Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Sign in to follow this  
WoolMagnet

Injury reports?

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I don't think I've been rude, but I hope you know it wasn't my intention to offend you.

 

1) I didn't imply that nothing was wrong. I said that blaming the Colts process or the turf is unreasonable, because there's no evidence, and certainly no proof, that there's anything wrong with either of those two elements. Is there evidence that I'm overlooking?

 

2) You posted a stat that shows the Colts have a lot of players miss a lot of games. And while that stat makes sense, it doesn't offer any theories about possible reasons for these injuries. It doesn't acknowledge the nature of the injuries suffered -- for instance, an ACL tear when a player is rolled up on is probably not related to either the turf or the training staff. And it doesn't specify where the injury happened -- for instance, a player getting hurt on a field other than LOS probably shouldn't be attributed to the turf at LOS, right?

 

I didn't respond directly to that stat because I don't see it as evidence that "there's something wrong" with the Colts process or playing surface. 

 

The stat also has no bearing on the injuries that have happened this season, which we've been discussing, nor does it have any bearing on the rumors about Luck not being happy with the Colts staff. So, not specious, but I never said that stat was. I stand by my statement that rumors about Luck are specious (at best).

 

3) You did mentioned that players heal differently. Then you went on to compare the recovery of players with similar injuries and use them as examples, indicating that maybe something is wrong with how Funchess and Desir have recovered. 

 

So my point is, why bring it up? Funchess and Foles had similar injuries. We don't know whether they had the same injury. We don't know what might have differed in the operations they had, or in their body composition that might affect their recovery timeframe. And since we're primarily talking about a bone healing, it seems obvious that there's nothing anyone can do to speed that process up. 

 

Same with the Luck "smoke." It's entirely unsubstantiated, so why bring it up? I feel like it's something that people on the Internet have mused about, and then it gets repeated a few times, and now it's a "rumor." Pretty soon, it will be offered as fact, and it's anything but.

 

4) Sometimes people say things that are absolutely ridiculous, and I don't think it's over the line to identify them as ridiculous.

 

In this case, I wasn't specifically saying you're being ridiculous, but I can understand why you took my earlier post personally.

 

There's been this idea for several years now that the Colts turf is causing players to be injured, that the training staff sucks, the practice schedule is bad, they should hit more in practice, they should hit less in practice, etc., etc. And I think people find patterns where none really exist, because then we can find a way to blame someone or something for it, and it can easily be fixed. 

 

The Colts have had random and weird injuries for a long time. They pre-date the present coaching staff, front office, training staff, and players... And for those who think the building was placed on top of an ancient burial site and is now cursed, these weird injuries pre-date the building as well. 

 

Yes, the Colts have had a lot of injuries, and although the FO stat says they've been hit worst than most for two years in a row (and probably three, given how this season has gone; and if you adjust it to include Luck, who retired due to injury, it's even worse), there's a very random nature to many of the injuries suffered. I've already mentioned examples. Where's the common thread? Not location, not type of injury, not soft tissue vs bone, not upper body vs lower body, etc. 

 

I hope the Colts are looking at the injury situation from every angle possible, and if there's anything that can reasonably be done to improve in this area, I hope they figure it out and implement it. But realistically, what it comes down to is that football players get hurt, and since they're still human they recover at different rates.

 

No hard feelings at all.  No offense taken.  I think it was just a misunderstanding, and my post that contained the musings about various player meandered into more speculative things.  It was kind of a hard detour on my part, but I tried to be upfront about the fact that I was asking questions as opposed to proffering my own conclusions.  I should've made that clearer.

 

There are a lot of spurious, off-the-wall claims out there regarding Luck's injury history, and I erroneously assumed you were putting my comments in that basket.  One thing is for sure, irrespective of any specific claims or rumors that are out there, the Colts' narrative re: Luck's lower leg injury was kind of wonky, and as that saga drew to a close, Luck became more isolated from the team, and some of the things that Frank said to the media turned out to be flat-out false (Bowen did good investigative reporting on that front). 

 

With respect to the other guys I brought up, I was curious about their injuries and rehabilitation programs, but wasn't trying to necessarily use their cases to prove my point. 

 

At the end of the day, you're right about the fact that it's going to be very hard, if not impossible, to prove any one thing as the proximate cause for the Colts' perennial injury woes.  And it's even harder to pinpoint when we only get snippets of what the Colts do or don't do from guys like Carroll and other NFL injury gurus.  The Colts organization itself pales in comparison to an organization like the Chiefs when it comes to injury transparency.

 

The Chiefs routinely have a representative from their training staff give briefings to the media re: player injuries.  They also occasionally peel back the curtain with videos like this:

 

https://www.chiefs.com/video/tour-of-stadium-player-health-and-safety-procedures

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Campbell practiced is it possible he's Back Thursday ?

I don’t think so. He said the titans game so another week. It would be a big shocker I think if he did.

Share this post


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

I don’t think so. He said the titans game so another week. It would be a big shocker I think if he did.

I would love to have Parris back, but I'm even more excited about the possibility of having Desir back for Thursday.  We're going to need him - especially if Rock can't go.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, MB-ColtsFan said:

I would love to have Parris back, but I'm even more excited about the possibility of having Desir back for Thursday.  We're going to need him - especially if Rock can't go.

Desir may need another  week. Probably  have to play quincy Wilson 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, zibby43 said:

The Chiefs routinely have a representative from their training staff give briefings to the media re: player injuries.  They also occasionally peel back the curtain with videos like this:

 

 

I think stitches and I talked about the Chiefs' process back during the Luck saga this preseason. I'm not against it, transparency would probably be a good thing (although some people are never satisfied, and the next step is they'll want to crowd-source medical decisions). 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Stephen said:

Desir may need another  week. Probably  have to play quincy Wilson 

 

The fact that we're barely practicing this week probably doesn't bode well for Desir playing, since he hasn't practiced in a month. It's hard to see them putting him out there on a short week, and that's too bad because he really gets up to play against Hopkins.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Superman I see you asked for evidence of turf being a factor. I remember posting some research on it here a while ago but I cannot find it now... those posts might be archived or something. From what I remember there are several different types of artificial turf that is used in the league + the natural grass. The type of artificial turf we have is the worst for injuries with natural grass being the safest. That's not to say that any particular injury this year is attributable to the turf, but to me it's kind of obvious that different surfaces with different properties will lead to different health results over long term, big samples. I will try to find it again later but I can't promise I will be able to. 

 

At some point I also posted about some research that tried to separate different factors for injuries outside of luck (turf, coaching, etc.) but my memories are not very fresh on this one so I cannot remember what that one found out... 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be surprised if we win of most of these guys cant play, especially with Desir out.  Hopkins going to hurt us bad.  However if TY is back it evens the playing field a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Desir told the media he’d be a game time decision and he was out there for the media portion of practice according Colts reporters on Twitter.  
 

No sign of TY so at this point I think it’s more likely that Desir plays than TY but of course both could miss or play.

Share this post


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

 

The fact that we're barely practicing this week probably doesn't bode well for Desir playing, since he hasn't practiced in a month. It's hard to see them putting him out there on a short week, and that's too bad because he really gets up to play against Hopkins.

I don’t think Desir needs much practice going against a team he has already played  against multiple times.  I think he is one of the guys like TY he would play without much practice. If he can’t go that means the hamstring isn’t there yet. I don’t think they would sit him just because of no practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

Desir told the media he’d be a game time decision and he was out there for the media portion of practice according Colts reporters on Twitter.  
 

No sign of TY so at this point I think it’s more likely that Desir plays than TY but of course both could miss or play.

https://fox59.com/2019/11/19/t-y-hilton-checking-off-boxes-return-at-houston-possible/

Share this post


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

I don’t think Desir needs much practice going against a team he has already played  against multiple times.  I think he is one of the guys like TY he would play without much practice. If he can’t go that means the hamstring isn’t there yet. I don’t think they would sit him just because of no practice.

 

He needs to practice to show that he can perform, not because he doesn't know the defense. They're only doing walkthroughs this week. I assume he'd have physical tests and they wouldn't just throw him out there blind. I guess we'll see in a couple days.

Share this post


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

 

He needs to practice to show that he can perform, not because he doesn't know the defense. They're only doing walkthroughs this week. I assume he'd have physical tests and they wouldn't just throw him out there blind. I guess we'll see in a couple days.

I think there is other ways to test it. Reich said they would be testing TY on a side field. It won’t surprise me either way. If he doesn’t go I hope Wilson has taken his benching serious and plays well if Rock can’t go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is so much better then yesterday’s. We dodged a bulletin with Odum since Willis can’t play.  Looks like Cox should be ok. The only huge one to watch is that Desir and Rock injury. 

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, stitches said:

@Superman I see you asked for evidence of turf being a factor. I remember posting some research on it here a while ago but I cannot find it now... those posts might be archived or something. From what I remember there are several different types of artificial turf that is used in the league + the natural grass. The type of artificial turf we have is the worst for injuries with natural grass being the safest. That's not to say that any particular injury this year is attributable to the turf, but to me it's kind of obvious that different surfaces with different properties will lead to different health results over long term, big samples. I will try to find it again later but I can't promise I will be able to. 

 

At some point I also posted about some research that tried to separate different factors for injuries outside of luck (turf, coaching, etc.) but my memories are not very fresh on this one so I cannot remember what that one found out... 

 

It would be interesting to review that info if you can get your hands on it again. 

 

And I can agree that different surfaces will have different effects on players. If you run every day on pavement, you might be more likely to have leg injuries over time vs someone who runs every day on grass. But can we see that type of discrepancy conclusively when comparing the different types of NFL playing surfaces?

Share this post


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

 

It would be interesting to review that info if you can get your hands on it again. 

 

And I can agree that different surfaces will have different effects on players. If you run every day on pavement, you might be more likely to have leg injuries over time vs someone who runs every day on grass. But can we see that type of discrepancy conclusively when comparing the different types of NFL playing surfaces?

I'm trying to find it, but I can't. I am 99.99% certain I posted it here. Links to both of those studies. I am filtering through my own posts and tried searching different key terms like 'turf' or 'injuries', but the search doesn't return any results of those threads. My assumption is that those threads are too old now and have been archived and can't be searched now. 

 

I haven't seen that study in a while so this is purely off of my memory, which might be faulty, but as far as I remember - yes, there was a statistically significant difference between the health results by different play surface in the league. Take note that the sample is not as small as a single team - I think there were 3 or 4 different types of surfaces used in the league so that would make about 8-10 teams on average providing the data per surface for that study.

 

I found another one here:

 

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2017/turf-type-and-nfl-injuries-part-i

 

According to it the sample is too small and confidence intervals too wide to draw firm conclusions, but the turf that is at Lucas Oil(FieldTurf) is again one of the worst performing ones. Here's their conclusion here:

 

Quote

 

Conclusions

Unfortunately, our confidence intervals are too wide to draw many firm conclusions, but it may be worth trying out Matrix Turf at a couple more stadiums to see if its low overall injury rate is sustainable in a larger sample. Even when we zero in on lower leg injuries, it doesn't look meaningfully worse than grass.

 

A-Turf, Momentum Turf, and FieldTurf raise eyebrows, but these differences could be due to chance or improper maintenance rather than issues with the product itself. Still, Baltimore appears to have its own concerns about Momentum Turf, as they switched back to natural grass in 2016. They then rocketed from 30th to 11th in adjusted games lost (AGL) before suffering a rash of injuries during the early part of training camp, though many of those did not occur on the stadium turf. It will be interesting to see how the Ravens fare over the rest of the season.

 

In the second part of this article next week, we will focus on the turfs of individual stadiums to get a better idea of how these averages translate to actual NFL games.

 

 

This is from 2017. I wonder if they've gotten more data to draw more sure conclusions since then. 

  • Like 1

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
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Oh, that's what I fear, for sure.  But even if that's the case.... What's the long term solution?  Who starts at QB in whatever city they have to play in in 2030?  Jk.... slightly.... That damage won't be undone soon, or easily.... Surrounding talent won't fix his issues, just raise the floor a game or two.
    • Oh, the players already know that, regardless of who starts jn The present, past, future, they are well aware JB isn't a true #1 leader at the qb going forward.  Stop gap? Sure... If there's an endgame.
    • This list does not fit the narrative you are trying to put forward.  Only 2 would even be close and even they had chances.    Browns and Redskins don't even count; they are dysfunctional franchises who had plenty of chances but couldn’t get out of their own way.   Dolphins, Titans, and Bears all could have had good QBs if not for trying for retreads, sticking with a player too long (Mariota, Tannehill), and/or missing when they had good players available to draft (Ryan, Mahomes, Watson). Also jury still out on Trubisky.   Vikings and Broncos have not had the best luck with QBs lately, but they have also lingered in the mediocre to good record zone a lot which doesn't help them getting a high draft pick for QB . They also got a few good seasons out of retreads which helped them in the short term, but not the long term. Although in the Broncos case I am sure they will take their SB with PM.   I will give you the Jets, they have had some bad luck. When they did have good picks there wasn’t much available; although jury still out on Darnold (also they could have taken Lamar Jackson). Buffalo also had some bad luck for a few years, but they also blew their chance to draft Mahomes (though Allen may still turn into something).   During the last few years all these teams have had periods where they had a player/or players  as good or better than JB and it didn't amount to much other than keeping them from a top draft pick. If you don't have an very good - elite QB you are just playing the lottery hoping for one of those all the stars perfectly aligned runs that rarely happen.
    • Thanks for this.   My favorite part is his tackle at 5:30.  
    • Not a big deal.     Brissett puts fans in an odd position.   He is almost the definition of average.  His QB rating is average.  His yards per game is below average but his INT % is above average.  So I can understand supporters and detractors.  
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...