Unless someone can show any indication of meniscus injuries in the past, I don't know how this new injury can elicit additional criticism of the pick. Injuries happen, and this one was no more likely to have happened to Murphy than anyone else, "injury prone" or not. Does the devastating injury Gormley suffered last year make that one a bad pick?
That doesn't mean this is good for Murphy, by the way, but it's not really fair to criticize the scouting staff for not predicting a torn meniscus. It has nothing to do with his back.
Intuitively, one ought to be skeptical of picking this kid at twenty based on his complete lack of playing hockey at all due to injuries. That's plural, by the way. It wasn't just the back, if I recall correctly. Wasn't it a foot or an ankle then the back and now a knee?
Stop taking a defensive position on this just long enough to be reasonable.
How many hockey games is this kid going to get in between 16 and 19? Kind of important developmental years, no?
09-10 he had 2gp for the USNTDP. Last year he had nine games for that team and six for the under eighteen team.
That's 17 games in the last two years. He's now going to be sitting out until December. He turns 19 in March. Sarnias regular season ends the month of his nineteenth birthday, March.
Say he gets six games in December, 12 in January, 12 in February, and eight in march.
55 games in three seasons. 55 games over the course of three crucial developmental years.
Why pick this player when there are healthy ones on the board?
A meniscus tear, assuming that's all it is, is not a big deal. Other than the delay in the growth of his game, an isolated meniscus injury shouldn't cause long-term problems.
Intuitively, one ought to be skeptical of picking this kid at twenty based on his complete lack of playing hockey at all due to injuries. That's plural, by the way. It wasn't just the back, if I recall correctly. Wasn't it a foot or an ankle then the back and now a knee?
Stop taking a defensive position on this just long enough to be reasonable.
How many hockey games is this kid going to get in between 16 and 19? Kind of important developmental years, no?
09-10 he had 2gp for the USNTDP. Last year he had nine games for that team and six for the under eighteen team.
That's 17 games in the last two years. He's now going to be sitting out until December. He turns 19 in March. Sarnias regular season ends the month of his nineteenth birthday, March.
Say he gets six games in December, 12 in January, 12 in February, and eight in march.
55 games in three seasons. 55 games over the course of three crucial developmental years.
Why pick this player when there are healthy ones on the board?
Again, I'm not saying this is a good thing. It's bad for his development, and there's no way around it.
But a meniscus tear has nothing to do with whatever injuries he had before this. It was just as likely to have happened to anyone else. It's a bad injury and it sucks, but it's just not fair to say this indicates that the scouting team made a mistake on him. This isn't just me trying to be contrarian. I'm trying to be reasonable, but it seems like not many people are interested in that around here anymore.
His having played seventeen games in two ****ing years was a pretty good indication that you may have an injury prone player on your hands. Now he has to sit out the first four months of this season. Gee, who ever could've possibly seen this kid as being an injury risk? I don't give a shot if its his back, neck, shoulder, or jock. He's a big gangily mess of injury and not playing hockey ever.
Pho, injury prone players exist. They do. It's not just a bum hip for this guy and a bad back for that guy. Sometimes you are Ladislav Nagy and your whole body is ruined all of the time. That's why when they is a huge, glaring, blinking, blinding red flag with a bomb raid siren blaring behind it, maybe you move along to the next kid and kick the tires there.
Injury prone players exist. But not all players who have had a lot of injuries are injury prone, at least to the extent that the first few injuries don't necessarily predict the next few.
If Player X has a playing style that is bad for his back, and then he gets a back injury, and then that same back injury lingers for the rest of his career and causes him to miss multiple strings of games throughout his career, then yes, he is injury prone.
If Player Y is slammed face-first into the boards and busts his orbital bone, and then the next season gets his hand slammed in a car door and breaks four carpals, and then the next season a shark bites his leg off, he's not injury prone. He's just had a ridiculously unlucky streak. But that doesn't mean he's more likely than anyone else to get hit by a bus the next day.
Over simplification, I think. Bad back --> lack of training --> bad habits --> knee injury --> even further lack of training --> even more bad habits --> even more injuries.
And apart from all of that, let's just say its only bad luck. You only get so much bad luck before you've lost too much development and your career is set too far back. Why take a kid in the first round that is already so close to that point? Why take a kid who has already had a rough streak that has already set him back significantly? If it happens just one more time, it could be catastrophic. Why go there?
Not sure all the defensiveness for this hockey player that hasn't been playing hockey? Does he look injury prone to me he does, but what does that mean not much.
Has he played much? or any real hockey to this date.? No not really so whats the issue calling an egg an egg?
I'm not being pissy out of defensiveness for Connor Murphy. I'm being pissy because I'm tired of all the baseless negativity around here. There's enough actual stuff to ***** about, so I think it's generally a bad idea to make up other stuff to bring us down.
Over simplification, I think. Bad back --> lack of training --> bad habits --> knee injury --> even further lack of training --> even more bad habits --> even more injuries.
And apart from all of that, let's just say its only bad luck. You only get so much bad luck before you've lost too much development and your career is set too far back. Why take a kid in the first round that is already so close to that point? Why take a kid who has already had a rough streak that has already set him back significantly? If it happens just one more time, it could be catastrophic. Why go there?
his back injury was related to him being a growing teenager. nothing to do with training.
the injury happened at the end of practice which means his skate got caught in a rut in the ice. It happens.
I've seen Murphy play. He's very good. He's a top 4 D man with upside. He fell in the category of BPA at the draft.
My apologies - Keith Tkachuk had an injury prone draft year.
Edit: I'm seeing reports that Murphy's time on the DL might only amount to 3-5 weeks. One of the reports was from him soon to be junior coach who apparently had spoken with Phoenix doctors.
I wasn't a fan of the pick originally, but I have warmed up to it. Kid has all the tools.
Sure it stagnates his development right now, but it's not like we need him to make an impact in the next 2 or 3 seasons. The Organizations defensive depth is strong so we can wait on him and I believe when he does make his way to the NHL we'll all be impressed.
Injuries aside, if you're a "player" you will find a way to overcome them. It could be worse it could have been a c.........
That said, if he gets another serious injury in the next year, I will be concerned.
Murphy, who will stay in Arizona for a few days to begin rehabilitation, is facing between two to four months of recovery time before he can resume playing.
Based on this statements, the conflicting timelines for recovery seem to be more or less reconciled.
More light will be shed on the timeline as the rehab get going, no doubt.
I sure hope its closer to two than four. I also hope that regardless of how long it takes, they tack on a couple or three or four weeks for him to ever, ever, ever so slooooowly creep back into games.
