Are Cards players willing to "Play Hurt"

[kerouac9]

Originally posted by NickelBack
Well, for starters your actual poll question and the title of this thread do not even match. I am hopeful that there was simply a typo on your part, but one has to wonder given the tenor of your responses within this thread.

If it were me, I would simply admit I was wrong and delete the thread.

Ahh, I see. You're right. I'll delete the thread. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[40yearfan]

I think they are all a bunch of pusses and slackers. If "Big" reads this, my name is Arnold Horseshack and I live in Mexico

 

[NickelBack]

Or, you could just leave it so we could refer back to it next time you claim to not know why everyone is calling you out for your myopic posts.

Either way, you made the mess, so you choose how to deal with it.

 

[kerouac9]

Or, barring that:

MODERATOR: PLEASE DELETE THIS THREAD

Thank you.

 

[NickelBack]

Why don't you just go to the edit function and take yourself out of your misery now?

That way you could refer to yourself as Kevorkian9.

 

[kerouac9]

Originally posted by NickelBack
Why don't you just go to the edit function and take yourself out of your misery now?

Man, what's your problem? I'm not a moderator, so I can't delete the thread.

That being said, I stand by my opinion that there are players on this team, a number of them, who, either of their own volition or because of reticence by the medical staff, are listed as "out" for games that they are healthy enough to play in, even if just as backups. The poll is unclear, and my view is apparently in the minority, but I stand by my opinion.

 

[Shane]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Are Cards players willing to "Play Hurt"

Originally posted by Jim Omohundro
You are really reaching in an attempt to antagonize me.

How in the world do you come to this conclusion from what I typed?

You said that Gilmore was on the shelf and I said he practiced yesterday. Therefore, he is not on the shelf. He was here every day over the bye week rehabbing and getting treatment. How can you say that he doesn't want to do the work when he is the first one that shows up every day?

In the case of McAddley, he has a torn hamsting that is still full of blood. He is here everyday rehabbing as well. To say that he does not want to be out there is a big reach in an attempt to stir the pot like you always try to do. To compare him to a QB is a big reach in an attempt to always be right. Does a QB run sprints like a WR does in a game? Absolutely not. Do you know the severity of the QB's injury compared to that of McAddley? No.

Bring it on K9. Keep it coming. Keep it flowing. Antagonize me. Keep reaching to prove that you are right.

Perfectly stated and perfectly correct Jim! Nice Post!

The whole premise of this thread is just rediculous to begin with!

 

[SECTION 11]

Can't we just reword the poll?
I'm curious as to what the board thinks.

 

[NickelBack]

Originally posted by kerouac9
Man, what's your problem? I'm not a moderator, so I can't delete the thread.

Why not?

You started man.

 

[Shane]

Originally posted by kerouac9
Man, what's your problem? I'm not a moderator, so I can't delete the thread.

Actually you can delete your own threads that you start I have done it several times. Just go into the edit feature and click on delete thread!

 

[kerouac9]

Originally posted by NickelBack
Why not?

You started man.

I can delete a post, but I can't delete a thread. I'm not deleting my posts, because I believe in what I said. I don't have a problem with any of my posts, or my arguement (which is, essentially: "why do the Cards have so many more injured players than the rest of the NFL, and, comparitiveky so few "walking wounded?"), but, as you illistrated, the poll is bad, and so I'd prefer someone who is able either change the poll or delete the thread. Since I assume that deleting the thread would be easier (and since we're basically vacated the topic altogether), but either way.

I don't edit or delete my posts for content, or because an opinion is unpopular. No one believed me at the beginning of the season when I said that the Vikes and Cowboys would be good, either.

 

[Shane]

Originally posted by kerouac9
I can delete a post, but I can't delete a thread. I'm not deleting my posts, because I believe in what I said. I don't have a problem with any of my posts, or my arguement (which is, essentially: "why do the Cards have so many more injured players than the rest of the NFL, and, comparitiveky so few "walking wounded?"), but, as you illistrated, the poll is bad, and so I'd prefer someone who is able either change the poll or delete the thread. Since I assume that deleting the thread would be easier (and since we're basically vacated the topic altogether), but either way.

I don't edit or delete my posts for content, or because an opinion is unpopular. No one believed me at the beginning of the season when I said that the Vikes and Cowboys would be good, either.

I just successfully started a "thread" not a post titled Now You See It. I then turned around and deleted it. Thus you dont see it anymore. You can delete your own thread. Like I said done it several times.

 

[CardLogic]

K9,

Injuries hurt more intensely when losing...


Winning cures all ills!


Now I am not judging character or willingness of any of the Cardinals. Just a general observation on my part.

 

[kerouac9]

Originally posted by Shane H
I just successfully started a "thread" not a post titled Now You See It. I then turned around and deleted it. Thus you dont see it anymore. You can delete your own thread. Like I said done it several times.

But were there other people's posts already on the thread? I know that non-admins can delete posts, and without another post, your thread didn't exist, but deleting my posts wouldn't eliminate all the other posts on the thread, thus, not deleting the thread.

 

[kerouac9]

Originally posted by CardLogic
K9,

Injuries hurt more intensely when losing...


Winning cures all ills!


Now I am not judging character or willingness of any of the Cardinals. Just a general observation on my part.

Wow. This is a really interesting point that I hadn't thought of. Thanks. Everyone wants to play for a winner.

 

[Wild Card]

Originally posted by kerouac9
I don't have a problem with any of my posts, or my arguement (which is, essentially: "why do the Cards have so many more injured players than the rest of the NFL, and, comparitiveky so few "walking wounded?")... I don't edit or delete my posts for content, or because an opinion is unpopular.

K9:

I don't know whether you're right or wrong, regarding specific Cardinals players and their willingness to play through injuries. I do recall, however, some on this board being irritated by Duane Starks' inability to stay on the practice field during this summer's camp. I seem to remember doubts being expressed over both the seriousness of his injury and the quality of his off-season training/ conditioning.

I think that many players' motivation to play through injuries--those that can be played through--is somewhat related to their team's performance and short-term prospects. If you think that missing one game could cost you and your teammates a playoff spot, maybe you get shot up and risk further injury. If you believe playing only means the difference between 3-13 and 4-12, though, I'd bet that many players would choose to sit out.

I'd put hurt and injured players in three categories: Can Play, Can't Play, and Could Play. The first two categories are clear-cut, the third one's more negotiable. I think part of that negotiation is, "Will my being on the field matter? Is it worth it?" And I suspect, based on the answer to that question, players that might be "Probable" on a contending team become "Questionable," "Doubtful," or "Out" on a bad one.

WC

 

[Duckjake]

I don't think that the Cards players are any different than those in the rest of the league. I think Oakland was down to their 8th OLineman last night, a guy who wasn't supposed to play except in an emergency.

One that could be said about the Cards historically is:

They seem to have had an inordinate number of knee injuries over the past 10 years.

 

[HoodieBets]

I dont kno wat is so hard to understand. The title is are cardinal players more willing than others to play hurt. For example would kasper and Gilmore and Starks, etc. play through injuries if they played for a competitor? I think they would. If this team was 4-2 they would play no doubt. We are 1-5. Why risk injury when you kno the season is over? You guys were all over DB last year bc he was hurt whats the difference now? I believe some people on this board called it a phantom injury. Why is it every year we have so many injured players? Is the medical staff that bad? Is the conditioning that bad? Something is deffiantely wrong but no one knos what it is.

BTW K9 can not delete a thread once another post not of his own is made. Only a Mod can delete a thread with more than 1 poster on it. Shane you could delete the thread bc no one else but you posted in it.

 

[HoodieBets]

Originally posted by Duckjake
I don't think that the Cards players are any different than those in the rest of the league. I think Oakland was down to their 8th OLineman last night, a guy who wasn't supposed to play except in an emergency.

One that could be said about the Cards historically is:

They seem to have had an inordinate number of knee injuries over the past 10 years.

Oakland sucks this year too. Its not like last year. So Oakland is not a good example. If you picked a contender then you might have a point. The point is winning cures all ills just like another poster said. If Oakland was undefeated they would have had more than plenty O-linemen.