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 :
Teams can end a contract at any time, but so can players. In a player's case, though, the only way they can do this is by retiring. In the end, though, the math looks pretty much the same as if the player had been cut -- and the June 1 rule applies here, too.
For instance, if our player from the example above had retired instead of being cut, his money would account the same way as if he had been cut by the team. If he files his retirement paperwork on or after June 1, the money counts as if he was cut on or after June 1.
Just like anything else in the NFL, though, there is a "but" for this rule, too: if the player retires with time remaining on his contract, then chooses to come back into the league later, he is not a free agent. Contracts apply, in most cases, to accrued seasons, not calendar years. If the player doesn't play, he doesn't accrue a season. Therefore, his return to the field would put him back under the control of the same team, unless that team chooses to cut him. This rule is part of the reason why Barry Sanders chose to retire: the Lions refused to cut him, and he decided he'd rather stop playing altogether than play another season for Detroit. Conversely, Brett Favre retired, and then the team chose to cut him while he was retired. He was then able to return to the league later as a free agent.
Okay, there are actually two "buts" for retirements. When a player retires, the team has the option to pursue the return of a portion of the signing bonus equal to the unplayed portions of the contract, and that money is no longer counted against the salary cap. This is typically done through an arbitrator. This is known as the "Barry Sanders Rule" because this is exactly how the situation played out in his case, as he was required to pay back a portion of his bonus. The difference between now and then is there was no precedent when Sanders played; now, it's explicitly written into the CBA to allow for this arbitration.
Originally Posted by BossChief:
So Berry would owe his whole signing bonus back through arbitration if he up and retired?
Am I reading that right?
Because if so, that explains a lot.
I believe only if they actually try to recoup the money. The team is likely too nice or too afraid to be raked over the coals for doing so, so they'll probably be forced to let Berry continue to hold them hostage with his contract. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BossChief:
So Berry would owe his whole signing bonus back through arbitration if he up and retired? He’s only played part of 1 game under his new contract.
And the whole signing bonus would be returned to our salary cap...
Am I reading that right?
Because if so, that explains a lot.
I wonder if they are in arbitration right now...trying to work out something for a settlement.
No, you're not going to get any prorated portion of the signing bonus back for any time before retirement, whether he was playing in games or standing on the sidelines. [Reply]
Originally Posted by OKchiefs:
I believe only if they actually try to recoup the money. The team is likely too nice or too afraid to be raked over the coals for doing so, so they'll probably be forced to let Berry continue to hold them hostage with his contract.
They should go after it. Dorsey trying to negotiate protection for the team into Berry's contract. Berry started pouting about it and rumor was that he wouldn't talk to Dorsey anymore. Hunt flew up to KC and had to negotiate the contract himself. Now we are screwed and Berry is collecting 70 million while taking a nap in the locker room. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BossChief:
So Berry would owe his whole signing bonus back through arbitration if he up and retired? He’s only played part of 1 game under his new contract.
And the whole signing bonus would be returned to our salary cap...
Am I reading that right?
Because if so, that explains a lot.
I wonder if they are in arbitration right now...trying to work out something for a settlement.
Then they wouldn't have him out there on game days. No fucking way. [Reply]
Clark was asked today about Berry and below is what he said. It doesn't sound real promising but who knows. I rarely agree with KK but he was discussing what Clark said today and said he believes the Chiefs have medically cleared Berry, it is just up to him whether he wants to play or not.
Originally Posted by :
“It’s no different than what you’ve heard from Andy (Reid) or Rick Burkholder,” Hunt said. “It literally is day to day. I do know that nobody’s working harder at his rehab than Eric. Eric is a young man who loves the game of football and wants to be out there on the field, and as soon as he feels that he’s ready, he’s going to be out there.”
Hunt was then asked if it is an expectation that Berry would play this season. Hunt wouldn’t say that.
“You know, I really don’t have an expectation,” he said. “That’s a decision that Eric, along with our medical staff going to have to make and I don’t want to step in front of that.”