This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
The source for the link above is McClain's Chronicle article, so basically McClain is the only source on this. And McClain's article sounds like speculation. And the Texans still haven't denied that he had a tear, I believe.
I don't really get this. The Texans are going to do whatever gives them the best chance to win. Though without Manning the Texans would be favored, it wouldn't be very surprising if they lost.
You'll struggle to find many reporters more respected or in tune as McClain is with the Texans.He knows what's going on as best as possible aside from the coach speaking to the media.
His hamstring will be an issue for the foreseeable future regardless of whether he practices or plays. He may not feel pain but there is still a high risk of re-injury. Disclosure: I am not and will never be a medical doctor.
I didn't mean the hamstring is not an issue in general, but it won't be an issue as to whether or not he starts this game. If he runs, practices, feels good.. He;s playing.
I keep hearing that, but I'm not sure why he hasn't delved more deeply into the issue in his reporting. ESPN, obviously a huge national source, reported that their doctor said the MRI shows a hamstring tear. To the best of my knowledge, McClain hasn't directly gotten a confirmation or denial of a tear from the Texans since then. Nor has he directly addressed the ESPN "tear" story. That is not very solid reporting, in my view. Either he can't get a confirmation/denial from the Texans, which would indicate that he's not as "in tune" as many say, or he's not a great reporter. Not sure which it is.
I think the whole hamstring issue is being dealt with completely "in house".No player, coach, trainer, owner or anyone has said a single detail about it.So let's look at this from an objective standpoint.McClain, who watches basically every practice, said that when Foster first injured his hammy, his limp was very noticeable, was always being iced and movement was limited.Now, post "re-aggrivation" he has no limp, doesnt walk around with ice packs, jogs, and will apparently be part of practice this week. Something isn't adding up. The more I ponder the secrecy, the more I look at the facts from people in the know... The more I start to question the authenticity of the MRI photo.
Best chance to win week 1 <> Best chance to make the playoffsThe goal has to be to win the SuperBowl, not the Colts in week 1. If resting Foster an extra week decreases the chance his hamstring injury gets re-aggravated, then the Texans would be very prudent to do so. Their division would be considered one of the weakest in the NFL if Manning doesn't play.
If this has been addressed I haven't seen it but did anyone confirm a date on that MRI? Could it have been after the first injury and now being presented as the most recent? Just curious if anyone has that info.
The date on the MRI was legit. Aug 28 or something (I looked zoomed up on photoshop). Name and everything.Thing is, how easy is this to fake? Get any hamstring. Throw any date on there. Any name. Then he tweets that "humour is lost".I truly have no idea if it was legit or not. But again, the secrecy on the issue is making me think perhaps it's not.
Thank you Riz. I dont think he'd go thru the trouble of dummying one up but at least we know what date is being presented. My, but we're a competitive bunch arent we? Mea Culpa.
To see him on the bench when Foster plays and excels?
Exactly. If Manning doesn't play, they should rest him anyway, just to err on the side of caution. And I say this as a Foster/Ward owner, not a Tate owner.
So, 100 yards and 2 TDs you're thinking then?
'Greg Russell said:So, 100 yards and 2 TDs you're thinking then?
#1) You don't jog on a torn muscle, especially when you are a professional athlete.'DevilintheDetail said:
People will believe whatever they need to believe. If they don't own Foster or they only own Tate, they're sure his career is over.Objectivity is lost for many people.
i dont like to wish ill will on people, but me too'Sam Quentin said:
I agree. I'm not a doctor but I ran sprints in college and observed a lot of hamstring problems with teammates and competitors. The Texans should hold him out for week 1.'shnikies said:
99% of the time, I agree completely and, of course, get the underlying message that Super Bowls aren't won in September. However comma, this is the Colts and it is THE chance the Texans have of finally getting over the hump, and coaching jobs are on the line and all: this is BIG for the Texans in ways that can't be underestimated. The Texans' personal evil empire (and road block to the playoffs) has finally shown a crack and nothing is as important as a h2h win over the division champs. In the AFC, winning the division is huge for the Texans becasue otherwise they are fighting with teams like the Chargers/Chiefs, Patriots/Jets, Steelers/Ravens for wildcard spots. that's not enviable at all and, in any combo, a chance to take out the colts looks much more appealing than trying to beat out TWO of Chargers, Steelers, Jets, or how ever you see the division going.'Anonymous Internet User said:
is what he reports historically correct? Is what he reports what happens? When people say a guy is a "mouth piece" or an intercomm for a team, that is often a representation that the person feels the reporter really isn't saying " anything"; just repeating what is known locally. When you live in the area, I can see how you may hear McClain and say "yawn". But if the information he is putting out there IS what happens, then he is credible. May be boring to you, but if its factual, then we should listen.
I've heard nothing but good things about McClain.People usually have a beef with their team's beat reporters/team sources, but from the outside, the guy has been nothing but a professional and a source of very good, detailed, inside information.
Thanks, I was wondering.
Your welcome. I'll post my league rules next time to help you better understand.
Nobody cares, really.
Thanks for the update Captain Obvious.
I care.
The point is, Tate owners have hitched their wagons to a longshot. Rooting for an injury and praying for lightning in a bottle once it happens. Way better options out there.
I can't help but think about last year when he played injured all season for fear of losing the starting job. Maybe there is a little bit of that still in him. He obviously proved himself last year, but now he also has all this talk about how good Tate would be if he goes down. And he still is playing on a rookie contract that doesn't pay a lot. Which to me would be reason to play it safe, but he might not see it that way.Hopefully he doesn't rush back too early, and I agree if there is any doubt he should probably sit. Even if there isn't any doubt, were I Kubiak I might start out with Ward and Tate and if we are winning and don't need to put him, let him have the day off. If not, then he'd be available.
I won't pretend to be inside Kubiak's head, but in general when you have a star player that is hurt you woudl handle it opposite. If he and the doctors say he is ready to go you start him and then if you are winning handily you take him out to avoid re-injury. Generally if they are out they are out. You don't 'save' them in case you are losing and then say "Ok get out there and win this for us."
I don't think either that Kubiak will do what I said. That's just how I'd play it. I would rather not risk him if it isn't needed, so I'd rather keep him out even if the docs say it is ok. I think Ward and Tate will probably be enough for the Texans to win, so this way you probably don't have him in the game at all. You do if you go with the way teams generally handle it.Edit to add: And heck, even if trailing but it was close I might not put him in. Yeah, just rest him and be safe.
Ya, but good luck proving it.
Like I said, he's the team mouthpiece, so a lot of the stuff he reports is going to be "factual" (the stuff that the team wants him to report, at least).But, he can't really be relied upon with any amount of certainty. Through the spring he emphatically reported that "there is no way the Texans will sign Nnamdi" and as the Texans started to make a push for him McClain did backward somersaults all over himself trying to backpedal out of his entrenched position.
Um...The Texans didn't sign Nnamdi. So you are critizing him because he was right?I know what you are saying about McLain, but I like him and think he does have some good sources for information. But yes,for more analysis I would look to someone like Zeirlein.Now Vandermeer.... That's a mouthpiece for the organization (He is the teams Play-by-play voice).
this just got interesting... 
What a fighter.
