Pete Carroll: Thomas Rawls DID have surgery on injured ankle

[kearly]

http://www.draftsharks.com/shark-bites/ ... le-surgery

Seahawks HC Pete Carroll revealed Thursday that RB Thomas Rawls did have ankle surgery at "some point." We're assuming that happened shortly after he broke the ankle on December 13. But Seattle hasn't provided many updates on Rawls' injury or rehab this offseason. Carroll was optimistic on Thursday, as usual, saying that Rawls is "almost day to day." We'll see when he's activated from the PUP list and makes his practice debut.

You can see Carroll quickly confirm this early into his Thursday press conference here: http://www.seahawks.com/video/2016/08/0 ... conference

This is interesting, since the team had insisted for some time that the team had avoided going the surgery route for Rawls and wanted him to heal naturally. This narrative seemed at odds with Thomas Rawls being seen in a walking boot half a year after the injury. Maybe they really did avoid surgery at first, but didn't like how he was responding and changed course in the Spring? I'm just speculating, but that would fit the pieces of information we currently have.

Hopefully the surgery was a success and Rawls will have a complete recovery.

 

[Laloosh]

I wondered the same. They definitely had said it didn't require surgery. Actually wondered if I had forgotten about an off-season article on the topic because I was surprised to read this when I saw it.

 

[NewJerseyHawk]

The draft of the running backs signaled that there would be a concern about Rawls making it through this season and coming off of a surgery....

 

[StaffAmerica74]

His injury was pretty damn serious. Pete said at the time that there was ligament and nerve damage. Honestly didn't expect him back till mid season.

 

[Hawks46]

That actually makes a lot of sense. The extended recovery time would suggest that there was surgery after the healing process didn't respond like they wanted.

 

[hawknation2016]

Yeah, I had assumed a few months ago that Rawls needed to have surgery. I believe it was the Seattle Times' Jayson Jenks who first reported that Rawls' ankle did in fact require surgery back in mid-January. Carroll's immediate comment right after the injury in December was that Rawls "might" not have to have surgery, even though he admitted the injury was substantial and implied there was ligament damage. Brock Huard kind of made it seem like the decision not to have surgery was definitive, and no one really questioned it until now. They just kept running articles repeating that early assessment by Carroll without actually verifying it.

 

[seahawks08]

The draft of the running backs signaled that there would be a concern about Rawls making it through this season and coming off of a surgery....

I think that's more of Lynch retiring and they needed to shore that position up.

 

[A-Dog]

They probably covered up the surgery so as to not tip their hand that they were going to draft a bunch of running backs. P&J are sly dogs.

 

[Willyeye]

Is it possible that Carroll was kind of splitting hairs in his early references to Rawls injury? As in, maybe his bones didn't require major surgery, but maybe he had some kind of microsurgery to repair damaged ligament(s)? I like the thought of hiding it so as not to show their hand before the draft. I just wonder about Carroll continually saying that Rawls will be back really soon. If that was not the case, how would saying it be advantageous to Carroll? If Rawls isn't ready by Week 1, Carroll would just look like a silly cheerleader to the rest of the league. Plus, he's simultaneously going out on a limb by saying Graham will be back any day. I, for one, can't wait to see how this all plays out.

 

[A-Dog]

Is it possible that Carroll was kind of splitting hairs in his early references to Rawls injury? As in, maybe his bones didn't require major surgery, but maybe he had some kind of microsurgery to repair damaged ligament(s)? I like the thought of hiding it so as not to show their hand before the draft. I just wonder about Carroll continually saying that Rawls will be back really soon. If that was not the case, how would saying it be advantageous to Carroll? If Rawls isn't ready by Week 1, Carroll would just look like a silly cheerleader to the rest of the league. Plus, he's simultaneously going out on a limb by saying Graham will be back any day. I, for one, can't wait to see how this all plays out.

He's saying Rawls will be back in practice soon, but that doesn't mean he will be practicing fully and it certainly doesn't mean he'll be ready to carry the workload as the number 1 back at the start of the season. He'll be back but there will be an evaluation to see a) how the ankle holds up, and b) if Rawls is mentally ready to handle the rigors of the game without being tentative.

 

[kearly]

Yeah, I had assumed a few months ago that Rawls needed to have surgery. I believe it was the Seattle Times' Jayson Jenks who first reported that Rawls' ankle did in fact require surgery back in mid-January. Carroll's immediate comment right after the injury in December was that Rawls "might" not have to have surgery, even though he admitted the injury was substantial and implied there was ligament damage. Brock Huard kind of made it seem like the decision not to have surgery was definitive, and no one really questioned it until now. They just kept running articles repeating that early assessment by Carroll without actually verifying it.

Good summation.