Did the Stealers just save the Seahawks' bacon?

HawkGA · Jan 25, 2017

Apparently they concealed Bell's injury during the season. Could end up being too big a can of worms for the league to punish the Seahawks for. Cuz you know they aren't gonna punish the Stealers.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... ll-injury/

Seymour · Jan 25, 2017

Did they??

NO.

Mike Tomlin, in admitting that he knew about Bell’s groin injury, said that the injury “wasn’t significant.” Tomlin specifically was staying on the right side of the injury reporting policy.

themunn · Jan 25, 2017

Seymour":34cu0pck said:
Did they??

NO.

Mike Tomlin, in admitting that he knew about Bell’s groin injury, said that the injury “wasn’t significant.” Tomlin specifically was staying on the right side of the injury reporting policy.

Click to expand...

Well apart from this bit:

Since Bell missed four of nine practices over a three-week period with the “not injury related” designation at a time when Bell had a groin injury, the league will have a hard time burying its head in the sand on this one.

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

Personally I think the whole injury designation is a pile of shit. Would rather they get rid of it completely.

Sgt. Largent · Jan 25, 2017

Is this a real injury, or a Pete Carroll ego saving fake injury?

Seymour · Jan 25, 2017

themunn":2ge1r5yw said:
Seymour":2ge1r5yw said:

Did they??

NO.

Mike Tomlin, in admitting that he knew about Bell’s groin injury, said that the injury “wasn’t significant.” Tomlin specifically was staying on the right side of the injury reporting policy.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Well apart from this bit:

Since Bell missed four of nine practices over a three-week period with the “not injury related” designation at a time when Bell had a groin injury, the league will have a hard time burying its head in the sand on this one.

Click to expand...

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

Personally I think the whole injury designation is a pile of shit. Would rather they get rid of it completely.

Just goes to show that each coach likely was embellishing their self report for different reasons and went different directions. If we ignore the coach speak and look at just injury / and reporting side then it could help Sherms case, but Carroll was the only one of the 2 to admit he broke the rule just as it was written, and I think Goodell may be forced into at least some action given our history.

MontanaHawk05 · Jan 25, 2017

themunn":4ugw7lzy said:
So Sherman missed no practice with a "significant" injury but Bell missed nearly half of practice with a "not-significant" injury.

Yeah, I think the Steelers' doings will be viewed as more egregious there, since he actually missed practice.

Hawks46 · Jan 25, 2017

Well, this helps us and hurts us a bit.

They can't just single us out. If I was Pete, I would be pointing at literally every other team and asking for an investigation.

The NFL isn't going to start taking draft picks away from 1/3 of the league. Add to this that Sherman didn't miss practice time consistently, as Bell did. The league has to be able to prove that Sherman's inconsistent "veteran rest days" were actually injury related, and if there's no medical data, then Sgt Largent has it right and it's just Pete making something up to help Sherman out.

I don't remember Pete saying he knew he broke the rules like the PFT article stated. He was saying "I don't know" and stuff like that, so he can go the Tomlin route with "it wasn't significant" and if there's no medical proof and Sherman didn't consistently miss practice time, then it's a non issue.

PFT even mentioned that the league doesn't want to get into this, as probably every team out there is manipulating the practice reports. Also, blame the league for making things more generic with taking away the Doubtful designation.

Siouxhawk · Jan 25, 2017

Hawks46":etycdj5n said:
Well, this helps us and hurts us a bit.

They can't just single us out. If I was Pete, I would be pointing at literally every other team and asking for an investigation.

The NFL isn't going to start taking draft picks away from 1/3 of the league. Add to this that Sherman didn't miss practice time consistently, as Bell did. The league has to be able to prove that Sherman's inconsistent "veteran rest days" were actually injury related, and if there's no medical data, then Sgt Largent has it right and it's just Pete making something up to help Sherman out.

I don't remember Pete saying he knew he broke the rules like the PFT article stated. He was saying "I don't know" and stuff like that, so he can go the Tomlin route with "it wasn't significant" and if there's no medical proof and Sherman didn't consistently miss practice time, then it's a non issue.

PFT even mentioned that the league doesn't want to get into this, as probably every team out there is manipulating the practice reports. Also, blame the league for making things more generic with taking away the Doubtful designation.

It was the Probable designation they took away.

But you are spot on with your assessment. Pete isn't a doctor, so him saying "significant" is just Pete's spin for any ailment that could keep his star cornerback off the field. The only thing that matters is the documented proof from the medical staff.

Hawks46 · Jan 25, 2017

Siouxhawk":35s38r0i said:
Hawks46":35s38r0i said:

Well, this helps us and hurts us a bit.

They can't just single us out. If I was Pete, I would be pointing at literally every other team and asking for an investigation.

The NFL isn't going to start taking draft picks away from 1/3 of the league. Add to this that Sherman didn't miss practice time consistently, as Bell did. The league has to be able to prove that Sherman's inconsistent "veteran rest days" were actually injury related, and if there's no medical data, then Sgt Largent has it right and it's just Pete making something up to help Sherman out.

I don't remember Pete saying he knew he broke the rules like the PFT article stated. He was saying "I don't know" and stuff like that, so he can go the Tomlin route with "it wasn't significant" and if there's no medical proof and Sherman didn't consistently miss practice time, then it's a non issue.

PFT even mentioned that the league doesn't want to get into this, as probably every team out there is manipulating the practice reports. Also, blame the league for making things more generic with taking away the Doubtful designation.

Click to expand...

It was the Probable designation they took away.

Yea something like that. 8)

It's still either questionable or full go.

gowazzu02 · Jan 25, 2017

Sgt. Largent":17x9q1j9 said:
Is this a real injury, or a Pete Carroll ego saving fake injury?

Im sure behind closed doors thats exactly what wer're saying.... that Petes' Coach speak was more to help an ego and head off at the pass media asking said ego and stirring up more sh#@$

Sgt. Largent · Jan 25, 2017

gowazzu02":1n15ls78 said:
Sgt. Largent":1n15ls78 said:

Is this a real injury, or a Pete Carroll ego saving fake injury?

Click to expand...

Im sure behind closed doors thats exactly what wer're saying.... that Petes' Coach speak was more to help an ego and head off at the pass media asking said ego and stirring up more sh#@$

Yep, a CB doesn't go half a year with a "seriously" sprained MCL never missing a practice or game.

Now maybe Sherman's knee was bugging him a little? But IMO this was Pete making a mountain out of a mole hill in order to explain away Richard's down year, and especially him getting worked by Jones in the Atlanta playoff game.

Seymour · Jan 25, 2017

Sgt. Largent":llc17bik said:
gowazzu02":llc17bik said:

Sgt. Largent":llc17bik said:

Is this a real injury, or a Pete Carroll ego saving fake injury?

Click to expand...

Im sure behind closed doors thats exactly what wer're saying.... that Petes' Coach speak was more to help an ego and head off at the pass media asking said ego and stirring up more sh#@$

Click to expand...

Yep, a CB doesn't go half a year with a "seriously" sprained MCL never missing a practice or game.

Now maybe Sherman's knee was bugging him a little? But IMO this was Pete making a mountain out of a mole hill in order to explain away Richard's down year, and especially him getting worked by Jones in the Atlanta playoff game.

I believe he actually used the word "significant", but even so, could a QB do this?
Here is the quote again.

“He dealt with a significant knee the whole second half of this season and it was a struggle to him to try to get out there. He had an MCL problem that he could play with, like Russell did. He had the same problem Russell did he made it through it, the same problem (receiver) Tyler (Lockett) had. You guys didn’t realize how hurt Tyler was early in the year they just made it through it. And it was remarkable what those guys did. But that weighs on you, particularly when you are out there on the edge and you know you are not quite 100 percent and it fed in to some of the stuff that he had to deal with.’’

Sgt. Largent · Jan 25, 2017

Seymour":vrafdepv said:
I believe he actually used the word "significant", but even so, could a QB do this?

A QB can practice on more serious leg injuries, because all they need are reps.............and those can be accomplished with just snaps and throws/hand offs, etc. Very little movement.

A CB on the other hand has to twist, turn, run, sprint and cut the entire practice at full speed. How's that possible on a "significant" MCL sprain?

It just makes no sense, no way in hell Richard had a significant MCL sprain half the year. It not only would have been glaringly obvious during games, but it'd especially be obvious to the beat writers and media during practices........of which he missed zero with no noticeable limp or issues? No way.

Seafan · Jan 25, 2017

This injury reporting is a stealthy way the NFL supports Vegas oddsmakers. It's complete BS and should be eliminated.

Seymour · Jan 25, 2017

I've gone back and forth and still not sure which is true. Pete's comment is 90% BS or Pete's comment is 10% BS. If it's 90% BS we should have no fine or draft choice lost. So I'll hope for that. My only real point is Russell's injury improved even though he did not miss practice or games, so I think it may be possible. But like you, I think pretty unlikely.

HawkGA · Jan 25, 2017

I would just add that Sherman is playing in the Pro Bowl so it must not have been that bad of an injury.

Sgt. Largent · Jan 25, 2017

Seymour":2781mf4l said:
I've gone back and forth and still not sure which is true. Pete's comment is 90% BS or Pete's comment is 10% BS. If it's 90% BS we should have no fine or draft choice lost. So I'll hope for that. My only real point is Russell's injury improved even though he did not miss practice or games, so I think it may be possible. But like you, I think pretty unlikely.

Logically this makes sense.

But how does the organization explain the 90% BS without Pete looking like the ego protecting liar that some of us are claiming he was when he made the comment?

It's simple for the league, all they have to do is talk to Richard and the trainers, and if they tell them nothing was wrong with Sherman, then yeah we might not get the 2nd round pick penalty, but then Pete's a liar.

If Pete says he was confused or misinformed about Richard's injury, then he looks like a baffoon that doesn't have a clue about what's going on with his team.

So I don't know what's going to happen. All I know is either way it's bad.

Seymour · Jan 25, 2017

Sgt. Largent":3zotficp said:
Seymour":3zotficp said:

I've gone back and forth and still not sure which is true. Pete's comment is 90% BS or Pete's comment is 10% BS. If it's 90% BS we should have no fine or draft choice lost. So I'll hope for that. My only real point is Russell's injury improved even though he did not miss practice or games, so I think it may be possible. But like you, I think pretty unlikely.

Click to expand...

Logically this makes sense.

But how does the organization explain the 90% BS without Pete looking like the ego protecting liar that some of us are claiming he was when he made the comment?

It's simple for the league, all they have to do is talk to Richard and the trainers, and if they tell them nothing was wrong with Sherman, then yeah we might not get the 2nd round pick penalty, but then Pete's a liar.

If Pete says he was confused or misinformed about Richard's injury, then he looks like a baffoon that doesn't have a clue about what's going on with his team.

So I don't know what's going to happen. All I know is either way it's bad.

Well since we know from the Percy situation (and other previous history) that he will defend player misconduct until literally his departing flight is on the runway, this is no surprise to me. So I'll take the liar and no 2nd round loss please.

Largent80 · Jan 25, 2017

I like bacon.

ringless · Jan 25, 2017

Comparing Pete's comments to Tomlins is grasping at straws

Pete used the word "significant"
Sherman did have missed practices that were "non injury related" so did Bell
Pete said it was stressful for Sherman to get out there with the injury
Pete said it was the Same as Wilson's injury (which was reported) so why not both?
Pete said he made a mistake on not listing him on the report. (Admitted fault)

Tomlin didn't call it significant, didn't admit fault, and didn't say he should've been on the report. Also I'm assuming even if you did try to compare the two.

Chances are Sherman had an MRI done and I think an MRI, with your head coaches statements in a civil hearing would favor the NFL. I know it's a civil hearing and the league doesn't even need that burden of proof. It doesn't really matter if Pete's a doctor or not. He had a responsibility, he made the poorest word choices possible, and admitted guilt.

Lots of players including Big Ben, Larry Fitzgerald, Wilson, have continued to play through, and practice with MCL sprains. All were also listed on injury reports.

Did the Stealers just save the Seahawks' bacon?

New member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

New member

New member

New member

New member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

New member

Active member

New member

Well-known member

Active member

New member

New member

Similar threads