New England Patriots tight end Rob Gronkowski is still in the midst of recovering from an ACL tear sustained against the Browns last season.
Like every ACL tear, the rehabilitation process can seem like its dragging out. Therefore, Gronkowski was asked by radio station WAAF if he'd rather suffer a knee injury like the one he's dealing with or a concussion.
"That's a pretty obvious answer," Gronkowski responded, via the Boston Herald. "Would I rather have a concussion and be out for three days or rather have a knee injury and be rehabbing for six months? I would rather have a concussion and be out for three days anytime."
That response signals a disconnect between players and the what-have-you-done-for-me lately the NFL has become, considering the long-term effects of concussions. The studies available show that concussions can cause serious side effects over time, especially as they accumulate.
But if a concussion during a game is deemed mild, as Gronkowski stated, a player can return by the next game. The livelihood in the now isn't diminished like a torn ACL is, when a season abruptly comes to an end.
It's something a lot of players will continue to weigh during the durations of their careers, considering the NFL has made it clear that hits to the head need to be eliminated.
Would players prefer to be hit high and risk concussions, which could cause long-term effects down the road when they're playing days are over? Or would they rather risk tearing a knee up and go through a long, grueling rehab process to preserve their brains?
Follow me on twitter: @JasonHButt