[mgoetze]

Is RG3 with a knee injury really better than a fully healthy Kirk Cousins?

[Codo]

He surely played one of his worst games and he missed one of his main weapons- the own run. But his moves did not look so bad, so the coaches- who should know best- decided: Yes.

[kenberg]

Not being a sports fan, perhaps I should not comment. But I live in the Washington area and so I watched the game a week ago with Dallas and yesterday's game with Seattle. I found it sickening. Not the loss, it does not affect me. Leaving in an obviously injured man to be humiliated and further injured? This is sports at its worst.

When my granddaughter was about 13 she got a concussion playing soccer. The coach saw no reason she could not play the following week. Her father did. Are these people nuts? Professional sports takes this idea and puts it on, pardon the expression in this context, steroids.

"Winning is not the first thing, it is the only thing", a saying by a famous former coach, is often quoted with admiration. Myself, I regard it as evidence of psychosis.

Anyway, I wish the man well. He is, I think, 22.

[Cyberyeti]

mgoetze, on 2013-January-07, 05:08, said:

Is RG3 with a knee injury really better than a fully healthy Kirk Cousins?

I don't know, the coaches clearly decided he was (and presumably decided he wasn't going to do anything to jeopardise his participation in next season given just how much they gave up to get him).

[Trinidad]

Let me think.. How well did Kirk Cousins play when he stepped in as RG3 got injured... ?

Oh yeah... spectacularly well...

But -as a Spartan- I maybe slightly biased.

Rik

[mgoetze]

Trinidad, on 2013-January-07, 08:25, said:

Let me think.. How well did Kirk Cousins play when he stepped in as RG3 got injured... ?

Pretty decently I think. However, he got not only a bad snap (which did not lead to a turnover), he also got really horrible protection. I don't know why but it's surely not his fault. Perhaps the front line was already totally demoralized at that point.

[billw55]

kenberg, on 2013-January-07, 06:48, said:

Not being a sports fan, perhaps I should not comment. But I live in the Washington area and so I watched the game a week ago with Dallas and yesterday's game with Seattle. I found it sickening. Not the loss, it does not affect me. Leaving in an obviously injured man to be humiliated and further injured? This is sports at its worst.

Agree. Unfortunately there is a corollary. If Shanahan and RG3 did the right thing by removing him, the media would crucify both as weak and quitters. It's a really sad situation. Look at the crap the Washington Nationals took for shutting down Strasburg. It was the right decision, compare Mark Prior for just one example, but nobody wanted to hear that.

[mgoetze]

http://www.nfl.com/n...h-medical-calls

[ArtK78]

If the coach relies on the team's medical staff to evaluate the player, and the medical staff says that the player is OK to play, and the player wants to play, why would the coach overrule both the player and his medical staff? It is my understanding that RGIII was allowed to continue to play only because the medical staff gave its OK.

Doesn't look like a great decision now, but at the time it was the only decision that made any sense.

[kenberg]

Obviously I see it differently. But then I don't much watch professional football. These two facts may be related.

[Cthulhu D]

billw55, on 2013-January-07, 10:56, said:

Agree. Unfortunately there is a corollary. If Shanahan and RG3 did the right thing by removing him, the media would crucify both as weak and quitters. It's a really sad situation. Look at the crap the Washington Nationals took for shutting down Strasburg. It was the right decision, compare Mark Prior for just one example, but nobody wanted to hear that.

The Strasburg shutdown was pretty dumb though - why not pitch him less all season? Or keep his pitch count down all season? It was weird.

[Cyberyeti]

ArtK78, on 2013-January-10, 16:21, said:

If the coach relies on the team's medical staff to evaluate the player, and the medical staff says that the player is OK to play, and the player wants to play, why would the coach overrule both the player and his medical staff? It is my understanding that RGIII was allowed to continue to play only because the medical staff gave its OK.

Doesn't look like a great decision now, but at the time it was the only decision that made any sense.

RGIII seems quite adept at dodging the doctor which is part of the problem. I think it was the previous time he came out for one play, avoided the doctor then ran back on for the play after. He doesn't seem to want to be told to sit down.

[billw55]

ArtK78, on 2013-January-10, 16:21, said:

If the coach relies on the team's medical staff to evaluate the player, and the medical staff says that the player is OK to play, and the player wants to play, why would the coach overrule both the player and his medical staff? It is my understanding that RGIII was allowed to continue to play only because the medical staff gave its OK.

Doesn't look like a great decision now, but at the time it was the only decision that made any sense.

I have not read that he was cleared to reenter the game by a medical doctor. If a trainer did so, that isn't worth much, as they are low ranking peons in a football organization, subject to the whims of the head coach.

Anyone with an ounce of sense could see that he was already injured, including a skilled coach with long experience, or even a drunken fan. Now his ACL is torn and there is a real chance that his career is effectively over.

I wonder if Shanahan figured, more or less, "if he can't get through a game a little banged up, he is no use to us long term anyway."

[cherdano]

ArtK78, on 2013-January-10, 16:21, said:

If the coach relies on the team's medical staff to evaluate the player, and the medical staff says that the player is OK to play, and the player wants to play, why would the coach overrule both the player and his medical staff? It is my understanding that RGIII was allowed to continue to play only because the medical staff gave its OK.

Doesn't look like a great decision now, but at the time it was the only decision that made any sense.

I don't know whether the medical staff looked at him in the Seattle game.
In the game where he initially got injured, got out, then got back in later for a few snaps, Shanahan claimed he had been cleared by their medical staff to get back in. Their team doctor denied that. Probably Shanahan lied about that. If he lied then, why do you think he behaved differently in a playoff game?