Credible Rumor: Desmond Morgan Out With Arm Injury

Submitted by Brian on September 2nd, 2014 at 2:44 PM

14902423200_1f75d5de15_z

Not like this [Bryan Fuller]

This is still in the not-gospel category but it looks like Desmond Morgan is going to be on the shelf a while.

This morning, the internet started rumoring about a linebacker out injured. This was vaguely confirmed (no name, no timetable) by Sam Webb. Now there are reports that Desmond Morgan has been spotted on campus with a cast on one arm. This confirms a report from our message board that I think is legit; I've followed up with the poster to get more detail.

Someone is hurt, and two different reports that it's Morgan, one eyewitness. I expect that he will be out for a bit; six weeks is the internet timetable, but I wouldn't put a ton of stock in that.

In Morgan's absence expect to see more James Ross. ND's offensive scheme will put Michigan in the nickel for most snaps, all but eliminating the WLB spot that Ross and RJS are occupying at the moment. Ross got some time at ILB against App State when Mattison was displeased with the starters. Michigan is going to need an option there if either starter doesn't live up to offseason hype.

Comments

charblue.

September 2nd, 2014 at 2:53 PM ^

covering this team, I would be pissed about the failed disclosure of this injury. There is nothing to be gained by not reporting an injury that will keep a player out of a number of games. You earn no real benefit schematically or strategically by withholding this information. And I think it makes your coach less credible by either hiding the information or failing to acknowledge some speculation apparently based on reality, when you can simply avoid that by being honest. 

So, nothing has grown into something, when something could have been disclosed and dealt with straightforwardly. This is why coaches deserve mean tweets, and fans question them, period. 

WolvinLA2

September 2nd, 2014 at 4:16 PM ^

Seriously. There's wrong and then there's charblue wrong.

Beat writers get to know what the people they cover want them to know. That's the nature of the job. If Hoke doesn't want his opponents to know a certain bit of information, I hope he doesn't say it to the press.

nowayman

September 2nd, 2014 at 3:57 PM ^

injury like this is "well, he's going to go to class so it's going to come out anyways."  

But criticism is too strong of a word.  It's more of an observation. 

As a counterpoint, if Hoke doesn't want to disclose injuries, for whatever reason he doesn't, should we really applaud attempts to circumvent that?  That's a musing, not a judgment.  

charblue.

September 2nd, 2014 at 3:24 PM ^

Choosing to not disclose information doesn't make you smarter or more significantly powerful. And if you accept this policy as a good one, then more power to you and the staff. But what is the benefit of it? Does it alter anything except add a new concern to deal with through the press? 

And if you think press relations are total bs, then why hold press conferences in the first place, more than once a week to rehash garbage that you aren't going to talk about? 

So, why did Freepgate happen? Because reporters began getting inside sourcing  and seeking to document things on their own. 

What is the point of withholding information about a player who can't practice and is out for more than a month? 

I mean you can't claim accountability as a moral value and then pretend it doesn't matter when you avoid the injury question by claiming you don't talk about them. BS, you spoke about Peppers condition yesterday. And why, because he was obviously out and he didn't return to the game on Saturday. So, do we only address them when people know? 

Well, people fucking know, now. So deal with it. If you had already, you wouldn't have to talk about it later in the week. Now, you do. 

 

Monocle Smile

September 2nd, 2014 at 3:28 PM ^

There's so much wrong with all of this.

If the coaches had their way, they probably wouldn't talk to the press at all. Ever.

Injuries aren't disclosed because they're none of our goddamn business.

Freepgate happened because hacks gonna hack, not because reporters got "fed up" with press conference coachspeak. What a laughably stupid thing to imply.

charblue.

September 2nd, 2014 at 3:48 PM ^

from the inside by people from the department. That was an inside job, the Freep just reported what they got and then got some quotes from players. 

The Fort mentality when it comes to injury reporting is fine if that's the policy and everyone knows. But this wasn't a practice injury, this came ouft of a game. And failing to disclose it benefits whom? 

I don't care specifically about the reporters feelings per se, I just think its dumb public relations policy to allow a story that is nothing to become somehting just because you have a pollcy. Obviously, the policy only fits whatever circumstance they want to apply it to. 

They talked about Pepper's game-ending injury, why? Morgan's apparently came in the same game and ended his play for the day, so why not disclose that? Is it because nobody knew at the time? 

You have folks on here claiming that disclosures by medical people about Morgan is a violation of their professional ethics and yet you claim that a coaching staff is perfectly within its rights not to disclose an injury that requires hospitalization to be withheld because.......we don't talk about them......for whatever arbitrary reason. 

I am simply asking, why? On what basis? What is the benefit of it? Does it alter his health? If he's injured, he's injured, end of story. Tell us what it is, and be done with it. If he's out, he's out. How painful is that to disclose? Next man up. 

But to get all Bo Schembechler about it and claim we think not telling is more manly and this our program style is no fucking answer. It's just dumb. 

Monocle Smile

September 2nd, 2014 at 3:54 PM ^

Your "understanding" of Stretchgate is about as erroneous as it gets.

Morgan's apparently came in the same game and ended his play for the day, so why not disclose that?

Because it's nobody's damn business. They talked about Peppers because it was more obvious and they were grilled about it constantly at the post-game presser.

You have folks on here claiming that disclosures by medical people about Morgan is a violation of their professional ethics and yet you claim that a coaching staff is perfectly within its rights not to disclose an injury that requires hospitalization

Those are consistent positions to hold...

But to get all Bo Schembechler about it and claim we think not telling is more manly and this our program style is no fucking answer. It's just dumb.

Maybe you're just an entitled prick.

Mr Miggle

September 2nd, 2014 at 4:16 PM ^

Your outrage on the behalf of someone else is just silly. You don't know how those reporters feel.

Hoke's been consistent in talking about injuries. Reporters know what to expect from him. They would have reason to be upset if he was giving scoops to a rival, but over this? Hoke will have to talk about Morgan's injury in the next press conference. Big f-ing deal.This is not a coverup of a scandal that becomes a story. The following day no one will even ask about Morgan. If not talking about injuries gives Hoke a small tactical advantage in preparation, why in the hell shouldn't he be able to take it?

Your original explanation for the Freepgate episode was simply ridiculous. Reporters were getting more access and candid answers, not less. Part of the reason for the story was the access RR allowed the press to have to his players. Also, it's extremely silly to think beat reporters don't develop their own sources for information, regardless of the content of press conferences.

True Blue Grit

September 2nd, 2014 at 4:45 PM ^

in the AD is thinking about "who benefits" when deciding whether to announce an injury or not.  Why?  Because there is no benefit to it one way or the other.  And this "story" is no more of a story just because they didn't disclose it right away.  It may be more of a story in your mind, but not for the rest of us based on the comments.  Just chill out. 

TIMMMAAY

September 2nd, 2014 at 3:32 PM ^

So, why did Freepgate happen? Because reporters began getting inside sourcing  and seeking to document things on their own. 

Wait. What was this "sourcing" and "documenting" that you speak of? Oh, you mean misleading freshman players into giving statements that could then be taken out of context to damage the reputation of the program. Or, did you mean conveniently leaving out the whold "countable hours" detail out of all of their coverage of StretchGate? 

I'll hang up and listen... 

Oh, and not telling the media who is injured, and what the specifics may be can certainly have an impact on how our opponents prepare to play us. 

charblue.

September 2nd, 2014 at 4:00 PM ^

you an answer that you can live with or maybe you can read between the lines and figure how a story like that gets put together. It doesn't alter bad reporting, it's just how it got put together. 

And guess what, how did this story get put together? If Hoke reports this, other than teeth-gnashing about it, what's the result. Nothing. But now there is some fucking intrigue about a simple fact, an element of Saturday's game. And guess what, it requires a press release or a another press conference, and more of the coach's time. So by not disclosing it, did he save time and make things easier? 

Is the press going away? Who gets the last word? 

reshp1

September 2nd, 2014 at 3:33 PM ^

RR was way more open and accomodating with the press than either Carr or Hoke, it basically bit him in the ass on several occasions. Hell, he embedded John U Bacon for 3 years and gave him completely unfettered access. Freepgate happened because some douche thought RR was an outsider and decided to go full retard trying to make him look bad.

Don

September 2nd, 2014 at 3:54 PM ^

I completely agree. If you were discussing matters of government, public policy, and other things that truly impact our lives in meaningful ways, I'd be upset along with you about the withholding of information.

College football is entertainment, not fiscal policy, or fracking, or what to do about ISIS. Therefore I don't really give a shit what Hoke says at a presser. It doesn't affect my life one way or the other in any tangible way, either as a fan or as an alumnus.

charblue.

September 2nd, 2014 at 6:11 PM ^

I mean there is no benefit to the program by not disclosing this injury. What is the benefit, the timeliness of it, the nature of it, the fact of it, the actual occurrence of it? What is the value in withholding information about it? News leaked. It got out. It was reported. It's a fact. It happened. And you can't control it. And withholding information is about the power of control. 

Well, when it's gone, it's fucking gone. And then what are you left with? You are left with explaining why? Why didn't you report this, is there something greater going on, is the injury worse than we thought, will he be out longer.? You see where I am getting at? 

By not reporting it, you double the questions about it. You make it bigger than it has to be. You make a mountain out of a molehill. I don't care what the motivation is, curiousity is the same across the board among the public. What is the point of withholding informaiton you will eventually have to confirm, because you will be asked about it? Even if you want control, control is beyond your control when information begins circulating. 

And claiming you don't talk about certain facts because they aren't something you are entitled to know only begets the process of learning more about them. That is the way the fucking world works. And defending this policy doesn't alter the fact that others want to know, now. As you secretly do, but can't admit, because that would upset your whole point of view. 

Not one detractor has answwered a single question as to why non-disclosure is relevant other than claiming the coach is entitled to say nothing because that's his position. And I don't care, except to say why is this relevant when it cost you nothing to acknowledge the facts. And no one can answer that question. Does it change reality or his scheme or his gameplan, yes. Does it change everything he will be asked about eventually, yes. 

So, why defend non-disclosure as a great idea, when, in fact, you really want to know. 

nowayman

September 2nd, 2014 at 6:24 PM ^

ignored it.  (ND game planning).  It's arguable about whether Michigan will get anything out of playing information games like this, sure, but when you throw that possibility up against...

 

What benefit is there to the football program in releasing injury information, exactly?  

Thus, to answer your question: you have plausible benefit versus no benefit.  

charblue.

September 2nd, 2014 at 7:31 PM ^

fact that ND annouced the fact that one of its defensive secondary starters is out and was photographed on crutches. Sort of like Peppers not returning, and then having to explain that, as opposed to Morgan going to the hospital like on Saturday night and then pretending anything about his appearance is just whatever you want to say it is? 

I don't have a dog in this race. My livelihood is not affected. If Morgan can't play Saturday night or for the next forthight, is irrelevant. I don't care either, I don't care whether this guy broke his arm or the coach informs me of it. I don't care whether he is a meaningful contributor to the team. I don't care that I am not entiltled to any information about player status. I am just a fan with a passing interest. And if not telling me something is in the greater good, regardless of the the rationale, I am all in.

Then, you have no right to question anything this team does or the coaching decisions. Based on that thinking, you are what you are. Seriously, this team is not beholden to you, ever. On what grounds? And, if that is so, don't ever challenge a coaching decision. Don't tell me that a coach is required to divulge certain information but withhold it ohter circumstances because you can fucking justify it. Becauise, here's the thing, you can't. And wanting to know trumps any bs response you will ever offer. 

WolvinLA2

September 2nd, 2014 at 7:56 PM ^

But maybe ND announced Collinsworth because it was very obvious when he went out and the ND reporters immediately picked up on it.  For whatever reason, no one picked up on the Morgan injury, maybe because he didn't lay on the turf for a while and LB rotates so much people just assumed he was benched in favor of younger guys in a blowout.  

But why does that matter?  If Hoke has a good reason for not disclosing it, that doesn't change just because ND decides to disclose their injury.  

Most of your post makes no sense.  We all get why it wasn't disclosed.  Why does that mean we can't question anything the coaches do?  Do you think maybe we don't question this one because we either don't care or think it's a good idea?  Personally, I hope our coaches never disclose any of this stuff.  Why?  We'll find out soon enough, and if I don't know then it's possible our next opponent doesn't either.

nowayman

September 2nd, 2014 at 9:13 PM ^

OK, that's a position. Defend it as a plausible against the fact that ND annouced the fact that one of its defensive secondary starters is out and was photographed on crutches. Sort of like Peppers not returning, and then having to explain that, as opposed to Morgan going to the hospital like on Saturday night and then pretending anything about his appearance is just whatever you want to say it is?

What does ND releasing an injury report on a player have to do with anything? ND choosing to do that doesn't have any impact on anything Hoke decides to do or not do. Is that the extent of the counter point?

The rest of the post is just harping on Hoke not disclosing injuries.

Wanting to know doesn't trump anything. At all.

Man, the red headed kid's meme picture is probably the only reply needed.

Edit: Also, keep posting here.  I really enjoy your crap.  Normally I don't vehemently disagree with you.