jester43 Posted December 2, 2004 Posted December 2, 2004 ...specifically vincent and henry. why won't they just say what the damn diagnosis is? henry...first he had a broken leg, then he didn't and he might be back..now he doesn't, but he might not be back. all we now is that he is in a boot and was wearing his sad clown face to practice. ok, i understand that, i weould too. but why can't we hear an actual diagnosis? what do the bills think they have to gain from keeping it a secret? i don't buy that it helps his trade value, because any team that would consider trading for him is not going to do so until they find out one way or another what the injury truly is. and they never did say what the deal has been with vincent....now it's gotten so absurd that people are questioning whether the guy even wants to play. my guess is that it was some sort of legitimate and serious injury....but the bills secrecy about the diagnosis has had the effect of turning the fans against vincent.
Corp000085 Posted December 2, 2004 Posted December 2, 2004 at least its not like hockey playoff injuries. "upper body injury"=broken ankle.
DeeRay Posted December 2, 2004 Posted December 2, 2004 This is exactly how the "master", Bill Belechick, handles his injury report. IMHO, I think it's great. When you think about it, it really doesn't matter what the injury is. The injured player will be back when he's back and not a game sooner. Typically, when a player gets injured, the team will state the injury and then either the team, media, or fans set this "timetable" for the injued player to be out with the specified injury... ie, 4-6 weeks, etc. When the player doesn't return within that timetable, automatically that player is labled by the fans and/or media as a "whimp", "milking it", "selfish", or whatever... and that's exactly how many posters on this board have treated the Troy Vincent absence. In the case of JP... almost all of us had his recovery timetable marked on the calendar and many of us tried to predict his debut off of that. So, I think if the coaches should just state that the player is injured and he'll be back when he's back and that should suffice. Play with the players you've got and play the team that's on your schedule and, as a fan, don't B word about your team having injuries and/or having a tough schedule.
ch19079 Posted December 2, 2004 Posted December 2, 2004 with henry, i bet hes hut, but doesnt want to hurt any trade talks in the future. if they say he shattered his foot, all teh teams would want to see him run and cut and do all that stuff. now we can say hes fine, he just needed "rest". noone is worse than the pats. didnt they put healthy people on the IR for an extra roster spot????
30dive Posted December 2, 2004 Posted December 2, 2004 Well at least its come to bitching about the way we report injuries.
DeeRay Posted December 2, 2004 Posted December 2, 2004 noone is worse than the pats. didnt they put healthy people on the IR for an extra roster spot???? Why would they do that? IR means that the player is finished for the season, unless the team reaches an injury settlement with the player and then he becomes a free agent. The player would not be able to re-sign with the team that released him for 8 weeks, but is free to sign with any other team immediately. The Pats abide by NFL rules regarding injuries. People have problems with the Pats because they don't give out specific details regarding injuries. When a player is on their injury report they say "leg" and "questionable" rather than "Knee strain" and "probable". So what?
stuckincincy Posted December 2, 2004 Posted December 2, 2004 This came up in Cincy, regarding WR Peter Warrick. He was coming off a knee problem into pre-season, and incurred what was stated to be a shin injury. He sat out a few games, played in one or two, and finally went on IR. There was grousing about why there was no disclosure. Finally, HC Lewis said in no uncertain terms, that a player is a person, and like any person, Warrick's medical condition is not a matter of public record, and to disclose same would be against the law.
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted December 2, 2004 Posted December 2, 2004 ...specifically vincent and henry. why won't they just say what the damn diagnosis is? henry...first he had a broken leg, then he didn't and he might be back..now he doesn't, but he might not be back. all we now is that he is in a boot and was wearing his sad clown face to practice. ok, i understand that, i weould too. but why can't we hear an actual diagnosis? what do the bills think they have to gain from keeping it a secret? i don't buy that it helps his trade value, because any team that would consider trading for him is not going to do so until they find out one way or another what the injury truly is. and they never did say what the deal has been with vincent....now it's gotten so absurd that people are questioning whether the guy even wants to play. my guess is that it was some sort of legitimate and serious injury....but the bills secrecy about the diagnosis has had the effect of turning the fans against vincent. 142357[/snapback] In order to keep information from enemy teams I want my team o keep secrets about injuries and even to lie about them as much as the rules allow. if keeping everyone in the dark or even backtracking completely on an injury report for Henry allows the Bills get more for him trade value then I say lie to me. The right to know is essential for me in terms of my government, but in terms of football entertainment my priority is to see my team get every advantage they can get. if it leaves me dumb about an issue then so be it.
Recommended Posts