guard, Peat and left guard and left tackle and rookie Ryan Ramczyk at left and right tackle. Kelemete also played right tackle in Week 1, and all three players have seamlessly switched positions in at least one game.

...

Coach Sean Payton, who's been coaching in the NFL for 20 years, said he "can't recall" seeing an offensive line display so much versatility.

...

And the Saints' offensive numbers show just how well the line has done. New Orleans is one of just two teams to rank in the top 10 in the NFL in passing and rushing yards per game, ranking second through the air and seventh on the ground. The Saints are averaging 4.3 yards per carry and have allowed just eight sacks, the fewest in the league. 

http://www.nola.com/saints/index.ssf/201...satil.html

Exhibit C: David Yankey, who went from guard to tackle and back to guard seamlessly.  I believe he was a consensus all-american at tackle in 2012, and at guard in 2013.

BC

[Goose]

Why wouldn't Love get that tag this year? He's been injured in both of the past two years, ie whenever he had to carry any workload at all. (I know that the 2016 injury wasn't during the season, but he was the primary back during the offseason and got hurt then, that still matters.)

I am certain the pro scouts (who are any good. Not all of them are.) know this, and undoubtedly it is a concern. That is why some of the draft positions being quoted surprise me a bit on the high side. The off-season injury was never really quantified. How hurt was he? Exactly what was the injury? AFAIK, nobody knows exactly, so that one may not count quite as much.  However, if he got hurt again, it would for certain hang the tag on him. If it happened to be another high ankle sprain, that would be a major red flag. It wouldn't necessarily be fair, but if somebody gets injured two years in a row, especially in the same place, it tends to depress their draft stock.

[Goose]

Why wouldn't Love get that tag this year? He's been injured in both of the past two years, ie whenever he had to carry any workload at all. (I know that the 2016 injury wasn't during the season, but he was the primary back during the offseason and got hurt then, that still matters.)

I am certain the pro scouts (who are any good. Not all of them are.) know this, and undoubtedly it is a concern. That is why some of the draft positions being quoted surprise me a bit on the high side. The off-season injury was never really quantified. How hurt was he? Exactly what was the injury? AFAIK, nobody knows exactly, so that one may not count quite as much.  However, if he got hurt again, it would for certain hang the tag on him. If it happened to be another high ankle sprain, that would be a major red flag. It wouldn't necessarily be fair, but if somebody gets injured two years in a row, especially in the same place, it tends to depress their draft stock.

[CardinalSagehen]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=18294.msg217386#msg217386 date=1512667524]
Why wouldn't Love get that tag this year? He's been injured in both of the past two years, ie whenever he had to carry any workload at all. (I know that the 2016 injury wasn't during the season, but he was the primary back during the offseason and got hurt then, that still matters.)

I am certain the pro scouts (who are any good. Not all of them are.) know this, and undoubtedly it is a concern. That is why some of the draft positions being quoted surprise me a bit on the high side. The off-season injury was never really quantified. How hurt was he? Exactly what was the injury? AFAIK, nobody knows exactly, so that one may not count quite as much.  However, if he got hurt again, it would for certain hang the tag on him. If it happened to be another high ankle sprain, that would be a major red flag. It wouldn't necessarily be fair, but if somebody gets injured two years in a row, especially in the same place, it tends to depress their draft stock.
[/quote]

Having seen him face-to-face at the open scrimmage just before the 2016 season, I'd speculate that it was almost certainly the same kind of injury, a high ankle sprain.  He was wearing the same kind of boot that he wore at OSU this season.  I can't confirm if it was the same ankle, though.

I agree that it wouldn't look good if he had another high ankle injury next season in college football.  But this is not the type of injury that anyone assumes is long-term career threatening.  Any history of knee injuries (e.g., S. Skov) or multiple concussions (e.g., C. Owusu) would be a much bigger deal in terms of draft stock.

This season, Love has shown a remarkable willingness and ability to play with pain, putting the team's interests above his personal interests.  I think this demonstration of toughness might neutralize some concerns about his ankle's durability. 

[CardinalSagehen]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=18294.msg217386#msg217386 date=1512667524]
Why wouldn't Love get that tag this year? He's been injured in both of the past two years, ie whenever he had to carry any workload at all. (I know that the 2016 injury wasn't during the season, but he was the primary back during the offseason and got hurt then, that still matters.)

I am certain the pro scouts (who are any good. Not all of them are.) know this, and undoubtedly it is a concern. That is why some of the draft positions being quoted surprise me a bit on the high side. The off-season injury was never really quantified. How hurt was he? Exactly what was the injury? AFAIK, nobody knows exactly, so that one may not count quite as much.  However, if he got hurt again, it would for certain hang the tag on him. If it happened to be another high ankle sprain, that would be a major red flag. It wouldn't necessarily be fair, but if somebody gets injured two years in a row, especially in the same place, it tends to depress their draft stock.
[/quote]

Having seen him face-to-face at the open scrimmage just before the 2016 season, I'd speculate that it was almost certainly the same kind of injury, a high ankle sprain.  He was wearing the same kind of boot that he wore at OSU this season.  I can't confirm if it was the same ankle, though.

I agree that it wouldn't look good if he had another high ankle injury next season in college football.  But this is not the type of injury that anyone assumes is long-term career threatening.  Any history of knee injuries (e.g., S. Skov) or multiple concussions (e.g., C. Owusu) would be a much bigger deal in terms of draft stock.

This season, Love has shown a remarkable willingness and ability to play with pain, putting the team's interests above his personal interests.  I think this demonstration of toughness might neutralize some concerns about his ankle's durability. 

[dabigv13]

Ankle injuries are random. Everyone gets them. They don't be big dings for Love.

If he had two knee surgeries, or if he was a QB with history of shoulder injuries, those would be red flags.

[dabigv13]

Ankle injuries are random. Everyone gets them. They don't be big dings for Love.

If he had two knee surgeries, or if he was a QB with history of shoulder injuries, those would be red flags.

[Phogge]

Ronald Spiers had the best example of why you shouldn't worry.  As he told the guys in the 101, "You're already dead so don't worry." Just consider Love gone so this threat can be retired.

HUA (hooah)?

[Phogge]

Ronald Spiers had the best example of why you shouldn't worry.  As he told the guys in the 101, "You're already dead so don't worry." Just consider Love gone so this threat can be retired.

HUA (hooah)?

[Mick]

Ronald Spiers had the best example of why you shouldn't worry.  As he told the guys in the 101, "You're already dead so don't worry." Just consider Love gone so this threat can be retired.

HUA (hooah)?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrRarZyjGgc

[Mick]

Ronald Spiers had the best example of why you shouldn't worry.  As he told the guys in the 101, "You're already dead so don't worry." Just consider Love gone so this threat can be retired.

HUA (hooah)?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrRarZyjGgc

[Phogge]

We have a good friend who is the daughter of Lt. Jack Foley, First platoon CO, Easy Co. in the attack on Foy. Led his guys on a flanking maneuver after Spiers relieved the incompetent Lt. Dike. First Sgt. Lipton relates what happened next in the book. These guys were incredible. Spiers was unbelievable.

[Phogge]

We have a good friend who is the daughter of Lt. Jack Foley, First platoon CO, Easy Co. in the attack on Foy. Led his guys on a flanking maneuver after Spiers relieved the incompetent Lt. Dike. First Sgt. Lipton relates what happened next in the book. These guys were incredible. Spiers was unbelievable.

[Goose]

This season, Love has shown a remarkable willingness and ability to play with pain, putting the team's interests above his personal interests.

Indeed he has. It is amazing to see what he has accomplished "on one leg" as Shaw has repeatedly stated. I must admit that sometimes I wanted to say "Don't go out there" after seeing the obvious pain he was in. Yet he would go back out there and make the great play on the next series.

I think this demonstration of toughness might neutralize some concerns about his ankle's durability.

Afraid I can't agree. I don't think the pro scouts would worry that he would be unable to play, or unwilling to play with pain. He has demonstrated that would not happen. However, what is unquestionably true is that pain affects your ability to play. You may recall that during the CCG the commentators were theorizing that Love was fumbling more lately because he was in pain. When you are at 75% as a running back, you take hits that you wouldn't take if you were 100%. Those hits lead to other injuries. We have seen Love be less able to protect himself since the ankle got hurt. He can't cut as quickly and he is a bit slower. Playing on the ankle may not risk further injury to the ankle directly, but not being able to avoid an onrushing linebacker can be hazardous to your health. The NFL guys will have to decide "Are the ankle injuries chronic?". Two years in a row would make one think they could be. It might be part of his running style that leads to the problem. I certainly don't know if the "ankle problem" is chronic, but it will be a question that will be asked a lot more if Love is hurt next year. That is one reason why I don't think staying at Stanford to improve his draft stock is a good idea. The risk is too great.

[Goose]

This season, Love has shown a remarkable willingness and ability to play with pain, putting the team's interests above his personal interests.

Indeed he has. It is amazing to see what he has accomplished "on one leg" as Shaw has repeatedly stated. I must admit that sometimes I wanted to say "Don't go out there" after seeing the obvious pain he was in. Yet he would go back out there and make the great play on the next series.

I think this demonstration of toughness might neutralize some concerns about his ankle's durability.

Afraid I can't agree. I don't think the pro scouts would worry that he would be unable to play, or unwilling to play with pain. He has demonstrated that would not happen. However, what is unquestionably true is that pain affects your ability to play. You may recall that during the CCG the commentators were theorizing that Love was fumbling more lately because he was in pain. When you are at 75% as a running back, you take hits that you wouldn't take if you were 100%. Those hits lead to other injuries. We have seen Love be less able to protect himself since the ankle got hurt. He can't cut as quickly and he is a bit slower. Playing on the ankle may not risk further injury to the ankle directly, but not being able to avoid an onrushing linebacker can be hazardous to your health. The NFL guys will have to decide "Are the ankle injuries chronic?". Two years in a row would make one think they could be. It might be part of his running style that leads to the problem. I certainly don't know if the "ankle problem" is chronic, but it will be a question that will be asked a lot more if Love is hurt next year. That is one reason why I don't think staying at Stanford to improve his draft stock is a good idea. The risk is too great.

[CTcard]

You may recall that during the CCG the commentators were theorizing that Love was fumbling more lately because he was in pain.

That is an odd thing for them to theorize.

Love did fumble once during the championship game, during the series that ended up with us getting stuffed at the 1.
Love didn't fumble at all vs. und
Love didn't fumble at all vs cal
Love didn't fumble at all vs UW
Love did fumble once vs WSU

So, that was two fumbles in the 5 games he played after he got hurt (both recovered by Stanford).
That may be more fumbles than he had prior, but it certainly isn't a lot of fumbles.

Most of Stanford's fumbles this year were by QBs or during the Center-QB exchange.

[CTcard]

You may recall that during the CCG the commentators were theorizing that Love was fumbling more lately because he was in pain.

That is an odd thing for them to theorize.

Love did fumble once during the championship game, during the series that ended up with us getting stuffed at the 1.
Love didn't fumble at all vs. und
Love didn't fumble at all vs cal
Love didn't fumble at all vs UW
Love did fumble once vs WSU

So, that was two fumbles in the 5 games he played after he got hurt (both recovered by Stanford).
That may be more fumbles than he had prior, but it certainly isn't a lot of fumbles.

Most of Stanford's fumbles this year were by QBs or during the Center-QB exchange.

[CardinalSagehen]

[quote author=Cardinal Sagehen link=topic=18294.msg217439#msg217439 date=1512695971]
This season, Love has shown a remarkable willingness and ability to play with pain, putting the team's interests above his personal interests.

Indeed he has. It is amazing to see what he has accomplished "on one leg" as Shaw has repeatedly stated. I must admit that sometimes I wanted to say "Don't go out there" after seeing the obvious pain he was in. Yet he would go back out there and make the great play on the next series.

I think this demonstration of toughness might neutralize some concerns about his ankle's durability.

Afraid I can't agree. I don't think the pro scouts would worry that he would be unable to play, or unwilling to play with pain. He has demonstrated that would not happen. However, what is unquestionably true is that pain affects your ability to play. You may recall that during the CCG the commentators were theorizing that Love was fumbling more lately because he was in pain. When you are at 75% as a running back, you take hits that you wouldn't take if you were 100%. Those hits lead to other injuries. We have seen Love be less able to protect himself since the ankle got hurt. He can't cut as quickly and he is a bit slower. Playing on the ankle may not risk further injury to the ankle directly, but not being able to avoid an onrushing linebacker can be hazardous to your health. The NFL guys will have to decide "Are the ankle injuries chronic?". Two years in a row would make one think they could be. It might be part of his running style that leads to the problem. I certainly don't know if the "ankle problem" is chronic, but it will be a question that will be asked a lot more if Love is hurt next year. That is one reason why I don't think staying at Stanford to improve his draft stock is a good idea. The risk is too great.
[/quote]

All good points.  I guess where we differ is that I’m not aware of many ankle injuries that have proven to be chronic.  I think the default assumption is that they heal, in a worst-case scenario with some help from orthopedic surgery and several months of rest and rehab. 

OTOH, I’ve definitely heard that you are more prone to ankle injuries if you’ve had them in the past.  We see this currently with Steph Curry, for example.  But I think the assumption is that ankles are not chronic or long-term career-limiting injuries. 

Disclosure - I am just a hopeful Stanford football fan, not a physician.

[CardinalSagehen]

[quote author=Cardinal Sagehen link=topic=18294.msg217439#msg217439 date=1512695971]
This season, Love has shown a remarkable willingness and ability to play with pain, putting the team's interests above his personal interests.

Indeed he has. It is amazing to see what he has accomplished "on one leg" as Shaw has repeatedly stated. I must admit that sometimes I wanted to say "Don't go out there" after seeing the obvious pain he was in. Yet he would go back out there and make the great play on the next series.

I think this demonstration of toughness might neutralize some concerns about his ankle's durability.

Afraid I can't agree. I don't think the pro scouts would worry that he would be unable to play, or unwilling to play with pain. He has demonstrated that would not happen. However, what is unquestionably true is that pain affects your ability to play. You may recall that during the CCG the commentators were theorizing that Love was fumbling more lately because he was in pain. When you are at 75% as a running back, you take hits that you wouldn't take if you were 100%. Those hits lead to other injuries. We have seen Love be less able to protect himself since the ankle got hurt. He can't cut as quickly and he is a bit slower. Playing on the ankle may not risk further injury to the ankle directly, but not being able to avoid an onrushing linebacker can be hazardous to your health. The NFL guys will have to decide "Are the ankle injuries chronic?". Two years in a row would make one think they could be. It might be part of his running style that leads to the problem. I certainly don't know if the "ankle problem" is chronic, but it will be a question that will be asked a lot more if Love is hurt next year. That is one reason why I don't think staying at Stanford to improve his draft stock is a good idea. The risk is too great.
[/quote]

All good points.  I guess where we differ is that I’m not aware of many ankle injuries that have proven to be chronic.  I think the default assumption is that they heal, in a worst-case scenario with some help from orthopedic surgery and several months of rest and rehab. 

OTOH, I’ve definitely heard that you are more prone to ankle injuries if you’ve had them in the past.  We see this currently with Steph Curry, for example.  But I think the assumption is that ankles are not chronic or long-term career-limiting injuries. 

Disclosure - I am just a hopeful Stanford football fan, not a physician.

[stupac2]

Ankle injuries are random. Everyone gets them. They don't be big dings for Love.

If he had two knee surgeries, or if he was a QB with history of shoulder injuries, those would be red flags.

A lot of stuff that NFL team apparently think makes no sense, so it wouldn't really surprise me if their beliefs about injuries make no sense either.

At any rate it doesn't really matter, I doubt that this is the type of thing that Love is weighing with the decision.

[stupac2]

Ankle injuries are random. Everyone gets them. They don't be big dings for Love.

If he had two knee surgeries, or if he was a QB with history of shoulder injuries, those would be red flags.

A lot of stuff that NFL team apparently think makes no sense, so it wouldn't really surprise me if their beliefs about injuries make no sense either.

At any rate it doesn't really matter, I doubt that this is the type of thing that Love is weighing with the decision.

[FarmBoy]

Are ankle injuries random? In high school, I had a series of ankle injuries and I thought it was because I was susceptible.

[FarmBoy]

Are ankle injuries random? In high school, I had a series of ankle injuries and I thought it was because I was susceptible.