Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Dogdeacon, post: 3346109, member: 1026"] I was agreeing with you?! The sarcasm's intent was to point out that obviously the 28 minutes you mentioned was an arbitrary number for discussion purposes, but it doesn't have to be a scientific fact (impossible) for the point to remain valid. Reasonable minds ought to agree that maxing out minutes for a guy that has missed tons of time to injuries for 3 years running is valid. Of course we don't know, no one does. Arguing about the specific numbers and expecting any certainty around the risks is just arguing without real critical thinking. [/QUOTE]