Okay, So Luck, And This Surgery Thing...

[doogansquest]

People, just stop talking. It's embarrassing to read these comments.

"What will happen when Manning takes a hit?"

"How will his spine hold up to contact?"

"Will PM ever be the same?"

"The wear and tear on that spine...."

"What if he gets injured again?@#$@??@##?!@?!!?"

That isn't what the research, or previous cases have shown at all. Do a little Anatomy and Physiology research before opening your mouths, seriously.

Nearly every expert on the subject will tell you that the fusion of this type will normally form a stronger structure than before it was damaged, if the fusion takes (which it did). Much the same way as a broken bone is LESS likely to break once it's healed because of the callous to the osseous tissue, Manning will be less likely to ever suffer nerve damage of this kind again. Some doctors have claimed that it can heal to 115%. Oh yeah, and now Manning will be playing without pain. That's not something he could have said after the 2006 season.

Manning isn't going to be a 36 year old recovering from a 3rd surgery. He's going to effectively be a 32 year old, with a year of rest on his body, and less likely to suffer damage to the area now than he was before.

Short of time spent regaining muscle tonicity (which will happen QUICKLY in training), he will be back to his old/slightly younger self.

This isn't some grand delusion, or wishful thinking, or an inability to see life after Manning. This is just the most likely scenario based purely on medical and scientific fact.

While it seems unrelated, I just want to conclude that people need to stop watching Aaron Rodgers and the Packers while drawing some sort of conclusion about the future of the Colts from that. The situation isn't the same, the organizations aren't the same, and the fates haven't fallen into place the same way. Luck wouldn't be saddling up in a Ferrari with a full tank. He'd be walking into an unknown model, made in a country that no longer exists, that only one guy in the world knew how to drive.

If you don't believe that this Front Office can make a few more runs with an improved Peyton (because he will be better than he was following the 2006 season), what in the world makes you think they will pull it off with a college QB who can't win the big games, or without 200 yards a game from his HB's? Some of you are so self-defeating in your debates across the threads, that you might as well play the part of Nocan the Contrarian on my daughter's favorite after-school show.

EDIT: I agree that it is probable that we take Andrew Luck with our first pick, simply because that's how the Polians' roll. They rarely trade down, they prefer the safe moves, and it makes sense superficially.

I'm opposed to it simply because it does our team no good in Manning's remaining years, and there are far more impact DB's and interior linemen in round 1 than in any other round. You can't pass on guys like Claiborne, Kirkpatrick, Minnifield, DeCastro, etc., and hope the late round guys work out. Those are the types of players who contribute immediately (QB excepting, because any QB we draft would be sitting). It's also not like those players couldn't become franchise players as well. QB is not the most important position on the field. I'm sorry, but it's not. If it were, Tony Romo would have Super Bowls. He's got the 3rd highest career QB rating of all-time, among QB's who have played more than 5 years, and he's never even been close. What about Matt Ryan? What about Philip Rivers? All of these guys are pure ballers, and they are surrounded with talent, but they can't win it. Can anyone honestly say that Roethlisberger has had anything to do with the Steelers success since 2005? Seriously? He averages like, 3 INT's per Super Bowl appearance.

If you blame the coaches, then you are admitting that the coach is more important than the QB. If you blame a defense, then you are admitting that the defense has more to do with the outcome of the game than the QB. You can't have your arguments both ways. That said, a "Next Level," or, "Once in a Lifetime" QB, like Manning, can't have his years squandered to make way for an unproven college kid.

[Blackhawk4]

And . Good rant/post. Thank you for informing those who thought this was the end for Manning.

[Susie Q]

I also want to thank you for the good post.

[cmgww]

Nice post, Doog....not to mention over 40 NFL players have had this type of surgery and most have gone on to productive, successful careers (including Kelvin Hayden, starting for the Falcons)

Guys that play much more physically pounding positions than QB. I am sick of the "one hit away from being a crippled" crud....b/c is that simply not true. Every QB is potentially one bad hit from being crippled. It's the nature of the game, and a risk the players take.

A year of rest, a career of not taking a lot of hits, and I think (if the nerve fully regenerates; that's my only concern) Manning will be back and better than ever.

Trade the dang pick and gear up for Manning's final years.

[mr. football]

Amen!! great post brother!

[Evan]

agreed good post. I gave u a point in your post while mine was going in it became 2 lol me and someone clicked it the same time.

[Fx Stryker]

This deserves a slow clap.

[Slick_Rick]

You, sir, just became my best friend. You said everything I've wanted to say, but couldn't phrase. Great post

[amff]

Great post with good info. But theere will always be the negative types that think his days are over. Im sick of their crap too.

[Bleedin Blue]

Now that there has been some optimism on the Peyton front I agree that there is much more likely a chance that Peyton can return next year. I firmly believe that if Bill and Chris think that Manning can come back they will roll with Manning because the is a proven franchise player and has been the core of this team since he was drafted. I can't wait to see how things play out. This year has truly sucked and I'll be glad to see it over soon. I think the only thing they need to do is ensure they get a 2013 or 2014 first round pick in the trade so they CAN position themselves for the future when Manning is much closer to 40.

[Malakai432]

OMG what will happen when Manning takes a hit, with the wear and tear on that spine will PM ever be the same if he gets injured again?@#@??@##?!@?!!? :banana:

[Andy]

Wow, I'm impressed, nice post. This surgery will only make his neck stronger and better according to multiple players...

[SubZero]

People, just stop talking. It's embarrassing to read these comments.

"What will happen when Manning takes a hit?"

"How will his spine hold up to contact?"

"Will PM ever be the same?"

"The wear and tear on that spine...."

"What if he gets injured again?@#$@??@##?!@?!!?"

That isn't what the research, or previous cases have shown at all. Do a little Anatomy and Physiology research before opening your mouths, seriously.

Nearly every expert on the subject will tell you that the fusion of this type will normally form a stronger structure than before it was damaged, if the fusion takes (which it did). Much the same way as a broken bone is LESS likely to break once it's healed because of the callous to the osseous tissue, Manning will be less likely to ever suffer nerve damage of this kind again. Some doctors have claimed that it can heal to 115%. Oh yeah, and now Manning will be playing without pain. That's not something he could have said after the 2006 season.

Manning isn't going to be a 36 year old recovering from a 3rd surgery. He's going to effectively be a 32 year old, with a year of rest on his body, and less likely to suffer damage to the area now than he was before.

Short of time spent regaining muscle tonicity (which will happen QUICKLY in training), he will be back to his old/slightly younger self.

This isn't some grand delusion, or wishful thinking, or an inability to see life after Manning. This is just the most likely scenario based purely on medical and scientific fact.

While it seems unrelated, I just want to conclude that people need to stop watching Aaron Rodgers and the Packers while drawing some sort of conclusion about the future of the Colts from that. The situation isn't the same, the organizations aren't the same, and the fates haven't fallen into place the same way. Luck wouldn't be saddling up in a Ferrari with a full tank. He'd be walking into an unknown model, made in a country that no longer exists, that only one guy in the world knew how to drive.

If you don't believe that this Front Office can make a few more runs with an improved Peyton (because he will be better than he was following the 2006 season), what in the world makes you think they will pull it off with a college QB who can't win the big games, or without 200 yards a game from his HB's? Some of you are so self-defeating in your debates across the threads, that you might as well play the part of Nocan the Contrarian on my daughter's favorite after-school show.

EDIT: I agree that it is probable that we take Andrew Luck with our first pick, simply because that's how the Polians' roll. They rarely trade down, they prefer the safe moves, and it makes sense superficially.

I'm opposed to it simply because it does our team no good in Manning's remaining years, and there are far more impact DB's and interior linemen in round 1 than in any other round. You can't pass on guys like Claiborne, Kirkpatrick, Minnifield, DeCastro, etc., and hope the late round guys work out. Those are the types of players who contribute immediately (QB excepting, because any QB we draft would be sitting). It's also not like those players couldn't become franchise players as well. QB is not the most important position on the field. I'm sorry, but it's not. If it were, Tony Romo would have Super Bowls. He's got the 3rd highest career QB rating of all-time, among QB's who have played more than 5 years, and he's never even been close. What about Matt Ryan? What about Philip Rivers? All of these guys are pure ballers, and they are surrounded with talent, but they can't win it. Can anyone honestly say that Roethlisberger has had anything to do with the Steelers success since 2005? Seriously? He averages like, 3 INT's per Super Bowl appearance.

If you blame the coaches, then you are admitting that the coach is more important than the QB. If you blame a defense, then you are admitting that the defense has more to do with the outcome of the game than the QB. You can't have your arguments both ways. That said, a "Next Level," or, "Once in a Lifetime" QB, like Manning, can't have his years squandered to make way for an unproven college kid.

Very informative, i like it. And great rant to. I personally am a Luck supporter and was going to be quick to start bashing you when i was reading it, but im already scilenced.

Nicely done!

[The Peytonator]

I like everything you said, and agree about not needing Luck by any stretch of the imagination. You gotta build a talented team around your quarterback. Nobody needs to spend a number 1 overall pick on a guy to sit the bench for 4 years. But alas, Polian will probably take him anyway.

[presto123]

You're still acting like you know for sure he will be back and be the same player. The question shouldn't be can he take a hit it should be will he still be able to throw the ball like the old Peyton? That part is still WAY up in the air(because of nerve regeneration) so we might end up needing Luck or some other young prospect. I know Peyton has been throwing some but nobody has reported on arm strength and accuracy have they?

[Malakai432]

The problem is you have a chance to find Mannings successor in a draft which could easily be one of the best QB drafts ever, pending on if RGiii & Barkley come out along with others. With Manning having 3-4 years and with the top notch QB prospects in the draft (this year) it would probably be wise to take a QB, even if they sit for years. This team is most likely going to go through many changes IE coaching, scheme and player changes that winning the super bowl next year even if we fill many needed gaps is probably a slim possibility. It's still way to early to determine, I will be happy if they trade Luck, & acquire another stud QB + some other nice picks, or if they decide to strictly take Luck. The only other scenario I would be happy with is if they RIP a team off and then they can take mutie first/second round picks + other picks next year. Drafting 1 CB over Luck will not turn this team into a SB caliber team, you draft Luck and either keep him or trade him for a TON of picks.

[nsurg]

That isn't what the research, or previous cases have shown at all. Do a little Anatomy and Physiology research before opening your mouths, seriously.

Short of time spent regaining muscle tonicity (which will happen QUICKLY in training), he will be back to his old/slightly younger self.

This isn't some grand delusion, or wishful thinking, or an inability to see life after Manning. This is just the most likely scenario based purely on medical and scientific fact.

Pretty gutsy to start a post with "people, just stop talking" on a forum. Unfortunately your optimism does not equal facts, especially in the 3 key quoted statements you made. With all due respect on your efforts, your brief effort at medical research seems to lead to a more optimistic conclusion than anything that his doctors have said. I might invite you to sit down with some of my patients who have had only several days of pre-operative weakness and yet never returned to normal after "successful" surgery and 6 months of aggressive rehab. The nervous system is fragile, and ANY recovery (let alone complete recovery) is not a given.

The bone issue has been discussed extensively. Yes, it will eventually be stronger than the joint was, but not stronger than the vertebral body... and it will not be at its full strength even by august 2012. And you may want to search for the term "adjacent level disease" with respect to cervical fusion: likely, arthritic changes will accelerate at the nonfused joints (which he has already had nonfusion decompressive surgery on at least one of, by our best understanding).

I don't mean to dismiss your effort at a very careful post, but I find the lecture/rant tone wholly insulting. Read other posts a bit more and keep an open mind. We'll have to wait to see how he does. To date, the only feedback given regarding return of nerve function and subsequent muscle strength has not been encouraging, and it is late in the game to not be seeing recovery.

[John Dee]

People, just stop talking. It's embarrassing to read these comments.

"What will happen when Manning takes a hit?"

"How will his spine hold up to contact?"

"Will PM ever be the same?"

"The wear and tear on that spine...."

"What if he gets injured again?@#$@??@##?!@?!!?"

That isn't what the research, or previous cases have shown at all. Do a little Anatomy and Physiology research before opening your mouths, seriously.

Nearly every expert on the subject will tell you that the fusion of this type will normally form a stronger structure than before it was damaged, if the fusion takes (which it did). Much the same way as a broken bone is LESS likely to break once it's healed because of the callous to the osseous tissue, Manning will be less likely to ever suffer nerve damage of this kind again. Some doctors have claimed that it can heal to 115%. Oh yeah, and now Manning will be playing without pain. That's not something he could have said after the 2006 season.

Manning isn't going to be a 36 year old recovering from a 3rd surgery. He's going to effectively be a 32 year old, with a year of rest on his body, and less likely to suffer damage to the area now than he was before.

Short of time spent regaining muscle tonicity (which will happen QUICKLY in training), he will be back to his old/slightly younger self.

This isn't some grand delusion, or wishful thinking, or an inability to see life after Manning. This is just the most likely scenario based purely on medical and scientific fact.

While it seems unrelated, I just want to conclude that people need to stop watching Aaron Rodgers and the Packers while drawing some sort of conclusion about the future of the Colts from that. The situation isn't the same, the organizations aren't the same, and the fates haven't fallen into place the same way. Luck wouldn't be saddling up in a Ferrari with a full tank. He'd be walking into an unknown model, made in a country that no longer exists, that only one guy in the world knew how to drive.

If you don't believe that this Front Office can make a few more runs with an improved Peyton (because he will be better than he was following the 2006 season), what in the world makes you think they will pull it off with a college QB who can't win the big games, or without 200 yards a game from his HB's? Some of you are so self-defeating in your debates across the threads, that you might as well play the part of Nocan the Contrarian on my daughter's favorite after-school show.

EDIT: I agree that it is probable that we take Andrew Luck with our first pick, simply because that's how the Polians' roll. They rarely trade down, they prefer the safe moves, and it makes sense superficially.

I'm opposed to it simply because it does our team no good in Manning's remaining years, and there are far more impact DB's and interior linemen in round 1 than in any other round. You can't pass on guys like Claiborne, Kirkpatrick, Minnifield, DeCastro, etc., and hope the late round guys work out. Those are the types of players who contribute immediately (QB excepting, because any QB we draft would be sitting). It's also not like those players couldn't become franchise players as well. QB is not the most important position on the field. I'm sorry, but it's not. If it were, Tony Romo would have Super Bowls. He's got the 3rd highest career QB rating of all-time, among QB's who have played more than 5 years, and he's never even been close. What about Matt Ryan? What about Philip Rivers? All of these guys are pure ballers, and they are surrounded with talent, but they can't win it. Can anyone honestly say that Roethlisberger has had anything to do with the Steelers success since 2005? Seriously? He averages like, 3 INT's per Super Bowl appearance.

If you blame the coaches, then you are admitting that the coach is more important than the QB. If you blame a defense, then you are admitting that the defense has more to do with the outcome of the game than the QB. You can't have your arguments both ways. That said, a "Next Level," or, "Once in a Lifetime" QB, like Manning, can't have his years squandered to make way for an unproven college kid.

darn Doog every individual is "an INDIVIDUAL case" .. WOW...

and fusion is the "LAST" recommendation any back specialist will tell one to go for. Because it is "done" Spine will be "structurally FINE, but the mobility is LOST forever." Fusion means FUSION.

Meaning, the spine in that area will NEVER MOVE AGAIN. Structurally it is fine. But, inside the spine along with bone and nerves is a gel that protects the spine from the bone, and everything else in there.

This gel is a major source of "nerve" issues. and it can be aggravated doing ANYTHING. Manning hurt himself this last time just working out. Too early albeit.

And a "herniation" is not a "bone break"..... it is a "break" in the outer layer "within" the spine to protect the nerve. Once this is "broken" It cannot EVER be fixed... Only relieved.

[Balzer40]

Pretty gutsy to start a post with "people, just stop talking" on a forum. Unfortunately your optimism does not equal facts, especially in the 3 key quoted statements you made. With all due respect on your efforts, your brief effort at medical research seems to lead to a more optimistic conclusion than anything that his doctors have said. I might invite you to sit down with some of my patients who have had only several days of pre-operative weakness and yet never returned to normal after "successful" surgery and 6 months of aggressive rehab. The nervous system is fragile, and ANY recovery (let alone complete recovery) is not a given.

The bone issue has been discussed extensively. Yes, it will eventually be stronger than the joint was, but not stronger than the vertebral body... and it will not be at its full strength even by august 2012. And you may want to search for the term "adjacent level disease" with respect to cervical fusion: likely, arthritic changes will accelerate at the nonfused joints (which he has already had nonfusion decompressive surgery on at least one of, by our best understanding).

I don't mean to dismiss your effort at a very careful post, but I find the lecture/rant tone wholly insulting. Read other posts a bit more and keep an open mind. We'll have to wait to see how he does. To date, the only feedback given regarding return of nerve function and subsequent muscle strength has not been encouraging, and it is late in the game to not be seeing recovery.

Thanks nsurg. Im much more inclined to believe an actual Dr. than I am a pretentious guy that looks some stuff up online and thinks he's an expert.

[Andy]

Stupid internet went off...

Forgot to just point out one thing. Blaming a part of the team doesn't mean that part is more important. All teams on a team are equally important. Some are more popular, but blaming a team like the defense just means that that team just didn't come through. If you have an amazing offense, but a weak defense, you won't win the SB or go very far in the playoffs. Every team that has gone to the SB in the last 10 years has had a good offense, good defense and good special teams.

[Flash7]

Doogan, if Manning comes back from his surgery, I am not worried about his neck. I am still worried that he will be 36, coming off of a year without working out much and now just starting to throw the ball. Your arguement states that it will be like Manning will be coming back effectively as a 32 year old. The problem is that he'll be coming back as a 36 year old. His body will still have aged no matter how you think about it. The FO will have to evaluate his health and ability to play at a high level, which is why there are some doubts. That's all there is, doubts. Until Manning proves otherwise those doubts will linger.

Your second point about the Aaron Rodgers scenario is true in a sense. I don't think that most fans are saying that it's the same exact scenario. They are stating that the Aaron Rodgers scenario has set a presidence and can be used as a model of success. I would add that the only benefit of backing up Manning would be in film study and learning how to prepare for a game. Once Manning leaves, we may have to completely change our offense to suit the strengths of his successor. It's clear that this offense was tailored for Manning.

Your last argument about the quarterback position not being the most important position is an unfair comparison. you are saying that the quarterback position is not the most important and then you compare it to the entire defense, or the coaching staff! you are comparing one position to 11 guys on defense and countless individuals in the coaching staff. I think this should tell you exactly how important the quarterback position is.

[oldunclemark]

You're still acting like you know for sure he will be back and be the same player. The question shouldn't be can he take a hit it should be will he still be able to throw the ball like the old Peyton? That part is still WAY up in the air(because of nerve regeneration) so we might end up needing Luck or some other young prospect. I know Peyton has been throwing some but nobody has reported on arm strength and accuracy have they?

We'll know when Manning plays at Jacksonville on New Year's Day.

If we are 0-15, He will ask to play and no one will say 'no'

[pacolts56]

We'll know when Manning plays at Jacksonville on New Year's Day.

If we are 0-15, He will ask to play and no one will say 'no'

Cmon Mark....why make absolute comments about a medical situation that is still up in the air?

We have a decent shot at Jacksonville that last game.....but if we don't win any games this year then we just need to draft better, coach better and play harder.

None of us want to be 0-16 but to be brutally honest.....maybe we NEED to go 0-16 and have our faces rubbed in the mud so that the very clear shortcomings in all those areas that Peyton Manning masked are never repeated again.

[oldunclemark]

Cmon Mark....why make absolute comments about a medical situation that is still up in the air?

We have a decent shot at Jacksonville that last game.....but if we don't win any games this year then we just need to draft better, coach better and play harder.

None of us want to be 0-16 but to be brutally honest.....maybe we NEED to go 0-16 and have our faces rubbed in the mud so that the very clear shortcomings in all those areas that Peyton Manning masked are never repeated again.

That's the logic I reject....

Its like defaming your child in order to correct his flaws..,

We can get better without the shame of 0-16...

..we dont NEED it....

..and Wayne and Saturday and Clark and and Addai, Mathis and Freeney and Bullit dont deserve to be on the worst team of all time.

why do you WANT that for them?

[dn4192]

People, just stop talking. It's embarrassing to read these comments.

"What will happen when Manning takes a hit?"

"How will his spine hold up to contact?"

"Will PM ever be the same?"

"The wear and tear on that spine...."

"What if he gets injured again?@#$@??@##?!@?!!?"

That isn't what the research, or previous cases have shown at all. Do a little Anatomy and Physiology research before opening your mouths, seriously.

Nearly every expert on the subject will tell you that the fusion of this type will normally form a stronger structure than before it was damaged, if the fusion takes (which it did). Much the same way as a broken bone is LESS likely to break once it's healed because of the callous to the osseous tissue, Manning will be less likely to ever suffer nerve damage of this kind again. Some doctors have claimed that it can heal to 115%. Oh yeah, and now Manning will be playing without pain. That's not something he could have said after the 2006 season.

Manning isn't going to be a 36 year old recovering from a 3rd surgery. He's going to effectively be a 32 year old, with a year of rest on his body, and less likely to suffer damage to the area now than he was before.

Short of time spent regaining muscle tonicity (which will happen QUICKLY in training), he will be back to his old/slightly younger self.

This isn't some grand delusion, or wishful thinking, or an inability to see life after Manning. This is just the most likely scenario based purely on medical and scientific fact.

While it seems unrelated, I just want to conclude that people need to stop watching Aaron Rodgers and the Packers while drawing some sort of conclusion about the future of the Colts from that. The situation isn't the same, the organizations aren't the same, and the fates haven't fallen into place the same way. Luck wouldn't be saddling up in a Ferrari with a full tank. He'd be walking into an unknown model, made in a country that no longer exists, that only one guy in the world knew how to drive.

If you don't believe that this Front Office can make a few more runs with an improved Peyton (because he will be better than he was following the 2006 season), what in the world makes you think they will pull it off with a college QB who can't win the big games, or without 200 yards a game from his HB's? Some of you are so self-defeating in your debates across the threads, that you might as well play the part of Nocan the Contrarian on my daughter's favorite after-school show.

EDIT: I agree that it is probable that we take Andrew Luck with our first pick, simply because that's how the Polians' roll. They rarely trade down, they prefer the safe moves, and it makes sense superficially.

I'm opposed to it simply because it does our team no good in Manning's remaining years, and there are far more impact DB's and interior linemen in round 1 than in any other round. You can't pass on guys like Claiborne, Kirkpatrick, Minnifield, DeCastro, etc., and hope the late round guys work out. Those are the types of players who contribute immediately (QB excepting, because any QB we draft would be sitting). It's also not like those players couldn't become franchise players as well. QB is not the most important position on the field. I'm sorry, but it's not. If it were, Tony Romo would have Super Bowls. He's got the 3rd highest career QB rating of all-time, among QB's who have played more than 5 years, and he's never even been close. What about Matt Ryan? What about Philip Rivers? All of these guys are pure ballers, and they are surrounded with talent, but they can't win it. Can anyone honestly say that Roethlisberger has had anything to do with the Steelers success since 2005? Seriously? He averages like, 3 INT's per Super Bowl appearance.

If you blame the coaches, then you are admitting that the coach is more important than the QB. If you blame a defense, then you are admitting that the defense has more to do with the outcome of the game than the QB. You can't have your arguments both ways. That said, a "Next Level," or, "Once in a Lifetime" QB, like Manning, can't have his years squandered to make way for an unproven college kid.

36 years old is 36 years old...you can't fake age or wear and tear on the body..

[JoKeR]

How does blaming the defense or the coach make them more important than the QB. Football is a team sport and getting the best possible players and coaches in every position is important, so how does that equate to "more important " than the QB?

Your mostly correct about the bone getting stronger but every case is different. The real issue is the nerve.

Im with you, I think Manning will recover fully, but there's a outside chance he wont and the team needs to be prepared. The worst possible scenario is a repeat of this nightmarish season.

I don't think drafting Luck is terrible move but neither is trading down for more picks.

[everybodysgotone]

Pretty gutsy to start a post with "people, just stop talking" on a forum. Unfortunately your optimism does not equal facts, especially in the 3 key quoted statements you made. With all due respect on your efforts, your brief effort at medical research seems to lead to a more optimistic conclusion than anything that his doctors have said. I might invite you to sit down with some of my patients who have had only several days of pre-operative weakness and yet never returned to normal after "successful" surgery and 6 months of aggressive rehab. The nervous system is fragile, and ANY recovery (let alone complete recovery) is not a given.

The bone issue has been discussed extensively. Yes, it will eventually be stronger than the joint was, but not stronger than the vertebral body... and it will not be at its full strength even by august 2012. And you may want to search for the term "adjacent level disease" with respect to cervical fusion: likely, arthritic changes will accelerate at the nonfused joints (which he has already had nonfusion decompressive surgery on at least one of, by our best understanding).

I don't mean to dismiss your effort at a very careful post, but I find the lecture/rant tone wholly insulting. Read other posts a bit more and keep an open mind. We'll have to wait to see how he does. To date, the only feedback given regarding return of nerve function and subsequent muscle strength has not been encouraging, and it is late in the game to not be seeing recovery.

The voice of reality and fact. Thank you.

And for the record, I don't want the Colts to take Andrew Luck. I'd rather get greater value for trading the #1 pick even if we are taking a QB in the 2012 draft.

[Gonzo]

36 years old is 36 years old...you can't fake age or wear and tear on the body..

Elway won back to Super Bowls @ 37 and 38.

[dn4192]

Elway won back to Super Bowls @ 37 and 38.

True, but what serious injuries did he have during his career? Also nothing wrong with being that old, just the odds are not good you will perform at a high level like you did in your youth.

[Jaric]

Elway won back to Super Bowls @ 37 and 38.

We're no where close to as good as those Bronco teams were.

[wercolts]

Great post, and I might add that a year on the sideline will probably prove to be very beneficial to Peyton when it comes to X's and O's.

[doogansquest]

We're no where close to as good as those Bronco teams were.

Those teams weren't very good, they just played well in the post season when they had to. The Packers were a far superior team, and they would have lost to the Vikings, too, had the Purple People Eaters not laid an egg against Atlanta.

Great post, and I might add that a year on the sideline will probably prove to be very beneficial to Peyton when it comes to X's and O's.

Thank you, and I agree.

My goal in all of this isn't to pretend I'm smarter, or immodestly state the facts I've long been aware of, but some people are just repeating what they hear around the sports talk world as if it's fact. They throw out age and the word "surgery" without considering how old Manning was playing or performing (ie: same as ever - despite pain), as well as the results that stem from said surgery. They act as if this team is in total disarray, when it's really just one awful season following a decade of greatness. They are watching Aaron Rodgers, not Andrew Luck, and basing the Draft decision entirely on that.

I'm just trying to help people see clearly so as to make informed decisions.

[Andy]

Those teams weren't very good, they just played well in the post season when they had to. The Packers were a far superior team, and they would have lost to the Vikings, too, had the Purple People Eaters not laid an egg against Atlanta. Thank you, and I agree. My goal in all of this isn't to pretend I'm smarter, or immodestly state the facts I've long been aware of, but some people are just repeating what they hear around the sports talk world as if it's fact. They throw out age and the word "surgery" without considering how old Manning was playing, as well as the results that stem from said surgery. They act as if this team is in total disarray, when it's really just one awful season following a decade of greatness. They are watching Aaron Rodgers, not Andrew Luck, and basing the Draft decision entirely on that. I'm just trying to help people see clearly so as to make informed decisions.

Well I beg to differ on the Broncos. They had great regular seasons. In 98, they went 13-0 to start the season and in 97, they went 12-4. They had TD and Elway playing great football and their D was in the top 12 for both years. They had great regular seasons and great postseasons. They beat their opponents by at least 13 points in each of the games in the 98 playoffs. They also beat the Eagles who had the best D back then by 25 points. They were for real and everyone knew it. You also say the Packers were far more superior, but they beat them in Super Bowl 32...

[pacolts56]

That's the logic I reject.... Its like defaming your child in order to correct his flaws.., We can get better without the shame of 0-16... ..we dont NEED it.... ..and Wayne and Saturday and Clark and and Addai, Mathis and Freeney and Bullit dont deserve to be on the worst team of all time. why do you WANT that for them?

I said none of us want them to be 0-16....I'm including myself.

This march toward 0-16 is not an accident and it is happening because of failure on all three levels of roster-building, coaching and execution on the field. We've probably realized all that after 13 losses....I darn well hope so....but regardless, winning any of the next 3 games is far from certain and we might be doomed to 0-16.

I don't like it....and I don't want it.

But we can either ignore all of the factors of why we're in the toilet and blame the whole mess on one man's injury....or we can identify all of the reasons this is happening and address them. I'm reasonably sure the possibility of an 0-16 record will and has already begun to drive all the necessary points home.

The tough part will be avoiding it actually happening.

[Jaric]

Those teams weren't very good, they just played well in the post season when they had to. The Packers were a far superior team, and they would have lost to the Vikings, too, had the Purple People Eaters not laid an egg against Atlanta.

Are you stoned? The Broncos went 14-2 including 13 straight and had the number 2 offense and the number 8 defense in 98. Link In 97 they went 12-4 with the number one ranked offense and the number 6 ranked defense. Link

If that's "not very good" then I hope next year the colts can be "not very good."

[BmoreColt]

That's the logic I reject....

Its like defaming your child in order to correct his flaws..,

We can get better without the shame of 0-16...

..we dont NEED it....

..and Wayne and Saturday and Clark and and Addai, Mathis and Freeney and Bullit dont deserve to be on the worst team of all time.

why do you WANT that for them?

Where was Wayne this year? And constantly beat up Clarke and Addai? And mister I run my mouth Mathis? Bullit doesn't deserve to be on a starting line-up on any NFL team, yet he is one of the more known Colt defenders, thats just pathetic.. The Colts need to go 0-16 so Caldwell loses his job! And the Polians and this soft team they put together, can follow Caldwell!

[ponys]

We need a great running back to help Manning.

[reddmmann]

Pretty gutsy to start a post with "people, just stop talking" on a forum. Unfortunately your optimism does not equal facts, especially in the 3 key quoted statements you made. With all due respect on your efforts, your brief effort at medical research seems to lead to a more optimistic conclusion than anything that his doctors have said. I might invite you to sit down with some of my patients who have had only several days of pre-operative weakness and yet never returned to normal after "successful" surgery and 6 months of aggressive rehab. The nervous system is fragile, and ANY recovery (let alone complete recovery) is not a given.

The bone issue has been discussed extensively. Yes, it will eventually be stronger than the joint was, but not stronger than the vertebral body... and it will not be at its full strength even by august 2012. And you may want to search for the term "adjacent level disease" with respect to cervical fusion: likely, arthritic changes will accelerate at the nonfused joints (which he has already had nonfusion decompressive surgery on at least one of, by our best understanding).

I don't mean to dismiss your effort at a very careful post, but I find the lecture/rant tone wholly insulting. Read other posts a bit more and keep an open mind. We'll have to wait to see how he does. To date, the only feedback given regarding return of nerve function and subsequent muscle strength has not been encouraging, and it is late in the game to not be seeing recovery.

It's great to have someone with experience comment on this situation. I'm not an expert but based on my limited experience, I made the following comment in another thread. Would you agree with my assessment NSURG?

"The problem with spinal fusion is it doesn’t cure the underlying problem which, in most cases of cervical radiculopathies, is degenerative disease of the spine and involves multiple levels(Manning had fusion at one level...fusion at multiple levels decreases range of motion)

If Manning’s issue was simply a disk bulge at one level, it probably wouldn’t require three surgeries to manage; he probably has (and no one here knows for sure) spondylosis/stenosis/osteophytes at multiple levels.

Manning also had an anterior procedure which, although less invasive than the posterior approach, alters the architecture of the spine which worsens the degeneration of the adjacent vertebrae. (It’s like having a chain with multiple weak links and you fix the weakest link but, in doing so, make the surrounding links worse/weaker).

I hope Manning returns and plays like the future HOF’er we all know and love but, to think that after 3 surgeries, his c-spine is as healthy and strong as before these symptoms began and that the risk of re-injury of his neck is minimal, simply is not dealing in reality."