trouble in the rotten apple

ice grillin you · December 28, 2005, 01:23:28 PM

Insult added to LB's injury

Emmons: IR a Giant mess

BY RALPH VACCHIANO
DAILY NEWS SPORTS WRITER

Carlos Emmons fumes over Giants' decision to put him on injured reserve, ending his season.

Carlos Emmons was standing in front of his locker and feeling pretty healthy yesterday when Antonio Pierce hobbled by on crutches with his sprained right ankle still in a cast.
So why was Emmons, the Giants' strong side linebacker, placed on injured reserve while Pierce, their injured middle linebacker, remained on the active roster?

A furious Emmons would like to know the answer to that, too.

"I know I could've been back," Emmons said after Tom Coughlin ended his season by putting him on IR with a torn pectoral muscle. "If it was a one-game season right now, I could play this week. It might have hurt me, but who cares? I don't give a --- about that. I could've been back definitely by next week, but it was a decision they wanted to make, so it's a decision I've got to deal with."

It was a strange decision, especially if Emmons really could have returned for a first-round game on Jan. 7 or 8. It was even stranger because Pierce is definitely unavailable for Saturday's season finale in Oakland, and was on his way to see a doctor to be re-evaluated yesterday afternoon.

Why not wait to hear what the doctor had to say about Pierce? Why rush to put Emmons on IR just so the Giants could sign free-agent linebacker Jay Foreman?

Coughlin said with Pierce and Emmons out, Chase Blackburn (neck) already on IR, and Reggie Torbor (hamstring) hurting, the Giants' need for linebackers "forced us to make some decisions."

Emmons, 32, who has missed five games with his injury, including the last two, insisted Coughlin made the wrong one.

"I voiced my opinion," Emmons said of his morning meeting with his coach. "I told him how I felt about it. But in a situation like that, my opinion really doesn't matter."

The decision itself wasn't the only thing angering Emmons. He was also irked that the Giants were being selectively cautious about his injury. He originally tore the muscle on Oct. 23 and missed the next three games. He returned on Nov. 20 against doctor's advice to help out the injury-depleted linebacking corps.

Nobody had a problem with him risking further injury then, he said.

"I came back three or four weeks early," Emmons said. "The risk is there of tearing it completely (now), but the risk was there when I came back the first time. The risk wasn't such a big deal then, and it's such a big deal now. That's something I don't understand."

What he also didn't understand was why Coughlin didn't tell him until yesterday morning. Emmons first heard about the possibility when he came to Giants Stadium for treatment on Monday, but he wasn't told it was official until after he was placed on IR and Foreman was already signed.

"I mean, if they got a guy in here for meetings already, then they knew (Monday)," Emmons said. "So don't wait for a day and act like it just happened five minutes ago."

Coughlin spoke to the media before Emmons, so he wasn't available for any reaction. Earlier he said doctors told him Emmons would need "a lengthy recovery" after he aggravated the injury in the week before the Giants' win over Kansas City. Oddly, Emmons never appeared on the injury report that week, though Coughlin said the medical staff "was concerned about it" at the time.

Coughlin also said doctors were only "taking guesses" about how long the Giants would be without Pierce. Even Pierce later conceded he has no idea when he'll return.

As for Emmons, his season is over, no matter what happens next.

SD_Eagle5 · December 28, 2005, 01:28:12 PM

The Giants are a mess right now. Shockey's being his usual crybaby self, Burress is starting to pull a TO, their LB situation is awful, Manning is doing his best to give games away, and finally it looks like Coughlin has lost control.

MadMarchHare · December 28, 2005, 01:36:17 PM

Eh, they'll still beat Oakland. After that.....

LBIggle · December 28, 2005, 03:15:20 PM

the fact they think their going anywhere except home in a week or two is quite hilarious.

like an over the hill 32 yr old injured LB is going to do anyt

SunMo · December 28, 2005, 03:17:43 PM

doesn't the player have to sign off on being placed on IR?

otherwise, why wouldn't the Eagles just put TO on IR? They have to de-activate him.

MadMarchHare · December 28, 2005, 03:25:27 PM

I think you need to have a "straight-face" injury to qualify. TO clearly wasn't injured.

SunMo · December 28, 2005, 03:33:27 PM

he was on the injury list all season with the groin, they could've used that...

but my original question remains, does anybody know if the player has to sign off to be put on IR? i'm pretty sure I heard that somewhere before. if so, its Emmons fault for signing off on it.

ice grillin you · December 28, 2005, 03:43:17 PM

not really sun cause by refusing to do it would be hurting the team as they would have to carry someone they didnt believe could help them the rest fo the year and in turn not allow them to sign a replacement and they would also have to cut someone else...someone who truly shouldnt be cut...

it would look super selfish

SunMo · December 28, 2005, 03:48:14 PM

Quote from: ice grillin you on December 28, 2005, 03:43:17 PM
not really sun cause by refusing to do it would be hurting the team as they would have to carry someone they didnt believe could help them the rest fo the year and in turn not allow them to sign a replacement and they would also have to cut someone else...someone who truly shouldnt be cut...

it would look super selfish

ok, but it's your understanding that the player has to agree to be put on IR.

ice grillin you · December 28, 2005, 03:54:10 PM

but it's your understanding that the player has to agree to be put on IR

not saying that

i honestly have never heard of that rule before

SunMo · December 28, 2005, 03:56:07 PM

Quote from: ice grillin you on December 28, 2005, 03:54:10 PM
but it's your understanding that the player has to agree to be put on IR

not saying that

i honestly have never heard of that rule before

where the farg is BigEd when his worthless information could actually be put to good use?

ice grillin you · December 28, 2005, 04:00:40 PM

hes researching the potential replacement franchises for the red barons

Wingspan · December 28, 2005, 05:01:29 PM

Quote from: Sun_Mo on December 28, 2005, 03:48:14 PM
Quote from: ice grillin you on December 28, 2005, 03:43:17 PM
not really sun cause by refusing to do it would be hurting the team as they would have to carry someone they didnt believe could help them the rest fo the year and in turn not allow them to sign a replacement and they would also have to cut someone else...someone who truly shouldnt be cut...

it would look super selfish

ok, but it's your understanding that the player has to agree to be put on IR.

"I voiced my opinion," Emmons said of his morning meeting with his coach. "I told him how I felt about it. But in a situation like that, my opinion really doesn't matter."

it's not a players decision to go on IR at all.

rjs246 · December 28, 2005, 06:17:54 PM

The fact that anyone would suggest that it is up to the player whether or not to be put on IR is unbelieveably idiotic. Kill yourselves.

MURP · December 28, 2005, 09:37:45 PM

Emmons is a cancer

trouble in the rotten apple

SD_Eagle5