Did the Stealers just save the Seahawks' bacon?

[jammerhawk]

Mmmm bacon!

This whole situation is ridiculous. The rule seem to be for the gamblers, which football is not of course associated with, wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

Why should the medical condition of any player be common knowledge? Their drug status is protected but if they hav turf toe the world needs to know.

It's contrary to player safety, and basically puts a big X on that advertised injured location for the opposing teams to attempt to aggravate.

Who cares if Pete was trying help Sherm and screwed up or was stretching things a bit.

Going forward the team should just put the whole roster on the injury report game after game to point out how stupid it is.

This situation is nonsense.

 

[Largent80]

The MCL is actually a strip of bacon.

And Oh MY Friggin Gawd, we may lose a second round draft pick!!!!!!!!!!!!!...Yeah, a 2nd rounder. But there are no guarantees with those picks, EVER !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Who gives a shit?

 

[Sgt. Largent]

The MCL is actually a strip of bacon.

And Oh MY Friggin Gawd, we may lose a second round draft pick!!!!!!!!!!!!!...Yeah, a 2nd rounder. But there are no guarantees with those picks, EVER !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Who gives a shit?

I give a shit

Frank Clark, Jarren Reed, Justin Britt, Bobby Wagner, Golden Tate, Max Unger.

It matters, it matters a LOT.

 

[Seahawk Sailor]

It was the Probable designation they took away.

Well, Sherman certainly wasn't doubtful for any of the games. That, minus the "Probable" designation he certainly could and probably should have been listed as, means he had to be listed at 100%.

And yes, Bell's situation does appear a worse issue, regardless of the coach speak in either situation. Bell misses practices with "just a flesh wound," and Sherman doesn't miss any with "a significant injury."

 

[Madrid Hawk]

Have they lost the pick yet? No.

Are second rounders, or any player for that matter, a guaranteed success? Again, no.

Is any of this the end of the world. Yet again, no.

But I care. I want that second-round pick.

 

[Popeyejones]

So Sherman missed no practice with a "significant" injury but Bell missed nearly half of practice with a "not-significant"

Sherman missed practices in 10 of the final 12 weeks of practice -- starting after Week 8, when PC said he was injured.

ESPN didn't report how many practices per week he was missing over those 12 weeks but he missed practice for non injury designated reasons in 10 separate weeks after the injury supposedly occurred.

http://cdn.espn.go.com/blog/seattle-sea ... wks-a-pick

It also raised an eyebrow for me that in his comments today Sherman never said a penalty was unfair, he just said he thought the rumored penalty is too harsh. He didn't even try to argue that the rules weren't broken, which if they weren't, well doesn't sound a lot like Richard Sherman

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Nah, it's the Steelers, they will likely award them 5 more picks, because you know.....they are the Steelers.

 

[Sports Hernia]

My prediction is Seattle loses a 2nd rounder, and Rog gives the Stealers a light whack on the po-po and the stink eye while warning them if they do it again they'll be in "big trouble".

 

[sondevil89]

My prediction is Seattle loses a 2nd rounder, and Rog gives the Stealers a light whack on the po-po and the stink eye while warning them if they do it again they'll be in "big trouble".

:sarcasm_on: :sarcasm_off:

Here, let me help you with that.

 

[Bobblehead]

John Clayton stated that the difference was the Steelers listed it as a non football related injury, the Hawks in a "clerical" error listed it as a MRI..ooops.

 

[lobohawk]

Going forward, the Hawks should designate pretty much everyone playing to their injury report and list them as probable.

Only change if someone goes to not playing.

 

[Boycie]

Is Sherman taking part in the Pro Bowl? If so, how does a significant injury to the MCL allow him to do that?

 

[Seymour]

Is Sherman taking part in the Pro Bowl? If so, how does a significant injury to the MCL allow him to do that?

Yes, he is playing. He even spoke out that a draft pick was going too far and the Seahawks basically get screwed on minor infractions. Him playing should help our case hopefully.

 

[Boycie]

Is Sherman taking part in the Pro Bowl? If so, how does a significant injury to the MCL allow him to do that?

Yes, he is playing. He even spoke out that a draft pick was going too far and the Seahawks basically get screwed on minor infractions. Him playing should help our case hopefully.

This^ If he had a significant injury to his MCL, then how would he have played in all of those games without a brace, and now be able to play in the Pro Bowl?

PC said it was like RWs injury, and he had a brace on so......

 

[Siouxhawk]

Pete just got carried away in the words he used to defend Sherm. We all know this. This is not fine worthy. Pete will have a little egg on his face at the end of the day, but as the title of this thread states, it will at least save our bacon.

 

[ringless]

Is Sherman taking part in the Pro Bowl? If so, how does a significant injury to the MCL allow him to do that?

Yes, he is playing. He even spoke out that a draft pick was going too far and the Seahawks basically get screwed on minor infractions. Him playing should help our case hopefully.

This^ If he had a significant injury to his MCL, then how would he have played in all of those games without a brace, and now be able to play in the Pro Bowl?

PC said it was like RWs injury, and he had a brace on so......

In 2014 Larry Fitzgerald had a grade 2 tear, and played through it without a brace. It's is not uncommon.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap30...roundup-fitzgerald-to-play-through-mcl-sprain

Joe Flacco played through an MCL sprain this year as well..... It has nothing to do with playing or not, as a lot of players seem to play through MCL sprains.

Trying to relate Pete's comments to Tomlin's isn't going to save the Seahawks bacon either. Lets look at Tomlin's statement

“I was aware of it. It wasn’t significant to the point where it affected planning or the anticipation of planning in any way. It’s unfortunate that it became an issue in game.” - Tomlin

"You don't know that he dealt with a significant knee the whole second half of the season and it was stressful for him to try to get out there"- Pete

Tomlin states it wasn't significant. Pete Carrol states it was significant. There is your first hurdle and in combination with the wording of the rule. How do you overcome it since it has Pete's exact wording in the rules themselves? How do you say those two are equal statements?

Tomlin also says it didn't affect planning, or the anticipation of planning in anyways. Pete Carroll said it was stressful for Sherman to get out there. That is a world of difference. Lets look a little further.....

"I'm feeling like I screwed that up with not telling you that" - Pete
"I didn't realize we hadn't even revealed it" A 2nd telling statement, and admission

There are some huge differences there. These two instances are not alike. I'm not downplaying the injuries, I am sure Bell's injury was likely just as significant. But the difference in the wording can't be overlooked. The disparity is huge, one admitted guilt, and really dug a huge hole. The other simply said it wasnt a significant injury, and didn't even change planning.
Tomlin did not say anything like that.....

Pete also says he had the same injury Wilson did. So why was Wilson on the injury report and Sherman not? Tomlin again didn't infer anything as damning as that either.

Do I think Seattle should be penalized? No. Do I think they should've been penalized for their OTA violations? Not really. However those are the rules the league set, Seattle out of all teams should no better by now.

 

[Boycie]

I think we are going to lose a pick, but I just hope its not a 2nd like everyone is speculating.

 

[Siouxhawk]

Is Sherman taking part in the Pro Bowl? If so, how does a significant injury to the MCL allow him to do that?

Yes, he is playing. He even spoke out that a draft pick was going too far and the Seahawks basically get screwed on minor infractions. Him playing should help our case hopefully.

This^ If he had a significant injury to his MCL, then how would he have played in all of those games without a brace, and now be able to play in the Pro Bowl?

PC said it was like RWs injury, and he had a brace on so......

In 2014 Larry Fitzgerald had a grade 2 tear, and played through it without a brace. It's is not uncommon.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap30...roundup-fitzgerald-to-play-through-mcl-sprain

Joe Flacco played through an MCL sprain this year as well..... It has nothing to do with playing or not, as a lot of players seem to play through MCL sprains.

Trying to relate Pete's comments to Tomlin's isn't going to save the Seahawks bacon either. Lets look at Tomlin's statement

“I was aware of it. It wasn’t significant to the point where it affected planning or the anticipation of planning in any way. It’s unfortunate that it became an issue in game.” - Tomlin

"You don't know that he dealt with a significant knee the whole second half of the season and it was stressful for him to try to get out there"- Pete

Tomlin states it wasn't significant. Pete Carrol states it was significant. There is your first hurdle and in combination with the wording of the rule. How do you overcome it since it has Pete's exact wording in the rules themselves? How do you say those two are equal statements?

Tomlin also says it didn't affect planning, or the anticipation of planning in anyways. Pete Carroll said it was stressful for Sherman to get out there. That is a world of difference. Lets look a little further.....

"I'm feeling like I screwed that up with not telling you that" - Pete
"I didn't realize we hadn't even revealed it" A 2nd telling statement, and admission

There are some huge differences there. These two instances are not alike. I'm not downplaying the injuries, I am sure Bell's injury was likely just as significant. But the difference in the wording can't be overlooked. The disparity is huge, one admitted guilt, and really dug a huge hole. The other simply said it wasnt a significant injury, and didn't even change planning.
Tomlin did not say anything like that.....

Pete also says he had the same injury Wilson did. So why was Wilson on the injury report and Sherman not? Tomlin again didn't infer anything as damning as that either.

The words Pete used at a press conference don't mean diddly squat, other than it may prompt further investigation by the NFL. But if the medical staff of the Seahawks rightfully says there's no proof of a preexisting MCL injury to Sherman, then there is nothing to hold the Seahawks accountable and in violation of the rules. If the medical staff says that there was an injury to Sherman, then by all means there was a violation and we'll be fined.

Pete's not a doctor. And just because he seems to be playing one on TV doesn't make his actions wrong, just a little peculiar.

 

[Bobblehead]

We will be penalized.

The difference between us and the Steelers is the Steelers called it a Non football related problem, without any significance.. which is the key word, since Pete called Sherman's injury significant and the Hawks documented it as a MRI instead of a Non football related injury as the Steelers did.

It was a technical issue how each team documented it, should have said the flu and not spoke of it again and it would have been alright.

 

[Siouxhawk]

We will be penalized.

The difference between us and the Steelers is the Steelers called it a Non football related problem, without any significance.. which is the key word, since Pete called Sherman's injury significant and the Hawks documented it as a MRI instead of a Non football related injury as the Steelers did.

It was a technical issue how each team documented it, should have said the flu and not spoke of it again and it would have been alright.

I guess I don't know what MRI means? What if he had an MRI and it didn't reveal any structural damage? It was just sore. Is that in violation of disclosure rules?