RUMOR: Possible Important Luck Health Update....

[NewColtsFan]

5 hours ago, Coltsfanforlife12 said:

While I believe this is completely and utterly false.  I’d like to point out that the “report” Nagy was our guy has been said to be false by everyone but the Chicago media so their fans can feel better about their up.  No offer was ever made and he was a candidate.

 

??????????

 

What I've posted here has almost nothing to do with the report that Nagy was our guy.     Different information and likely different sources.

 

 

[PrincetonTiger]

Sounds like a game of Telephone

[dgambill]

2 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I want to be clear about something....

 

If you have a problem with Hrigson for failing to build a proper O-line to protect Luck, I'm fine with that.

 

And if you want to blame Pagano for preferring an offense that lives and died with big chunk plays that are slow to develop and put Luck at considerable risk, I'm fine with that too...

 

But IF you're implying that Grigson and/or Pagano pressured Luck to take medicine or injections that put his health at risk THEN I think you're going where you shouldn't.    None of us knows anything about what goes on behind the scenes.   Just because your both cynical and skeptical doesn't mean you have proof to make that claim.   If you're not making this claim,  then great.    But if you are, I think you should reconsider...   Seriously.

 

Agreed....but how many stories do we have to hear about the pressure on team doctors etc to get players ready to play and the moral delimma that has come from some of their interactions. I’m not here to accuse our medical staff but we know the pull and tug that goes on and they want to keep their jobs too. Too many questions for anyone to answer to know what was going on behind closed doors and no one person or group I would say has full ownership for this issue...it’s a physical body wrecking sport...but it wouldn’t be wreckless to think that perhaps Luck should have been shut down sooner to protect him. The team obviously knew he had issues...they have the final say if he sees the field not Luck. Whether that means surgery or rest until he is symptom free.

[Superman]

8 minutes ago, dgambill said:

I agree...you can’t force luck to have surgery....I don’t know but could he have benefited from being shut down earlier instead of continuing to throw and take hits? I don’t know the medical issues surrounding this case but could the doctors said look....your not playing anymore until your pain free. Whether that is rest or you get the surgery...if they are giving him shots to help from the pain they are complicent in allowing Luck to harm himself. Like I said I don’t know all the facts....but if someone did a case could be made.

 

I think whenever things don't go as well as you hoped they would, it's a natural reaction to wish you could go back and do something different.

 

But when you're evaluating the decision making of a person or group of people, it's not fair to judge their decision in light of facts and developments that they didn't have the advantage of considering at the time. Even when Luck had surgery last January, there was no public indication that his shoulder was seriously bothering him, and no one involved in the process expected him to miss any time. 

 

Doctors don't tell players they can't play until they're pain free. They evaluate the injury, give the patient the relevant information -- if you play with this injury, you're risking significant damage; or if you play with this injury, you won't be 100%, but you're probably not risking any further damage -- and then the patient decides what course of action to take. 

 

Teams don't tell players they have to get surgery. If the medical people say it's okay to hold off on surgery, and as long as there's no increased discomfort or reduced ability, you should be okay, then the team should and does leave it up to the player -- who is the patient -- to decide. Generally speaking, surgery is a measure of last resort. If you can manage an injury without operating, it's pretty much always the preferred course of action. 

 

So acting like, if the Colts didn't force Luck into the operating room, that they are to blame for his recovery not going faster, is a drastic overreaction, at best, scapegoating at worst.

 

Not to mention the fact that this is all a reaction to an unsubstantiated rumor that we would normally dismiss right off the bat. Everyone is freaking out because there's no official news on Andrew Luck.

[NewColtsFan]

3 hours ago, csmopar said:

Depending on the exact part of the shoulder that was repaired, there's naturally no blood flow to begin with......

 

??????????

 

Is that what you meant to say?

 

It makes no sense.   There's blood flow in EVERY part if the body.    It might be different levels for different parts but there IS blood flow everywhere, including the shoulder.

 

[NewColtsFan]

2 hours ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

I strongly question anything that forum posters said they have heard from friends or family.  

 

Ok.....    that's fair...

 

But let me ask you this...   do you have the same skepticism, the same standard when the news is good?   News you like?

 

Just asking....

 

[Narcosys]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

He played the entire 2016 season with a less than 100% shoulder, and played pretty well. You're acting like his arm fell off during a game. 

 

You don't know when they identified labrum fraying, or the extent of the damage at that time. You didn't examine his arm, see his scans, check his range of motion, monitor his pain levels, etc. But here you are acting like an armchair shoulder specialist.

 

The informed parties -- Luck, most importantly -- made the decision to hold off on surgery in hopes it wouldn't be needed. I think their informed conclusion is much more valid than the hindsight reactions of fans on the Internet.

Its in reports, so I do know.

 

https://www.sbnation.com/2017/10/16/16469416/andrew-luck-shoulder-injury-history-timeline-colts-return
 

The labrum is nothing to joke over when it comes to throwing. What should have taken 6 months has become a year.  Someone, somewhere, made a very poor decision and did not inform someone else with the entirety of the situation. 

 

A report about MLB players who got SLAP tear procedures, only 16 returned to , play and 13 of those were able to return to prior performance. So that's a only 54% of players able to return to their prior performance. There are other reports out there that have even more dire results.

 

Sorry if I'm a bit sceptical and think they should have done more. It seems poor decisions were made numerous times, over the course of this entire situation. 

 

Like I've said before the season began, lucks career is in jeapordy and nothing so far has shown me any reason to think otherwise.

[#12.]

1 minute ago, dgambill said:

 

But IF you're implying that Grigson and/or Pagano pressured Luck to take medicine or injections that put his health at risk THEN I think you're going where you shouldn't

 

It didn't necessarily have to be pressure.  Possibly, he couldn't play without it, so just allowing the situation go on was a problem.  

 

1 minute ago, Superman said:

Teams don't tell players they have to get surgery

You can't force someone to get surgery, but if the player shouldn't be playing with the injury, you can shut them down.  

 

In this situation, if I had to choose between handled properly and mishandled, I would go mishandled.

[colt18]

10 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

No, they didn't. They benched him after he got hurt the first time. He had himself evaluated sometime after that season and chose not to have surgery. That's his choice, not the team's. 

 

Blaming the Colts for his recovery is nonsensical. It's easy to look back and say 'they should have shut him down and forced him to have surgery' two years later, but you know what they say about hindsight. Besides that, no one can know that he wouldn't have had the same issues with his recovery even if he had the operation way sooner. 

 

So no, the organization didn't screw up his shoulder or his recovery. 

Do you have a source saying he close not to get surgery before 2017?

 

Also, some quick points where the organization messed up:

 

- He first got hurt during the Colts-Titans game, during which he wasn't benched. Luck would later admit that his shoulder pains first started during that 9/2015 game (https://www.sbnation.com/2017/4/17/15328144/andrew-luck-shoulder-injury-surgery-2015-titans)

- Luck then got a lacerated kidney plus abdomen muscle pulls against the Broncos. He never came out of that game either. 

 

- the labrum concerns came about during the 2016 preseason. Grigson said he was fine. Irsay said he was fine. Irsay even continued to promise that Luck would play during the 2017 season. Amid all these reports and setbacks, Luck was put on IR. 

 

Irsay made it seem like he was completely unaware of the severity of Luck's injury. Luck starting on the PUP list wasn't in the plans according to Ballard. 

 

 

It's not 100% true to say the organization didn't mess up the handling of his injury. 

[Smoke317]

8 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I want to be clear about something....

 

If you have a problem with Hrigson for failing to build a proper O-line to protect Luck, I'm fine with that.

 

And if you want to blame Pagano for preferring an offense that lives and died with big chunk plays that are slow to develop and put Luck at considerable risk, I'm fine with that too...

 

But IF you're implying that Grigson and/or Pagano pressured Luck to take medicine or injections that put his health at risk THEN I think you're going where you shouldn't.    None of us knows anything about what goes on behind the scenes.   Just because your both cynical and skeptical doesn't mean you have proof to make that claim.   If you're not making this claim,  then great.    But if you are, I think you should reconsider...   Seriously.

 

Luck is a grown man and will make his own decisions.  Just like all NFL players do when it comes to injuries and their long term health.  What I'm saying is that I feel that sometimes you've got to protect a player from themselves.  Especially a franchise cornerstone player like Luck.  It's all just speculation on here.  None of us KNOW anything for sure.  But when you have a coach and a gm who probably didn't feel secure in their jobs, winning was paramount.  

 

Let me ask you guys a question.  Do you guys feel that Pagano or Grigson would have felt safe or comfortable in their positions going to Irsay  saying that we need to sit Luck for a year to get surgery and let him heal up?  Because we could inject his shoulder and he could play this year but it could lead to long term damage.  So we'd prefer to give him a year off to ensure his longevity?  I couldn't see them doing that.  Reason being you play him in a meaningless game agaisnt Jax when he could have gotten an early start on surgery and rehab...  But then again, I can't remember the exact timing but maybe Luck himself felt the need to play that season in order to feel like he was earning that big contract...

 

I really don't know all the details.  None of us do one way or another.  But this situation most certainly feels FUBAR'd.  I for one hope Luck returns to his old self.  It's been a joy watching him play and I would love to see him play many more years for the Horseshoe.  But if he never returns, I will wish him the best in his future endeavors.  It'll really just feel like we wasted the Luck era and there would be plenty of blame to go all around for that.  Including Luck himself.

[Jason_]

32 minutes ago, Narcosys said:

But CAN force him to sit on the bench because of injury.

 

and why would they do that when the doctors said he's fine to play?

[NewColtsFan]

28 minutes ago, Narcosys said:

Its in reports, so I do know.

 

https://www.sbnation.com/2017/10/16/16469416/andrew-luck-shoulder-injury-history-timeline-colts-return
 

The labrum is nothing to joke over when it comes to throwing. What should have taken 6 months has become a year.  Someone, somewhere, made a very poor decision and did not inform someone else with the entirety of the situation. 

 

A report about MLB players who got SLAP tear procedures, only 16 returned to , play and 13 of those were able to return to prior performance. So that's a only 54% of players able to return to their prior performance. There are other reports out there that have even more dire results.

 

Sorry if I'm a bit sceptical and think they should have done more. It seems poor decisions were made numerous times, over the course of this entire situation. 

 

Like I've said before the season began, lucks career is in jeapordy and nothing so far has shown me any reason to think otherwise.

 

If I had to guess who made the bad decisions,  I think it would be Andrew Luck.     Ultimately, everything is his call.

 

BUT....

 

Since Luck is an exceptionally bright guy and was dealing with top doctors I have no interest in playing the Blame Game.   Not when we're all operating on very incomplete information.   So far I find this whole thing somewhat tragic.   But I'm not ready to point fingers at anyone over this. Not based on what little we know.

 

[dgambill]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I think whenever things don't go as well as you hoped they would, it's a natural reaction to wish you could go back and do something different.

 

But when you're evaluating the decision making of a person or group of people, it's not fair to judge their decision in light of facts and developments that they didn't have the advantage of considering at the time. Even when Luck had surgery last January, there was no public indication that his shoulder was seriously bothering him, and no one involved in the process expected him to miss any time. 

 

Doctors don't tell players they can't play until they're pain free. They evaluate the injury, give the patient the relevant information -- if you play with this injury, you're risking significant damage; or if you play with this injury, you won't be 100%, but you're probably not risking any further damage -- and then the patient decides what course of action to take. 

 

Teams don't tell players they have to get surgery. If the medical people say it's okay to hold off on surgery, and as long as there's no increased discomfort or reduced ability, you should be okay, then the team should and does leave it up to the player -- who is the patient -- to decide. Generally speaking, surgery is a measure of last resort. If you can manage an injury without operating, it's pretty much always the preferred course of action. 

 

So acting like, if the Colts didn't force Luck into the operating room, that they are to blame for his recovery not going faster, is a drastic overreaction, at best, scapegoating at worst.

 

Not to mention the fact that this is all a reaction to an unsubstantiated rumor that we would normally dismiss right off the bat. Everyone is freaking out because there's no official news on Andrew Luck.

Yeah I don’t have the medical....no one does...just saying I don’t blame people for being upset at the prospect of losing Luck. Surgery was surgery...it could have went wrong or he not healed regardless...I guess my questions (that will never be answered) is could we have shut him down altogether until he healed on his own or did playing no further damage. Was this cumulative or was this an injury that couldn’t get worse only playing with discomfort. I can’t get worked up either way...whatever will be will be...but to obsolve the Colts staff altogether I can not. Maybe nothing could have been done differently to prevent things...but knowing how the NFL works from many many athletes stories and the pressures to play and the advice of team doctors who some loyalties lie more with the team than the player...it can’t be ruled out altogether.

 

That said I do agree...it isn’t something to be outraged over at this point...no moral outrage now will make anything better.

[Jason_]

30 minutes ago, Narcosys said:

 

They identified labrum fraying during preseason of 2016. When something is frayed, you don't keep using it over and over. If you don't want to tear it entirely, you fix it. But they didn't. How else would you define incompetence then if this isn't a clear example of it?

 

Furthermore, do you want to clarify as to what you're statement means?

 

if you can't figure out what Superman's comment means then you definitely have no basis on which to be critical of a professional medical staff. 

[Superman]

5 minutes ago, Narcosys said:

Its in reports, so I do know.

https://www.sbnation.com/2017/10/16/16469416/andrew-luck-shoulder-injury-history-timeline-colts-return

 

 

Just because you know when it was reported doesn't mean you know when it was identified, or what they did to treat it.

 

You've jumped to the conclusion that frayed labrum = surgery is an absolute necessity, and based on that assumption, since they didn't immediately operate, they messed up, and none of that is necessarily true.

 

Quote

The labrum is nothing to joke over when it comes to throwing. What should have taken 6 months has become a year.  Someone, somewhere, made a very poor decision and did not inform someone else with the entirety of the situation. 

 

A report about MLB players who got SLAP tear procedures, only 16 returned to , play and 13 of those were able to return to prior performance. So that's a only 54% of players able to return to their prior performance. There are other reports out there that have even more dire results.

 

The bolded is what I take issue with. Someone (more likely, a group of people) made a decision based on the information they had at the time, and that decision didn't turn out how they hoped it would. You're concluding that someone withheld information, or someone messed something up, and that's a leap that I think is unfair to make. 

 

First off, we don't have all the information, and never will. Second, people heal differently, and no one can do anything about that. Third, at this point, everyone is freaking out over an unsubstantiated rumor, when we might just find out in a few weeks that Luck is throwing fine, has no pain, and is looking great. There's an absence of information right now, and that void is being filled with sensationalism. 

 

Quote

 

Sorry if I'm a bit sceptical and think they should have done more. It seems poor decisions were made numerous times, over the course of this entire situation. 

 

Like I've said before the season began, lucks career is in jeapordy and nothing so far has shown me any reason to think otherwise.

 

 

Speaking of sensationalism...

 

There's nothing anyone can be shown right now to change their opinion, because Luck has been shut down for over two months. 

[dgambill]

15 minutes ago, J@son said:

 

and why would they do that when the doctors said he's fine to play?

I think that is where the rubber meets the road...some believe the doctors were wrong to say he is fine enough to play....or them and the organization should have enough foresight or thought long term to protect Luck from further injury that might have resulted in him having the surgery. I’m not saying either way...not trying to point fingers...but not surprised we have a lot of upset fans.

[Superman]

14 minutes ago, colt18 said:

Do you have a source saying he close not to get surgery before 2017?

 

It's well documented that he chose not to have surgery prior to 2016. Look no further than the fact that he didn't have surgery.

Quote

 

Also, some quick points where the organization messed up:

 

- He first got hurt during the Colts-Titans game, during which he wasn't benched. Luck would later admit that his shoulder pains first started during that 9/2015 game (https://www.sbnation.com/2017/4/17/15328144/andrew-luck-shoulder-injury-surgery-2015-titans)

- Luck then got a lacerated kidney plus abdomen muscle pulls against the Broncos. He never came out of that game either. 

- the labrum concerns came about during the 2016 preseason. Grigson said he was fine. Irsay said he was fine.

 

 

You're missing some details. First, after the Titans game, Luck missed the next two games with the shoulder injury. His scans showed no structural damage, but he wasn't ready to play. He was benched, like I said.

 

Second, not that it's relevant to this conversation, but no one knew the extent of Luck's injury against the Broncos until the following day. At that point, he was shut down, and as we all know, didn't play the rest of the season. 

 

So, to the third point, his shoulder was known to be an issue well before the 2016 preseason, and the collective group decided it would be okay to manage his shoulder without operating. To pin this decision on the Colts, or to act like things would have worked out better if Luck had surgery sooner, is purposely dismissing relevant facts.

 

Quote

 

Irsay even continued to promise that Luck would play during the 2017 season. Amid all these reports and setbacks, Luck was put on IR. 

 

Irsay made it seem like he was completely unaware of the severity of Luck's injury. Luck starting on the PUP list wasn't in the plans according to Ballard. 

 

 

This is entirely nonsensical. Luck had a setback and went on IR. To hold Irsay's previous predictions that Luck would play against him is unreasonable, at best, malicious at worst. And if you're going to do that, you might as well hold Luck's own prediction that he would play against him. But the agenda is obviously to paint him as the helpless victim here.

 

Quote

It's not 100% true to say the organization didn't mess up the handling of his injury. 

 

If it comes out that the organization coerced Luck into doing something he wasn't comfortable with, withheld information, put their jobs ahead of his well being, or otherwise purposely acted against his best interests, in any way, I'll be leading the charge against whoever was involved. To this point, there's zero indication that any of that happened.

 

So I'm operating under the assumption that Luck was well informed, part of the collective decision making process to manage his shoulder without surgery prior to January 2017, and ultimately -- as an informed patient -- that decision was his alone to make. Anything beyond that is speculative and unsubstantiated.

[rock8591]

For real, what is up with everyone online being so much more omnipotent and all-knowing than they are in real life?

 

I call nonsense.

[crazycolt1]

The only incompetence I see here is a few posters thinking they are shoulder specialist. They are so busy trying to point a finger at someone when there is no one to point a finger at so they make all these different opinions that fit their narrative.

Just because someone goes to a website that talks about issues with the shoulder does not make you an expert in the field.

Just because you hear or read a hearsay rumor also does not make it true.

Reading some these comment is like reading the National Inquirer rag mag.

 

[chrisfarley]

very depressed after reading this post

 

 

 

 

[a06cc]

No blood flow in a shoulder would require surgery immediately. I wouldn’t buy into it.

[Dudley Smith]

Probably more like poor circulation rather than "no blood flow." Unless it is just a dead piece of meat hanging off of his body at this point.

[RollerColt]

Not saying this is true for all posters, but it’s very easy, especially right now with our fan base as vulnerable as it is, to create an account and then make claims about bad news on Andrew Luck.

 

They could be right, they could be telling the truth. But I will say this: I have seen this happen quite often in the Amusement Park online community, with posters claiming insider access to “new rides”.

 

I’m taking this with a grain of salt and not worrying about it. If this is all true and we have to move on then so be it at this point, I’ll give this poster their due credit. 

[dgambill]

We all know that a players health is subject to certain privacy laws...I will say this....the lack of flow of information surrounding Lucks injury and recovery allows for such endless speculation. Again  I agree it does no good all this vitriol and conspiracy theories but the Colts have done a poor job managing the narrative and marketing of this story and injury. I know they probably can only give out so much information but they haven’t done themselves or their fans any service in how they have managed this whole thing.

[Horse Shoe Heaven]

2 hours ago, Smoke317 said:

Did the player know that long term use of cortisone on his shoulder could lead to avascular necrosis?  And you've never heard the stories of teams pushing players to do things that might be detrimental to their long term health?  A similar situation happened with the running back we had a couple years ago that got the concussion. 

 

So only a fool would think that a team can't or wouldn't influence a player to do something that might not have his best long term interest in mind.  Especially a player like Luck who loves to play and finished a game with internal injuries.  And only a complete fool would absolve Grigson and Pagano of all responsibility in the matter...

I am sure that the staff the Colts have treated Andrew "one of the best players in the NFL fine" In these types instances it is commonly known that 1. cortisone doesn't work on everyone 2. that it can only be given every 6 months. I my case I have received shots 3 times and it did nothing. I know others who have had them and avoided surgery because of the pain relief. Everyone is different. I would bet he received a cortisone shot sure, but probably had a pain killer if the pain presited. The Colts would have handled their franchise QB accordingly knowing Andrew is the face of the franchise and a star player. Anyone who thinks other wise would be a complete fool!!

[Narcosys]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

Just because you know when it was reported doesn't mean you know when it was identified, or what they did to treat it.

 

You've jumped to the conclusion that frayed labrum = surgery is an absolute necessity, and based on that assumption, since they didn't immediately operate, they messed up, and none of that is necessarily true.

 

 

The bolded is what I take issue with. Someone (more likely, a group of people) made a decision based on the information they had at the time, and that decision didn't turn out how they hoped it would. You're concluding that someone withheld information, or someone messed something up, and that's a leap that I think is unfair to make. 

 

First off, we don't have all the information, and never will. Second, people heal differently, and no one can do anything about that. Third, at this point, everyone is freaking out over an unsubstantiated rumor, when we might just find out in a few weeks that Luck is throwing fine, has no pain, and is looking great. There's an absence of information right now, and that void is being filled with sensationalism. 

 

 

Speaking of sensationalism...

 

There's nothing anyone can be shown right now to change their opinion, because Luck has been shut down for over two months. 

Idk where you got that a frayed labrum means absolute surgery, I merely said you dont continue to play on it. First I say it occurred and you say idk when it was identified, I prove you wrong so you change your argument when the original point was THAT HE PLAYED WITH AN INJURED SHOULDER, and that they shouldn't grace allowed him to play known full well that a fray can easily lead to a tear with further play or sudden and frequent impacts. To deny this is to be incredulous. 

 

So how about you stop changing your argument to fit your narrative. That's called special pleading.

 

You can the issue with it all you want, but the fact of the matter is that there was frayed tissue damage, and a collective decision was made to let him play. Either someone was not informed, like irsay when he says he felt misled, or everyone involved is incompetent. It may be lucks chive to play, but he is not a medical professional and therefore his choice should not be the end all be all decision. The FO and doctors should have made him rest and make decisions on what would be best for the franchise in the long run. They did not do that. Im sorry but nobody in their right mind, knowing that there was fraying, of important tissue for Lucks to preform, would say that it is ok play and we see no issue with it. Even if they advised him that further play could lead to tears, it should have been taken out if lucks hands. But they didn't, that's incompetence.

Your using the lame excuse of everyone healing differently to disregard the fact that luck has taken twice as long to heal as is normal. 

 

This rumour has no bearing on my arguments as I have stated all this before when luck was first benched at the start of the season. Let's be real, luck has been shutdown for far longer than two months. He hasn't been able to throw for over a year without pain. 

[Narcosys]

1 hour ago, J@son said:

 

if you can't figure out what Superman's comment means then you definitely have no basis on which to be critical of a professional medical staff. 

It was meant to rhetorical...if you can't figure it out. As the statement is clearly antagonistic.  Furthermore, your conclusion has nothing to do with the fact of the matter. Good try though.

[GoColts8818]

Worth mentioning It was reported Luck held off the surgery as long as he could because this type of surgery was not easy to comeback from.  It was the last option.  So I don’t think the Colts did wrong in delaying the surgery they were trying to prevent it in the first place.  It finally got to a point where they had no choice.  Those things happen.  

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, Narcosys said:

Idk where you got that a frayed labrum means absolute surgery, I merely said you dont continue to play on it.

 

Which you don't have the information, expertise, or authority to say.

 

Quote

First I say it occurred and you say idk when it was identified, I prove you wrong so you change your argument 

 

No. You said they identified the frayed labrum in the preseason of 2016, and posted a report from that timeframe. I said you don't know when they identified, because you don't. It could have been identified well before then, and their imaging may have led them to believe that there was no risk of further injury and he would be fine to play with it. Again, point being you don't know what they knew or when, or to what extent there was even damage at that point.

 

Quote

when the original point was THAT HE PLAYED WITH AN INJURED SHOULDER, and that they shouldn't grace allowed him to play known full well that a fray can easily lead to a tear with further play or sudden and frequent impacts. To deny this is to be incredulous. 

 

It's amazing that you think a team of medical professionals didn't consider the risk of further damage and advise the patient accordingly. 

 

Quote

So how about you stop changing your argument to fit your narrative. That's called special pleading.

 

Stop it. You're either ignoring the fact that medical professionals evaluated him and cleared him to play, or pretending that you are better qualified to make the decisions that they are trained to make. I'm not changing my argument at all, as I said originally, you don't know when they identified the frayed labrum, or the extent of the damage, or what the treatment plan was. You only know when it was reported.

 

Quote

You can the issue with it all you want, but the fact of the matter is that there was frayed tissue damage, and a collective decision was made to let him play. Either someone was not informed, like irsay when he says he felt misled, or everyone involved is incompetent. It may be lucks chive to play, but he is not a medical professional and therefore his choice should not be the end all be all decision. The FO and doctors should have made him rest and make decisions on what would be best for the franchise in the long run.

 

You say that with the benefit of hindsight. Luck wouldn't be the first QB to play through a labrum injury and not require surgery.

 

Quote

They did not do that. Im sorry but nobody in their right mind, knowing that there was fraying, of important tissue for Lucks to preform, would say that it is ok play and we see no issue with it. Even if they advised him that further play could lead to tears, it should have been taken out if lucks hands. But they didn't, that's incompetence.

 

Says the guy on the Internet, who isn't a shoulder specialist (I'm assuming, but feel comfortable in that assumption), hasn't seen Luck's scans, doesn't know the extent of his injury or whether his injury got worse over time, didn't examine or evaluate him, didn't monitor his progression, isn't aware of how much pain or discomfort he was experiencing, etc. You are simply not qualified to make that determination. 

 

Quote

Your using the lame excuse of everyone healing differently to disregard the fact that luck has taken twice as long to heal as is normal. 

 

He had a setback. It happens. It's not necessarily anyone's fault.

 

Quote

This rumour has no bearing on my arguments as I have stated all this before when luck was first benched at the start of the season. Let's be real, luck has been shutdown for far longer than two months. He hasn't been able to throw for over a year without pain.

 

So you reached the conclusion that Luck's career was in jeopardy well before anyone knew he wouldn't be able to play in 2017. And now, every day that goes by without Luck playing a game just confirms your suspicion, even though it's January and Luck has months to work through whatever is going on now. That seems reasonable.

[a06cc]

51 minutes ago, Dudley Smith said:

Probably more like poor circulation rather than "no blood flow." Unless it is just a dead piece of meat hanging off of his body at this point.

This I agree with. He must’ve had poor circulation. No way do you have no blood flow to an area of your body without having surgery. Therapy can fix poor circulation. It can’t fix no blood flow. 

[OffensivelyPC]

It's against the interest of the entire organization, from top to bottom, to force Luck out there to play injured if it might cause further damage to his throwing shoulder.  Players, on the other hand, elect to play through injury all the time, why is this any different?  Things sometiems don't go as expected.  It happens.  It sucks, but it happens.

 

That being said, I haven't seen anything concrete to say he is done, just like I haven't seen anything concrete saying he'll be 100%.  We'll know when we know.  That being said, from my perspective, I'd prepare this offseason assuming he'll be playing at a high level.  If he does, we're on the same track as we would've been since Ballard took over, rebuilding this team from Grigson's mess.  If it comes to fruition that Luck is done, well that sucks, but we'd probably still be looking at a high draft pick for a QB in 2019 or later anyhow - and that's not to say we shouldn't address the possibility this year by drafting a suitable backup.  You never know when there might be a backup with real starter potential anyway.

[snkdy]

4 hours ago, #12. said:

Looking into Bo Jackson, this is apparently true - avascular necrosis.  Bo was of the belief it was the result of him popping his hip back into place himself.  I don't know, could it be the result of Luck playing with the injury for a year plus?

 

Bo Jackson was diagnosed with it within a month of the injury, however.  If this were true with Luck, I'm sure it would be known to everyone by now.

 

I sincerely doubt Andrew Luck is suffering from avascular necrosis. AVN of the femoral head is a complication of traumatic posterior dislocation of the hip. It is also associated with alcoholism and high-dose steroid use. AVN occurs at a much higher rate in the hip than in any other joint which is why most studies are focused on that region. 

 

It is possible to have AVN of the shoulder. However, it is rare and usually referred to as osteonecrosis of the humeral head. There are two types of osteonecrosis of the shoulder: traumatic and atraumatic. Similar to the way a posterior hip dislocation can compromise the blood supply to the femoral head, a shoulder dislocation can do the same thing. We know Andrew had a shoulder subluxation but it’s unlikely that a partial dislocation would have caused necrosis. And in any case, you are correct that AVN is generally diagnosed within a few months of an insult. It can present up to two years afterwards but this is less likely. The atraumatic form of osteonecrosis of the shoulder has the same risk factors as that of the hip - high-dose steroids, alcoholism and a few other things like infection and pancreatitis. I really don’t think any steroid use would have gone unregulated. 

 

As far as the rumor above, there is no way he has zero blood supply. Is it possible that Luck has restricted or limited blood flow? Yes, but not because of the surgery or poor management. It’s because that is already the anatomical reality of the shoulder and glenoid labrum. The superior and anterosuperior parts of the labrum naturally have less vascularity than the posterosuperior and inferior parts, and that blood supply is limited to the periphery of the labrum. It’s not a new complication. It is also true that healing is dependent on the extent of said vascularity. However, research has shown that despite this, the glenoid labrum has sufficient overall blood supply to result in healing, given enough time. Range of motion, strength, and reduced pain will all come with rehabilitation. 

[Jason_]

1 hour ago, Narcosys said:

It was meant to rhetorical..

 

as was mine ;)

[Smonroe]

I’m guessing McDaniels is convinced Luck is okay.  

 

Nice analysis @snkdy!

[stitches]

For whatever it's worth:

 

 

[a06cc]

1 hour ago, snkdy said:

 

I sincerely doubt Andrew Luck is suffering from avascular necrosis. AVN of the femoral head is a complication of traumatic posterior dislocation of the hip. It is also associated with alcoholism and high-dose steroid use. AVN occurs at a much higher rate in the hip than in any other joint which is why most studies are focused on that region. 

 

It is possible to have AVN of the shoulder. However, it is rare and usually referred to as osteonecrosis of the humeral head. There are two types of osteonecrosis of the shoulder: traumatic and atraumatic. Similar to the way a posterior hip dislocation can compromise the blood supply to the femoral head, a shoulder dislocation can do the same thing. We know Andrew had a shoulder subluxation but it’s unlikely that a partial dislocation would have caused necrosis. And in any case, you are correct that AVN is generally diagnosed within a few months of an insult. It can present up to two years afterwards but this is less likely. The atraumatic form of osteonecrosis of the shoulder has the same risk factors as that of the hip - high-dose steroids, alcoholism and a few other things like infection and pancreatitis. I really don’t think any steroid use would have gone unregulated. 

 

As far as the rumor above, there is no way he has zero blood supply. Is it possible that Luck has restricted or limited blood flow? Yes, but not because of the surgery or poor management. It’s because that is already the anatomical reality of the shoulder and glenoid labrum. The superior and anterosuperior parts of the labrum naturally have less vascularity than the posterosuperior and inferior parts, and that blood supply is limited to the periphery of the labrum. It’s not a new complication. It is also true that healing is dependent on the extent of said vascularity. However, research has shown that despite this, the glenoid labrum has sufficient overall blood supply to result in healing, given enough time. Range of motion, strength, and reduced pain will all come with rehabilitation. 

Yep rehab which Luck has been doing will fix the circulation problem.

[GoColts8818]

35 minutes ago, stitches said:

For whatever it's worth:

 

 

To quote someone who shall remain nameless he’s trending in the right direction...

[Andrew Luck fan club]

[superrep1967]

14 hours ago, IndyScribe said:

If Nagy was told, there's no doubt that McDaniels was told.

Maybe McDaniels thinks he can make Brissett into a formidable starter.  

[dw49]

4 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

??????????

 

What I've posted here has almost nothing to do with the report that Nagy was our guy.     Different information and likely different sources.

 

 

 

 

Kind of the same thread no ? The poster that you copied and sated said that this information came as a result of Nagy telling someone in the KC organization that "this or that " was the reason he went to Chicago rather than Indy ? If all of what he said was true , it would make me believe we offered Nagy the job.