Justin Harrell's injuries date back to high school. Read the scouting reports on him -- he experienced back problems in high school too. He may have untold amounts of raw talent, but his body is not capable of withstanding the rigors of playing football. No matter how many other players may be in the NFL after having sustained an ACL injury, the fact remains that Harrell is not a good bet. The risk/reward ratio is not tolerable. The Packers are gambling on an inside straight when there are four spades on the table. It's not smart.

---

Here's the difference: Clifton and Harris have played at a very high level for years. Harrell has barely played at all, and when he has, he has been fairly average. And even players like Clifton or Harris may very well have been cut loose, regardless of their history, if they had four years in a row as injury-riddled as what Harrell has experienced.

I was in favor of giving Harrell a chance this year and keeping him on the roster if he performed well enough, which he did. But at this point the risk vs. reward of keeping him on the team is probably no longer worth it.

EDIT: I didn't steal your "risk vs. reward" line, Nonstop. I was typing my message at the same time you typed yours.

---

Great post by Pack93z, by the way. It's helpful to see how this looks from a player's point of view.

---

Greg, you're one of the most respected members of this board. That you and I would have similar thought processes on an issue is flattering to me, especially since I usually feel woefully underinformed on the basics of football arcana. 😉

---

+1 to Pack93z.

This is a business. Ted Thompson made a mistake. I am a Ted Thompson fan and not a hater, but will acknowledge that EVERYONE makes mistakes.

Vince Lombardi, the greatest coach ever, lost a Playoff game once.

I'm sure Warren Buffett says "d'oh!" at least several times a year with bad trades.
Ted Thompson shouldn't have picked Harrell. He gambled on a player with a long injury history. He lost the gamble.

Harrell could be the nicest guy on the planet. He may help old ladies across the street (except more likely, old ladies help him across the street). He may buy not 1, but 10 boxes of Girl Scout cookies.

That doesn't change the fact that this is a business and we need qualified people to be successful. Harrell has the strength, the abilities, but his injury history has destroyed his career. It sucks. But it's a business. Nothing personal.

Give the guy a hug, then wish him the best in another career. I think his time with the Packers is done and I'd like to see someone else in 2011's 53.

---

Im not going to say Harrell is a bust.
Ill call him injure plagued.
Feel bad for the kid hope he can play somewhere else and play without getting injured.

---

Sigh.

Everyone is missing my point.

If you think Justin's injury history makes him too much of a risk, fine. And, I can see the argument that regular back problems makes him too much of a risk. But that was all true before this latest injury.

My point is that this latest injury doesn't follow from or illustrate the same problem the others. I defy *anyone* to say that a torn ACL is more likely if the person has had a history of a bicep tear and back problems. And unless you can show that, you are just mistaking correlation (the fact that they happened to the same person) with causation.

The Packers have already decided he was worth the risk of future back/bicep problems. They decided that when they kept him on the 53-man roster. They said yes.

What they have to decide is how much extra risk coming back from an ACL tear involves. And THAT has nothing to do with the other.

Lots of people get cut when their ACL doesn't recover. And if that's the case with Justin, fine. But that decision by the Packers should *not* be determined by the back or bicep history.

It's just not relevant. Any more than whether he had an emergency appendectomy when he was a kid.

Should the Packers bring Harrell back to training camp, IronMan? My answer is: it depends. It depends only on what they see as the prognosis for return from the ACL. If they think that he has no more risk post-ACL than he had before he blew it out, and they were comfortable with that substantial pre-ACL risk (which evidence says they were)...then, yes.

That pre-ACL risk is no bigger and no smaller than it ever was.

---

really? wouldn't you say that it could be because of poor conditioning and lack of experience because of the previous injuries?

---

Not Everyone.. as I made the same request when reports of him not keeping up in camp came to light. The Risk / Reward ratio wasn't in our favor.. so why block another player from the spot.

Some viewed it as cold and lacking compassion (incorrectly), and even though there was no way to expect this type of injury to derail his season.. it is derailed none the less.

And history was on our side.

Ron Wolf , I believe once stated (more than likely quoted), I would rather release a player a year early than a year late.

Did I mention this sometimes is a cold cruel business.

---

I know I'm definitely not missing your point, Wade. I just don't agree with it. I have wanted Harrell gone for two years now, and I was highly disappointed he made the final roster this year. By bringing him into camp next year, we clutter up a roster spot that could be opened for someone who is more reliable and available, even if he may not have as much talent. Talent is useless if it's not expressed on the field.

The Ron Wolf quote cited by Shawn is another way of saying, "Hire slow, fire fast," a maxim I firmly believe in. In the long run, you are better off cutting a player too early -- even if he later does well for another team -- than hanging onto him even one season too long.

---