A Broncos team physician describes the progression behind return to play and questions that can help clarify recovery conversations.
On October 26, 2026, the Deseret News published an interview with Denver Broncos team physician and orthopedic surgeon Dr. Aaron Mates about injury recovery in professional football. His central point was that medical clearance can mean permission to progress toward activity rather than readiness for immediate competition.
Mates described clearance as being “fit to progress back toward activity.” It “doesn't mean you play tomorrow night,” he told the newspaper. His explanation focused on the preparation between an injury improving and a player taking on the demands of a game.
Before that interview, an October 23, 2026 article in the National Football Post had compiled reported return-to-play timelines and rates for several NFL injuries. The compilation noted that studies often defined return as playing in at least one regular-season game.
That is a specific endpoint. It describes how participation was counted in those studies. Describing the work that prepares someone for participation is a different task.
This distinction provides useful background for Mates's comments. A report about whether an athlete appeared in a game answers one question. An account of rehabilitation and conditioning addresses the preparation leading up to that appearance.
Mates also described the medical evaluation that surrounds return decisions. Personnel first assess whether an injured player can safely return or needs more evaluation. Depending on the injury, further examinations and imaging may continue after the game.
In his account, the decision about returning is connected to both medical assessment and preparation for activity. A public return date captures only part of that process.
Mates outlined three broad phases: rehabilitation and recovery, general conditioning and sport-specific preparation. The practical thread connecting them was preparation for the demands of the sport.
The first phase in Mates's description focuses on restoring strength and mobility. This is the rehabilitation work that addresses movement and physical capacity after injury.
Its place in the sequence helps explain his central distinction. Restoring those abilities is part of recovery. His account then moves beyond that work toward conditioning and preparation for the activity itself.
Mates described general conditioning as including running and jumping along with balance work and changes of direction. These examples show what he meant by preparation beyond the initial rehabilitation phase.
In football, he said this progression involves trainers and conditioning staff before full practice and game participation. His explanation placed that work between rehabilitation and the demands of competition rather than treating clearance as the final preparation step.
The final phase he described includes drills and practice followed by simulated game situations. The purpose, in his account, is to prepare the player for what the sport will require.
This shifts the focus from an injury looking improved in a controlled medical setting to the athlete handling sporting demands. The question becomes broader than whether the injured area has improved: has the player been prepared for the activity ahead?
Mates offered an example from his treatment of hockey players. He said they complete land-based cutting and running drills along with turning work before returning to skating. The example illustrates how preparation for a sport can begin outside its usual playing environment.
For related reading, ReboundBody examines where strength fits within the wider return-to-activity picture.
The people described in the interview were professional athletes, chiefly football players. Mates's hockey example came from his experience treating athletes in another sport. This was not a study of adults returning to ordinary activity after an orthopedic injury or surgery.
Professional football also provides a particular support structure. The interview described involvement from team physicians and specialists alongside athletic trainers and conditioning staff. Mates emphasized that the athlete also has a role in decisions about care.
He discussed the difficulty of balancing care decisions with an athlete's limited competitive window. At the same time, he said physicians must prevent an unsafe return. That competitive setting is different from planning a return to everyday movement or recreational exercise.
For ReboundBody readers, the most useful connection is the distinction between destinations. Everyday function and general exercise are not the same goal as competitive sport. Understanding the desired activity helps frame a conversation about what preparation comes next.
That goal distinction is also central to understanding the stages between daily movement and sport performance.
The practical value of Mates's explanation is a more precise conversation about the next stage. For an individual recovery plan, those details belong with the treating healthcare professional.
The following questions reflect the distinction he described without turning his football examples into a personal training plan.
“Cleared” is a short word for a decision that needs context. Asking what activity is appropriate now connects the decision to something concrete.
In Mates's explanation, permission to progress and readiness for competition were different milestones. A discussion about the activity being considered helps make that distinction useful outside professional sport.
The next goal might concern everyday function or general exercise. For another person, the discussion may focus on recreation or competitive sport.
Naming that goal keeps the conversation tied to the activity the person wants to resume. It also gives the treating professional a clear question to answer about what should come next.
Mates separated rehabilitation from general conditioning and sport-specific preparation. That provides language for asking whether the next stage concerns restoring movement or preparing for an activity's demands.
The question is not which football drills to copy. It is how the treating professional describes the remaining preparation for the person's own goal.
The interview described football players working with trainers and conditioning staff before full participation. It also emphasized the athlete's involvement in care decisions.
For someone moving beyond formal rehabilitation, asking who will explain the next stage can help clarify the conversation. The treating team can address how the clearance decision relates to the activity under discussion.
ReboundBody's discussion of describing progress beyond being “back to normal” offers another way to put recovery goals into words. The aim is a clearer discussion of progress rather than a borrowed professional-sport schedule.
The Deseret News article is an interview with one team physician. Mates's three-phase description is not a clinical guideline or a universal protocol. It does not establish that every orthopedic injury follows the same sequence or pace.
The interview supplies no standard recovery duration or player-specific return date for the progression. It also gives no objective thresholds for moving between phases. There are no outcome data comparing this approach with another approach.
Those gaps matter when interpreting the account. It explains a way of thinking about preparation, but it does not answer how long a particular person's transition should take or what criteria their treating team should use.
The National Football Post compilation adds a separate caution about interpreting return statistics. Its underlying studies use different definitions of return, which limits comparisons across injury types. Those NFL figures should not become a personal recovery forecast for a recreational athlete or an older adult.
Mates also warned against drawing conclusions from public injury information. He said game footage alone can be unreliable for diagnosis or predicting recovery. Labels such as “day-to-day” or “week-to-week” may not reveal injury severity or readiness to return.
The questions left open by these reports belong in an individual assessment. A treating professional can explain the meaning of clearance in the context of the injury and the activity being considered.
Recovery deserves a clear next step, not a borrowed deadline.
Reading medical clearance as a direct route to competition skips the transition that ReboundBody's evidence-aware recovery writing helps explain. Its independent coverage addresses uncertainty after formal rehabilitation so active adults in midlife and later life can better understand rebuilding movement and the questions to bring to their treating healthcare professional.
Follow ReboundBody for practical articles on injury recovery, rehabilitation, mobility and rebuilding strength. New posts turn research into clear ideas for the road back to activity after injury or surgery.
Read practical guidance on injury recovery, rehabilitation, mobility and rebuilding strength as you work your way back to activity.
Explore Resources