Interesting Read On Peyton's Spinal Fusion

[hoosiercoltsfan82]

This may have been posted before by somebody else, but I just read an interesting article concerning NFL athletes with spinal fusion procedures.

The following paragraph was especially interesting,

"Nearly 3 out of 4 (72 percent) of NFL players who were treated surgically for CDH returned to play and continued to play in an average of 29.3 games over a 2.8-year period after surgery. In contrast, less than half (46 percent) of those treated nonsurgically returned to play; those who did played an average of 14.7 games over a 1.5-year period before retiring."

http://www.aaos.org/news/aaosnow/nov10/clinical2.asp

Here is what 29.3 games over a 2.8 year span breaks down to mathematically.

If a player were to play in all 16 regular season games over a 2.8 year span that would be 44.8 games total. However, a play who returns from a spinal fusion surgery plays 29.3 games over a 2.8 yr span. That is 15.5 games less over that 2.8 yr span. That breaks down to a little bit less than 10.5 games per year (10.46 to be exact) for the remaining of the athletes career.

I know these numbers are only averages. However, according to the AVERAGES, Peyton may be playing in about 10.5 games per season for the rest of his career. This further cements in my mind the importance of drafting his heir now. And chances are if we draft Luck he would not have to sit for 3 years, he would likely get reasonable playing time while Manning plays out his final 2-3 seasons.

[SilentHill]

This may have been posted before by somebody else, but I just read an interesting article concerning NFL athletes with spinal fusion procedures.

The following paragraph was especially interesting,

"Nearly 3 out of 4 (72 percent) of NFL players who were treated surgically for CDH returned to play and continued to play in an average of 29.3 games over a 2.8-year period after surgery. In contrast, less than half (46 percent) of those treated nonsurgically returned to play; those who did played an average of 14.7 games over a 1.5-year period before retiring."

http://www.aaos.org/...0/clinical2.asp

Here is what 29.3 games over a 2.8 year span breaks down to mathematically.

If a player were to play in all 16 regular season games over a 2.8 year span that would be 44.8 games total. However, a play who returns from a spinal fusion surgery plays 29.3 games over a 2.8 yr span. That is 15.5 games less over that 2.8 yr span. That breaks down to a little bit less than 10.5 games per year (10.46 to be exact) for the remaining of the athletes career.

I know these numbers are only averages. However, according to the AVERAGES, Peyton may be playing in about 10.5 games per season for the rest of his career. This further cements in my mind the importance of drafting his heir now. And chances are if we draft Luck he would not have to sit for 3 years, he would likely get reasonable playing time while Manning plays out his final 2-3 seasons.

QB's don't get hit as often as others that get this surgury. That is a very important variable in this equation.

Edit: Now that I click the link I see that u omitted the most important part...

In this study, players diagnosed with a CDH included 12 defensive linemen, 11 offensive linemen, 17 linebackers, 31 defensive backs, 8 running backs, 4 tight ends, 7 wide receivers, 8 quarterbacks, and one kicker.

“What was surprising was that the position you played mattered,” Dr. Hsu said. “Defensive backs seemed to be overrepresented in the population.” Outcomes for the defensive backs were significantly poorer compared to other positions. Among defensive backs who sustained CDH and were treated surgically, just half (6 of 12) returned to play. They participated in 17 games over a 1.85-year period. Of the 19 defensive backs who sustained CDH and were treated nonsurgically, just 7 returned to play, and their careers were limited to just 6 games in less than 1 year.

I don't have the time or paintence to do the math but if you remove just those DB's from the equation the number of played games is MUCH higher.

[21isSuperman]

Keep in mind that many of the people who had this surgery were probably (I don't know for sure) other positions, not QBs. QBs take the least hits, so it's not too crazy to expect a QB to play more than the average

[hoosiercoltsfan82]

QB's don't get hit as often as others that get this surgury. That is a very important variable in this equation.

True, which is why I said that the numbers were only AVERAGES.

[SilentHill]

True, which is why I said that the numbers were only AVERAGES.

avergaes where 31 players are DB's and even with surgury they only had a 50% success rate? Yea...Take the DB's out and re-run the numbers.

[hoosiercoltsfan82]

Keep in mind that many of the people who had this surgery were probably (I don't know for sure) other positions, not QBs. QBs take the least hits, so it's not too crazy to expect a QB to play more than the average

Quite true. In fact the article did say that defensive backs faired the worst, due to the more aggressive nature of their position. I do not believe that the article gave a position by position break down. However, as you said, QBs take the least hits, Manning's remaining play time will likely be above average.

These numbers tell me 2 things concerning the Manning/Luck debate.

1. Manning likely will return to play. It may not be all 16 regular season games for the rest of his career, but probably at least 70-75% of them.

2. This still makes drafting Luck worth it. Even if he doesn't start until his 3rd or 4th year, he will likely at least get playing time until then.

[hoosiercoltsfan82]

avergaes where 31 players are DB's and even with surgury they only had a 50% success rate? Yea...Take the DB's out and re-run the numbers.

Not quite sure how to take that into account, lol. But again, the point is that I believe Manning will return, but it is also very possible that he will have to sit out a few plays here and there, or even a game here and there.

[SilentHill]

Not quite sure how to take that into account, lol. But again, the point is that I believe Manning will return, but it is also very possible that he will have to sit out a few plays here and there, or even a game here and there.

Eh, maybe. I think given Manning's history and low sack numbrs I don't think he wont miss any games in 3 years due to this surgery. He may have another injury but he wont miss any time for his neck, if he plays.

[jskinnz]

Correct me if I am wrong, but his neck really isn't the issue anymore. It is the regeneration of the nerve in his tricep.

[MAC]

avergaes where 31 players are DB's and even with surgury they only had a 50% success rate? Yea...Take the DB's out and re-run the numbers.

Not quite sure how to take that into account, lol. But again, the point is that I believe Manning will return, but it is also very possible that he will have to sit out a few plays here and there, or even a game here and there.

That would be 78% returned (up from 72) , and played an average of 31.6 games (up from 29.3).

Of course this is an incredibly small sample size, so who knows. Also, not all of the people had the same surgery as Peyton. That could mean that his likelyhood of returning would be higher still, or that other people had lesser injuries. Also this study goes back many years, and I suspect that surgical success rates have improved as techniques have changed.

Either way the average games played per year calculation means nothing in my opinion. Lots of players miss games every year, and there is absolutely nothing in here to suggest that the games these guys missed was because of their necks. Peyton has been workhouse. As long as the nerve is better he should pick up where he left off. I can't think of any reason related to this injury why he would need to miss a game here or there.

[Warhorse]

Just don't let him play against the Redskins.

[Superman]

Correct me if I am wrong, but his neck really isn't the issue anymore. It is the regeneration of the nerve in his tricep.

They essentially rearranged the bones in his neck. It will also be an issue.

[jskinnz]

They essentially rearranged the bones in his neck. It will also be an issue.

All the info/speculation in that article and on this thread deals with the neck. That is only part of the issue that Manning is dealing with.

[Superman]

All the info/speculation in that article and on this thread deals with the neck. That is only part of the issue that Manning is dealing with.

Yeah absolutely. The fusion took 100%, so that part of it isn't at question anymore. Only question is whether the nerve regenerates properly, and if so, when it does. There's a history of spinal stenosis in the family, right? Isn't that what Cooper has? So the nerve will be watched carefully.

This article makes it pretty clear that he can come back and play, as other players at much more physical positions have done so, and he hardly gets hit as it is. But they still fused two bones together in his neck. That's not supposed to be that way.

[MAC]

They essentially rearranged the bones in his neck. It will also be an issue.

Huh? They replaced a soft disk with a piece of bone and >>>ed a plate in to hold it all together. What do you mean "rearranged". Other than some minor reduction in range of motion, and the risk of accelerated wear on the adjacent levels, there is no reason to believe that it will be an issue. It's all about the nerve.

[MAC]

Yeah absolutely. The fusion took 100%, so that part of it isn't at question anymore. Only question is whether the nerve regenerates properly, and if so, when it does. There's a history of spinal stenosis in the family, right? Isn't that what Cooper has? So the nerve will be watched carefully.

This article makes it pretty clear that he can come back and play, as other players at much more physical positions have done so, and he hardly gets hit as it is. But they still fused two bones together in his neck. That's not supposed to be that way.

Peyton was checked for spinal stenosis when his brother was diagnosed. If he had it he wouldn't be an NFL QB. It has no bearing what-so-ever on his injury or prognosis.

[Superman]

Huh? They replaced a soft disk with a piece of bone and >>>ed a plate in to hold it all together. What do you mean "rearranged". Other than some minor reduction in range of motion, and the risk of accelerated wear on the adjacent levels, there is no reason to believe that it will be an issue. It's all about the nerve.

I'm being sensational. My point was just that it's a pretty intense operation that still has to be considered, even though the fusion took 100%.

Peyton was checked for spinal stenosis when his brother was diagnosed. If he had it he wouldn't be an NFL QB. It has no bearing what-so-ever on his injury or prognosis.

He doesn't have a congenital defect, but that doesn't mean he can't develop it in the future. One of the precursors is a slipped or herniated disc.

I'm not one of these people who thinks he should retire just because he had a neck operation. I believe he'll play again, and play well. I'm just saying -- again -- he had a serious operation that obviously went well, but because of the nature of the operation, he'll always need to be checked out for short- and long-term issues.

[wordofmouth]

That would be 78% returned (up from 72) , and played an average of 31.6 games (up from 29.3).

Of course this is an incredibly small sample size, so who knows. Also, not all of the people had the same surgery as Peyton. That could mean that his likelyhood of returning would be higher still, or that other people had lesser injuries. Also this study goes back many years, and I suspect that surgical success rates have improved as techniques have changed.

Either way the average games played per year calculation means nothing in my opinion.

Lots of players miss games every year, and there is absolutely nothing in here to suggest that the games these guys missed was because of their necks

. Peyton has been workhouse. As long as the nerve is better he should pick up where he left off. I can't think of any reason related to this injury why he would need to miss a game here or there.

That's right. The other question is, how many games over the course of 2.8 years does the average player who hasn't had the surgery miss? IF you add that to the equation those stats don't look nearly as alarming.

[OldSchoolColt]

He works out at the beginning of the year and wakes up with a painful neck. Off to surgery. Then many months after what has been thought would be needed for his nerve to be healed, he suits up and throughs SHORT passes to a few Colts players. Again, no practice the next day. Infact, when was the last time he has done that again?? Never? The same nerve was suppose to heal before the beginning of this season and is still not healed. How many would bet it will heal in the next few months to make the team? Thats a fraction of the time it has already been given. Irsay has to cut him by the deadline because he can not renegotiate his contract because of the CBA. Manning is gone or hired as a QB coach.

[bayone]

all misssing the point for get fusion, forget nerve regeneration, there is no such thing as spinal cord nerve root regeneration, that was a misnomer for the publics simplicity

The fusion can be perfect, Peytons problem is that the nerve was irritated to a point where its innervation, the connection to the muscle wasnt right so signals sent to that muscle weren't right and a muscle without pro[per nerve signals weakens, and thats what peyton has

Now u can fix it perfectly so that the nerve is no longer irritated, The question that then comes into play was that nerve irritated enough, for long enough that it did permanent damage in such a way that the innervation, the signals it sends to the muscle will never be back to normal, partly back to normal, or fully back to normal.

All depends on the quality of that nerve signal as to the degree the muscle can regain strength, without proper innervation no amount of exercise will help and though the fusion has taken and likely prevented ongoing nerve irritation, that says nothing as to the level of current innervation & that is the key to his rehab

[buccolts]

I'm not against picking Luck, but I do have an overall concern based on what's in place right now.

If I recall correctly, Manning's contract has 4 years left on it.

There isn't a lot of history on this yet, but this past summer I recall many of the first rounders were looking for 5 year contracts, while teams were reluctant to go beyond 4 years (or maybe it was the other way around).

Either way, if Manning stays healthy, and productive, and plays out his contract, we're in a position to renegotiate Luck's contract having had him play little if any.

A first pick will surely want a big second contract, especially with the rookie cap now in place.

Please, tell me why I shouldn't be concerned about this.

[bayone]

I'm not against picking Luck, but I do have an overall concern based on what's in place right now.

If I recall correctly, Manning's contract has 4 years left on it.

There isn't a lot of history on this yet, but this past summer I recall many of the first rounders were looking for 5 year contracts, while teams were reluctant to go beyond 4 years (or maybe it was the other way around).

Either way, if Manning stays healthy, and productive, and plays out his contract, we're in a position to renegotiate Luck's contract having had him play little if any.

A first pick will surely want a big second contract, especially with the rookie cap now in place.

Please, tell me why I shouldn't be concerned about this.

yes many players wanted 5 years including Castonxza we refused and he signed for 4, however that was as he was in the 20's I mayu be wrong but top 10 may have got 5 years

[MAC]

I'm not against picking Luck, but I do have an overall concern based on what's in place right now.

If I recall correctly, Manning's contract has 4 years left on it.

There isn't a lot of history on this yet, but this past summer I recall many of the first rounders were looking for 5 year contracts, while teams were reluctant to go beyond 4 years (or maybe it was the other way around).

Either way, if Manning stays healthy, and productive, and plays out his contract, we're in a position to renegotiate Luck's contract having had him play little if any.

A first pick will surely want a big second contract, especially with the rookie cap now in place.

Please, tell me why I shouldn't be concerned about this.

I agree, I've been expressing something similar. The only way this "works" is if Peyton isn't able to play much longer - if at all - and frankly I'm having a hard time mustering the enthusiasm for that that many others have shown. People seem to be justifying it (or comforting themselves) by assuming that (because of his age and injury) Peyton will only be playing another season or two anyway, so the pick is simply perfect timing. But personally I think that if he comes back healthy, he is going to play out his contract and probably still be raring to go. By that point either "the best college prospect since Elway" will have utterly wasted a huge chunk of his career, or "the greatest QB of all time" will have been been unceremoniously shown the door. It's not that I don't want Luck (if he is all that he is supposed to be), but the whole situation is just unpleasant and uncomfortable, and is going to get a lot worse before it even has a chance to get better.

[Superman]

There isn't a lot of history on this yet, but this past summer I recall many of the first rounders were looking for 5 year contracts, while teams were reluctant to go beyond 4 years (or maybe it was the other way around).

yes many players wanted 5 years including Castonxza we refused and he signed for 4, however that was as he was in the 20's I mayu be wrong but top 10 may have got 5 years

Not quite.

Rookie contracts are limited to four years, and the team has an option for a fifth year "tag" on first round picks. The tag for players drafted in the top ten is equal to the average salary of the ten highest paid players at that position. The tag for players drafted 11-32 is equal to the average salary of the 3rd to 25th highest paid player at that position.

The debate over four or five year contracts for rookies was part of the CBA negotiation. The players association wanted to limit contracts for rookies to four years, and the owners wanted five years. They settled on the framework described above.

So, what that means for Andrew Luck, assuming he's a really good player in his first four years, is that his fifth year he'll be tagged and make a pretty hefty guaranteed salary (Drew Brees is getting ready to do a new contract worth at least $18-20 million a year, Aaron Rodgers contract will expire before then, etc.)

[buccolts]

Thanks Mac & Superman. I'll remain concerned.

Although, I can look forward to those threads in 4 years.

Everyone need long term goals.

[bayone]

[bayone]

buccolts, on 13 January 2012 - 04:00 PM, said:

There isn't a lot of history on this yet, but this past summer I recall many of the first rounders were looking for 5 year contracts, while teams were reluctant to go beyond 4 years (or maybe it was the other way around).

yes many players wanted 5 years including Castonxza we refused and he signed for 4, however that was as he was in the 20's I mayu be wrong but top 10 may have got 5 years

Not quite.

Rookie contracts are limited to four years, and the team has an option for a fifth year "tag" on first round picks. The tag for players drafted in the top ten is equal to the average salary of the ten highest paid players at that position. The tag for players drafted 11-32 is equal to the average salary of the 3rd to 25th highest paid player at that position.

The debate over four or five year contracts for rookies was part of the CBA negotiation. The players association wanted to limit contracts for rookies to four years, and the owners wanted five years. They settled on the framework described above.

So, what that means for Andrew Luck, assuming he's a really good player in his first four years, is that his fifth year he'll be tagged and make a pretty hefty guaranteed salary (Drew Brees is getting ready to do a new contract worth at least $18-20 million a year, Aaron Rodgers contract will expire before then, etc.)

I am not saying u r wrong

Nevertheless what i said did occur, Remember it distinctly and thats why Cast finally signed a few days late after training camp, started

he settled for the 5th year option as the teamed said weren't going to waiver their position

[Superman]

I am not saying u r wrong

Nevertheless what i said did occur, Remember it distinctly and thats why Cast finally signed a few days late after training camp, started

he settled for the 5th year option as the teamed said weren't going to waiver their position

That's not what happened with Castonzo. The only thing rookies can negotiate is the number of guaranteed years they have. The top picks all got four years fully guaranteed, and as you work your way toward the end of the first round, players started getting partially guaranteed fourth years. Castonzo was right in the gray area, but wound up with a partially guaranteed fourth year. The fifth year option is non-negotiable.

[reddmmann]

,

"Nearly 3 out of 4 (72 percent) of NFL players who were treated surgically for CDH returned to play and continued to play in an average of 29.3 games over a 2.8-year period after surgery. In contrast, less than half (46 percent) of those treated nonsurgically returned to play; those who did played an average of 14.7 games over a 1.5-year period before retiring."

http://www.aaos.org/...0/clinical2.asp

I wonder how many of these players required three neck surgeries?? :hmm:

[MAC]

I wonder how many of these players required three neck surgeries?? :hmm:

The second surgery was an attempt to short-cut the problem and avoid the more extensive procedure which because surgery #3. The first surgery WAS by some accounts at a different level, and that would be a little bit more worrysome.

[hoosiercoltsfan82]

I've read some posts saying that this surgery will lengthen Mannings career. However, i think that is slightly misunderstood. What this surgery has potentially done is saved his career from a pre-mature ending. If he had not had the procedure his career for undoubtedly be over right now, and we'd be hanging his jersey on the ring of honor.

So, here's how i see this (and this is just personal speculation btw, based on my own readings and conclusions)

1. If the neck/nerve issue never existed Manning would be playing until 40/41 (barring any injuries along the way)

2. If Manning decided to forego the spinal fusion procedure his career would likely be over now.

3. And this is the comprise....with the spinal fusion Manning likely is able to play for about 3 more years, ending his career at 38/39. Which in my opinion is still a good and complete career.

[MAC]

I've read some posts saying that this surgery will lengthen Mannings career. However, i think that is slightly misunderstood. What this surgery has potentially done is saved his career from a pre-mature ending. If he had not had the procedure his career for undoubtedly be over right now, and we'd be hanging his jersey on the ring of honor.

So, here's how i see this (and this is just personal speculation btw, based on my own readings and conclusions)

1. If the neck/nerve issue never existed Manning would be playing until 40/41 (barring any injuries along the way)

2. If Manning decided to forego the spinal fusion procedure his career would likely be over now.

3. And this is the comprise....with the spinal fusion Manning likely is able to play for about 3 more years, ending his career at 38/39. Which in my opinion is still a good and complete career.

I agreed with you up until the last bit. Why would he lose 2 years? I've been going around in circles with people about this for some time. If the problem was fixed and the nerve comes back, then shouldn't he still be able to play until 40/41? (Personally I've been saying 42 - Peyton is not your normal QB). What exactly do you think the injury/surgery did that is going to necessitate the compromise of which you speak. Yes, he is one hit away from his career being over - but so is every other player in the sport. This is why I don't understand all the people saying "the timing of Luck being available is perfect, after all Peyton is only going to play another year or two".

Why is that?

[hoosiercoltsfan82]

I agreed with you up until the last bit. Why would he lose 2 years? I've been going around in circles with people about this for some time. If the problem was fixed and the nerve comes back, then shouldn't he still be able to play until 40/41? (Personally I've been saying 42 - Peyton is not your normal QB). What exactly do you think the injury/surgery did that is going to necessitate the compromise of which you speak. Yes, he is one hit away from his career being over - but so is every other player in the sport. This is why I don't understand all the people saying "the timing of Luck being available is perfect, after all Peyton is only going to play another year or two".

Why is that?

Based on the fact that the article said players who opted for the spinal fusion played an average of 29.3 games over a 2.8 year period. I am interpretting that as saying, NFL players with spinal fusion played an average of 2.8 years after the surgery.

[MAC]

Based on the fact that the article said players who opted for the spinal fusion played an average of 29.3 games over a 2.8 year period. I am interpretting that as saying, NFL players with spinal fusion played an average of 2.8 years after the surgery.

OK, forgot about the origin of this conversation.

I don't think that the report means much at all. You can take encouragement from the idea that "people DO come back and play", but thats about it. The sample size was incredibly tiny (going back more than THIRTY years - things change over time), QBs weren't segregated out (they sustain a LOT less abuse than position players), and more importantly I don't believe that the report says anything at all about why people stopped playing. It certainly wasn't trying to make the argument that "on an average of 2.8 years later their necks acted up again and they had to leave". We have no idea whether the players involved were starters or scrubs - much less "one of the greatest players of all time". A LOT of players don't even have a career that lasts 2.8 years. There is simply no basis for assuming that Peytons injury is going to shorten his career any more than Brady's knee injury has shortened his. He missed a year, he came back, and everyone forgot all about it.

[coltsblue1844]

He works out at the beginning of the year and wakes up with a painful neck. Off to surgery. Then many months after what has been thought would be needed for his nerve to be healed, he suits up and throughs SHORT passes to a few Colts players. Again, no practice the next day. Infact, when was the last time he has done that again?? Never? The same nerve was suppose to heal before the beginning of this season and is still not healed. How many would bet it will heal in the next few months to make the team? Thats a fraction of the time it has already been given. Irsay has to cut him by the deadline because he can not renegotiate his contract because of the CBA. Manning is gone or hired as a QB coach.

WOW, i didnt realize that you worked with the Colts training staff!!! wait...you mean you DONT work for the Colts organization? so you mean you DONT have a clue what you're talking about, but rather just spouting off on an online message board?

i'm sorry, you'll have to forgive me...there for a minute, i thought your post may have been relevant...but after actually reading it and using common sense, i see clearly that it has no relevance at all!

[hoosiercoltsfan82]

OK, forgot about the origin of this conversation.

I don't think that the report means much at all. You can take encouragement from the idea that "people DO come back and play", but thats about it. The sample size was incredibly tiny (going back more than THIRTY years - things change over time), QBs weren't segregated out (they sustain a LOT less abuse than position players), and more importantly I don't believe that the report says anything at all about why people stopped playing. It certainly wasn't trying to make the argument that "on an average of 2.8 years later their necks acted up again and they had to leave". We have no idea whether the players involved were starters or scrubs - much less "one of the greatest players of all time". A LOT of players don't even have a career that lasts 2.8 years. There is simply no basis for assuming that Peytons injury is going to shorten his career any more than Brady's knee injury has shortened his. He missed a year, he came back, and everyone forgot all about it.

Knees and Necks are two entirely different things.

[bayone]

That's not what happened with Castonzo. The only thing rookies can negotiate is the number of guaranteed years they have. The top picks all got four years fully guaranteed, and as you work your way toward the end of the first round, players started getting partially guaranteed fourth years. Castonzo was right in the gray area, but wound up with a partially guaranteed fourth year. The fifth year option is non-negotiable.

Maybe i got exact details wrong, know was about the guaranteed # of years and as u said " toward the end of the first round, players started " I know to ask for something , and know Cast & Colts were at odds , Cast finally agreed to what colts wanted and signed and arrived in camp few days late, maybe My wording on exactly what that was is not explained correctly and some semantics involved

I'll defer to u, its outside this threads discussion anyway as its about Peyton not Cast

[Tony Sullivan]

Not to mention Peyton is probably the best in the league at avoiding the big hits.

[Gonzo]

OK, forgot about the origin of this conversation.

I don't think that the report means much at all. You can take encouragement from the idea that "people DO come back and play", but thats about it. The sample size was incredibly tiny (going back more than THIRTY years - things change over time), QBs weren't segregated out (they sustain a LOT less abuse than position players), and more importantly I don't believe that the report says anything at all about why people stopped playing. It certainly wasn't trying to make the argument that "on an average of 2.8 years later their necks acted up again and they had to leave". We have no idea whether the players involved were starters or scrubs - much less "one of the greatest players of all time". A LOT of players don't even have a career that lasts 2.8 years. There is simply no basis for assuming that Peytons injury is going to shorten his career any more than Brady's knee injury has shortened his. He missed a year, he came back, and everyone forgot all about it.

It's highly likely that the 2.8 years includes players who didn't respond well to the surgery. Obviously players that never returned played 0 seasons and they would drop the numbers precipitously. Consider also that the length of an NFL career has a pretty low cap on it to begin with. The average career length for all players who enter the league is 3.2 and the average for players who make an opening day roster in their rookie season is still only 6.0

As mentioned by yourself and others, if nerve function recovers and he regains his strength I'm not convinced this shortens his career at all.

http://forums.colts.com/index.php?/topic/3120-surgery-not-a-career-ender-for-nfl-players-with-cervical-disk-herniation/page__p__77535#entry77535

This paper was discussed previously in this thread. nsurg had some interesting points.

[bayone]

all misssing the point forget fusion, forget nerve regeneration, there is no such thing as spinal cord nerve root regeneration, that was a misnomer for the publics simplicity

The fusion can be perfect,

Peytons problem is that the nerve was irritated to a point where its innervation, the connection to the muscle wasnt right so signals sent to that muscle weren't right and a muscle without proper nerve signals weakens, and thats what peyton has

Now u can fix it perfectly so that the nerve is no longer irritated,

The question that then comes into play

was that nerve irritated enough, for long enough that it did permanent damage in such a way that the innervation, the signals it sends to the muscle will never be back to normal, partly back to normal, or fully back to normal.

The fact that he elected a simpler procedure before the fusion meant that it was irritated for a longer period of time, this may not matter just saying

All depends on the quality of that nerve signal as to the degree the muscle can regain strength,

without proper innervation no amount of exercise will help and though the fusion has taken and likely prevented ongoing nerve irritation, that says nothing as to the level of current innervation & that is the key to his rehab

I am repeating the above as all simply talk about the fusion and that has little to do with Peytons ability to throw