Tomlinson is made of glass

[Ring 6]

LdT couldn't handle the pain? Does that mean anyone that is injured should be expected to play to their normal standards, regardless of any pain?

Everyone lies on injury reports. You're just holding LT to a different standard.

The ultimate question is:
WERE THE CHARGERS BETTER WITH LaDAINIAN OR MICHAEL TURNER AT RB?

Based on the production of LT in his limited time, Turner was the right choice. That doesn't mean that LT doesn't have heart. It's what was best for the team.

None of us really know the answer. I disagree though that LT should be defended by saying you were better without him, as if to imply some grandiose benevolence in him begging out. We do not know if he asked out or was benched. IMO, if he could play the first 2 series, he could have tried to get back out there again. I find it hard to believe Turner would tell him he cannot play another snap.
If what you are implying were correct, that Tomlinson for the good of the team decided to not play because he was less than 100%, why did he act like a child on the sidelines and not act like a teammtate supporting the other players?

 

[TheSparks1]

None of us really know the answer. I disagree though that LT should be defended by saying you were better without him, as if to imply some grandiose benevolence in him begging out. We do not know if he asked out or was benched. IMO, if he could play the first 2 series, he could have tried to get back out there again. I find it hard to believe Turner would tell him he cannot play another snap.
If what you are implying were correct, that Tomlinson for the good of the team decided to not play because he was less than 100%, why did he act like a child on the sidelines and not act like a teammtate supporting the other players?

First of all, I'm a Pats fan, not a Chargers fan. Read my last post that has the article from Yahoo. His post game comments said he reinjured his knee on the first play of the game. "IMO, if he could play the first 2 series, he could have tried to get back out there again."??? What would have satisfied you? Play a whole half and then realize that a 100% Michael Turned was the best option? Fortunately, I have the entire Chargers coaching staff of my side of this argument, including LT.
They wanted what was best for their team in order to win. If that was benching LT, then that was the move to make.

Second, Tomlinson not playing for the good of the team and how he acted on the sidelines are in no way related. Were you expecting him to act like a cheerleader? This reminds me of Bobby Knight's comment about a "game face". How is he supposed to act? Did he not seem enough in to the game to make you think that he wanted to win? Were you watching him the whole game?

 

[Deus Irae]

First of all, I'm a Pats fan, not a Chargers fan. Read my last post that has the article from Yahoo. His post game comments said he reinjured his knee on the first play of the game. "IMO, if he could play the first 2 series, he could have tried to get back out there again."??? What would have satisfied you? Play a whole half and then realize that a 100% Michael Turned was the best option? Fortunately, I have the entire Chargers coaching staff of my side of this argument, including LT.
They wanted what was best for their team in order to win. If that was benching LT, then that was the move to make.

So a team that lied about the injury report wouldn't later lie about why LdT was sitting his ass on the bench instead of playing football?


Hey, did you know that the word gullible is not in the dictionary?

 

[TheSparks1]

So a team that lied about the injury report wouldn't later lie about why LdT was sitting his ass on the bench instead of playing football?

Where did the Chargers lie about their injury report? L.T. wasn't listed on Friday. He said he reinjured his knee on the first play of the game. You have no way to prove otherwise. Considering he completed a full practice on Friday, why wouldn't he be able to go on Sunday?....UNLESS HE GOT HURT ON THE FIRST PLAY OF THE GAME LIKE HE SAID!!!

You're basing your argument on speculation. I'm basing it on the facts surrounding the issue. There are no holes in the Chargers story. You can accuse them of lying about their injury report, but it's strictly speculative.

The original argument was that L.T. didn't have heart for not playing. My point was that L.T. wasn't the best option for the Chargers to put them in the best position to win the game. Therefore, him not playing doesn't mean he doesn't have heart or can't suck up the pain.

Should everyone be expected to play regardless of injury? or do they need to meet your standards before they can sit out?

 

[dhamz]

Cleary LT is made out of glass and cannot be counted on. The Chargers need to use their #1 pick on a RB. What good is Tomlinson if he can't carry the team in the big games?

 

[patsox23]

To the uninitiated and/or dim Charger fans:

"Made of glass" is a sarcastic reference that has to do with Maroney-haters on this board. We don't actually think LT is made of glass, brittle, a *****, etc... It was a joke. Relax.

 

[TheSparks1]

Cleary LT is made out of glass and cannot be counted on. The Chargers need to use their #1 pick on a RB. What good is Tomlinson if he can't carry the team in the big games?

I can't argue this any more. We'll agree to disagree.

But saying that the Chargers need to use their #1 pick on a RB because of ONE GAME! How quickly you forget last season when the league MVP (L.T.) nearly single-handedly beat the Patriots in the AFC Divisional Playoffs. Tomlinson ran for 123 yards and two scores, and caught two passes for 64 yards. I'd classify that as "carrying his team in the big game"?

You just don't understand the game. Go put on your pink hat and pink Brady jersey, just don't pollute these message boards.

 

[Dragda]

I can't argue this any more. We'll agree to disagree.

But saying that the Chargers need to use their #1 pick on a RB because of ONE GAME! How quickly you forget last season when L.T. nearly single-handedly beat the Patriots in the AFC Divisional Playoffs. Tomlinson ran for 123 yards and two scores, and caught two passes for 64 yards. I'd classify that as "carrying his team in the big game"?

You just don't understand the game. Go put on your pink hat and pink Brady jersey, just don't pollute these message boards.

You missed the inside joke. I think you are a Chargers fan incognito, btw. If you visited here at times other than when we played the Chargers, you'd know what these posts are about. We'd have a long maroney thread every other day that contained these general themes.

 

[Deus Irae]

Where did the Chargers lie about their injury report? L.T. wasn't listed on Friday. He said he reinjured his knee on the first play of the game. You have no way to prove otherwise. Considering he completed a full practice on Friday, why wouldn't he be able to go on Sunday?....UNLESS HE GOT HURT ON THE FIRST PLAY OF THE GAME LIKE HE SAID!!!

You're basing your argument on speculation. I'm basing it on the facts surrounding the issue. There are no holes in the Chargers story. You can accuse them of lying about their injury report, but it's strictly speculative.

The original argument was that L.T. didn't have heart for not playing. My point was that L.T. wasn't the best option for the Chargers to put them in the best position to win the game. Therefore, him not playing doesn't mean he doesn't have heart or can't suck up the pain.

Should everyone be expected to play regardless of injury? or do they need to meet your standards before they can sit out?

Hmmm... now you're calling conflicting comments "facts" as if they support you. Let me start with a simple fact:

"Hyperextended knee" is NOT a synonymous term for "sprained MCL"

As for the pain thing, I know quite a bit about playing through it. Perhaps you don't. People have different thresholds. In fact, the same person will have different thresholds depending upon circumstances. I don't blame players for that, but I do blame a player for ****ing out in a game of that magnitude after just a couple of runs, because sometimes the pain gets easier to deal with when you play through it a bit. LdT attempted a whopping 2 runs and one catch.

Lastly, you're kidding yourself if you think that the best player on the Chargers couldn't have successfully have lobbied his coach to give him another run or two. After all, LdT is the best option for the Chargers, not Turner.

 

[TheSparks1]

As for the pain thing, I know quite a bit about playing through it. Perhaps you don't.

OK, Al Bundy. You played football at Polk High so that qualifies you to comment on LT's health status and threshold for pain. I'll take your word for it.

And you're also right that LT should have lobbied his coach for more playing time, even if Michael Turner was the better option for the team. Seeing how LT ran on his two carries and one reception, he certainly didn't move any piles like Michael Turner did. But again, the big concern for the Chargers coaches was 'How is LT going to be portrayed after the game?', right? It had nothing to do with the best interest of the team.

At this point, I can't argue with ignorance and incompetence. Despite having no evidence other than speculation to support your claim, I concede because in the end, any non-biased football fan that reads this thread knows what the right move was.

From the San Diego Union Tribune:
http://weblog.signonsandiego.com/sports/chargers/weblog/archives/018675.html

Whatever the speculation was on TV or the lie the Chargers announced to the media at Gillette Stadium, here's the bottom line from LaDainian Tomlinson:

"It's obvious that I couldn't play. If I could have played, I would have been in there.''

Tomlinson, who suffered a hyperextended left knee in last week's win over Indianapolis, got hit on the same knee on the first play of the AFC Championship Game and said he sprained the medial collateral ligament. The Chargers announced he could have returned to the game, but Tomlinson said that wasn't the case. Coach Norv Turner confirmed that after the game.

"It was just the impact of getting hit that first play, right on it,'' Tomlinson said. "I thought that would be the test, taking a hit on it. I don't know how I get direct hits on it ... it's just been two bad weeks for me. I usually don't take shots like that. It just happened.''

Tomlinson was in for a total of four plays -- two carries, a reception and one play where he stayed into block. He did not play after the Chargers' second series.

"LT tried to go and he just couldn't go,'' Turner said. "The pain in the knee, what he felt, he couldn't push off it and he couldn't go. ... The doctors and trainers said he couldn't go.''

Meanwhile, QB Philip Rivers confirmed he has a partially torn anterior cruciate ligament in his right knee in addition to a sprained MCL. Rivers said he "probably'' would need surgery.

 

[Deus Irae]

OK, Al Bundy. You played football at Polk High so that qualifies you to comment on LT's health status and threshold for pain. I'll take your word for it.

Actually, I played college level athletics and had an invite to a pro camp before getting a career ending injury while trying to keep in shape. However, your stupidity in commenting as if the level of play has a required minimum when it comes to understanding playing through pain is noted.

And you're also right that LT should have lobbied his coach for more playing time, even if Michael Turner was the better option for the team. Seeing how LT ran on his two carries and one reception, he certainly didn't move any piles like Michael Turner did. But again, the big concern for the Chargers coaches was 'How is LT going to be portrayed after the game?', right? It had nothing to do with the best interest of the team.

You have no idea whether or not Turner was the better option for the team, and neither does anyone else. In fact, given that Turner had a whopping 4 catches this season, he's very likely NOT a better option in the passing game as long as LdT can draw breath. Furthermore, it was abundantly clear to every human being who watched the game (except you, apparently) that LdT was missed in the red zone. Just the threat of him would have made New England defend differently.

But you go on and criticize me for speculating as if you actually know something when you're just speculating yourself.

At this point, I can't argue with ignorance and incompetence. Despite having no evidence other than speculation to support your claim, I concede because in the end, any non-biased football fan that reads this thread knows what the right move was.

Yes, hyperextending your knee one week, having it heal 90% and then spraining your MCL on the very first play from scrimmage happens all the time. For the record, as I was noting, the Chargers staff isn't exactly on the 'up and up' regarding injury status from this past week, even on other players:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3207105

Did this ever end up in the reports that you saw prior to the game?

As for the 'bias' argument, give it a rest. I'm not the only one pointing out the LdT situation, and it's not been all Patriots fans, either. ESPN was talking about it last night, for example, and PFT (rag that it is) is on it today.

So, to sum up your opinion:

Hyperextension = MCL sprain

OR

The law of averages was so mean to LdT that a "90%" healed hyperextension somehow was a separate injury from an MCL sprain stunningly happening to the exact same knee on the first play of a game after two complete practices "without restriction".

AND

Lies/ommissions on injury reports ≠ evidence about possible lies/ommissions on injury reports.


Great logic.

 

[TheSparks1]

Again, your argument speculation. Even if you played in the NFL, that doesn't make you any more qualified to comment about the legitimacy of LT's injury.

I definitely understand your argument in this situation with the manipulation of injury lists, etc. But concluding that LT doesn't have heart cause he didn't play doesn't prove your case.

You win. I'm not going to respond anymore.Not hard feelings. This is what message boards are for. It's was a healthy debate, but it's run its course and we're just going in circles. I hope you agree and we can let this rest. In the end, all that matters is the Pats won.

 

[Dojo Chargerfan]

I appologize for not getting the joke. I'm a little touchy right now and probably need to be watched round the clock. lol. But seriously the bandwagoneers are in full effect on the Charger boards right now and it's kinda getting on my nerves. They're saying that LT has no heart, and yes it's pretty easy to say but there's just more to the story. I'm sure that if LT was dead set on playing then he would have, but it would have probably hurt the team. It's a sign on how much he trusted Mike Turner. IMHO he could start for half the teams in the league and LT knew that. A Turner at 100% is better than a LT at 50%.

 

[Dojo Chargerfan]

LT def has heart and has a commitment to his team. If not, then he would have been gone in 04 after the charger finished as the worst team in the league, had the first pick in the draft, and he's labeled as a top 3 RB in the league. He could have left, even his mom told him to leave but he stayed for the long term. He's exactly opposite of what a lot of guys thinks he is. He just hates the pats, who doesn't?

 

[FrontSeven]

Don't hold back .... .let your imagination run wild and be free since it's not your knee or your career. Feel free to dictate what other people should do with their lives, especially when you don't have the facts.

We heard the same crap about Ted Johnson.

 

[FrontSeven]

. It's was a healthy debate,

Was it a healthy debate? I see nothing healthy about calling out a player for not being able to go when we all know he wanted to go. To turn this into "no heart" and "no gonads" is ridiculous.

I see nothing wrong with SPECULATING about the guy but to call his shots when the poster has NO DATA is a big, fat, warning sign. If you can't read the sign then carry on, but to me this is a cheap-shot thread for cheap-shot artists who have a hair up their ass.

 

[TheSparks1]

Was it a healthy debate?

I was just looking for some closure and to move on. I could have had LT come on here and post how he nearly lost his leg, and some people would still say he should have played. It seems that very few posters share the opinion that we do, so I just figured it was a lost cause. I just wanted to end it. I said it was healthy cause we both got out how we felt about the topic. To clarify, there was no Fiber or Vitamin C in this debate...not that kind of healthy.

 

[Deus Irae]

Don't hold back .... .let your imagination run wild and be free since it's not your knee or your career. Feel free to dictate what other people should do with their lives, especially when you don't have the facts.

We heard the same crap about Ted Johnson.

Yes, pointing out the facts of the situation is all about imagination:


LdT was omitted from the injury report

There was a pregrame report claiming LdT said he was at 90%

A hyperextended knee is not the same as a sprained MCL, the latest claim

Norv initially claimed it was a coach's decision, LdT said it was his
Rivers had a surgery just last week that wasn't reported, and wouldn't have been able to play otherwise, according to the report. That surgery was not reported.

LdT was just on ESPN (I think it was ESPN News while I was waiting for the press conference to begin). He was talking about how he tried to come back from a 4 week injury in one week.

There is now a story (San Diego Tribune, I believe) saying that Rivers ACL is all gone (TheSparks 1 even posted it, I believe), but he played anyway. LdT, meanwhile, won't need any surgery.

If only we had some facts!!!!!


So, again, either the Chargers need to be punished for ridiculous injury report shenanigans or LdT couldn't play through pain. It's not imagination, it's just the reality of the situation. It has to be one or the other, unless you're buying the "completely different injury occured on the very first play of the game" theory.

After all, New England got hammered over the location of a video camera.

 

[TheSparks1]

Yes, pointing out the facts of the situation is all about imagination:


LdT was omitted from the injury report

There was a pregrame report claiming LdT said he was at 90%

A hyperextended knee is not the same as a sprained MCL, the latest claim

Norv initially claimed it was a coach's decision, LdT said it was his
Rivers had a surgery just last week that wasn't reported, and wouldn't have been able to play otherwise, according to the report. That surgery was not reported.

LdT was just on ESPN (I think it was ESPN News while I was waiting for the press conference to begin). He was talking about how he tried to come back from a 4 week injury in one week.

There is now a story (San Diego Tribune, I believe) saying that Rivers ACL is all gone (TheSparks 1 even posted it, I believe), but he played anyway. LdT, meanwhile, won't need any surgery.

If only we had some facts!!!!!


So, again, either the Chargers need to be punished for ridiculous injury report shenanigans or LdT couldn't play through pain. It's not imagination, it's just the reality of the situation. It has to be one or the other, unless you're buying the "completely different injury occured on the very first play of the game" theory.

After all, New England got hammered over the location of a video camera.

Playing QB with a leg injury is a lot easier than playing RB with a leg injury. It's apples and oranges when comparing the two.

BTW, your "theory" is still based on speculation. Just because you list your opinion as fact doesn't mean it's true.

 

[Deus Irae]

Playing QB with a leg injury is a lot easier than playing RB with a leg injury. It's apples and oranges when comparing the two.

BTW, your "theory" is still based on speculation. Just because you list your opinion as fact doesn't mean it's true.

1.) You need to learn the definitions of "fact" and "speculation".

2.) Here are the 'plausible' theories:

San Diego lied about the injury
San Diego didn't lie about the injury


So, break them down:

San Diego lied about the injury = one of my two mentioned possibilities

San Diego didn't lie about the injury = 2 possible subsequent situations

1.) Random chance resulted in a different injury to the same knee on the very first running play to LdT, and not during the 2 'no restrictions' practices.

2.) LdT couldn't handle the pain that goes with the hyperextended knee injury he was reported to have.


That's it. Those are the only possibilities I have come up with. Well, I suppose you could go with a misdiagnosis, but that hasn't been claimed by anyone. Now, which one of those theories are you claiming has nothing but speculation as a basis?