Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Chloe6124

Irsay’s comments on Luck

Recommended Posts

The way Ballard’s comment came across t made it sound the numbing shot was for the calf. But after re reading it the shot was not for that.

When manning missed the entire pre season he started off bad because of mechanics. AL is ahead of that since he is working with Ton House. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Ok.  So what we have learned in the past few days is that Luck has had a "bad" left ankle for several years.  Not that there has ever been a responsibility to tell the public that, but I'm noting for the record that this is new information for most of us.

 

He also suffers from indigestion and psoriasis. But the team has failed us in not divulging that information as well.

  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

He also suffers from indigestion and psoriasis. But the team has failed us in not divulging that information as well.

 

Wait, I could've sworn that he was on the injury report at some point for indigestion? Oh wait, that was Hasselbeck.

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

Wait, I could've sworn that he was on the injury report at some point for indigestion? Oh wait, that was Hasselbeck.

 

"Chipotle-induced indigestion" was the official designation. 

 

Why can't Luck be  more like Hasselbeck and give full disclosure of all his ailments? We need full descriptions of the color, texture, odor, amount, etc. The fans deserve this.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

He also suffers from indigestion and psoriasis. But the team has failed us in not divulging that information as well.

What's your point?  I never suggested that its the Colts responsibility to divulge Luck's health to the public.  You're arguing with the wrong guy.

 

In your 14 point list, did you mention that Ballard said that Luck has dealt with pain in that ankle for several years?  Its great that they know he has an OT bone, but once they say they don't think that is the cause for this situation, then what is the cause for the pain over the years?

 

And I'm not saying they should disclose that.  But the notion Luck has had left ankle pain for years is news to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Four2itus said:

Of course you can view it that way. But your only way of actually affecting the franchise, is speaking with your wallet. Any complaining done here....valid or invalid...has zero affect, only affects other posters. 

 

Any fan has a right to their opinion, in the appropriate forum. Some may complain about the franchise. I mostly complain about how many fans view the franchise. In all, I would hope we are all Colt fans. But not all of us view the information given out by the franchise as a "right". 

 

Amen.

 

I don't understand all the constant complaining from some Colts fans.  It's like they just use this forum as a dumping-ground for their frustrations.

 

It's a game.  It's supposed to be a fun pastime.  The fans that cheer on their Colts this year, even if it's Brissett under center, are the same fans that cheered on the Colts in 2017, 2011, and before 1998 during the "Lord help our Colts" years.

 

:colts:  :rock:

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 in the same vein as my advice to Chloe, this forum is not a dumping-ground for all your negative thoughts. 

wow, I guess I have been doing it wrong this whole time

 

you learn something everyday 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DougDew said:

In your 14 point list, did you mention that Ballard said that Luck has dealt with pain in that ankle for several years?  Its great that they know he has an OT bone, but once they say they don't think that is the cause for this situation, then what is the cause for the pain over the years?

 

And I'm not saying they should disclose that.  But the notion Luck has had left ankle pain for years is news to me.

 

I didn't mention it, as you know. I didn't find that disclosure to be pertinent to the current issue, since I'd bet 99% of NFL players deal with ankle pain at various points of the season.

 

I also didn't take the time to go back through injury reports over the years to see if he's ever been on the report for a sore left ankle. We know he's never missed a game due to an ankle injury, so it's not a point of contention for me.

 

And this gets back to required disclosure. The Colts would not necessarily be required to report a sore ankle if it did not affect the player's performance or availability. 

 

That's probably why it's news to you. Contrary to popular opinion, teams aren't required to report every bump and bruise to every player. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HOZER said:

 

Irsay is a liar.

The team doesn’t care about public relations.

Our medical staff has no clue.

 

What am I missing? The sense of entitlement on here sometimes is unreal. Makes me wonder how some people are still fans of such a corrupt and dishonest team. My goodness.

 

:rantoff:

 

 

 

 

Never said Irsay was a Liar.... in fact, he is the one that forced CB to come out and acknowledge that there was a lot more to what is going on then they had said and that Luck will miss the preseason and the game 1 status is questionable.   If not for Irsay, we would still be hearing about the mysterious calf strain......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

I didn't mention it, as you know. I didn't find that disclosure to be pertinent to the current issue, since I'd bet 99% of NFL players deal with ankle pain at various points of the season.

 

I also didn't take the time to go back through injury reports over the years to see if he's ever been on the report for a sore left ankle. We know he's never missed a game due to an ankle injury, so it's not a point of contention for me.

 

And this gets back to required disclosure. The Colts would not necessarily be required to report a sore ankle if it did not affect the player's performance or availability. 

 

That's probably why it's news to you. Contrary to popular opinion, teams aren't required to report every bump and bruise to every player. 

The way I read the tweet, Ballard is talking about the current and rather mystifying lingering ankle pain throughout the summer.  If he thought that past reocurring pain in the same ankle at some level was totally unrelated he wouldn't have brought it up, IMO.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Old Colt said:

Never said Irsay was a Liar.... in fact, he is the one that forced CB to come out and acknowledge that there was a lot more to what is going on then they had said and that Luck will miss the preseason and the game 1 status is questionable.   If not for Irsay, we would still be hearing about the mysterious calf strain......

 

It was a list of things that have been said in this thread, not just by you. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

I can't believe I just wasted my time reading 11 pages of this nonsense.  The most substantial thing to come out of this thread is the discussion about a QBs' "plant leg"...  (which I believe is the left leg for a right-handed thrower, just like a right-handed pitcher, or soccer player - it's the leg that's planted in the ground during the throwing/kicking motion)  because that discussion showed that @NewColtsFan and @Irish YJ agree on something!  haha

 

On a side-note:  I'm not trying to be bossy, but...

 

@Chloe6124 - this is not a "stream-of-consciousness" forum, the number of your pointless posts is through the roof and is becoming exhausting.  No offense, just some food for thought.  Please be considerate of your fellow members because we really don't want to read every thought that pops into your head.  :thmup:

 

@threeflight - in the same vein as my advice to Chloe, this forum is not a dumping-ground for all your negative thoughts.  If you want to vent your frustrations, fine, but when all we hear from you is the pessimistic stuff when things aren't all rainbows and sunshine, it becomes exhausting and annoying.  Please be considerate of your fellow members, if you just need to get stuff off your chest, tell it to your pillow before you go to sleep at night.  :hat:

Umm I haven’t really posted anything negative in this thread. Just info. There are a lot more people being way more negative in this thread then I am.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Chloe6124 said:

Umm I haven’t really posted anything negative in this thread. Just info. There are a lot more people being way more negative in this thread then I am.

 

I didn't say your posts were negative.  I was talking about the sheer volume of your posts.

 

You post some good stuff, tweets, opinions, etc.  But a LOT of your posts are just pointless info about what you're doing/thinking at the moment.  Half of this thread alone is your posts, and most of them are unnecessary, making this thread twice as long as it should be.  There's a lot to filter through to get to something substantial.

 

Again, no offense intended, just some food for thought.  Try to be more concise as a courtesy to your fellow members.  :thmup:

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, DougDew said:

The way I read the tweet, Ballard is talking about the current and rather mystifying lingering ankle pain throughout the summer.  If he thought that past reocurring pain in the same ankle at some level was totally unrelated he wouldn't have brought it up, IMO.  

 

You should listen to the call, then let me know what you think about his comment about past ankle pain. To me, it was a throwaway line in the middle of an answer to a different question. 

 

Edit: I'm rethinking that. Ballard was asked whether there was inciting event, or if it was just a cumulative thing. He answered that he thinks it's just a cumulative thing, that Luck has had pain in the ankle in the past, and it might just be the result of several minor things coming together now. So it probably was pertinent to the present issue.

 

That said, I still come away with the feeling that the seemingly minor ankle issues that have accumulated to this point were, by themselves, not necessarily reportable injuries.

 

And my initial post to you was just a sarcastic response to the idea that the fans are entitled to know about every bump and bruise that every player deals with. It's a common sentiment, even if you didn't specifically express it in your post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

Umm I haven’t really posted anything negative in this thread. Just info. There are a lot more people being way more negative in this thread then I am.

You post great info but as @SteelCityColt and @Lucky Colts Fan there are times they be merged or held back and placed into one or two posts

 

       I am often guilty of over posting but that is because of my typing abilities and my over editing of posts

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Superman said:

That's probably why it's news to you. Contrary to popular opinion, teams aren't required to report every bump and bruise to every player. 

It that was the case, it would be every single player in the league on the injury reports. Especially after the midway point. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

It that was the case, it would be every single player in the league on the injury reports. Especially after the midway point. 

Just think about those press releases 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NFL Network is reporting Ballard says Andrew has a high ankle injury as well as a strained calf and a week 1 return is in doubt.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 minute ago, CanuckColt said:

NFL Network is reporting Ballard says Andrew has a high ankle injury as well as a strained calf and a week 1 return is in doubt.

 

Yes we knew that from Ballard’s phone conference last night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

"Chipotle-induced indigestion" was the official designation. 

 

Why can't Luck be  more like Hasselbeck and give full disclosure of all his ailments? We need full descriptions of the color, texture, odor, amount, etc. The fans deserve this.

 

Right? This incident was 3 years ago & we still don't know if he splurged & paid extra for guac.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 And what i saw his 1st 3 years was a guy that threw hundreds of short to medium passes that were late coming out, high and behind, and with suspect touch.
 He put himself in way to many bad situations. And his running the ball is the only way he won many of his games. And there is usually a price to be paid for that.

 

Luck was ranked 9th last year in time to throw (how long from snap to throw) in 2018. In 2016, he was ranked 36th. That's a huge change. What do you think changed? OL and O scheme changed. Point is, it's not always on the QB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This  is what happened last time Luck was hurt. How can anyone believe the season is going to be good when the fans never get the whole story about what is wrong? Luck should hope for good luck while the fans hang on with false truths. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A trip down memory lane and full disclosure

 

George Brett's backside provided some comic relief during the 1980 Phillies-Royals World Series, though not to the third baseman himself, who first began suffering from hemorrhoids during the ALCS against the Yankees. In fact, he was able to play only five innings of Game 1 in Philly.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PrincetonTiger said:

   You forgot 3

     Fans do not need to know and/or care

Agreed. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this scan that he just got, is it the first time he got the scan? Why did Ballard seem to suggest its a new area in the ankle that they're focusing on now? 

 

Indy docs seem to really be practicing on the 100mil QB. Bring Painter back and use him for practice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

You should listen to the call, then let me know what you think about his comment about past ankle pain. To me, it was a throwaway line in the middle of an answer to a different question. 

 

Edit: I'm rethinking that. Ballard was asked whether there was inciting event, or if it was just a cumulative thing. He answered that he thinks it's just a cumulative thing, that Luck has had pain in the ankle in the past, and it might just be the result of several minor things coming together now. So it probably was pertinent to the present issue.

 

That said, I still come away with the feeling that the seemingly minor ankle issues that have accumulated to this point were, by themselves, not necessarily reportable injuries.

 

And my initial post to you was just a sarcastic response to the idea that the fans are entitled to know about every bump and bruise that every player deals with. It's a common sentiment, even if you didn't specifically express it in your post.

I understand.  The crawler on the NFL network is now telling us the official Colts announcement, that CB said that Luck is dealing with a calf injury and a high ankle injury and that his readiness for week 1 is in jeopardy.  That's a fairly clear message, but the topic of this thread is how Irsay called it a bone issue.  That messed up the communication, IMO.

 

I've been a Colts fan for a while.  I remember Polian used to address injuries by stating the official diagnosis and supplementing that with some color.  A 4-6 week timeframe would be the official remark, but he would say things like Anthony Gonzalez is a "slow healer", and that Dwight Freeny is a "quick healer",   indicating some expectations of the timeframe being more 4 weeks or 6 weeks.

 

 It seems like with the current regime, Luck blows past the original range, and the goal posts get moved with an entirely new timeline.  It's probably a real function of Luck having setbacks when he gets injured, but the pattern of messaging the time line is frustrating for the fans. 

 

As it stands now, most fans probably won't ever expect expect a player to return near the beginning of the time line, and that's why there is so much chatter and speculation when these things happen.  IMO, the FO loses a bit of credibility when it can't seem to get the initial time line right, and that dampers enthusiasm. 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Dwight Freeny is a "quick healer"

I remember Freeney saying that about himself. There are even google results for Dwight Freeney quick healer

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nadine said:

I remember Freeney saying that about himself. There are even google results for Dwight Freeney quick healer

 

 

I think Polian repeated that on his show. 

 

I also remember Polian talking about a knee injury and saying that all ligament sprains are actually small tears, but that there is a difference in whether its partially torn from the bone, indicating why rehab could be earlier or later.  

 

A little bit of color gives the fans confidence the GM knows what he's talking about.  Not that he wasn't lying through his teeth about how severely the player was injured, but how the message is delivered can provide a calming effect that things are under control, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I understand.  The crawler on the NFL network is now telling us the official Colts announcement, that CB said that Luck is dealing with a calf injury and a high ankle injury and that his readiness for week 1 is in jeopardy.  That's a fairly clear message, but the topic of this thread is how Irsay called it a bone issue.  That messed up the communication, IMO.

 

I've been a Colts fan for a while.  I remember Polian used to address injuries by stating the official diagnosis and supplementing that with some color.  A 4-6 week timeframe would be the official remark, but he would say things like Anthony Gonzalez is a "slow healer", and that Dwight Freeny is a "quick healer",   indicating some expectations of the timeframe being more 4 weeks or 6 weeks.

 

 It seems like with the current regime, Luck blows past the original range, and the goal posts get moved with an entirely new timeline.  It's probably a real function of Luck having setbacks when he gets injured, but the pattern of messaging the time line is frustrating for the fans. 

 

As it stands now, most fans probably won't ever expect expect a player to return near the beginning of the time line, and that's why there is so much chatter and speculation when these things happen.  IMO, the FO loses a bit of credibility when it can't seem to get the initial time line right, and that dampers enthusiasm. 

 

I don't pay a lot of attention to time frames for injury recovery. I mean, I notice them, but end of the day it doesn't matter until the player practices and then gets cleared. Go back to Luck in 2015, they said 2-6 weeks, which was always ambitious, and he missed the last seven games. That included a bye week, so he wasn't cleared for at least 8 weeks. Then he took longer to recover from the shoulder issue, for reasons that aren't clear. So specific to Luck, he appears to be a "slow healer," to use a Polian term. 

 

But we know that, if we're paying attention. In 2017, we know the team said officially 'there is no timeline.' The chatter and speculation comes from unrealistic expectations, not necessarily from the team. 

 

And in these cases, the initial time frame is irrelevant, because there have been further developments over time. Luck's initial 6-9 month recovery time frame in 2017 was affected by other issues which the team could not have anticipated at the time the initial time frame was shared. The ankle/calf issue appears to be the same story.

 

And that's normal when you're dealing with injury recovery. It's not a microwave dinner, there's no absolutely time frame for recovery that applies across the board. 

 

If I'm going to be critical of the Colts and Luck in this regard, it's over what appears to be a lack of urgency over the past few months. They probably should have been more proactive, at the very least in May when the pain was lingering and the numbing shot (cortisone? not sure if that was ever specified, and the beat reporters don't do a good job of asking follow up questions, IMO) didn't conclusively determine whether it was the OT that was the issue. They probably should have treated it as if there was a game in a week, rather than just like a minor offseason issue that would clear itself up with time and rest. Since we now know that they didn't have a conclusive diagnosis in May, it seems like they let the situation get away from them for three months rather than doing whatever they could to get to the bottom of it.

 

I don't have all the facts, obviously, but that's my gripe with the team. They kind of cruised through this whole situation for a while, and now that it's mission critical, they're kicking it into high gear, and it's too late, and the start of the season is being compromised. 

 

I don't have a problem with the messaging, because good or bad messaging doesn't change the status of Luck's leg, and I'm focusing on the bottom line. Same thing in 2015 and 2017. All that matters to me is when he can play, not whether the team shares every little piece of information along the way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DougDew said:

A little bit of color gives the fans confidence the GM knows what he's talking about.  Not that he wasn't lying through his teeth about how severely the player was injured, but how the message is delivered can provide a calming effect that things are under control, IMO.

 

There was a similar noisy saga with Marvin Harrison in 2007. He was week to week with a knee injury for three months, he tried to play one week but was obviously still hurt, then he played in the playoff game against the Chargers as was still not ready. That was with Polian controlling the messaging. End of the day, it didn't change the fact that the team wasn't clear with what was going on, nor did they know when he'd be ready to play.

 

Same with Manning in 2011. They hoped and hoped he'd be ready, then a week before the season, he had another surgery. 

 

My point is that the messaging doesn't change the outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

There was a similar noisy saga with Marvin Harrison in 2007. He was week to week with a knee injury for three months, he tried to play one week but was obviously still hurt, then he played in the playoff game against the Chargers as was still not ready. That was with Polian controlling the messaging. End of the day, it didn't change the fact that the team wasn't clear with what was going on, nor did they know when he'd be ready to play.

 

Same with Manning in 2011. They hoped and hoped he'd be ready, then a week before the season, he had another surgery. 

 

My point is that the messaging doesn't change the outcome.

 

33 minutes ago, DougDew said:

 

I've been a Colts fan for a while.  I remember Polian used to address injuries by stating the official diagnosis and supplementing that with some color.  A 4-6 week timeframe would be the official remark, but he would say things like Anthony Gonzalez is a "slow healer", and that Dwight Freeny is a "quick healer",   indicating some expectations of the timeframe being more 4 weeks or 6 weeks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't remember them being transparent with PM the year he had the knee - he was in much worse shape to start the season than was communicated. Also, don't forget Bob being "week to week" pretty much every year of his career...

 

I think more often than not there's a big difference in how organizations handle/manage/discuss QB and other star player injuries and injuries for players on the rest of the roster. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This ordeal? reminds me of my childhood as a teacher’s kid when I was sworn to secrecy and told not to tell the student body and/or general public

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No way they put him out there vs that d wk 1 w/o practicing. He'll probably miss at least the 1st 2 games of the season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, SouthernIndianaNDFan said:

 

Really good explanation of the difference between a high ankle sprain and a low ankle sprain, and the difficulty in diagnosing a partial tear of the syndesmosis between the tibia and fibula. Ballard called it "high ankle-ish," whatever that means. 

 

They also said that it would make sense that Luck had two different injuries, one to the calf, and one to the high ankle area, and the high ankle was overlooked because the imaging showed a calf strain. My conjecture is that it's possible, given the weight-bearing nature of some of the calf exercises he might have been doing for rehab, it might have exacerbated the high ankle issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Popular Now

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I think Brady has played within and exceptional system the majority of his career (and sure, they may have been caught cheating, but I imagine every coach in the NFL is trying to do something every week to get a leg up on the opponent).   My biggest argument on why I take Peyton over Brady is look what happened the year Peyton missed -- we went from being projected to win the AFC South, potential SB contenders, 10+ wins, etc... and we became the laughing stock of the league going 2-14.  It exposed how bad our team really was without Peyton at the helm.     When Brady missed significant time, Matt Cassell led them to 11 wins.  Matt Cassel backed up Matt Barkley and ButtFumble Sanchez in college and never had a snap in a real game, yet could win double digits in NE.  Cassel got paid like a #1 QB after that, and has had maybe 1 decent year and otherwise is a major disappointment and essentially a journeyman back-up QB -- yet, he could win very regularly in NE under Belichek.   To me, that just says Peyton was a more valuable player to his team than Brady.  It's evidenced by Peyton's regular season MVP awards.  Unfortunately, I don't think Peyton ever had as good a team around him (including defense) as Brady has had since he's been a starter in the NFL.  Also unfortunate, the problem on relying on one guy in the playoffs is that the playoffs usually require all 3 phases of a team to be playing pretty flawless once you're through the wildcard rounds.  Brady always had a D he could count on, always had a run game, and has had a lot of very reliable WRs throughout his career.  He rarely was asked to do as much for his team to get W's as Peyton was asked to do in Indy (or his first year in Denver).       I think Belichek is the best coach in NFL history and at this point, I think it's almost hands down (I think the argument that he is the best is a far easier one to make than any individual QB, or really any individual player, considered the best all time).  If Matt Cassel could win 11 games with Belichek, I'm pretty sure there are at least 15 QBs in the league who could post winning records with that system (Cassel is far inferior to guys like Peyton, Brees, Rodgers, Big Ben, Stafford, and a whole slew of other QBs who have played QB in this league).     Brady is a clutch player and he plays in a very solid system on a very solid team year in and year out.  That said, in their primes, I think a guy like Peyton could go to a 2-14 team and turn it around quicker than Brady could.  It's impossible to say, but if Peyton played 20 years with Belichek, I'd have to think he'd have as much or more SBs than Brady -- whereas, I don't think Brady could elevate a team like Indy the same way Peyton did over the course of his career.
    • Just finished watching the Pack/Lions to ight and the officials cost the Lions the game. Two calls against the Lions DE #90 for hands to the face showed clearly his hands were on the opponents pads. So obvious were both calls one would think the games was rigged. I'm sure you will see this on the sports shows tomorrow. These two calls could cost the Lions a run for the SB. "Not reviewable" now is like "diplomatic immunity". The NFL is a joke.
    • Wait a minute...I'm a little slow tonight...So, your happy dream is to have famous fetching females come over to your flat & play a board game? Maybe you play a more adventuresome game in Scotland then we do in North America BHC. That must be it. Wink; Wink.   Something got lost in translation here. Only kidding! 
    • Injuring the  brain is not like injuring say a knee.
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...