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 Pitt Gorilla:
Why? Jones, Nnadi, and Speaks not getting on the field soon enough?
Hali and DJ were here well past their sell by dates. If you cant tell when it's time to get a player off the roster, why should I believe you can tell when its time to get them out of the lineup?
And it goes all the way back to that slag POS corner with the misspelled name who TY Hilton massacred years ago. Dunta something or other. These guys just don't make a lot of good decisions regarding defensive personnel. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Pants:
Is this something you can share, FAX? Or is it too sensitive and could lead to some fallout for an innocent third party?
No ... it wouldn't harm anybody, Mr. Pants. Not at all. The whole subject is history, actually.
I'll share the smidgeons I know about that deal sometime. But, truthfully, I'd rather not affect the debate one way or the other. Besides, nothing's going to change at this point anyway.
I just asked about it because I was honestly curious about why some Planeteers were so adamant about what they were saying. What they heard and where they heard it ... that sort of thing. I'm not making any judgments on Planeteers' perceptions, that's for sure. I have been pretty forthright that my opinion of Dorsey isn't ... I don't know ... very high. Frankly, I think one could argue that he did the team quite a bit of harm ... both in the short and long term. Sometimes people take a job and they're good at part of it ... but not all of it. And all of those job parts are equally important, you know?
Besides, my focus right now is on staying positive about the future, keeping love in my heart for all living beings, and stealing as much Tabasco as I can without getting caught.
Originally Posted by FAX:
No ... it wouldn't harm anybody, Mr. Pants. Not at all. The whole subject is history, actually.
I'll share the smidgeons I know about that deal sometime. But, truthfully, I'd rather not affect the debate one way or the other. Besides, nothing's going to change at this point anyway.
I just asked about it because I was honestly curious about why some Planeteers were so adamant about what they were saying. What they heard and where they heard it ... that sort of thing. I'm not making any judgments on Planeteers' perceptions, that's for sure. I have been pretty forthright that my opinion of Dorsey isn't ... I don't know ... very high. Frankly, I think one could argue that he did the team quite a bit of harm ... both in the short and long term. Sometimes people take a job and they're good at part of it ... but not all of it. And all of those job parts are equally important, you know?
Besides, my focus right now is on staying positive about the future, keeping love in my heart for all living beings, and stealing as much Tabasco as I can without getting caught.
FAX
Gotcha. I have conflicting thoughts on Dorsey myself. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Baby Lee:
Speaking of 'why not both.'
Unless the Pats have unearthed some team speed on defense, we already showed last year they can't compete with our skill players.
We have the skill to punch the gut, get the edge on the sweep AND torch over the top. That's got to weigh heavy.
They're a sound defense, but they're not a fast defense, and you're not going to change that with want-to.
If I had to guess BB's gameplan for us, I'd say he's going to grind out long drives, but emphasize getting a TD out of all of them.
No matter how we overmatch them on offense, there's no way we're scoring in the 40s if he limits us to somewhere near 5 total offensive possessions.
I'm really pretty optimistic based on how well we're playing, and how well we already matched up with them in recent history, but if there's a path to beating us, long drives that end in points every time is that path.
Initially, that was the strategy I also thought would be their best bet, Mr. Baby Lee. They would take advantage of our suck-ass run D, dominate TOP, and keep our offense on the sideline.
Then I reconsidered. Now, I think they'll try to strike quickly and get an early lead thus forcing us to play from behind if they can. That way, they can focus primarily on defending the pass and keep the Chiefs offense weighted more one-dimensionally. We're far more dangerous when we can threaten in both the rush and the pass. Therefore, I think they'll try to take one away ... and they can't do that without an early lead. I'm just guessing, obviously, but Belichick is a schemer ... and if I was a schemer, that's what I would attempt to do.
Nevertheless, I think our secret hot sauce is something else entirely ... we try to get them involved in a track meet. We attempt to extend our own drives as much as we can and physically wear the Bradys' defense down by running multiple double-moves and deep crossers even during runs and our horizontal game. I've been listening carefully to the post-game comments made by both the donks and the Jaguars. We wore their DBs' and LBs' asses flat out in those games.
If that works, we begin to dominate in the 3rd quarter ... purely based on physical stamina. We can make their slow defense even slower. If we keep the shootout close in the first half, we pull away in the second. However they choose to play it, though ... to me, it makes sense that this will be offense vs. offense all the way.
Originally Posted by FAX:
Initially, that was the strategy I also thought would be their best bet, Mr. Baby Lee. They would take advantage of our suck-ass run D, dominate TOP, and keep our offense on the sideline.
Then I reconsidered. Now, I think they'll try to strike quickly and get an early lead thus forcing us to play from behind if they can. That way, they can focus primarily on defending the pass and keep the Chiefs offense weighted more one-dimensionally. We're far more dangerous when we can threaten in both the rush and the pass. Therefore, I think they'll try to take one away ... and they can't do that without an early lead. I'm just guessing, obviously, but Belichick is a schemer ... and if I was a schemer, that's what I would attempt to do.
Nevertheless, I think our secret hot sauce is something else entirely ... we try to get them involved in a track meet. We attempt to extend our own drives as much as we can and physically wear the Bradys' defense down by running multiple double-moves and deep crossers even during runs and our horizontal game. I've been listening carefully to the post-game comments made by both the donks and the Jaguars. We wore their DBs' and LBs' asses flat out in those games.
If that works, we begin to dominate in the 3rd quarter ... purely based on physical stamina. We can make their slow defense even slower. If we keep the shootout close in the first half, we pull away in the second. However they choose to play it, though ... to me, it makes sense that this will be offense vs. offense all the way.
FAX
I agree - let's keep your doing the game threads too. :-):-) [Reply]
I just want to know if Dorsey was adamant about not giving big bank or adding special clauses to the Berry and Houston deals. Or both.
I can understand people being conflicted but if you don't have all of the information, how are you supposed to arrive at a conclusion?
And what's the need for the tight lips anyway? The fact that Dorsey had nothing to say once he was gone and then hired is just strange. [Reply]
