Recruiting Forum Football Talk [RIP 9.3.2019]

Status
Not open for further replies.
#169,651
#169,651
I have heard that Brent Hubbs suffers from an affliction known as Marfan syndrome. This is a condition that can cause many health problems.
 
#169,652
#169,652
I figured a while ago that Peterson will essentially be a meh player for his first 2-3 years here but then he’s ball out for one season before heading towards the NFL.
 
#169,655
#169,655
chargervol said:
Might be. If someone familiar with doesn't drop in soon, I'll try to look up as much as I can, later. Honestly curious now.
Click to expand...

This is a post from a while back I thought I would reply to. I'm a sub-specialist that manages blood clots. There has been some other pretty good info posted on this subject by at least a couple other docs here and in the FF, but there's been some other things that haven't been totally accurate about blood clots in general.

When people talk about blood clots, they are generally talking about clots in the veins, as opposed to the arteries. Clots that occur in the arteries are approached differently than those in the veins. A few people here have mentioned clots causing strokes, but those are almost always because of an issue in the arteries and are rarely due to clots in the large veins around the brain or very rarely related to clots starting in the veins that then get into the arterial system.

When someone is diagnosed with a clot in a vein, there are two major things to think about:

A) How do I manage this clot we just found
B) How do we prevent another clot from occurring in the veins in the future

So, with regards to A: Not all blood clots require any treatment. If people have a clot that occurs in a very superficial vein or even in a deeper vein but in a non-serious location (like below the knee) we often just observe. These types of clots will often be taken care of by your body and have a low risk of causing major medical issues. So starting someone on blood thinners to treat them would result in likely more harm than benefit.
However, if someone is diagnosed with a clot in a deep vein above the knee or a more dangerous location, these essentially always require active treatment. This is because, these types of clots can lead to major problems and it is less likely that your body can take care of the clot on its own. The thing we get most concerned about occurring is embolization (breaking off of the clot and it moving through the veins). Essentially whenever a clot breaks off from the vein it 1st started in, it will then travel through a series of larger veins to the heart. Blood from the right side of the heart will all then flow into the lungs, so the clot goes with the blood flow there. Once in the lungs, the vessels then become smaller again and the clot will eventually lodge into one, or sometimes a few, vessels in the lung. This is called a pulmonary embolus and, if the clot that embolizes into the lung is large enough, people can die. This is the major problem we want to prevent with these blood clots.
So people with clots in these more dangerous positions require treatment and that essentially means blood thinners. There are a lot of different types of blood thinner out there, but almost everyone, unless there is a good reason, get placed on pill blood thinners that don't require monitoring. The most common ones are Xarelto and Eliquis. When you start these drugs, it prevents the clot from growing more, which then allows your body to take care of the clot on its own. There are other drugs out there that can actively "bust" the clot, but they have a much higher rate of bleeding are so are only used in almost like life and death scenarios. If you start a standard blood thinner, it will take a few months for the clot to resolve, in most cases. So, anyone who has a blood clot that requires treatment, they should be on one of these blood thinners for at least 3 months, because thats generally thought to be the minimum amount of time it would take to "resolve the clot" and prevent it from ever embolizing to your lungs.

The much harder question to answer is B, above. What is the likelihood this can happen again and how do we prevent this from occurring again? Even if the clot you just found is taken care of, you always need to figure out why it occurred in the first place to answer this question. If the treatment to prevent another blood clot, ie blood thinners, had few to no side effects, we would just tell people to continue them forever and that way we can be close to 100% sure you'll never develop another blood clot. However, there can be serious side effects, such as life threatening bleeding, so you really need to figure out if the benefit of preventing another blood clot with blood thinners outweighs the possible harms of the drugs. It's a very individualized decision.
Some people develop blood clots around the time of surgery, especially knee or hip surgeries. In these people if the only risk for developing a blood clot was the surgery and there is no evidence of other things playing a role, you just keep the blood thinner on for 3-6 mo because that risk factor is now, presumably, eliminated. There are a lot of other things that can increase your risk of developing another blood clot and sometimes we try to assess all of the known risk factors for people to make this decision. The toughest decision is when someone has a blood clot and you have absolutely no clue, even after a lot of testing, why they developed it (called an unprovoked clot). While this is actually a good size proportion of the people that develop blood clots, its a fairly heterogeneous group as well. There is data that shows that with people in this is group that if you stop blood thinners, about 10% of people develops another blood clot within a year and 25% of people develop a blood clot within 5 yrs. Additionally, if you were to stop blood thinners, about 1% of people will die of a blood clot that embolizes to their lungs with 5 years. So that doesn't look so good to stop the blood thinner, however continuing the blood thinner has its own risks of major bleeding, including dying during a bleeding episode. Its really a rock and a hard place situation. Considering the risk of another blood blot, a number of people will recommend life-long blood thinners for most people after having a single unprovoked blood clot. If someone has more than one unprovoked blood clot, presumably your risk of another blood clot is even higher than what I cited above. Almost everyone would recommend life-long blood thinners in anyone who has ever had more than one unprovoked blood clot.

There are more minutiae, but I think I've summarized the approach and treatment of these clots fairly well. I'm not going to speculate about Trey Smith's situation as I both don't have very much info and sometimes the decision making is very personalized. If you have two people in the exact same situation, one may choose one route with a certain level of risk and the other person may choose the opposite route with less risk.

I've been stalking VN for years, almost always sticking to the RF, but I think this is probably my 3rd post. I don't want to come off as a jerk, but please don't ask me for personal medical advice.

I hope you're feeling better chargervol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: appyvol, VOLSanon, Smokeytom and 32 others
#169,657
#169,657
Butch Dooley said:
This is a post from a while back I thought I would reply to. I'm a sub-specialist that manages blood clots. There has been some other pretty good info posted on this subject by at least a couple other docs here and in the FF, but there's been some other things that haven't been totally accurate about blood clots in general.

When people talk about blood clots, they are generally talking about clots in the veins, as opposed to the arteries. Clots that occur in the arteries are approached differently than those in the veins. A few people here have mentioned clots causing strokes, but those are almost always because of an issue in the arteries and are rarely due to clots in the large veins around the brain or very rarely related to clots starting in the veins that then get into the arterial system.

When someone is diagnosed with a clot in a vein, there are two major things to think about:

A) How do I manage this clot we just found
B) How do we prevent another clot from occurring in the veins in the future

So, with regards to A: Not all blood clots require any treatment. If people have a clot that occurs in a very superficial vein or even in a deeper vein but in a non-serious location (like below the knee) we often just observe. These types of clots will often be taken care of by your body and have a low risk of causing major medical issues. So starting someone on blood thinners to treat them would result in likely more harm than benefit.
However, if someone is diagnosed with a clot in a deep vein above the knee or a more dangerous location, these essentially always require active treatment. This is because, these types of clots can lead to major problems and it is less likely that your body can take care of the clot on its own. The thing we get most concerned about occurring is embolization (breaking off of the clot and it moving through the veins). Essentially whenever a clot breaks off from the vein it 1st started in, it will then travel through a series of larger veins to the heart. Blood from the right side of the heart will all then flow into the lungs, so the clot goes with the blood flow there. Once in the lungs, the vessels then become smaller again and the clot will eventually lodge into one, or sometimes a few, vessels in the lung. This is called a pulmonary embolus and, if the clot that embolizes into the lung is large enough, people can die. This is the major problem we want to prevent with these blood clots.
So people with clots in these more dangerous positions require treatment and that essentially means blood thinners. There are a lot of different types of blood thinner out there, but almost everyone, unless there is a good reason, get placed on pill blood thinners that don't require monitoring. The most common ones are Xarelto and Eliquis. When you start these drugs, it prevents the clot from growing more, which then allows your body to take care of the clot on its own. There are other drugs out there that can actively "bust" the clot, but they have a much higher rate of bleeding are so are only used in almost like life and death scenarios. If you start a standard blood thinner, it will take a few months for the clot to resolve, in most cases. So, anyone who has a blood clot that requires treatment, they should be on one of these blood thinners for at least 3 months, because thats generally thought to be the minimum amount of time it would take to "resolve the clot" and prevent it from ever embolizing to your lungs.

The much harder question to answer is B, above. What is the likelihood this can happen again and how do we prevent this from occurring again? Even if the clot you just found is taken care of, you always need to figure out why it occurred in the first place to answer this question. If the treatment to prevent another blood clot, ie blood thinners, had few to no side effects, we would just tell people to continue them forever and that way we can be close to 100% sure you'll never develop another blood clot. However, there can be serious side effects, such as life threatening bleeding, so you really need to figure out if the benefit of preventing another blood clot with blood thinners outweighs the possible harms of the drugs. It's a very individualized decision.
Some people develop blood clots around the time of surgery, especially knee or hip surgeries. In these people if the only risk for developing a blood clot was the surgery and there is no evidence of other things playing a role, you just keep the blood thinner on for 3-6 mo because that risk factor is now, presumably, eliminated. There are a lot of other things that can increase your risk of developing another blood clot and sometimes we try to assess all of the known risk factors for people to make this decision. The toughest decision is when someone has a blood clot and you have absolutely no clue, even after a lot of testing, why they developed it (called an unprovoked clot). While this is actually a good size proportion of the people that develop blood clots, its a fairly heterogeneous group as well. There is data that shows that with people in this is group that if you stop blood thinners, about 10% of people develops another blood clot within a year and 25% of people develop a blood clot within 5 yrs. Additionally, if you were to stop blood thinners, about 1% of people will die of a blood clot that embolizes to their lungs with 5 years. So that doesn't look so good to stop the blood thinner, however continuing the blood thinner has its own risks of major bleeding, including dying during a bleeding episode. Its really a rock and a hard place situation. Considering the risk of another blood blot, a number of people will recommend life-long blood thinners for most people after having a single unprovoked blood clot. If someone has more than one unprovoked blood clot, presumably your risk of another blood clot is even higher than what I cited above. Almost everyone would recommend life-long blood thinners in anyone who has ever had more than one unprovoked blood clot.

There are more minutiae, but I think I've summarized the approach and treatment of these clots fairly well. I'm not going to speculate about Trey Smith's situation as I both don't have very much info and sometimes the decision making is very personalized. If you have two people in the exact same situation, one may choose one route with a certain level of risk and the other person may choose the opposite route with less risk.

I've been stalking VN for years, almost always sticking to the RF, but I think this is probably my 3rd post. I don't want to come off as a jerk, but please don't ask me for personal medical advice.

I hope you're feeling better chargervol.
Click to expand...
Post more! 👍
 
  • Like
Reactions: WesTnVol, drvenner, Vols4us and 5 others
#169,658
#169,658
Butch Dooley said:
This is a post from a while back I thought I would reply to. I'm a sub-specialist that manages blood clots. There has been some other pretty good info posted on this subject by at least a couple other docs here and in the FF, but there's been some other things that haven't been totally accurate about blood clots in general.

When people talk about blood clots, they are generally talking about clots in the veins, as opposed to the arteries. Clots that occur in the arteries are approached differently than those in the veins. A few people here have mentioned clots causing strokes, but those are almost always because of an issue in the arteries and are rarely due to clots in the large veins around the brain or very rarely related to clots starting in the veins that then get into the arterial system.

When someone is diagnosed with a clot in a vein, there are two major things to think about:

A) How do I manage this clot we just found
B) How do we prevent another clot from occurring in the veins in the future

So, with regards to A: Not all blood clots require any treatment. If people have a clot that occurs in a very superficial vein or even in a deeper vein but in a non-serious location (like below the knee) we often just observe. These types of clots will often be taken care of by your body and have a low risk of causing major medical issues. So starting someone on blood thinners to treat them would result in likely more harm than benefit.
However, if someone is diagnosed with a clot in a deep vein above the knee or a more dangerous location, these essentially always require active treatment. This is because, these types of clots can lead to major problems and it is less likely that your body can take care of the clot on its own. The thing we get most concerned about occurring is embolization (breaking off of the clot and it moving through the veins). Essentially whenever a clot breaks off from the vein it 1st started in, it will then travel through a series of larger veins to the heart. Blood from the right side of the heart will all then flow into the lungs, so the clot goes with the blood flow there. Once in the lungs, the vessels then become smaller again and the clot will eventually lodge into one, or sometimes a few, vessels in the lung. This is called a pulmonary embolus and, if the clot that embolizes into the lung is large enough, people can die. This is the major problem we want to prevent with these blood clots.
So people with clots in these more dangerous positions require treatment and that essentially means blood thinners. There are a lot of different types of blood thinner out there, but almost everyone, unless there is a good reason, get placed on pill blood thinners that don't require monitoring. The most common ones are Xarelto and Eliquis. When you start these drugs, it prevents the clot from growing more, which then allows your body to take care of the clot on its own. There are other drugs out there that can actively "bust" the clot, but they have a much higher rate of bleeding are so are only used in almost like life and death scenarios. If you start a standard blood thinner, it will take a few months for the clot to resolve, in most cases. So, anyone who has a blood clot that requires treatment, they should be on one of these blood thinners for at least 3 months, because thats generally thought to be the minimum amount of time it would take to "resolve the clot" and prevent it from ever embolizing to your lungs.

The much harder question to answer is B, above. What is the likelihood this can happen again and how do we prevent this from occurring again? Even if the clot you just found is taken care of, you always need to figure out why it occurred in the first place to answer this question. If the treatment to prevent another blood clot, ie blood thinners, had few to no side effects, we would just tell people to continue them forever and that way we can be close to 100% sure you'll never develop another blood clot. However, there can be serious side effects, such as life threatening bleeding, so you really need to figure out if the benefit of preventing another blood clot with blood thinners outweighs the possible harms of the drugs. It's a very individualized decision.
Some people develop blood clots around the time of surgery, especially knee or hip surgeries. In these people if the only risk for developing a blood clot was the surgery and there is no evidence of other things playing a role, you just keep the blood thinner on for 3-6 mo because that risk factor is now, presumably, eliminated. There are a lot of other things that can increase your risk of developing another blood clot and sometimes we try to assess all of the known risk factors for people to make this decision. The toughest decision is when someone has a blood clot and you have absolutely no clue, even after a lot of testing, why they developed it (called an unprovoked clot). While this is actually a good size proportion of the people that develop blood clots, its a fairly heterogeneous group as well. There is data that shows that with people in this is group that if you stop blood thinners, about 10% of people develops another blood clot within a year and 25% of people develop a blood clot within 5 yrs. Additionally, if you were to stop blood thinners, about 1% of people will die of a blood clot that embolizes to their lungs with 5 years. So that doesn't look so good to stop the blood thinner, however continuing the blood thinner has its own risks of major bleeding, including dying during a bleeding episode. Its really a rock and a hard place situation. Considering the risk of another blood blot, a number of people will recommend life-long blood thinners for most people after having a single unprovoked blood clot. If someone has more than one unprovoked blood clot, presumably your risk of another blood clot is even higher than what I cited above. Almost everyone would recommend life-long blood thinners in anyone who has ever had more than one unprovoked blood clot.

There are more minutiae, but I think I've summarized the approach and treatment of these clots fairly well. I'm not going to speculate about Trey Smith's situation as I both don't have very much info and sometimes the decision making is very personalized. If you have two people in the exact same situation, one may choose one route with a certain level of risk and the other person may choose the opposite route with less risk.

I've been stalking VN for years, almost always sticking to the RF, but I think this is probably my 3rd post. I don't want to come off as a jerk, but please don't ask me for personal medical advice.

I hope you're feeling better chargervol.
Click to expand...
Wow, that was well said. Wish I would have had someone explain it to me that well after having a clot between the pancreas and spleen then later several in the lungs. It helps with understanding the differing answers given about TS also.
 
  • Like
Reactions: drvenner, hooter vol, Vols4us and 2 others
#169,660
#169,660
Butch Dooley said:
This is a post from a while back I thought I would reply to. I'm a sub-specialist that manages blood clots. There has been some other pretty good info posted on this subject by at least a couple other docs here and in the FF, but there's been some other things that haven't been totally accurate about blood clots in general.

When people talk about blood clots, they are generally talking about clots in the veins, as opposed to the arteries. Clots that occur in the arteries are approached differently than those in the veins. A few people here have mentioned clots causing strokes, but those are almost always because of an issue in the arteries and are rarely due to clots in the large veins around the brain or very rarely related to clots starting in the veins that then get into the arterial system.

When someone is diagnosed with a clot in a vein, there are two major things to think about:

A) How do I manage this clot we just found
B) How do we prevent another clot from occurring in the veins in the future

So, with regards to A: Not all blood clots require any treatment. If people have a clot that occurs in a very superficial vein or even in a deeper vein but in a non-serious location (like below the knee) we often just observe. These types of clots will often be taken care of by your body and have a low risk of causing major medical issues. So starting someone on blood thinners to treat them would result in likely more harm than benefit.
However, if someone is diagnosed with a clot in a deep vein above the knee or a more dangerous location, these essentially always require active treatment. This is because, these types of clots can lead to major problems and it is less likely that your body can take care of the clot on its own. The thing we get most concerned about occurring is embolization (breaking off of the clot and it moving through the veins). Essentially whenever a clot breaks off from the vein it 1st started in, it will then travel through a series of larger veins to the heart. Blood from the right side of the heart will all then flow into the lungs, so the clot goes with the blood flow there. Once in the lungs, the vessels then become smaller again and the clot will eventually lodge into one, or sometimes a few, vessels in the lung. This is called a pulmonary embolus and, if the clot that embolizes into the lung is large enough, people can die. This is the major problem we want to prevent with these blood clots.
So people with clots in these more dangerous positions require treatment and that essentially means blood thinners. There are a lot of different types of blood thinner out there, but almost everyone, unless there is a good reason, get placed on pill blood thinners that don't require monitoring. The most common ones are Xarelto and Eliquis. When you start these drugs, it prevents the clot from growing more, which then allows your body to take care of the clot on its own. There are other drugs out there that can actively "bust" the clot, but they have a much higher rate of bleeding are so are only used in almost like life and death scenarios. If you start a standard blood thinner, it will take a few months for the clot to resolve, in most cases. So, anyone who has a blood clot that requires treatment, they should be on one of these blood thinners for at least 3 months, because thats generally thought to be the minimum amount of time it would take to "resolve the clot" and prevent it from ever embolizing to your lungs.

The much harder question to answer is B, above. What is the likelihood this can happen again and how do we prevent this from occurring again? Even if the clot you just found is taken care of, you always need to figure out why it occurred in the first place to answer this question. If the treatment to prevent another blood clot, ie blood thinners, had few to no side effects, we would just tell people to continue them forever and that way we can be close to 100% sure you'll never develop another blood clot. However, there can be serious side effects, such as life threatening bleeding, so you really need to figure out if the benefit of preventing another blood clot with blood thinners outweighs the possible harms of the drugs. It's a very individualized decision.
Some people develop blood clots around the time of surgery, especially knee or hip surgeries. In these people if the only risk for developing a blood clot was the surgery and there is no evidence of other things playing a role, you just keep the blood thinner on for 3-6 mo because that risk factor is now, presumably, eliminated. There are a lot of other things that can increase your risk of developing another blood clot and sometimes we try to assess all of the known risk factors for people to make this decision. The toughest decision is when someone has a blood clot and you have absolutely no clue, even after a lot of testing, why they developed it (called an unprovoked clot). While this is actually a good size proportion of the people that develop blood clots, its a fairly heterogeneous group as well. There is data that shows that with people in this is group that if you stop blood thinners, about 10% of people develops another blood clot within a year and 25% of people develop a blood clot within 5 yrs. Additionally, if you were to stop blood thinners, about 1% of people will die of a blood clot that embolizes to their lungs with 5 years. So that doesn't look so good to stop the blood thinner, however continuing the blood thinner has its own risks of major bleeding, including dying during a bleeding episode. Its really a rock and a hard place situation. Considering the risk of another blood blot, a number of people will recommend life-long blood thinners for most people after having a single unprovoked blood clot. If someone has more than one unprovoked blood clot, presumably your risk of another blood clot is even higher than what I cited above. Almost everyone would recommend life-long blood thinners in anyone who has ever had more than one unprovoked blood clot.

There are more minutiae, but I think I've summarized the approach and treatment of these clots fairly well. I'm not going to speculate about Trey Smith's situation as I both don't have very much info and sometimes the decision making is very personalized. If you have two people in the exact same situation, one may choose one route with a certain level of risk and the other person may choose the opposite route with less risk.

I've been stalking VN for years, almost always sticking to the RF, but I think this is probably my 3rd post. I don't want to come off as a jerk, but please don't ask me for personal medical advice.

I hope you're feeling better chargervol.
Click to expand...
Thankful to say I'm still in a much improved condition.
And thank you very much for both the informative post and the well wishes, could not have asked for a better explanation. Fantastic job.

And here's to Trey's health. On the field or not, a true VFL.
 
  • Like
Reactions: drvenner, SmokinBob, Big Orange#1 and 9 others
#169,661
#169,661
Butch Dooley said:
This is a post from a while back I thought I would reply to. I'm a sub-specialist that manages blood clots. There has been some other pretty good info posted on this subject by at least a couple other docs here and in the FF, but there's been some other things that haven't been totally accurate about blood clots in general.

When people talk about blood clots, they are generally talking about clots in the veins, as opposed to the arteries. Clots that occur in the arteries are approached differently than those in the veins. A few people here have mentioned clots causing strokes, but those are almost always because of an issue in the arteries and are rarely due to clots in the large veins around the brain or very rarely related to clots starting in the veins that then get into the arterial system.

When someone is diagnosed with a clot in a vein, there are two major things to think about:

A) How do I manage this clot we just found
B) How do we prevent another clot from occurring in the veins in the future

So, with regards to A: Not all blood clots require any treatment. If people have a clot that occurs in a very superficial vein or even in a deeper vein but in a non-serious location (like below the knee) we often just observe. These types of clots will often be taken care of by your body and have a low risk of causing major medical issues. So starting someone on blood thinners to treat them would result in likely more harm than benefit.
However, if someone is diagnosed with a clot in a deep vein above the knee or a more dangerous location, these essentially always require active treatment. This is because, these types of clots can lead to major problems and it is less likely that your body can take care of the clot on its own. The thing we get most concerned about occurring is embolization (breaking off of the clot and it moving through the veins). Essentially whenever a clot breaks off from the vein it 1st started in, it will then travel through a series of larger veins to the heart. Blood from the right side of the heart will all then flow into the lungs, so the clot goes with the blood flow there. Once in the lungs, the vessels then become smaller again and the clot will eventually lodge into one, or sometimes a few, vessels in the lung. This is called a pulmonary embolus and, if the clot that embolizes into the lung is large enough, people can die. This is the major problem we want to prevent with these blood clots.
So people with clots in these more dangerous positions require treatment and that essentially means blood thinners. There are a lot of different types of blood thinner out there, but almost everyone, unless there is a good reason, get placed on pill blood thinners that don't require monitoring. The most common ones are Xarelto and Eliquis. When you start these drugs, it prevents the clot from growing more, which then allows your body to take care of the clot on its own. There are other drugs out there that can actively "bust" the clot, but they have a much higher rate of bleeding are so are only used in almost like life and death scenarios. If you start a standard blood thinner, it will take a few months for the clot to resolve, in most cases. So, anyone who has a blood clot that requires treatment, they should be on one of these blood thinners for at least 3 months, because thats generally thought to be the minimum amount of time it would take to "resolve the clot" and prevent it from ever embolizing to your lungs.

The much harder question to answer is B, above. What is the likelihood this can happen again and how do we prevent this from occurring again? Even if the clot you just found is taken care of, you always need to figure out why it occurred in the first place to answer this question. If the treatment to prevent another blood clot, ie blood thinners, had few to no side effects, we would just tell people to continue them forever and that way we can be close to 100% sure you'll never develop another blood clot. However, there can be serious side effects, such as life threatening bleeding, so you really need to figure out if the benefit of preventing another blood clot with blood thinners outweighs the possible harms of the drugs. It's a very individualized decision.
Some people develop blood clots around the time of surgery, especially knee or hip surgeries. In these people if the only risk for developing a blood clot was the surgery and there is no evidence of other things playing a role, you just keep the blood thinner on for 3-6 mo because that risk factor is now, presumably, eliminated. There are a lot of other things that can increase your risk of developing another blood clot and sometimes we try to assess all of the known risk factors for people to make this decision. The toughest decision is when someone has a blood clot and you have absolutely no clue, even after a lot of testing, why they developed it (called an unprovoked clot). While this is actually a good size proportion of the people that develop blood clots, its a fairly heterogeneous group as well. There is data that shows that with people in this is group that if you stop blood thinners, about 10% of people develops another blood clot within a year and 25% of people develop a blood clot within 5 yrs. Additionally, if you were to stop blood thinners, about 1% of people will die of a blood clot that embolizes to their lungs with 5 years. So that doesn't look so good to stop the blood thinner, however continuing the blood thinner has its own risks of major bleeding, including dying during a bleeding episode. Its really a rock and a hard place situation. Considering the risk of another blood blot, a number of people will recommend life-long blood thinners for most people after having a single unprovoked blood clot. If someone has more than one unprovoked blood clot, presumably your risk of another blood clot is even higher than what I cited above. Almost everyone would recommend life-long blood thinners in anyone who has ever had more than one unprovoked blood clot.

There are more minutiae, but I think I've summarized the approach and treatment of these clots fairly well. I'm not going to speculate about Trey Smith's situation as I both don't have very much info and sometimes the decision making is very personalized. If you have two people in the exact same situation, one may choose one route with a certain level of risk and the other person may choose the opposite route with less risk.

I've been stalking VN for years, almost always sticking to the RF, but I think this is probably my 3rd post. I don't want to come off as a jerk, but please don't ask me for personal medical advice.

I hope you're feeling better chargervol.
Click to expand...

Thanks for providing the most informative post I have seen about clots. I did not realize there were arterial vs vein type clots. Also, always thought DVT’s were more from veins in the calf, not mostly from above the knee. Thanks for taking the time to make such a detailed post. Now as we hear about TS maybe we will have a better understanding of what is reported.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SmokinBob, barrylee, RiotVol and 1 other person
#169,662
#169,662
Pepe said:
I have heard that Brent Hubbs suffers from an affliction known as Marfan syndrome. This is a condition that can cause many health problems.
Click to expand...

I friend of mine has this and it can be nasty. It will only get worse as he grows older. One symptom is exhaustion, just always tired and lethargic.
 
#169,663
#169,663
ALLVOL24/7/365 said:
Thanks for providing the most informative post I have seen about clots. I did not realize there were arterial vs vein type clots. Also, always thought DVT’s were more from veins in the calf, not mostly from above the knee. Thanks for taking the time to make such a detailed post. Now as we hear about TS maybe we will have a better understanding of what is reported.
Click to expand...

That’s where the legs swell (distal to the clot) but the clot is normalily higher in the popliteal, femoral, or even ileal veins
 
#169,664
#169,664
My wonder with Trey is if they are trying him on something like aspirin prophylaxis instead of a blood thinner. Normally 2 clots buys you traditional anticoagulation for life
 
#169,665
#169,665
All of what follows is just my understanding/opinion.

Last week during staff interviews Chaney said we needed to find the 18-20 guys that will play on our offense this year. Ainge talked about this in the preseason last year. He said for games that are competitive you really only play around 40 guys. There may be others that play on special teams that make the participation list but they’re not part of the offensive and defensive rotations in tightly contested ball games. Again, this is for games that are competitive. For games that are blowouts one way or the other you can use those games to get some experience for guys not in the regular offensive and defensive rotations.

One of the other things Ainge talked about last year is that fall camp is a lot shorter than many may think. The last week of fall camp the rotations should be set and then the next week is game week So at least the back 2 weeks leading up to the first game are sort of booked. The time between the 5 day acclimation period and the start of those 2 weeks all the guys are competing to make that 40 man rotation, approximately 20 on each side of the ball. This number could be more or less but the number is limited to the best players and then those players work together to develop chemistry or our Team Identity.

This doesn’t change the fact that with our teachers everyone is continuing to develop because if one of the top guys goes down or for some reason struggles we need a pool of players to pull from to keep our best rotations for the tougher games. Another factor that could lead to a change in the rotations is how fast some of the younger more athletically gifted guys are able to demonstrate in weekly practices consistency at executing what they are being taught.

We just completed day 3 of the 5 day acclimation period. I think by NCAA rule we have to take at least one day off per week so I’m guessing sometime between now and Thursday we have to have an off day. We have 2 more practices and then the pads go on and then, according to Pruitt, the real competition to make the rotations begin. Only with pads on can it be determined who is going to be a football player and who is not. So once pads come on we should have at the most 2 weeks for the competition to shake out who the top 20 (plus or minus) guys are for the rotations on both sides of the ball.

We don’t really have a depth chart per se because if for example we need to replace one of our cornerbacks we want the next best athlete/guy in the defensive back room, hence, we do a lot of cross training.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the guys with experience, the guys who have played ball for us in the past and even the new guys who were here in the winter and spring, they’re mostly going to be ahead of the guys that just got here this summer, in regards to having had the opportunity to learn what our staff is teaching. I think I finally figured out why this is so important and it’s in Pruitt’s oft repeated phrase, we want guys who will play the right way. Change the words “the right way” in that phrase to “the way they’re taught” and it begins to make a lot more sense. Consistency, mental toughness, things like that are all embedded in playing the way our coaches are teaching. A lack of mental toughness is synonymous with losing focus and becoming distracted from doing the things the way the guys have been taught.

We have a lot more than 40 players that many of us think can play. We’ll soon find out who our coaches think are those top 40 heading into game one. I think if Trey Smith comes back in time he probably gets an automatic slot in the rotation. The same goes for Solomon’s waiver. I think the consensus is if he’s eligible he’s a starter.

After or while we’re figuring out our rotations we also need to make up our touch list. How many times are we going to try to get the ball into the hands of each of our playmakers? As fans we think so and so ought to be getting some touches and when you add all those touches up there’s just not that many plays in the ball game. The rule for making the touch list is Think Players NOT Plays. How many times do we want to get the ball in Jennings hands per game? How about Wood-Anderson? Chandler? Callaway? Some of these guys need more than one or two touches in order perform at a high level. Nobody is going to be 100% on every target or touch. Remember when fans were complaining about the incessant rotation Azzanni was using for our receivers? The thinking was that some running backs and receivers may do better the longer they’re in the game and have an opportunity to figure out the defensive players they’re up against and get into the rhythm of the game.

Anyway, these tables are presented as an example of what our rotations and touch list could look like:

ScreenHunter 224.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: JacketVol, nesbuddha66, AaronUT and 10 others
#169,669
#169,669
Atlanta VOL said:
Seen a lot of JJP bust talk. Let me give you my two cents there.
1. The coaching staff as of this evening is still very high on him. He has the raw talent and athleticism to be truly great..
2. That being said he isn’t the sharpest tool in the shed and will need more coaching and time based on what i know to get ready
3, He will see playing time this year and should get progressively better as the year goes on. Next year will be the oh **** moment though IMO when he lives up to the hype.
Click to expand...

Makes you worry if he can survive on the academic side of college.
 
#169,671
#169,671
Crazy Ivan said:
Makes you worry if he can survive on the academic side of college.
Click to expand...

These fine people will see him through the academic side of things.

Thornton Center » Staff

211516_20180919_Thornton_Center_Staff_MN001-1-768x512.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: BarrythesnoUT, nesbuddha66, T Dog and 8 others
#169,673
#169,673
Atlanta VOL said:
Seen a lot of JJP bust talk. Let me give you my two cents there.
1. The coaching staff as of this evening is still very high on him. He has the raw talent and athleticism to be truly great..
2. That being said he isn’t the sharpest tool in the shed and will need more coaching and time based on what i know to get ready
3, He will see playing time this year and should get progressively better as the year goes on. Next year will be the oh **** moment though IMO when he lives up to the hype.
Click to expand...
Appreciate your insight
 
  • Like
Reactions: zhangliao04, SmokinBob, RiotVol and 1 other person
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement



Back
Top