Skip to content

No surgery for Matthew Stafford

The Lions got some good news on Monday regarding the shoulder of quarterback Matthew Stafford.  But it’s good news that wasn’t entirely unexpected.

Coach Jim Schwartz said that Stafford won’t need surgery to repair an injury to his throwing shoulder, per Larry Lage of the Associated Press.  Peter King of NBC reported during Football Night in America that the injury preliminarily had been assessed as a Grade II sprain of the AC joint, which means that it was believed to be a moderate separation of the shoulder.  Typically, an injury of that magnitude doesn’t require surgery.

If surgery had been required, Stafford possibly could have been out for the year.

Schwartz said there’s no timetable on the second-year quarterback’s return.  We heard on Sunday in the aftermath of the injury that the team feared he’d miss at least two-to-three weeks, and as many as four to six.

The Lions play the Eagles, Vikings, Packers, Rams, and Giants before getting a bye in Week Seven.

And so it appears that, when Philly travels to Detroit in Week Two, injuries will result in backup quarterbacks starting for each team.

But, please, let’s continue to insist on adding two games to the regular season.

Permalink 34 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Detroit Lions, Rumor Mill, Top Stories
34 Responses to “No surgery for Matthew Stafford”
  1. superb owl says: Sep 13, 2010 3:54 PM

    i insist.
    hill actually will be a nice fill in. despite singletary and raye’s screwups, i bet they wish they had him back.

  2. TheDPR says: Sep 13, 2010 3:54 PM

    “But, please, let’s continue to insist on adding two games to the regular season.”
    I’m against the longer season, too, but this injury has nothing to do with season length. At all.

  3. dabbflappy says: Sep 13, 2010 3:56 PM

    Yes.
    Let’s add more games.
    Get more players injured.
    The NFL fell out of its tree on that proposal. Watching the carnage in the Eagles-Green Bay should be lesson enough about the insanity of putting any more demands on the bodies of these players.

  4. Fat_Old_Sun says: Sep 13, 2010 3:57 PM

    Why don’t we reduce the season to 8 games. 16 is way too much for these athletes.
    I don’t watch football to see one player play. So Vick vs Hill? That is fine by me.
    You stupid.

  5. Hap says: Sep 13, 2010 3:58 PM

    Is it the same shoulder he came off the field pointing to last year ? That image is forever inscribed in my HUGE cranium.

  6. Fat_Old_Sun says: Sep 13, 2010 3:59 PM

    Kolb has started and finished what? 2 games. Vick started how many? 60?

  7. agreen182 says: Sep 13, 2010 4:03 PM

    Yeah, an injury in the first week doesn’t REALLY strengthen the case either way, though I do agree that a longer season would be stupid.
    and @superb owl: no, they don’t. Shaun Hill is serviceable, but not a QB who would ever be able to lead a team to the playoffs if he’s the only option.

  8. benh999 says: Sep 13, 2010 4:04 PM

    A longer season would mean more week 1 injuries. Another stroke of genius.

  9. Roxtar10 says: Sep 13, 2010 4:05 PM

    How do you equate these injuries with a longer season??? They happened in Week One. Last I checked, Week One would be in the schedule if you had a 16 week, 18 week or TWO week season. That’s the most ridiculous parallel I’ve read — and coming here daily, I see a lot of idiotic parallels.
    Maybe guys half-assing it through pre-season results in these early season injuries — a problem that would be partially rectified by a longer season/shorter pre-season.
    Hell, you have guys getting hurt in training camp – maybe we shouldn’t have these multi-millionaires practice either…just have them show up for a one week season to make sure they’re all ok.
    Sometimes I think the tag-lines at the end of these articles are just to promote the controversy. There’s no way you’re really that stupid. Is there?

  10. steamrod says: Sep 13, 2010 4:06 PM

    “But, please, let’s continue to insist on adding two games to the regular season.”
    …and remove 2 games from the preseason resulting in the exact same number of games played. How can so many people not grasp basic addition and subtraction? Regardless, Game 1 would still happen in the enhanced season so it’s completely irrelevant to this report.

  11. golfguy043 says: Sep 13, 2010 4:13 PM

    Since pre-season would only be 2 games, wouldn’t that have made this a week 3 injury? just wondering..

  12. mmcnulty says: Sep 13, 2010 4:15 PM

    Add two more games. Subtract two from the preseason. Expand the rosters beyond the current 53 man limit.

  13. BleedGreen says: Sep 13, 2010 4:16 PM

    The thing to do with a longer season is to EXPAND THE ROSTERS. If you can carry more quality depth, it won’t be a problem. You rotate guys in and out. Generally a QB isn’t worn out at the end of a season the same way a running back or a linebacker will be because he’s not taking nearly the hits that those guys are. What happened to kolb was matthews pinned both his arms behind his back and then fell on top of him driving him chin first into the turf. How does that have ANYthing to do with the length of the season? Stafford got lit up and driven into the ground on his shoulder. Same story. This is week ONE. If guys are getting hurt from fatigue in week 14, then your argument makes sense, but 1st game? Hell, I’m sure the Lions would LOVE to have 2 or 3 more games that way its LESS of an impact to lose a player for a week or two.
    The Phillies have had every position starter except Werth and Ibanez on the DL at some point this year yet are still in first place by virtue that they can lose 2 or 3 games and still come out on top. If you lose 2 football games because of lacking a player, thats almost a death knell for your season.

  14. UrMomToldMe2TellUHi says: Sep 13, 2010 4:19 PM

    florio you dick…not long ago you were a proponent of adding games to the schedule, and now you want to condescend the idea…jackass!
    “We could live with an 18-week game regular season. But we prefer 17″…
    - Mike Florio 8/27/2010

  15. Love_Boat_Scandal says: Sep 13, 2010 4:20 PM

    steamrod says: September 13, 2010 4:06 PM
    “But, please, let’s continue to insist on adding two games to the regular season.”
    …and remove 2 games from the preseason resulting in the exact same number of games played. How can so many people not grasp basic addition and subtraction?
    —————-
    In the preseason games you have a much bigger roster and players playing fewer snaps.

  16. packerjoeZ says: Sep 13, 2010 4:21 PM

    Let’s really “enhance” the season. So that, if a player tears his ACL in Week 1 or 2, he can get surgery and be back for the Super Bowl after Week 48.

  17. capitala23 says: Sep 13, 2010 4:22 PM

    Is everyone so thick skulled not to understand the point being made on the longer season and the injury? Its not the point that it happened Week 1 but that the injuries happen and the sport is demanding on the players. Some teams limp into the playoffs or end of the season as it is. Two more games where the starters play the whole game full tilt would only increase the amount of injuries, being they can happen at any point (Stafford week 1 or Welker week 17). No way they can add two more games without increasing Roster Size, player compensation and injury guarantees to contracts, otherwise teams won’t survive the season.

  18. superb owl says: Sep 13, 2010 4:25 PM

    A longer season would not mean more week 1 injuries. it may mean more week 17-20 injuries.

  19. WVUColumbus says: Sep 13, 2010 4:27 PM

    Grade I separation: miss no time
    Grade II separation: miss around 2 wks
    Grade III separation: (complete disruption of coracoclavicular ligaments in addition to AC) likely surgery
    Grade II separations can be quite varied, in my experience w/ outside shot of him being back by Week 3 if, dependent on pain tolerance.

  20. BernieMac says: Sep 13, 2010 4:31 PM

    But, please, let’s continue to insist on adding two games to the regular season.
    I know that you have enough trouble trying to keep up with 16 games. We will all cry for you!

  21. heartstl says: Sep 13, 2010 4:33 PM

    They said Sam Bradford didn’t need surgery on his shoulder, he’ll be back out there in 2-4 weeks… The rest is history.

  22. JJV says: Sep 13, 2010 4:42 PM

    Just because all these injuries happened in week 1 does help the argument against two more games, in my opinion.
    Taking out two preseason games makes it equal. Most of the starters, every down players don’t play that much in the preseason, so taking out two games does not reduce the stress and wear and tear on their bodies.
    The fact that there were so many injuries shows that on ‘any given Sunday’, there can be a huge number of injuries that occur. A few of the injuries can certainly be attributed to it being week 1, but I don’t think you can rationalize it away by saying these injuries would have happened anyways.
    Adding two more weeks to the schedule subjects the players to 120 more minutes of football in which their leg can be bent backwards, their head can be slammed into the turf, their hand can be smashed between two helmets, etc….

  23. fastfred21 says: Sep 13, 2010 4:43 PM

    what the hell–if we can add more games the refs cans screw us some more–what a bonus!! THANX FOR THE SHIT CALL ZEBRAS!!!!!

  24. pkrlvr says: Sep 13, 2010 4:44 PM

    There’s an average of 12.5 minutes of actual football played (between the whistles) during an NFL football game. Multiply that out by 18 games and you have 225 minutes, or 3.75 hours. The average NFL salary is about $800k…..so that’s about $200k per hour….which is twice as much as I make in a year so considering that half of these guys would be typical blue collar workers if it wasn’t for the NFL, I say they (and you Florio) stfu and play however many games their told to play!

  25. Clevelander says: Sep 13, 2010 4:46 PM

    Maybe the players should just try wearing more pads? Sure, they’re restrictive and slow you down. But go watch a game from fifteen or twenty years ago. Quarterbacks had bigger shoulder pads than any player on the field today. Take a look at a guy like James Brooks for the Bengals or Carnell Lake his rookie year in Pittsburgh. They couldn’t walk through a doorway with those things.

  26. bblogger says: Sep 13, 2010 4:55 PM

    If it popped out once it will pop out again. Didn’t it pop out the last game of last year? They might as well shut him down and send him to have the surgery. And the first pick of the first round in the 2011 draft by the Detroit Lions is……..

  27. Ilovefoolsball says: Sep 13, 2010 5:02 PM

    Just the thought of playing another two games will result in more injuries.

  28. GBfanForever says: Sep 13, 2010 5:12 PM

    Expanding rosters sounds sensible for a longer season but that requires paying more players game checks and more $ is the whole point of two more games.

  29. Kirmie says: Sep 13, 2010 5:22 PM

    # WVUColumbus says: September 13, 2010 4:27
    Grade I separation: miss no time
    Grade II separation: miss around 2 wks
    Grade III separation: (complete disruption of coracoclavicular ligaments in addition to AC) likely surgery
    Grade II separations can be quite varied, in my experience w/ outside shot of him being back by Week 3 if, dependent on pain tolerance.
    ————
    This, except with Stafford’s pain tolerance and available pain killers it wouldn’t be a total surprise if he played in week two. Not likely by any chance but not impossible.

  30. The Black Cat says: Sep 13, 2010 5:36 PM

    RAMS ARE LICKING THEIR CHOPS!

  31. Bucket says: Sep 13, 2010 5:37 PM

    But it happened in week 1 Florio! (Oh wait, you like caps, WEEK 1 FLOR-I-O!!!) So, really what you are saying is that we should eliminate any games after week 1 to ensure backup QBs making million of dollars a year don’t play. I mean, seriously it’s not like they are athletes or anything. It’s not like they get paid millions of dollars for just such an occurence!??? We should shorten the season according to that logic! Let’s skip the preseason too b/c tons of players get hurt every year in preseason. You’re losing your edge florio with ignorant comments like that!!

  32. The Black Cat says: Sep 13, 2010 5:38 PM

    The wear and tear of being behind the Lions offensive line for an entire game would destroy even the best of QBs.

  33. superb owl says: Sep 13, 2010 5:52 PM

    cat has that right.
    the lions might beat the rams. but they couldnt last year.
    oh till the bye.

  34. JJV says: Sep 13, 2010 6:20 PM

    Sorry for the repost, just fixing a typo:
    Taking out two preseason games doesn’t make it equal. Most of the starters/every down players don’t play that much in the preseason, so taking out two games does not reduce the stress and wear and tear on their bodies.
    The fact that there were so many injuries shows that on ‘any given Sunday’, there can be a huge number of injuries that occur. A few of the injuries can certainly be attributed to it being week 1, but I don’t think you can rationalize it away by saying these injuries would have happened anyways.
    Adding two more weeks to the schedule subjects the players to 120 more minutes of football in which their leg can be bent backwards, their head can be slammed into the turf, their hand can be smashed between two helmets, etc….

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!