Injury News

[jarntt]

Its all good. We can be sensitive in the real world. But half the reason we come to places like this is so we can say inappropriate shit and at the end of the day we can all be mostly civil... except on Sundays.

Then Fuck You and your Redskins!!!

 

[jarntt]

Nick Foles will look good with a star on the side of his head. Don't know that he will play any better but he will look sharp

I would love to bring in Foles to be a backup . Said for a long time before it happened that Philly should have been playing him over Vick and thought the Rams got the better of that trade at the time because I don't think Bradford is any better. My problem with Foles was when Philly fans started to think he was Joe Montana after his good season. In the right spot he can do well and Dallas looks like a good spot for him. Would be a great signing for Dallas right now, but he is not going to be a "great" QB obviously.

 

[Sharkinva]

Then Fuck You and your Redskins!!!

Back atcha JarNuts,

 

[Broncos6482]

If we were in a court room, these would be called conflicting statements.

Those aren't conflicting statements, they are both true. Injuries are a part of the game, but you do need to be relatively healthy to win a Super Bowl.

There's a difference between a reason and an excuse.

 

[NEhomer]

Those aren't conflicting statements, they are both true. Injuries are a part of the game, but you do need to be relatively healthy to win a Super Bowl.

There's a difference between a reason and an excuse.

No, there's actually no difference at all. If injuries are the reason you don't win, the reason IS the excuse.

 

[cdumler7]

Those aren't conflicting statements, they are both true. Injuries are a part of the game, but you do need to be relatively healthy to win a Super Bowl.

There's a difference between a reason and an excuse.

Yes and no. Green Bay won the Super Bowl with the most players on IR that season if I remember right. I would also add the fact that every team suffers injuries. So yes we can look at our roster and say well so and so was hurt so that is why we didn't win when the team that beat us maybe suffered just as many injuries.

Now I will agree there are certain injuries that matter more than others. Such as for the Cowboys. I'm betting they win a few more games if Tony Romo doesn't go down with injury. Can't say that for sure but I think most of us know that when a top-10 QB goes down that team is going to struggle big time most of the time. So who is injured to me matters a bit more than about being relatively healthy.

 

[NEhomer]

It's only a matter of whether the excuse is valid or not.

Lose two special teams players maybe not. Lose the QB, 2 top receivers and a top running back, sure.

 

[Broncos6482]

No, there's actually no difference at all. If injuries are the reason you don't win, the reason IS the excuse.

"We had a better chance to win if we didn't have so many injuries" vs. "the only reason you beat us is because we had so many injuries." One of those is a reason that contributed to losing. The other is making excuses.

One of the reasons the Patriots lost the AFC Championship game is the injuries to the offensive line. But that's not the only reason they lost, and even if they had been completely healthy that's no guarantee that they win.

 

[Broncos6482]

Yes and no. Green Bay won the Super Bowl with the most players on IR that season if I remember right. I would also add the fact that every team suffers injuries. So yes we can look at our roster and say well so and so was hurt so that is why we didn't win when the team that beat us maybe suffered just as many injuries.

Now I will agree there are certain injuries that matter more than others. Such as for the Cowboys. I'm betting they win a few more games if Tony Romo doesn't go down with injury. Can't say that for sure but I think most of us know that when a top-10 QB goes down that team is going to struggle big time most of the time. So who is injured to me matters a bit more than about being relatively healthy.

The Packers are the one major exception that I can think of. Generally speaking though, to win a Super Bowl you need to be relatively healthy.

And as you mentioned, some injuries hurt more than others. The Packers losing a bunch of players to injuries hurt less than the year they lost Aaron Rodgers to an injury and barely finished at .500. Same thing with the Cowboys and Tony Romo last year as you mentioned.

The fact of the matter is every team is going to suffer through some injuries. It's a violent game and no one is getting through 16 game plus the playoffs completely unscathed. To win a Super Bowl, you need some combination of minimal amount of injuries, or few long term injuries, or injuries at positions where you have a lot of depth, or injuries at less critical positions.

Look at Denver last year. We suffered a lot of injuries on the offensive line, but we had a qb in Manning that helped mitigate that. On defense, we lost Ware and Ray for a few weeks, but those weren't long term and we had a ton of depth at that position. We also lost our top 3 safeties to injuries at various times, and even signed a guy off the street to play, but we were able to mask that with a dominant pass rush and 3 really good corners.

 

[cdumler7]

The Packers are the one major exception that I can think of. Generally speaking though, to win a Super Bowl you need to be relatively healthy.

And as you mentioned, some injuries hurt more than others. The Packers losing a bunch of players to injuries hurt less than the year they lost Aaron Rodgers to an injury and barely finished at .500. Same thing with the Cowboys and Tony Romo last year as you mentioned.

The fact of the matter is every team is going to suffer through some injuries. It's a violent game and no one is getting through 16 game plus the playoffs completely unscathed. To win a Super Bowl, you need some combination of minimal amount of injuries, or few long term injuries, or injuries at positions where you have a lot of depth, or injuries at less critical positions.

Look at Denver last year. We suffered a lot of injuries on the offensive line, but we had a qb in Manning that helped mitigate that. On defense, we lost Ware and Ray for a few weeks, but those weren't long term and we had a ton of depth at that position. We also lost our top 3 safeties to injuries at various times, and even signed a guy off the street to play, but we were able to mask that with a dominant pass rush and 3 really good corners.

All good points and I did like your post before this one about the wording that a fan uses. The idea that without these injuries obviously we stand a better chance of winning or the excuse of we lost BECAUSE of these injuries.

 

[jarntt]

The Packers are the one major exception that I can think of. Generally speaking though, to win a Super Bowl you need to be relatively healthy.

And as you mentioned, some injuries hurt more than others. The Packers losing a bunch of players to injuries hurt less than the year they lost Aaron Rodgers to an injury and barely finished at .500. Same thing with the Cowboys and Tony Romo last year as you mentioned.

The fact of the matter is every team is going to suffer through some injuries. It's a violent game and no one is getting through 16 game plus the playoffs completely unscathed. To win a Super Bowl, you need some combination of minimal amount of injuries, or few long term injuries, or injuries at positions where you have a lot of depth, or injuries at less critical positions.

Look at Denver last year. We suffered a lot of injuries on the offensive line, but we had a qb in Manning that helped mitigate that. On defense, we lost Ware and Ray for a few weeks, but those weren't long term and we had a ton of depth at that position. We also lost our top 3 safeties to injuries at various times, and even signed a guy off the street to play, but we were able to mask that with a dominant pass rush and 3 really good corners.

Giants 2007

I remember seemingly getting a call/email from a Giant fan every day during training camp with another Giant going down. Then against the Cowboys in the playoffs they brought DBs in off the street.

 

[Balljim55]

I would love to bring in Foles to be a backup . Said for a long time before it happened that Philly should have been playing him over Vick and thought the Rams got the better of that trade at the time because I don't think Bradford is any better. My problem with Foles was when Philly fans started to think he was Joe Montana after his good season. In the right spot he can do well and Dallas looks like a good spot for him. Would be a great signing for Dallas right now, but he is not going to be a "great" QB obviously.

Totally Agree. You give him some weapons and he could be a top flight back up

 

[Fountain City Blues]

Still the same suspects on the PUP list so far for the Chiefs in Jamaal Charles, Hali, and Houston. Little reason to believe the first two miss real games.

 

[cdumler7]

Sounds like Ezekiel Elliot could be out for a while. Not a good start to his NFL career with his legal issues and now bad hamstring injury.

 

[jarntt]

William Jackson III - DB - Bengals
Bengals first-round CB William Jackson III has been diagnosed with a torn pectoral, and is out indefinitely.

Jackson will likely be headed to injured reserve/designated to return. It's not as big of a blow as it might initially seem, as Jackson was ticketed for No. 4 corner duties to begin the season. The Bengals still have Adam Jones, Dre Kirkpatrick and Darqueze Dennard. The real blow is that it stalls Jackson's development, costing him invaluable training camp time.


Source: Profootballtalk on Twitter
Aug 2 - 12:36 PM

 

[Manster7588]

Then Fuck You and your Redskins!!!

FIFY

 

[Manster7588]

Sounds like Ezekiel Elliot could be out for a while. Not a good start to his NFL career with his legal issues and now bad hamstring injury.

NFL Media Insider Ian Rapoport reported the injury is just a tweak and that Elliott's move to the sideline is precautionary.

 

[Scooby-Doo]

Already dusting off the injury excuse? Bit early for that isn't it?

Really? Major injuries have nothing to do with a teams success?

C'mon Harold. You're better than that.

 

[Scooby-Doo]

If we were in a court room, these would be called conflicting statements.

You are wrong.

 

[NEhomer]

It must be because the injuries-are-no-excuse thing sounds so noble and manly that you fuckin' clowns keep clinging to it. That and you've said it so many times now, that there's no going back. Y'all are dancing around the dictionary and trying to untie your tongues. I tell my teens at school that when us adults start getting careful with our language, you know we're full of shit.

Injuries cannot at once impact the game and not impact the game. Impact may change the outcome.