REPORT: Eric Berry has a Haglund’s deformity on his heel
New information on Berry’s sore heel injury emerged on Saturday.
By Pete Sweeney Sep 29, 2018, 1:15pm CDT
Eric Berry has not practiced or played for the Kansas City Chiefs since August 11 in St. Joseph, Missouri, because of what the team has described as a “sore heel.”
The last we heard from the Chiefs athletic training staff was in early September, when head athletic trainer Rick Burkholder described the injury as “literally day to day.”
More information on Berry’s injury emerged Saturday morning, via NFL Network’s Mike Garafolo:
Mike Garafolo: “My understanding, and I’ve spoken to people familiar with his injury situation. He’s got what’s called a Haglund’s deformity in that Achilles. That’s a bone spur that basically digs into the Achilles. Shaun O’ Hara, our colleague at NFL Network, he had it. I spoke to him this week. He said it is extremely painful. He actually used a more colorful word that I won’t use here. It’s just something that continues to irritate the area. Some guys have been able to play with it—you get a shoe here or there, you can adjust … but that’s what’s going on. It’s going to be a pain management thing. It’s not like this thing will tear the Achilles necessarily. A lot of these cases don’t result in a tear, but that’s why with Berry right now, he has not played, and they’ve been doing OK. That’s going to allow them a little bit more patience with Berry, but it is extremely painful.”
This provides a little more clarity than Berry’s injury simply being a “sore heel,” which is good, but what’s bad is there still seems to be no timetable. Remember, Berry missed nearly the entirety of the 2017 season due to a ruptured Achilles on the other leg.
Chiefs head coach Andy Reid was mum on the injury when asked about it Saturday afternoon after the Chiefs’ final practice of the week.
Berry is officially ruled doubtful heading into the Monday night game against the Denver Broncos.
----
Here are the notes from our in-house medical expert, Aaron Borgmann:
A lot of talk today regarding something known as a Haglund’s deformity. It was reported by a media source that the player in question suffers from this condition. This discussion is not to confirm or deny that possibility, as I can only explain the available information that we have been given. To be clear, the team has not confirmed this diagnosis and I have no advance knowledge of the player’s current condition.
The simple explanation here that it is indeed a bone spur on the backside of someone’s heel. This is frequently known as a “pump bump” from the occurrence that it is often seen in women’s fashion from the shoes that they wear. However, incidence in football players is also common, sometimes referred to as “retrocalcaneal bursitis” as well.
The bone spur irritates the bursa (fluid-filled sac) that sits between the bone and the tendon or even the tendon itself directly. This can cause a great deal of inflammation and discomfort with any sort of dynamic ankle/foot movement, worse with pressure on the spot itself.
Having one in and of itself it not uncommon, but the degree to which it bothers someone is the issue. Depending upon demands of movement, these can range from debilitating to just a nuisance. Obviously, in football players, the degree of inflammation is what dictates the level of function.
These are diagnosed both visually and radiographically and it is a situation where if you see it and player complains of certain symptoms (pain with movement in that exact spot, swelling, redness) then you can be pretty sure that is what it is.
Treatment focuses on reduction of inflammation obviously directly over the spot. This can be done both topically and through systemic medication. Soft tissue lengthening in both the calf and bottom of the foot is also done to alleviate the issue from both sides – this is due to the fact that both the calf and plantar fascia connect to the calcaneus (heel bone) on either side.
Not to be forgotten is footwear modification and adjustment. Very rigid shoes can cause this irritation, and in some athletes, I would even cut the shoe in the heel to allow room for the bump. Other options include specialized padding and friction reduction methods. Heel lifts have been shown to be helpful in some.
For this condition, non-surgical intervention is preferred to reduce the inflammation as opposed to surgical due to the immobilization period.
If the inflammation can be reduced and the function level high, many players learned to adapt their daily routines to accommodate. They may have to put in a bit more time in order to get ready due to the condition’s demands but can nonetheless get by and still perform at a high level. [Reply]
Originally Posted by saphojunkie:
That's limited thinking. Next year could see major starters tear an ACL in training camp, and you're sitting there wondering why the fuck you didn't go for it when you were gunning for the top seed in the AFC and had the whole conference on the ropes.
When opportunity comes, you strike. You don't say "eh... I'll be in a better position to strike next year, when the opportunity OBVIOUSLY will be here again."
Originally Posted by Rausch:
When was the last time a team was ranked 32 in the league in yard allowed and made a SB?
I remember 03.
We didn't punt and still lost...
We also got one sack (on a give up drive to end the 1st half) and forced no turnovers while committing a brutal fumble and missing a field goal.
Why? Because our best pass rusher in that game was probably R-Kal Truluck. I think in citing that team, people are forgetting just how un-fucking-believably bad that defense was.
That team had nobody approaching the level of Justin Houston. It had nobody approaching the level of Dee Ford or Chris Jones. The best player on that defense was probably the decaying husk of Jerome Woods. Dexter McCleon was that squad's #1 corner (sadly, he was probably better than Warfield).
You can try to draw parallels if you'd like, but they don't really work. This defense is simply better than that one and by a fair amount. Without Houston it gets closer but that D still doesn't have the number of guys that can actually make an impact that this one does.
That team didn't force turnovers. It didn't get to the quarterback. It didn't get teams off the field on 3rd down. That defense did NOTHING well. This team isn't a great defensive unit and it certainly isn't anything approaching assignment sound. But it does have strengths. It does have things it can do effectively.
Put this defense on that 2003 squad and they win. I think they win easily, in fact. This defense isn't anything approaching that abortion. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rausch:
And that's my point - we don't sell out and give the farm this year.
WE DO SELL OUT AND GIVE THE FARM NEXT YEAR.
Make all trades, sign all D free agents that can help the secondary, and be the PATS adding cast off talent all 16 weeks of 2019...
.
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
Then Hill gets hurt in week 3 and Watkins goes down in week 8 and we're all sitting around wishing they had gone all in in 2018.
Originally Posted by Rausch:
It's stupid to think having the 2nd worst defense in the league might cost you in the playoffs?
Let me guess - when that moment comes and we give up some dumb play later on you'll say "there was no way we could know..."
You're walking it back.
Yes, the 2nd worst defense in the league might cost you. Your position is 'we don't have a chance at a SB' and the consensus on that take is absolutely true - it's fucking retarded.
We have a chance and as good a chance as all but maybe 2 teams in the league for that matter. But the odds still overwhelmingly suggest we WON'T win it. They overwhelmingly suggest the Rams won't. And the Saints and the Patriots and the Jags and whoever else you want to name.
'The Field' is always the smartest bet and by a lot. But that doesn't mean we're drawing dead. We aren't. And if the odds hold out and we end up losing, that doesn't mean it was inevitable that we would either.
You're kinda being a bitchy little schoolgirl here. Saying this team doesn't have a chance to win a SB is nonsense of the highest order. [Reply]
Originally Posted by saphojunkie:
When opportunity comes, you strike. You don't say "eh... I'll be in a better position to strike next year, when the opportunity OBVIOUSLY will be here again."
When you're the steward of quite possibly the single most valuable commodity in football - Patrick Mahomes - you don't go doing something that could impact your ability to succeed for large chunks of his prime so you can make a stab at immediate gratification in his first season as a starter.
There's a time for those decisions, to be sure. But they aren't now. You can't be reckless with this kid. You can't say "damn the torpedoes, get me my SB and the rest will sort itself out..." when you have a transformational talent under center. You have to be smarter than that.
Again - this is a kid who, with a few breaks, could be synonymous with Chiefs football past some of our lifetimes. And while it's easy to say "who gives a shit, gimme my ring" - Clark and Andy probably realize that. [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
First, we have to assume this will last over a 16-game season. With 2 games against the Raiders still to go and games agains the Steelers and Chargers already behind them, they're not going to stay at 32nd. They're also improving in points against every week and are now in the top 20.
The 2011 Giants were 27th in yards and 25th in points.
The 2009 Saints were 25th in yards and 20th in points.
That's 2 in 10 years. It's not impossible.
If the defense could somehow wind up around those Saints 2009 numbers, this time can win the Super Bowl. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
Your comments about his contract negotiation regarding this matter still make no sense.
Nor is there any merit to the idea the team or Berry are hiding something. There is literally no advantage in any way shape or form to them doing that.
You and others simply have a case of believing that because this isn't going how you want it to that there MUST be some kind of shenanigans going on when really its exactly what's been portrayed. I mean whats the motivation for hiding Berry's actual status? That literally makes no sense because its of zero benefit to the team. If he was done he would be on IR and someone else would have his roster spot.
Dude has a bad heel and he cant play. If they knew he wasn't going to play he would be on IR, its really that simple. There really is nothing more to the story. Hell he could end up on IR at any point the decide he isn't getting better.
I think its pretty basic, they believe he likely has a limited numbers of games in him this season and they are holding him out as long as possible. :-)
The pain is likely manageable to an extent but the longer he has to deal with it the harder its going to be to manage until he has surgery or something to fix it. I don't think its reasonable to believe he can just shoot it up every week for 15 weeks and keep going.
But hey if it makes you feel better keep believing its some type of conspiracy regardless of whether that makes a lick of sense or not, go for it.
Well they did hide it until someone leaked it to NFL Network a couple weeks ago.
I agree with you I think they would rather have him later than now, so he is on the 2017 Tamba Hali playing plan. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
When you're the steward of quite possibly the single most valuable commodity in football - Patrick Mahomes - you don't go doing something that could impact your ability to succeed for large chunks of his prime so you can make a stab at immediate gratification in his first season as a starter.
There's a time for those decisions, to be sure. But they aren't now. You can't be reckless with this kid. You can't say "damn the torpedoes, get me my SB and the rest will sort itself out..." when you have a transformational talent under center. You have to be smarter than that.
Again - this is a kid who, with a few breaks, could be synonymous with Chiefs football past some of our lifetimes. And while it's easy to say "who gives a shit, gimme my ring" - Clark and Andy probably realize that.
And with a few breaks the other way, he never repeats the season he's having now.
There's a difference between being proactive and being reckless. Going all in this year doesn't HAVE to be reckless. Passing on making any moves because "next year is our year" absolutely IS reckless, however. [Reply]