PDA

View Full Version : Colts safety Sanders could be out 6 weeks


Splat
09-17-2008, 08:57 AM
Colts safety Sanders could be out 6 weeks (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-colts-sandersout&prov=ap&type=lgns)

INDIANAPOLIS (AP)—All-Pro safety Bob Sanders (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/6803/;_ylt=Ah3mfra9DMFxMrkdNkxXVkwdsLYF) could miss four to six weeks with a high ankle sprain sustained during the Indianapolis Colts (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/teams/ind/;_ylt=AnBLdTcr8y2eqjHRgZZVdPUdsLYF)’ win last Sunday over Minnesota.

Team president Bill Polian said during a taping of his weekly TV show Tuesday night that the league’s defensive player of the year could also have arthroscopic “cleanup” surgery on one of his knees while he’s recovering from the ankle injury.

“He will be back, that is for sure,” Polian told WISH-TV. “At this point we are not sure of the severity, but four to six is the reasonable assumption at this time.”

Matthew Jones
09-17-2008, 09:02 AM
That's unfortunate. Even though I'm not a Colts fan, I'm still sad to see a quality player like Sanders get injured. It just makes the games less exciting to watch. Hopefully he's back closer to the four weeks than the six.

Splat
09-17-2008, 09:08 AM
He is a great player when on the field its to bad he has never started a full season with out missing time.

tylerb929
09-17-2008, 09:38 AM
This sucks, but I think Melvin Bullitt is going to surprise a lot of people.

bored of education
09-17-2008, 10:04 AM
This sucks, but I think Melvin Bullitt is going to surprise a lot of people.
like matt cassel? lol

iBoldin
09-17-2008, 10:17 AM
Big blow depending on how many weeks Sanders is out for. But, has Dwight Freeney or Bob Sanders ever played a full, 16 game sched. with each other? Might be a little bit to worry about in Indianapolis.

Sveen
09-17-2008, 10:34 AM
Ouch. Tough break for Indy.

NY+Giants=NYG
09-17-2008, 10:35 AM
Isn't this guy always getting hurt? Feels like every year I hear or read something like this. Don't know if it's true, but damn, that's alot of time to miss.

bigbluedefense
09-17-2008, 10:36 AM
How's their depth at Safety? With his injury history, and with the simple gameplan they employ, they should have a quality backup behind him to ease his loss whenever it happens.

He either rifles down the field to stop the run or drop in an intermediate zone in Cover 3 most of the game, a quality backup should be able to fill that void no problem.

Gay Ork Wang
09-17-2008, 10:37 AM
Colts wont make the playoffs if those players are getting injured at this rate

wicket
09-17-2008, 10:42 AM
I really think that might cost indy the playoffs allthough their division doesnt look as tough as it did preseason tbh

bored of education
09-17-2008, 11:21 AM
Is Michael Coe still on the team? i liked him alot of a prospect

tylerb929
09-17-2008, 11:54 AM
Is Michael Coe still on the team? i liked him alot of a prospect

He's on IR.

But he plays CB, the back ups at safety are Melvin Bullitt and Matt Giordano who have both proven to be very capable back ups.

PACKmanN
09-17-2008, 12:06 PM
and their run defense has just gotten weaker.

CC.SD
09-17-2008, 12:13 PM
and their run defense has just gotten weaker.

Yah, try much weaker. All this high profile players going down really sucks.

MetSox17
09-17-2008, 12:55 PM
Much weaker? You mean after they gave up close to 200 yards on the ground to Minnesota, when they KNEW they were gonna run? Ouch.

Same ol' song and dance for Bob Sanders though. I'd hate to see what that defense looks like, without the only guy that was making plays this past week.

tylerb929
09-17-2008, 01:20 PM
Bob left the Minnesota game with about 13 minutes left in the 4th quarter. After that Minnesota still ran the ball 8 more time (7 of them were Adrian Peterson), on those 8 carries they gained 28 rushing yards (27 of them were Petersons).

That means.....

With Bob Sanders:
Adrian Peterson, 22 carries, 133 yards, No TDs, 6.0 ypc
Chester Taylor, 3 carries, 17 yards, No TDs, 5.7 ypc
______________________________________________
RBs with Bob in, 25 carries, 150 yards, No TDs, 6.0 ypc


Without Bob Sanders (Melvin Bullitt):
Adrian Peterson, 7 carries, 27 yards, No TDs, 3.9 ypc
Chester Taylor, 1 carry, 1 yard, No Tds, 1.0 ypc
_____________________________________________
RBs without Bob in, 8 carries, 28 yards, No TDs, 3.5 ypc


Not saying, just saying. I'm sure there were other factors, but at this point in the 4th both teams were still playing for the win and if anything the Colts D should have been more worn down than the Viking offense.

Menardo75
09-17-2008, 02:13 PM
Yeah that sucks he is so important to their defense.

Dam8610
09-17-2008, 02:27 PM
There have been reports that it could be as short as 2 weeks, but he may get a knee scope, though that supposedly wouldn't take as long to recover from as the ankle injury.

awfullyquiet
09-17-2008, 03:15 PM
THIS IS TURRIBLE FOR THE LEAGUE

Complete CATASTROPHE.

ITS LIKE LOSING MATT BRADY ALL OVER AGAIN.
wait. TOM BRADY.

bored of education
09-17-2008, 03:27 PM
THIS IS TURRIBLE FOR THE LEAGUE

Complete CATASTROPHE.

ITS LIKE LOSING MATT BRADY ALL OVER AGAIN.
wait. TOM BRADY.



:o. nerd alert

Marlo
09-17-2008, 03:33 PM
THIS IS TURRIBLE FOR THE LEAGUE

Complete CATASTROPHE.

ITS LIKE LOSING MATT BRADY ALL OVER AGAIN.
wait. TOM BRADY.

Read this please:

Football 101 – A Girl’s Guide to Football – What’s In It For You (http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/9-9-2005-76458.asp)

:)

awfullyquiet
09-17-2008, 04:38 PM
Read this please:

Football 101 – A Girl’s Guide to Football – What’s In It For You (http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/9-9-2005-76458.asp)

:)

http://talesfromanopenbook.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/09_04_4-breakfast-cereal_web.jpg

get out.

Bruce Banner
09-17-2008, 05:08 PM
Read this please:

Football 101 – A Girl’s Guide to Football – What’s In It For You (http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/9-9-2005-76458.asp)

:)

She knows more about football than you do.

Marlo
09-17-2008, 05:16 PM
She knows more about football than you do.

Good one...

Bruce Banner
09-17-2008, 05:17 PM
Good one...

No punchline to that ****.

Marlo
09-17-2008, 05:18 PM
http://talesfromanopenbook.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/09_04_4-breakfast-cereal_web.jpg

get out.

Oh, you made me a bowl of cereal, how nice. Next time make it steak and potatoes though honey.

Addict
09-17-2008, 05:20 PM
Oh, you made me a bowl of cereal, how nice. Next time make it steak and potatoes though honey.

let's see... that comment is rude, degrading AND stereotypical...

I love it.

awfullyquiet
09-17-2008, 05:23 PM
Oh, you made me a bowl of cereal, how nice. Next time make it steak and potatoes though honey.

...
obviously you're not one to cultural references...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_ASjFzi7J0

that might explain things.

Shiver
09-17-2008, 06:38 PM
This is devastating. They were already getting eaten alive by opposing running backs. This just doesn't seem like the Colts' year. They barely beat a Vikings team with a floundering Tarvaris Jackson.

Dam8610
09-17-2008, 07:08 PM
This is devastating. They were already getting eaten alive by opposing running backs. This just doesn't seem like the Colts' year. They barely beat a Vikings team with a floundering Tarvaris Jackson.

They barely beat the Oakland Raiders with him last year. They barely beat Miami the year they won it all. Will it be harder to win without Bob? Yes, but the Colts have done it before, there's no reason they can't do it again.

D-Unit
09-17-2008, 07:12 PM
For someone who gets so much praise, he's way too injury prone. Players like that are more trouble than they are worth. They force the team to rely on them and then when they get hurt, the team takes a major hit. So the team must then invest in a replacement. Double the investment on 1 single position. If the Colts are smart, they trade him while they can get something worthwhile in return.

MetSox17
09-17-2008, 07:15 PM
They barely beat the Oakland Raiders with him last year. They barely beat Miami the year they won it all. Will it be harder to win without Bob? Yes, but the Colts have done it before, there's no reason they can't do it again.

Except that they lost and should have lost games against mediocre teams. One team didn't even pass the ball! The injuries on the offensive line might be a little too much to overcome, or the defense is just that horrible, but had it been any other starting QB in the NFL instead of T-Jack on Sunday, and they would have lost.

Dam8610
09-17-2008, 07:23 PM
Except that they lost and should have lost games against mediocre teams. One team didn't even pass the ball! The injuries on the offensive line might be a little too much to overcome, or the defense is just that horrible, but had it been any other starting QB in the NFL instead of T-Jack on Sunday, and they would have lost.

Why is it that when other defenses bend but don't break, they had a good performance, but when the Colts defense does it, it's because the opposing team didn't execute? Just curious, because this is far from the first time I've heard this.

MetSox17
09-17-2008, 07:32 PM
Why is it that when other defenses bend but don't break, they had a good performance, but when the Colts defense does it, it's because the opposing team didn't execute? Just curious, because this is far from the first time I've heard this.

Because when you pretty much know the other teams gameplan due to their complete inability to move the ball through the air, yet you still get trashed on the ground, you're pretty bad.

Dam8610
09-17-2008, 07:40 PM
Because when you pretty much know the other teams gameplan due to their complete inability to move the ball through the air, yet you still get trashed on the ground, you're pretty bad.

This is Adrian Peterson, the guy who torched San Diego for 295. It's not like we're talking about some scrub here, this is quite possibly the best RB in the NFL. Honestly, look at Jackson's numbers, it's not like he had such a bad game that you can point to it and say "that's the reason why they lost". The Colts gave up a couple of long runs, but when it came down to it, they tightened up and made the stops they needed to make to keep their team in the ballgame. If they were as bad as you say, AD would've had 3 TDs at least.

MetSox17
09-17-2008, 07:41 PM
This is Adrian Peterson, the guy who torched San Diego for 295. It's not like we're talking about some scrub here, this is quite possibly the best RB in the NFL. Honestly, look at Jackson's numbers, it's not like he had such a bad game that you can point to it and say "that's the reason why they lost". The Colts gave up a couple of long runs, but when it came down to it, they tightened up and made the stops they needed to make to keep their team in the ballgame. If they were as bad as you say, AD would've had 3 TDs.

Yeah, except they got trashed by a rookie the previous week as well. And the playcalling is completely horrendous. That's why they didn't score a single damn touchdown.

Dam8610
09-17-2008, 07:47 PM
Yeah, except they got trashed by a rookie the previous week as well. And the playcalling is completely horrendous. That's why they didn't score a single damn touchdown.

Don't know if you noticed, but Forte had a pretty good game against Carolina as well. Besides, both of these games happened with Bob Sanders, and with Melvin Bullitt in, the Colts allowed 28 rushing yards on 8 carries, so by your logic, the Colts defense will be better for this, right?

MetSox17
09-17-2008, 07:49 PM
Don't know if you noticed, but Forte had a pretty good game against Carolina as well. Besides, both of these games happened with Bob Sanders, and with Melvin Bullitt in, the Colts allowed 28 rushing yards on 8 carries, so by your logic, the Colts defense will be better for this, right?

How is that by my logic? I never made the assumption that because they allowed less yards in 8 carries with Bullitt in they'll be better. All i'm saying is that your pretty bad defense is gonna get worse. Spin it however you wish.

Dam8610
09-17-2008, 07:54 PM
How is that by my logic? I never made the assumption that because they allowed less yards in 8 carries with Bullitt in they'll be better. All i'm saying is that your pretty bad defense is gonna get worse. Spin it however you wish.

Your logic: The Colts defense has allowed a lot of rushing yards in the past two weeks, therefore they will allow more without Bob Sanders.

Problem: They did not allow more rushing yards, nor did they allow more yards per carry.

How is that difficult to comprehend?

yo123
09-17-2008, 07:56 PM
Your logic: The Colts defense has allowed a lot of rushing yards in the past two weeks, therefore they will allow more without Bob Sanders.

Problem: They did not allow more rushing yards, nor did they allow more yards per carry.

How is that difficult to comprehend?

Sample Size.

MetSox17
09-17-2008, 07:57 PM
Your logic: The Colts defense has allowed a lot of rushing yards in the past two weeks, therefore they will allow more without Bob Sanders.

Problem: They did not allow more rushing yards, nor did they allow more yards per carry.

How is that difficult to comprehend?

I find it laughable that you're making a serious argument out of 8 carries.

Dam8610
09-17-2008, 08:01 PM
Sample Size.

His point is stupid, I'm countering with stupid. Anyone who has watched the Colts in recent years knows their run defense has never been more than league average, and there have been a couple of times in the past 3 seasons that the Colts defense has been among the league's elite.

Dam8610
09-17-2008, 08:01 PM
I find it laughable that you're making a serious argument out of 8 carries.

And I find it laughable you think the Colts defense is reliant on stopping the run, so we're even.

yourfavestoner
09-17-2008, 10:37 PM
Dam, you need to stop attacking the logic of his argument and focus on the argument itself. There's no way that losing Sanders isn't a huge blow to their defense. Just look at the 2006 season, when the Colts were giving up rushing yards at a record pace. Trying to argue otherwise makes you seem like the Charger fans who said they'd be fine without Merriman. Sanders is the glue to your defense. He's the one that holds it together.

Bruce Banner
09-17-2008, 10:38 PM
Dam, you need to stop attacking the logic of his argument and focus on the argument itself. There's no way that losing Sanders isn't a huge blow to their defense. Just look at the 2006 season, when the Colts were giving up rushing yards at a record pace. Trying to argue otherwise makes you seem like the Charger fans who said they'd be fine without Merriman. Sanders is the glue to your defense. He's the one that holds it together.

You're smarter than most stoners, I'll give you that.

Dam8610
09-18-2008, 12:01 AM
Dam, you need to stop attacking the logic of his argument and focus on the argument itself. There's no way that losing Sanders isn't a huge blow to their defense. Just look at the 2006 season, when the Colts were giving up rushing yards at a record pace. Trying to argue otherwise makes you seem like the Charger fans who said they'd be fine without Merriman. Sanders is the glue to your defense. He's the one that holds it together.

Oh, I'm not saying it's not a huge blow, I understand the negative impact his absence brings, but I get sick of all the negativity about the Colts defense even after a pretty solid performance all things considered. Redzone defense is a great thing to have, it's pretty much the reason the Patriots won the Super Bowl in 2001. All things considered (for example, the Colts were playing Eric Foster, undersized for a UT, at NT, and the Vikings had Adrian Peterson), it's quite an accomplishment that once the Vikings hit the redzone, the Colts buckled down and held them to 3. Also, I find it pretty funny that he called the Colts defense "pretty bad" when they just LED THE LEAGUE in scoring defense, and were 3rd in yardage allowed. I'm not saying they've been great thus far, but they've only allowed 35 points thus far this season (can't blame them for the safety or the Briggs TD) despite all the rushing yardage they've allowed. Losing a player of Sanders' caliber definitely hurts, hopefully Bullitt can come in and be half of what Bob is to this defense, but I'd like to see my team's defense get credit for a good performance for once instead of everyone finding some way to say it's on the opposing offense. That's been my entire point all along.

islandboy843
09-18-2008, 03:51 AM
Damn it must be christmas time for the titans.

Shiver
09-18-2008, 03:57 AM
This is funny. First Bob Sanders was some miraculous run defender who turned the Colts' defense around by himself, and now they won't be much worse off without him. Come on!

Dam8610
09-18-2008, 04:13 AM
This is funny. First Bob Sanders was some miraculous run defender who turned the Colts' defense around by himself, and now they won't be much worse off without him. Come on!

Show me where I said any of that, other than facetiously saying saying that because the Vikings couldn't run in the 4th quarter, that Melvin Bullitt would be an improvement. I don't think you'll be able to find it. In fact, I think I acknowledged a few times that Bob being out was a HUGE blow for the defense. The only other things I've done here is defend my team's defensive performance last Sunday, which, while not stellar, was a lot better than "if it was any other QB than Tarvaris Jackson, the Colts would've lost", and make the point that the Colts have won without Sanders before, which they have.

Addict
09-18-2008, 04:46 AM
Show me where I said any of that, other than facetiously saying saying that because the Vikings couldn't run in the 4th quarter, that Melvin Bullitt would be an improvement. I don't think you'll be able to find it. In fact, I think I acknowledged a few times that Bob being out was a HUGE blow for the defense. The only other things I've done here is defend my team's defensive performance last Sunday, which, while not stellar, was a lot better than "if it was any other QB than Tarvaris Jackson, the Colts would've lost", and make the point that the Colts have won without Sanders before, which they have.

except obviously, if it was any quality QB, you would have lost.

Dam8610
09-18-2008, 05:01 AM
except obviously, if it was any quality QB, you would have lost.

Why? Jackson had a decent game by game manager standards, I think by the numbers he had a better game than Orton did against the Colts, but when they got down to the redzone, they couldn't move. You can blame that on the QB all you want, but I'm pretty sure the best trait any offense could have in the redzone is a strong ground game, something the Vikings displayed in spades between the 20s, but suddenly seemed to lack inside the 20. Like I said earlier, if the Colts played as poorly as some seem to think, AD would've had at least 3 TDs, but he had 0. Being able to buckle down and hold the opposing offense to only a field goal when they get inside the 20 is a valuable quality for a defense to possess, as we all saw last Sunday. If the defense doesn't hold them to 3 every time, the offense may not have enough time at the end to come back. All I'm asking here is credit where credit is due.

Addict
09-18-2008, 05:32 AM
Why? Jackson had a decent game by game manager standards, I think by the numbers he had a better game than Orton did against the Colts, but when they got down to the redzone, they couldn't move. You can blame that on the QB all you want, but I'm pretty sure the best trait any offense could have in the redzone is a strong ground game, something the Vikings displayed in spades between the 20s, but suddenly seemed to lack inside the 20. Like I said earlier, if the Colts played as poorly as some seem to think, AD would've had at least 3 TDs, but he had 0. Being able to buckle down and hold the opposing offense to only a field goal when they get inside the 20 is a valuable quality for a defense to possess, as we all saw last Sunday. If the defense doesn't hold them to 3 every time, the offense may not have enough time at the end to come back. All I'm asking here is credit where credit is due.

Credit where credit is due? I haven't said your D is bad or anything, I'm just saying that if the Vikings had a proper starting QB not some mid-round experiment gone wrong, they would have beaten you. You're arguing my statement about Tavaris Jackson not being a good qb by telling me he's better than Kyle Orton? Come on now, I said if they had a QUALITY quarterback, Orton is nothing more than a glorified bench warmer.

Dam8610
09-18-2008, 05:40 AM
Credit where credit is due? I haven't said your D is bad or anything, I'm just saying that if the Vikings had a proper starting QB not some mid-round experiment gone wrong, they would have beaten you. You're arguing my statement about Tavaris Jackson not being a good qb by telling me he's better than Kyle Orton? Come on now, I said if they had a QUALITY quarterback, Orton is nothing more than a glorified bench warmer.

How do you view laying the Vikings offensive performance squarely at the feet of Tarvaris Jackson as NOT slighting the Colts defense? That's EXACTLY what it's doing! How do you have arguably the best RB in the NFL and not be able to punch it into the endzone from inside the 20 once? Who are you looking at as a "proper starting QB"? Honestly, you can give them a healthy Tom Brady for all I care, as long as you give the Colts a healthy Tommie Harris or Kevin Williams. You may not have noticed, but the Colts CUT their only legitimate NT BEFORE facing the Vikings, and still kept them in check from inside the 20. If you want to play the "what if" game, I can do that too, but it's ridiculous to me that the Colts defense can never get credit for a good performance.

Addict
09-18-2008, 05:46 AM
How do you view laying the Vikings offensive performance squarely at the feet of Tarvaris Jackson as NOT slighting the Colts defense? That's EXACTLY what it's doing! How do you have arguably the best RB in the NFL and not be able to punch it into the endzone from inside the 20 once? Who are you looking at as a "proper starting QB"? Honestly, you can give them a healthy Tom Brady for all I care, as long as you give the Colts a healthy Tommie Harris or Kevin Williams. You may not have noticed, but the Colts CUT their only legitimate NT BEFORE facing the Vikings, and still kept them in check from inside the 20. If you want to play the "what if" game, I can do that too, but it's ridiculous to me that the Colts defense can never get credit for a good performance.

If the Vikings had Tom Brady (healthy) for a QB last sunday they would have KILLED the Colts. Again, I'm not contesting the D did well, but it's a lot easier preparing for AD knowing you won't need to worry as much about the QB. Yeah they stopped he run in the 20, but it wasn't like i was likely the Vikes were gonna throw it...

Dam8610
09-18-2008, 06:07 AM
If the Vikings had Tom Brady (healthy) for a QB last sunday they would have KILLED the Colts. Again, I'm not contesting the D did well, but it's a lot easier preparing for AD knowing you won't need to worry as much about the QB. Yeah they stopped he run in the 20, but it wasn't like i was likely the Vikes were gonna throw it...

Do you read selectively? Read the bolded part this time:

Honestly, you can give them a healthy Tom Brady for all I care, as long as you give the Colts a healthy Tommie Harris or Kevin Williams. You may not have noticed, but the Colts CUT their only legitimate NT BEFORE facing the Vikings, and still kept them in check from inside the 20.

A healthy Tommie Harris or Kevin Williams in the middle of the Colts defense not only vastly improves their run defense, it also vastly improves their pass rush, which was already pretty solid against the Vikings. If you want to play the "what if" game, let's make it fair, not "put a QB on this team and...", because it doesn't work like that. If it did, the Vikings would be the best team in the league right now. Whether you realize it or not, you're placing the failures of that offense squarely on the shoulder of Tarvaris Jackson, which I don't get at all considering they have Adrian Peterson and could not get the ball into the endzone from the redzone. As I recall, all the Vikings were asking Jackson to do was not make a boneheaded play that gives the other team an advantage, and as far as I can tell, he didn't do that all game, so he did his job. I don't get this at all anymore.

tylerb929
09-18-2008, 08:51 AM
I'm not saying that Tarvaris Jackson is a good QB, but had Visanthe Shiancoe caught that pass in the endzone, which he should have because it couldn't have been placed any better, then we would all be viewing Jackson a little differently. Had that pass been caught, they likely would have beating the Colts, been 1-1, and Jackson would have respectible stats. But because that pass was dropped, we get to see Frerotte come in and now Jackson's career is postponed if not over.