Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
Originally posted by dj43:
Originally posted by floridaMan:
I have always heard that a broken bone is better than a really bad sprain because the bone heals back harder than before. I have no idea if this is true, I think it was most likely a little league coach, or high school baseball coach, or someone else who probably had no real idea who told me this.
Anyone know if this is true? Or if it would even apply to Smith with everything his leg has been thru?
Depends on the situation. In general, if it is a clean break, the fracture site will actually be stronger than the immediate area. A bad sprain, OTOH, may do permanent damage that affects joint strength and stability.
In Smith's case, he had both. The elongated spiral fracture of the tibia would likely never have regained full strength. However, with the aid of the hardware, it is likely as good as new. His problem was the massive tissue damage. We will soon learn whether the medical magicians that put all that back together have enabled him to actually play. Whatever the case, the fact he still has a leg is a Godsend.
If you watched the special they did on Smith you saw the amount of muscle that was taken from part of his leg to replace the tissue that was lost from the infection. This was far more serious than a normal broken leg because of the infection and tissue damage. I hope it works out for him but he is really taking a chance that most players at his age wouldn't. Given his age and the money he's made it's a risk he sure doesn't need but more power to him. Everyone is pulling for him except D linemen when games start.
I remember when some fans thought he was soft when he played in SF.
i dont recall anybody thinking he was soft. even alex smith haters.
