Jameson Williams

[Jimmy 2 Times]

IF Joe drafts a receiver at 4 or 10, it can't be London.   

All of this Mims talk has be pumped back up that he can be a player.  

Drake would be redundant. 

[FidelioJet]

Just now, Jet Nut said:

To be even more clear Hill is a proven commodity and Williams is a dream you're having

That wasn't really the point though - I was being told Gurley only had three good years and he's the poster child of ACL's.

Just point out that Joe was willing to give up an awful lot for two good years, maybe, for an aging quick twitch WR.

IMO, Hill carries more risk than Williams - and I don't think it's close.

[Jimmy 2 Times]

Why are we acting like Wilson and Olave don't have deep speed?

They both just posted 4.3's.  Put either one in motion to avoid the press and let them stretch the secondary until they have a year to gain some more strength. 

[Jet Nut]

4 minutes ago, FidelioJet said:

That wasn't really the point though - I was being told Gurley only had three good years and he's the poster child of ACL's.

Just point out that Joe was willing to give up an awful lot for two good years, maybe, for an aging quick twitch WR.

IMO, Hill carries more risk than Williams - and I don't think it's close.

What arent you getting here?  Hill is proven and dont move the argument by saying he would have made the deal for two years.  You can bet the house JD was making the move for more than 2 years.  

Hes 28, not 34.  One one side of the argument you're managed to make JW a physical freak with inhuman recuperative powers and then turn Hill into a has been at 30

[derp]

30 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

But doesn’t Jameson Williams run in that 190 lb range too? I think the DPI rules have brought back the skinny receiver, especially the ones who operate downfield. I like Williams as a prospect and a receiver and all that, but specifically as it relates to the Jets, Douglas can’t take the risk on him. I think any receiver they draft here is going to struggle regardless, but especially one who’s going to be playing catch-up all year. Douglas doesn’t have that kind of rope

Yeah, Williams is skinny too so he’s absolutely a risky profile. That and the late breakout are flags. More prudent would be to draft Thornton who I mentioned before.

The distinctions between Williams and the OSU guys are a) he has the best raw production by a mile b) he’s been the guy on an elite offense in the way neither has (the most important point IMO so naturally I put it at b) and c) he’s the most explosive by a good bit. That play against Georgia that I think was posted in the OP was insane. If he’s not a sub 4.3 guy he certainly plays like it.

London has the raw production too but it’s a little more gimmicky, came on a mediocre offense, and he didn’t run past anyone. Like, anyone. I think you need to see how he runs and he’s coming off an injury and might not run.

Burks ticks all the production boxes but he’s raw and had mediocre testing. Bell does too but tested terribly.

The class in general is mediocre but Williams stands out IMO. You’re the player who made a title contender offense that put up serious points go and I’m interested, more than the others. I do genuinely believe if we weren’t coming off the 2020 and 2021 classes this group would be viewed more as a class with two first round guys and an interesting day two class. That’s what this group is IMO. Frankly I don’t get why they’re getting pushed up when most years there are plenty of good WR’s.

Most prudent thing Douglas could do if he wants day one impact is take two of Christian Watson, Alec Pierce, and Skyy Moore day two and just see what happens. Just admit we don’t really know who’s going to be good or ready to play early in this class and maximize your odds of having someone who can play while using the draft capital in a space where it tends to be more efficient. Throw in a tight end or two for good measure. Use the earlier picks for big uglies.

[PackerNation]

Some of you are acting like Jameson is the next Jerry Rice.

The injury is not the only concern. He needs to add strength and weight for the NFL. Will lose some speed when he does. You have to be somewhat of a physical WR in the NFL. If a defender gets their hands on Williams he struggles to get them off and he is done. NFL offenses also require a WR to be able to block. Williams gets rag-dolled when attempting to block. Williams hands are suspect in traffic.

Only one year of success in college football. Couldn't get on the grass with Olave and Wilson ahead of him at OSU.

[T0mShane]

16 minutes ago, derp said:

Yeah, Williams is skinny too so he’s absolutely a risky profile. That and the late breakout are flags. More prudent would be to draft Thornton who I mentioned before.

The distinctions between Williams and the OSU guys are a) he has the best raw production by a mile b) he’s been the guy on an elite offense in the way neither has (the most important point IMO so naturally I put it at b) and c) he’s the most explosive by a good bit. That play against Georgia that I think was posted in the OP was insane. If he’s not a sub 4.3 guy he certainly plays like it.

London has the raw production too but it’s a little more gimmicky, came on a mediocre offense, and he didn’t run past anyone. Like, anyone. I think you need to see how he runs and he’s coming off an injury and might not run.

Burks ticks all the production boxes but he’s raw and had mediocre testing. Bell does too but tested terribly.

The class in general is mediocre but Williams stands out IMO. You’re the player who made a title contender offense that put up serious points go and I’m interested, more than the others. I do genuinely believe if we weren’t coming off the 2020 and 2021 classes this group would be viewed more as a class with two first round guys and an interesting day two class. That’s what this group is IMO. Frankly I don’t get why they’re getting pushed up when most years there are plenty of good WR’s.

Most prudent thing Douglas could do if he wants day one impact is take two of Christian Watson, Alec Pierce, and Skyy Moore day two and just see what happens. Just admit we don’t really know who’s going to be good or ready to play early in this class and maximize your odds of having someone who can play while using the draft capital in a space where it tends to be more efficient. Throw in a tight end or two for good measure. Use the earlier picks for big uglies.

Absolutely. When you inspired me to go back and look at the recent history of drafted WRs, I basically gave up on the idea of needing to draft receiver in the first. Particularly with one coming off an ACL, it’s just too dicey for this team.

[HawkeyeJet]

10 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

Absolutely. When you inspired me to go back and look at the recent history of drafted WRs, I basically gave up on the idea of needing to draft receiver in the first. Particularly with one coming off an ACL, it’s just too dicey for this team.

I think you could make a very reasonable argument that Garnder at 4 Edge at 10 and WR at 35 or 38 makes the Jets instantly much better team then slightly reaching for Edge and WR in first and going wherever the rest of the draft.

[Sperm Edwards]

7 hours ago, Dcat said:

anyone who drafts J Williams is banking on a rehab year in 2022 with maybe some games after Thanksgiving in 2022 and then total domination in 2023.  Sign me up.  I can live with Core Davis still being our #1 until then.

Yeah I don’t know much about him (other than I can see his numbers using googles and reading what people say about his play and his knee). 

It doesn’t scare me if he’s slow to get back to full speed early on as a rookie. If he does recover he’ll have a long career ahead of him. In the meantime, the jets have a starting WR trio (not even counting Mims, any rookie(s) or other veteran WR they may add); the WR (and QB and OL) personnel all returning to the same system - plus having added a couple actual NFL TEs - means they’re not immediately desperate for a WR despite fan/JN cries to the contrary.

They can afford to go for the gold here. It’s not like they have no one else to throw the ball to if he’s a slow starter as a rookie, or even if he never regains his prior form. No one would like seeing it, but QBs have gotten by with less.

[BornJetsFan1983]

2 hours ago, All Gas, No Gase said:

That’s because you secretly want to keep Braxton Berrios on the team. ?

Haha the day is coming when we will no long need his services...it will be a good day but certain people on here like @Jetsfan80 might stop being a fan of the team when it happens. Dude is in love with him 

[Hal N of Provo]

58 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

It won’t let me copy and paste the article, but yikes:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666061X20301723#:~:text=Sixty-nine percent of wide,statistical performance and career duration.

Oof.  Good find.  That drops the value.

G Wilson clear WR1 to me then. 

[derp]

11 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

Absolutely. When you inspired me to go back and look at the recent history of drafted WRs, I basically gave up on the idea of needing to draft receiver in the first. Particularly with one coming off an ACL, it’s just too dicey for this team.

I can’t come up with a perfect analogy right now but Williams is a pick I couldn’t help but be giddy about but also would be thinking “**** that was risky” in the back of my head. He’s a super fun player and I’d be excited about it but also more than a little concerned they blew a pick. 

Round one WR’s aren’t *bad* it’s just hefty draft capital to use on something that’s effectively a coin flip. If they *need* day one impact, day two guys are close enough in hit rate that a throw **** against the wall situation is more likely to work out than a guy at 10 and even 35+38 is less value chart capital investment than 10. 

I do think a field stretcher is perfect for Moore who can attack all levels of the field and probably isn’t ideally used as a deep threat primarily, will take some pressure off Davis, and fits with how Wilson wants to attack defenses. It also meshes with the two tight ends being safety valves underneath, but they need a guy who can threaten defenses enough to give them room to operate. And it pushes defenses back to help the run game work.

I also know that there’s like no correlation between speed and guys working out in the NFL, but fast guys get drafted early because they’re fast. Better off taking a tank of a 4.5 guy, but there isn’t one in this class, so I think if you want speed it’s smarter to wait on it. 

Do think having the option to mostly run out Conklin + Uzomah was intended to take a little pressure off the WR thing need. I’m skeptical Douglas likes this first round WR class *and* is going hard on veterans. More likely his plan B involves guys like Watson or Pierce who fit the need and they coached at the Senior Bowl but there’s no way you can bank on guys who never broke 1000 yards in non FBS conferences making day one impacts in the pros and on top of that post combine I’m sure he’s not confident Watson is there at 35/38 and I doubt he wants to take Pierce there but he can’t be confident he’s at 69 either so it’s definitely a bit of a pickle.

He does strike me as more likely to pivot than force though. And fans always want to force. He’ll go RB or TE to take some pressure off Wilson if he doesn’t like the WR’s and fans will be like bUT wE NeEDeD A Wr! It is hard to find the point that you need to suck it up and reach/overpay, we haven’t quite seen him get there.

[Jets Voice of Reason]

49 minutes ago, derp said:

Yeah, Williams is skinny too so he’s absolutely a risky profile. That and the late breakout are flags. More prudent would be to draft Thornton who I mentioned before.

The distinctions between Williams and the OSU guys are a) he has the best raw production by a mile b) he’s been the guy on an elite offense in the way neither has (the most important point IMO so naturally I put it at b) and c) he’s the most explosive by a good bit. That play against Georgia that I think was posted in the OP was insane. If he’s not a sub 4.3 guy he certainly plays like it.

London has the raw production too but it’s a little more gimmicky, came on a mediocre offense, and he didn’t run past anyone. Like, anyone. I think you need to see how he runs and he’s coming off an injury and might not run.

Burks ticks all the production boxes but he’s raw and had mediocre testing. Bell does too but tested terribly.

The class in general is mediocre but Williams stands out IMO. You’re the player who made a title contender offense that put up serious points go and I’m interested, more than the others. I do genuinely believe if we weren’t coming off the 2020 and 2021 classes this group would be viewed more as a class with two first round guys and an interesting day two class. That’s what this group is IMO. Frankly I don’t get why they’re getting pushed up when most years there are plenty of good WR’s.

Most prudent thing Douglas could do if he wants day one impact is take two of Christian Watson, Alec Pierce, and Skyy Moore day two and just see what happens. Just admit we don’t really know who’s going to be good or ready to play early in this class and maximize your odds of having someone who can play while using the draft capital in a space where it tends to be more efficient. Throw in a tight end or two for good measure. Use the earlier picks for big uglies.

You have to live with a wart on any of the WR class it feels like. Taking two seems prudent to me because it’s not like if lacks talent, just everyone has a major carrying flaw and inflated risk. 

That being said, really rooting for a trade down at 10. It’s really a stockpile draft on athletic guys more than it is full of polished pros. 

[derp]

1 hour ago, T0mShane said:

It won’t let me copy and paste the article, but yikes:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666061X20301723#:~:text=Sixty-nine percent of wide,statistical performance and career duration.

It looks like they have under 30 WR’s who had ACL injuries from 2013-2017, matched them to players who didn’t have injuries, and compared performance. It’s a pretty wild methodology. I’m surprised it’s allowed when publishing something.

Believe they’ve improved ACL repairs since then too. And they threw out guys who hadn’t played in the NFL, so Williams wouldn’t have been included. Plus everybody recovers differently, apparently he’s doing great. Lots of reasons I wouldn’t worry about this article.

[derp]

3 minutes ago, Jets Voice of Reason said:

You have to live with a wart on any of the WR class it feels like. Taking two seems prudent to me because it’s not like if lacks talent, just everyone has a major carrying flaw and inflated risk. 

That being said, really rooting for a trade down at 10. It’s really a stockpile draft on athletic guys more than it is full of polished pros. 

Wholeheartedly agree with all of that.

I kind of doubt they take two because I think they view Berrios as a production safety net and Mims as a wild card, where we have Mims as a 0 and might want two rookie wild cards. But if they want immediate production they need a bunch of options to see what works.

[Jet Nut]

53 minutes ago, PackerNation said:

He needs to add strength and weight for the NFL. Will lose some speed when he does. You have to be somewhat of a physical WR in the NFL. If a defender gets their hands on Williams he struggles to get them off and he is done. NFL offenses also require a WR to be able to block. Williams gets rag-dolled when attempting to block. Williams hands are suspect in traffic.

Nonsense, you have no idea that he would lose speed, you have no idea that he will struggle to get off if a defender gets a hand on him.  You arent allowed to get a hand on anyone anymore.  Theres a lot of cliches that reek of the 1980's going on here.  Everyones dream is a young T Hill who is 5-10, 185.  

[nycdan]

3 minutes ago, derp said:

It looks like they have under 30 WR’s who had ACL injuries from 2013-2017, matched them to players who didn’t have injuries, and compared performance. It’s a pretty wild methodology. I’m surprised it’s allowed when publishing something.

Believe they’ve improved ACL repairs since then too. And they threw out guys who hadn’t played in the NFL, so Williams wouldn’t have been included. Plus everybody recovers differently, apparently he’s doing great. Lots of reasons I wouldn’t worry about this article.

Statistical sample size of one here.  My daughter tore her ACL playing volleyball in the spring of 8th grade.  We had an excellent surgeon at HSS  and surgery went well.  She obviously skipped the fall season and was playing tentatively next spring with a brace.  By fall of 10th grade she was on varsity and playing 100% as if nothing happened.  She did feel it from time to time, but said once she got over the fear, she was fine.  I would say she is not hampered even a tiny bit by it athletically at this point.  So I would expect there to be some impact this season, but by 2023, assuming no other injuries, I think it would likely be a non-factor.  Again based on my incredibly statistically insignificant sample.

[NIGHT STALKER]

I'd pass on this kid only because a team like the Jets can't be taking chances if he will be 100%.  Maybe one of our #2 picks or later.  JD needs to be nailing this draft and not using the shotgun method hoping he hits something.  I'm still in on picking an edge and wr with our first two picks...just not Williams with one of our # 1's.

[The Crusher]

1 hour ago, Jimmy 2 Times said:

IF Joe drafts a receiver at 4 or 10, it can't be London.   

All of this Mims talk has be pumped back up that he can be a player.  

Drake would be redundant. 

I didn’t the scouting report about Drake being unable to read the playbook. 

[Spoot-Face]

8 minutes ago, The Crusher said:

I didn’t the scouting report about Drake being unable to read the playbook. 

He sounds like the perfect replacement for Mims.

[Jet Nut]

1 hour ago, T0mShane said:

It won’t let me copy and paste the article, but yikes:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666061X20301723#:~:text=Sixty-nine percent of wide,statistical performance and career duration.

 

I removed the tables

 

 

Decreased Performance and Return to Play Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in National Football League Wide Receivers

Author links open overlay panelColin J.BurgessD.O.^aErikStapletonD.O., M.S.^aKennethChoyB.A.^bCesarIturriagaM.Randy M.CohnM.D.^a

 

Purpose

To identify the time to return to play (RTP) and evaluate the performance level in wide receivers in the National Football League following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.

Methods

A total of 29 wide receivers in the National Football League who underwent ACL reconstruction between 2013 and 2017 who met inclusion criteria were retrospectively identified and reviewed. For each player, a matched control with similar demographics was identified to compare various in-game performance measurements and seasons played.

Results

Of the wide receivers that met the inclusion criteria, 9 of 29 (31%) did not RTP in a regular season game following ACL reconstruction. For players who did RTP, 20 of 29 (69%), the average time was 10.9 months (331.4 ± 41.6 days). When we compared the tear group with the matched control cohort, players with ACL tears ended their careers on an average of 1.9 seasons earlier (2.2 vs 4.1 seasons, P < .001) and also played less than half the number of games (25.5 vs 56.6 games, P = .001), respectively. Those that RTP also saw decreased performance statistics in targets (353.6 vs 125.2 P < .001), receptions (208.0 vs 74.4, P = .001), receiving yards (2691.0 vs 987.9, P = .001), and touchdowns (17.4 vs 6.2, P = .002).

Conclusions

Sixty-nine percent of wide receivers who underwent ACL reconstruction were able to RTP at an average of 10.9 months, or 331.4 days. Despite the majority of players being able to RTP, there was a significant decrease in both statistical performance and career duration.

Level of Evidence

 

It is estimated that there are more than 200,000 Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries in the United States per year.¹ Clinical outcome following ACL reconstruction is most significant in professional athletes, where performance can dictate financial compensation and career longevity.

ACL tears account for 2% of all injuries in the National Football League (NFL).² In NFL players who sustain an ACL tear, it has been shown that between 8% to 37% do not return to play (RTP) in a regular season game.^3,4 These RTP rates are partially dependent on position played, with skill position players having a greater RTP than unskilled players.⁵Dodson et al.⁶ demonstrated that receivers and backs (halfbacks, fullbacks, and linebackers) were at a significantly greater injury risk than other position players.

When compared with other procedures, ACL reconstruction, along with patellar and Achilles tendon repairs, have the greatest effects on an NFL athlete’s career.⁷ These athletes had statistically significant decreases in games played one year after their surgery. In addition, a similar study looking at outcomes following ACL reconstruction in the four major sports (football, baseball, hockey, and basketball) found that NFL players had the shortest postinjury careers and greatest decrease in performance.⁸

The purpose of this study was to identify the time to RTP and evaluate the performance level in NFL wide receivers following ACL reconstruction. We hypothesized that because of the specific positional athletic demands, wide receivers who undergo ACL reconstruction would show a significant decrease in statistical performance and career length.

Methods

NFL wide receivers were identified using public injury data, from team releases, NFL injury reports, press releases, and other internet resources, as demonstrated by previous studies.^3,4,8, 9, 10, 11 The term “ACL injury” was used as a basis for our search. This data is publicly available; therefore, no formal institutional review board approval was required. Wide receivers who sustained an isolated, unilateral ACL injury between the 2013 and 2017 NFL seasons were evaluated. Many public injury reports specified if the ACL injury was isolated versus if additional injuries were sustained; however, it cannot be stated with complete certainty that all ACL injuries were truly isolated. Players must have participated in at least one regular season NFL game before injury to be included. Wide receivers were excluded if they had a previous ACL reconstruction, reported concomitant ligamentous/meniscal injuries in the ipsilateral knee, or other reported simultaneous injuries. The subset of players who were able to RTP were further analyzed to identify statistical performance following RTP. RTP was defined as participation in one NFL regular season game following ACL reconstruction. A player did not RTP if they only played in a preseason game, played in another football league outside of the NFL, or did not play in any NFL games following reconstruction.

Demographic data obtained for the identified players included age, body mass index (BMI), date of injury, and date of RTP. Performance statistics collected were seasons played, games played, games per season, targets, targets per season, yards per target, receptions, receptions per game, yards per reception, catch percentage, receiving yards, receiving yards per game, receiving yards per season, and touchdowns. Preseason statistics were excluded. In addition, variables such as injury laterality, player draft position, and season injured were evaluated. These variables were recorded both preinjury and postinjury for each receiver. In-game performance statistics were analyzed as an average over the years preinjury and postinjury.

Each wide receiver in the ACL tear group was matched to a player without a documented history of ACL injury based on experience level, in-game performance, and demographics as described by previous studies.^3,4,6,8, 9, 10 In decreasing order of importance for matching: previous NFL seasons, individual (nonaverage) performance statistics, and BMI. Exclusion criteria for the matched control group included players with a history of ACL injury. The control players had statistically similar performance averages preinjury and preindex year as well as similar demographics. Other injuries before the ACL injury in the matched control group were not identified. The time from the start of a player’s career to the time they tore their ACL was identified in the tear group. A matched index year was applied to the control group that directly correlated to the year of injury in the tear group for each player. As an example, if a receiver tore his ACL after 5 years in the NFL, the appropriately matched control player was assigned an index year of 5. This example control would have preindex year statistics based on years 1 through 5, and all subsequent seasons would be used for postindex year statistics.

The preinjury performance variables of players in the ACL tear group who were able to RTP were compared with the preinjury statistics of players who did not return. Then, further regression analysis was done to determine player risk factors for no RTP after ACL reconstruction. In addition, of the players who were able to RTP, preinjury performance was compared with postinjury performance measures. Lastly, the postinjury performances in the tear group were compared with the postindex variables in the matched control group. A power analysis was performed for sample size estimation based on Wise and Gallo¹² comparing performance statistics for wide receivers and tight ends for postinjury to postindex controls in the National Collegiate Athletic Association Football Bowl Subdivision. With an alpha of 0.05 and power of 0.80, the projected sample size needed for a between group comparison would be n = 12 (6 per group) based on difference in receptions per game and n = 16 (8 per group) based on difference in receiving yards per game. Our sample size for performance comparison between groups of n = 40 (20 per group) would be adequate for the primary aim of our study and should allow for appropriate comparison of additional performance statistics.

All statistical analyses were performed with SPSS, version 26 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY). Patient demographics and in-game statistics of ACL tear players, who were and were not able to RTP, were compared using independent samples t test for continuous variables, and the Pearson χ²analyses or Fisher exact test for categorical variables. Further logistic regression was performed to determine independent risk factors of no RTP. Then, demographics and in-game statistics for players who returned to play after ACL reconstruction were compared with controls using paired samples t test. Tests were deemed significant with a P value less than .05. Holm–Bonferroni correction determined an adjusted significant P value for regression analysis.

Results

We identified a total of 43 wide receivers who suffered a torn ACLbetween the 2013 and 2017 seasons. Six players had not played a regular season NFL game before their injury. Three players had previously torn the same or contralateral ACL in their NFL career. An additional 5 players were excluded due to concomitant injuries suffered at the time of ACL tear (i.e., ACL/posterior cruciate ligament with or without MCL/lateral collateral ligament injury as well). After we excluded these 14 players, the remaining 29 were included in this study. Of the included 29 players, 20 (69.0%) were able to RTP in an NFL game after their injury. Nine (31%) did not RTP following their ACL reconstruction. The receivers who were able to return did so at a mean of 10.9 months (331.4 ± 41.6 days) following their injury. Eleven of the 29 (37.9%) tore their ACL in the preseason. The ACL group that returned to play had similar ages (26.0 vs 25.8 years), BMI (26.5 vs 27.2), and previous seasons of experience (3.3 vs 3.9) (Table 1). Both groups also had similar injury and draft data, with 75% of the wide receivers who RTP were drafted compared with 77.8% of those unable to RTP. There were no significant differences in any demographic, injury, or preinjury performance statistics between the ACL tear group that were able to RTP compared with the ACL tear group who did not return (Table 2). A multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify independent risk factors for no RTP. Age (odds ratio 0.11; 95% confidence interval 0.02-0.72; P = .022) and previous NFL seasons (odds ratio 10.51; 95% confidence interval 1.43-77.04, P = .021) approached but did not reach statistical significance as risk factors for no RTP (Table 3).

 

When compared with the preindex year control cohort before ACL reconstruction, wide receivers demonstrated no significant differences among parameters matched for experience, individual in-game performance, and BMI; however, there were differences in age and receiving yards per season between the 2 groups (Table 4). The preindex and postindex in-game statistics were compared for the control players, which demonstrated variable differences in almost all individual and average in-game performances, but these did not reach statistical significance (Table 5)

There were pervasive decreases in the in-game performance statistics of the ACL reconstruction cohort following RTP, with a considerable drop in receiving yards (2117.5 vs 987.9 yards, P = .121). Nevertheless, no significant differences were present between preinjury and postinjury in-game in all in-game statistics for the wide receiver who underwent ACL reconstruction (Table 6)

When comparing the post-ACLR group with matched post-index year controls, athletes showed significant decreases in subsequent participation and in-game effectiveness. Following ACL reconstruction, wide receivers played 1.9 seasons less (2.2 vs 4.1 seasons, P < .001) and less than half the number of games (25.5 vs 56.6 games, P < .001) when compared with their postindex year matched controls. In addition, there were significant decreases in targets, receptions, receiving yards, and touchdowns after undergoing ACL reconstruction (Table 7).

Discussion

From our results, of the NFL wide receivers who underwent ACL reconstruction and were able to RTP, they had evidence for a significant reduction in performance and career length as compared with matched controls. These results were most notable in seasons and games played, as well as receiving yards and touchdowns. Interestingly, while player’s performance averages dropped post-ACL reconstruction, these decreases were not statistically significant when comparing pre- and post-ACL reconstruction in players who RTP. This can possibly be explained by the partial bias of patients selected for analysis. It has been shown that players with 4 years or more of experience have greater RTP percentage after ACL reconstruction.⁴ In our cohort of players who RTP, there were 30% that had 4 years or more experience. However, there was no statistically significant difference in games and seasons played between the RTP and non-RTP groups. Results after ACL reconstruction can be variable, with poor results having the most detrimental effect on professional athletes mentally, physically, and financially. Despite the constant advancement in reconstruction techniques, based on this study, 31% of NFL wide receivers are unable to RTP in an NFL game after surgery.

Our findings indicate that when compared with matched controls, wide receivers who undergo ACL reconstruction do have a significant decrease in certain performance measures and career duration. Wide receivers post-ACL reconstruction played fewer games, games per season, and total seasons compared with matched controls. This data appears plausible, as wide receivers frequently perform explosive pivoting maneuvers in their route running, and this increased repetitive stress on the knee could predispose them to more risk for ACL injury. This data coincides with previous studies on athletes in the NFL as well as other professional sports. One study demonstrated that up to 40% of NFL players were no longer on an active team roster after just 3 seasons post-ACL reconstruction.⁸ This same study compared professional athletes in the NFL, National Basketball Association, National Hockey League, and Major League Baseball. All athletes in these 4 sports who underwent ACL reconstruction played a statistically significant fewer number of games after the surgery.⁸ In contrast, one study exhibited no statistically significant difference in career length following ACL reconstruction in NFL quarterbacks.³ A similar study also showed no difference in career length following ACL reconstruction in NFL players; however, when combined with meniscectomy there was a statistically significant decrease in games and years played.¹³

Carey et al.¹⁴ performed a similar analysis of RTP and performance following ACL reconstruction in NFL wide receivers and running backs. They had similar results to our findings, demonstrating a 79% RTP rate. They also found an approximately 33% decrease in performance following ACL reconstruction, which was statistically significant. While our results were not statistically significant when comparing pre- and postinjury statistics, they did demonstrate a similar decrease in performance. This lack of statistical significance in our study could be a result of analyzing individual statistics as opposed to a consolidated measure of performance. In addition, their control group consisted of more than 4 times more players than their injury group, potentially allowing for a more generalizable comparison of postinjury statistics to the average player postindex year. Our study focused on individually matched controls for each player undergoing ACL reconstruction and thus potentially limited the generalizability throughout NFL wide receivers. Nevertheless, comparing unvalidated markers of performance instead of performance statistics may have introduced bias and their power rating comparison only reflects a difference in yards and touchdowns.

A multivariate analysis was performed on player demographics who were unable to RTP following ACL reconstruction. To account for cumulative type I error in our tests of multiple hypotheses, Holm–Bonferroni method was used to set new threshold P value for statistical significance at .01. None of the variables tested were statistically significant; however, number of seasons played before injury approached statistical significance. For each year played before injury, players were at 10.51 times increased likelihood of not returning to play. This contradicts other studies demonstrating an increased percentage in RTP for players with 4 or more years of experience before injury.⁴ In future studies with an increased database of players, further data can be explored to determine whether this is truly a risk factor for decreased RTP.

Reduction in performance for NFL players after ACL reconstruction has been reported for defensive players,¹¹ and this study found decreases in games started as well as solo tackles in players who underwent ACL reconstruction. In contrast, Cinque et al.⁹ showed that in NFL linemen who underwent ACL reconstruction, there were no significant differences in performance after surgery. A similar study by Erickson et al.³ looked at performance in NFL quarterbacks after ACL reconstruction did not find statistically significant differences in pre-injury versus post injury performance as compared to controls. They did, however, show similar results to our study such that there were no significant differences in statistics before and after ACL reconstruction among players who RTP.

Results from this study can have a measurable impact on the dynamics of the NFL, from statistical and performance predictions to various personnel and managerial decisions. Potential prediction of player performance after surgery can have huge financial implications as well as help team administration provide a good baseline for expected athlete’s performance after surgery. A study by Secrist et al.¹⁵ demonstrated a decrease in earnings following ACL reconstruction in NFL players during the 4 years after surgery. They also demonstrated that players earning more than $2 million per year before injury did not have negatively impacted careers versus those earning less than $2 million. The livelihoods of these players without larger contracts can be negatively affected by ACL injuries. This difference could partially be attributed to the higher-earning players having a more impactful role as opposed to the lower-earning players.

Future studies can further evaluate differences based on reconstruction technique as well as additional comparison across various positions. In addition, financial implications after injury can be further explored, which can help give teams a better understanding of player outcomes after surgical reconstruction. Developing a predictive model for performance after ACL reconstruction throughout NFL players would be beneficial for teams, personnel and players themselves.

Limitations

There are a few limitations noted by the authors. Due to the retrospective nature of the study, there are inherent flaws with data acquisition, although the authors used similar methodology described from previous studies.^3,4,8, 9, 10, 11 Second, while the injuries were made public, full disclosure of the exact severity and nature of the injuries as well as surgical technique is not known. NFL teams do not disclose details regarding player injuries to the public. In addition, the authors were not able to attain the operative notes or surgical methods used for each ACL reconstruction. Therefore, accounting for different surgical details (i.e., autograft vs allograft, graft choice, surgical techniques) was not able to be accomplished in this study. In addition, we also did not look at whether these injuries occurred during practice or games; however, it has been shown that the majority of injuries in the NFL occur during games and we recorded this as such.¹⁶ When performing our multivariate analysis to determine factors associated with decreased RTP, our study population consisted of only 9 players, limiting the power of our results. Nevertheless, our study was adequately powered to determine differences between post-ACL reconstruction and post-index groups performance based on previous literature demonstrating distinct receptions and yards per game among similar groups in National Collegiate Athletic Association receivers.¹²

Conclusions

Sixty-nine percent of wide receivers who underwent ACL reconstructionwere able to RTP at an average of 10.9 months, or 331.4 days. Despite the majority of players being able to RTP, there was a significant decrease in both statistical performance and career duration.

 

[PackerNation]

47 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

Nonsense, you have no idea that he would lose speed, you have no idea that he will struggle to get off if a defender gets a hand on him.  You arent allowed to get a hand on anyone anymore.  Theres a lot of cliches that reek of the 1980's going on here.  Everyones dream is a young T Hill who is 5-10, 185.  

Ok, I'll take the bait...

Yes, no WR that has a slight frame has ever lost speed when they added weight and strength at the next level. Good luck with all that.

If a WR can't get off a jam at the line of scrimmage, that is a problem. Not sure you understand the rules of the game if you think "you aren't allowed to get a hand on anyone anymore."

My "dream" is not a WR that is "5'10." I like WRs over 6 feet. Williams has good height. He just needs to add weight and strength for the NFL. Playing in the NFL with that frame is also a injury waiting to happen.

[Jet Nut]

9 minutes ago, PackerNation said:

Ok, I'll take the bait...

Yes, no WR that has a slight frame has ever lost speed when they added weight and strength at the next level. Good luck with all that.

If a WR can't get off a jam at the line of scrimmage, that is a problem. Not sure you understand the rules of the game if you think "you aren't allowed to get a hand on anyone anymore."

My "dream" is not a WR that is "5'10." I like WRs over 6 feet. Williams has good height. He just needs to add weight and strength for the NFL. Playing in the NFL with that frame is also a injury waiting to happen.

Yeah, bait?  I didnt say he couldn't lose speed, but I also didnt take it as a given as you have.  HUGE difference.  Its 2022, programs are designed to add strength, not fat, that dont have to sap a player from losing more than a negligible amount of speed

I've been watching the game a whole lot longer than you have, you have no clue what it was like to get hands on with the 5 yards of the OL as in the past.  Back in the day Al Toon or a K Johnson had to learn how to get off the line.  Two 6' 4", 205-210 lb WRs

[PackerNation]

6 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

I've been watching the game a whole lot longer than you have

Man, you are a "whole lot" older than 51. Just when I was starting to feel old. Thank you, made my day!

[Jet Nut]

1 hour ago, PackerNation said:

Man, you are a "whole lot" older than 51. Just when I was starting to feel old. Thank you, made my day!

Season tix starting in 1977.  I was a teen, but still older than 51.  Not that much though

[Dcat]

3 hours ago, The Crusher said:

I didn’t the scouting report about Drake being unable to read the playbook. 

canyousaystephenhill?

[slimjasi]

6 hours ago, T0mShane said:

The best receiver in this class will end up being some dude no one is talking about who gets picked in the third round by the Packers

Probably. Especially if we actually decide to take a WR in round 1 in the first time in forever 

but last year everyone was talking about Jamar Chase and the year before everyone was talking about Lamb and Jerry J, so it works both ways 

[slimjasi]

6 hours ago, T0mShane said:

In terms of self-preservation, the best moves for Douglas would be to draft two pass rushers at 4 and 10, and then a bellcow running back and OL in the second. Try to mash your way to eight wins on the ground.

My preference is always to go get more WRs because I just think the position is too important in today’s league and I also just have a huge WR obsession, in general.

BUT, I could be sold on this approach and doubling up on pass-rushers could pay off in a big way for this defense. But then, I still want another TE with the other 2nd round pick because this draft has some good ones.  

[56mehl56]

I still contend the best WR fit for the Jets is Treylon Burks .Burks can line up anywhere in the offensive scheme and be productive. Williams and guys like Olave are more suited to line up wide and stretch the filed. Give Zach a weapon like SF has in Deebo and guys like Davis and Moore will benefit greatly from it.  

[naturalscience]

21 hours ago, FidelioJet said:

Yes, it seems like there are a handful of Edge's that will be solid at 10.  If Williams wasn't in this draft I would say wait until 10 for a WR - as there are a lot clumped together.  

Just take Williams.

Watch Hutchinson fall to 4 now and make this a more difficult decision.

Heard about Williams recovering by the time camp rolled around last week and ever since been thinking he's the pick at 4. 

I'm not so sure Saleh wouldn't be happy with a line that's always in the QBs face as opposed to getting sacks. Don't get me wrong I'm sure he'd love a guy getting 15 plus sacks a year but I think he really values those relentless pressure guys too.

The question is do they value a more explosive well functioning offense over a few more sacks from the Dline but still gets pressure on the QB?

[PackerNation]

10 hours ago, T0mShane said:

The best receiver in this class will end up being some dude no one is talking about who gets picked in the third round by the Packers

[Larz]

NFL network is mocking him to the cheaters 

I would not be amused lol

[long time suffering Jets f]

12 hours ago, naturalscience said:

Watch Hutchinson fall to 4 now and make this a more difficult decision.

Heard about Williams recovering by the time camp rolled around last week and ever since been thinking he's the pick at 4. 

I'm not so sure Saleh wouldn't be happy with a line that's always in the QBs face as opposed to getting sacks. Don't get me wrong I'm sure he'd love a guy getting 15 plus sacks a year but I think he really values those relentless pressure guys too.

The question is do they value a more explosive well functioning offense over a few more sacks from the Dline but still gets pressure on the QB?

If by the off chance Hutchinson falls to 4 you run to the podium. It would be risky and surprising if the Jets took Williams at 4. Besides he will most likely be there at 10 and even then it would make me somewhat hesitant.

[naturalscience]

7 hours ago, long time suffering Jets f said:

If by the off chance Hutchinson falls to 4 you run to the podium. It would be risky and surprising if the Jets took Williams at 4. Besides he will most likely be there at 10 and even then it would make me somewhat hesitant.

Yeah Hutchinson is likely the pick if he somehow fell.

But even he's not without scrutiny as a pick. He's only had one year of real production.

Same with Williams, only one year of real production.  The injury, I don't think is too concerning. The recovery from these are so good these days. Nothing is 100% but odds are in this youngs mans favor that he recovers fully.

There's just no clear "star" in this draft.

I seriously doubt Hutchinson would actually fall but I don't think Williams makes it to 10. A lot of receiver hungry teams. 

Who knows!!?? 

Would be freaking awesome if we could somehow land both. 

[ryu79]

2 hours ago, naturalscience said:

Yeah Hutchinson is likely the pick if he somehow fell.

But even he's not without scrutiny as a pick. He's only had one year of real production.

Same with Williams, only one year of real production.  The injury, I don't think is too concerning. The recovery from these are so good these days. Nothing is 100% but odds are in this youngs mans favor that he recovers fully.

There's just no clear "star" in this draft.

I seriously doubt Hutchinson would actually fall but I don't think Williams makes it to 10. A lot of receiver hungry teams. 

Who knows!!?? 

Would be freaking awesome if we could somehow land both. 

I thought Hutch looked totally overmatched in his bowl game. Stiff and frustrated with no bend and rendered impotent by the Georgia line. 

I wouldn't be surprised if he does fall to us, though I see he is considered the top pick by a lot of experts in the run up.