Week 6 Washington Redskins vs Minnesota Vikings Pregame Thread

[44ever]

Originally Posted by Bucket

I might have one actually from reading your posts.. For some reason it makes me face bash my keyboard over and over. We are five games in, not ten.

Well if you get a concussion then lay off the keyboard for a few weeks... I just noticed you have only been a Skins fan for 10 years. That explains a lot... Enjoy the ride.

[Bucket]

Originally Posted by 44ever

Well if you get a concussion then lay off the keyboard for a few weeks... I just noticed you have only been a Skins fan for 10 years. That explains a lot... Enjoy the ride.

Yeah, I'm more of a realistic fan.. Ride is more like a circus because there is plenty of clowns around

[Meks]

I too will be nervous for RG3 this week... nervous to lose him... i watched sidney crosby come back.too early after a blow.to the head and suffer another and it took him MAD LONG to return amd still.ismt.back to 100% .... people are just worried, not trying to play "armchair neurologists " ...

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by The Goat

Doesn't look like you read my post, which addressed the risk of further trauma (as in shots to the head) after a concussion. What you raised is a whole nuther topic i.e. are the the long term effects different for severe vs "mild" concussions. Again, I can only repeat what the doc said. Brain swelling/bruising is a concussion, and even after two (real) concussions there's evidence of causality for deteriorating brain function later in life.

I have no idea why he would lie to me but you of course are free to believe what you like.

(1) I did read your original post - did you? The specific question within it was directed "to those of you who had/thought you had concussions" and asked for descriptions by those people of their symptoms. In the post, before receiving responses to your, apparently, rhetorical question, you concluded that "with a real concussion you're not going to be able to do much".

I have never had a concussion so I could not address your specific question and was not attempting to do so. Rather, your conclusions as to the diagnosis and post trauma symptoms of a "real concussion" appeared blatantly wrong to me (i.e. unless you are incapacitated for some significant length of time - "a few days" by your example - it is not a real concussion). Further, your conclusions appeared to be predicated on the erroneous assumption that concussions do not vary greatly in severity or, alternatively, that there is no such thing as a "mild" concussion. These conclusions appeared based on either (a) your own medical training and experience; or (b) the statement from your doctor. I focused on your doctor's statement rather than the inherent arrogance necessary to reach such conclusions based on your own medical knowledge.

(2) Given that your doctor's statement appeared blatantly wrong even to a layman like me, I was curious and googled "concussions classification". As a result, I got all sorts of scales/classifications for judging "mild" v. "severe" concussions with descriptions of their short term and long term effects and addressing both "the risk of further trauma (as in shots to the head) after a concussion" and "the long term effects different for severe vs "mild" concussions". I simply did not post them all b/c (a) it's easy enough for you to do the google research all on your own; and (b) it was irrelevant to the point I was asserting.

My point, which clearly escaped you, was simply that your doctor's assertion that all concussions present an equal short term risk is a broad over-generalization and, for the point you asserted, wrong. "Real concussions" come in a variety of levels and a person who "take[s] a shot to the head and feel[s] a little dazed" may very well be concussed. As a quick google search will tell you, such an individual requires different treatment and recovery time than one who has "several days of nauseau, fogginess and generally not feeling like [their] feet were under [them]". Diagnosing the trauma and determing the best treatment, however, is probably best left to doctors. Just not yours apparently.

(3) I never said your doctor "lied to you". I just asserted his statement was wrong and blatantly so such that it would make me doubt his credentials and skill.

Alles klar, herr Kommisar?

[SmootSmack]

I understand the reservation as a fan to throw RG3 back out there but how do you decide when it's right to play him if you're not going to by what the doctors say?

What if Shanahan decides to sit him this week and then next goes back to the doctors and asks "is it ok to play him this week?" Then the doctors say "well yeah, he could have played last week" Then we sit him again and go through the same cycle each week

[CRedskinsRule]

off of JR's post, I was curious and googled concussion classifications, thought I would put a few notes from the DSM IV (diagnosis manual):

American Academy of Neurology Concussion Severity- March 1997 Practice
Parameter:
This system was used by our own Dr. Phalin in his doctoral study of different models for detecting recovery in sports concussions.
Grade 1:
__ Transient Confusion
__ No Loss of Consciousness
__ Concussion Symptoms < 15 Minutes
Grade 2:
__ Transient Confusion
__ No Loss of Consciousness
__ Concussion Symptoms > 15 Minutes
Grade 3:
__ Any Loss of Consciousness, Brief or Prolonged

Concussion Severity: R.C. Cantu, 1991 Cantu's system is often used in research involving sports concussions.
Cantu Concussion Severity Grades
Grade 1: No Loss of Consciousness AND Post Traumatic Amnesia < 30 Minutes
Grade 2: Loss of Consciousness < 5 Minutes OR Post Traumatic Amnesia of 30 Minutes to 24 Hours
Grade 3: Loss of Consciousness > 5 Minutes OR Post Traumatic Amnesia > 24 Hours

Ruff Concussion Grades:
Type I :
__ altered mental state or transient loss of consciousness (LOC)
__ 1-60 seconds of post-traumatic amnesia (PTA)
__ one or more neurological symptoms
Type II:
__ definite LOC with time unknown or < 5 minutes
__ 60 seconds to 12 hours of post-traumatic amnesia (PTA)
__ one or more neurological symptoms
Type III:
__ 5 - 30 minutes of LOC
__ more than 12 hours of PTA
__ one or more neurological symptoms

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I understand the reservation as a fan to throw RG3 back out there but how do you decide when it's right to play him if you're not going to by what the doctors say?

What if Shanahan decides to sit him this week and then next goes back to the doctors and asks "is it ok to play him this week?" Then the doctors say "well yeah, he could have played last week" Then we sit him again and go through the same cycle each week

Why do I suddenly have that picture of T.O. crying about his Romo in my head?

[Sonny9TD]

Originally Posted by punch it in

Im not a real armchair neurologist, but I did stay at a holiday inn express last nite.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Excellent. Where were all these nuerologists or the profession of nuerology when players from yesterdays can't even tie there shoes now? I'm sure they would have given them the OK to play too after 3 or 4 days and could tell the doctor how many fingers he was holding up. It's a miracle they now know it all and clear someone to play 7 days later.Maybe if some of the people who are so sure he should play got their brain scrambled or had this happen to their son and forgot what the score and time was they may not be so ready and arrogant to volunteer RG3 to play seven days later.

Ask Brian Dawkins how he feels about it. Someone who knows more about this than anyone on this board when doctors who cleared him to play when in fact Brian said he wasn't ready to play. I'll take his word since he has been cleared to play by doctors when he knew he shouldn't have been cleared.

RG3 just had a brain injury and now 4 days later everything is just fine. Doctors are all knowing now. They know everything there is to know about the brain now. Sometimes I forget. I wonder if these same doctors would clear their son to play so soon? I highly doubt it.

I might be wrong. But I doubt it. I doubt Brian Dawkins is wrong either.
This is just the reason we drafted Kirk Cousins for when some say we shouldn't have. I think a week off is better than none.

If he hurts his leg or arm then take him out since you can see that but if he hurts his brain screw him. He'll be just fine. Be tough and go get em now RG3.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by The Goat

It makes me a little nervous he's playing, but I tend to think it wasn't really a concussion in the first place anyway.

So what's your diagnosis or do you think he was benched for Cousins?

Bottom line is if the medical protocol is followed and he passes, there is no reason not to play him. Not to be callous but he knows the sport he is playing and the inherent risk involved.

As for the game itself, I've got a decent feeling about this one. We need to come out and get the passing game going. Minnesota is very tough against the run so I'm not sure we can ride Morris early and hope to get the passing game off of that. I expect the read option to be completely scrapped this week since they can probably prepare best for it with Joe Webb and Harvin playing the RG3 role in practice.

We have to finish in the 4th quarter but I think we pull this one out 27-17.

[JoeRedskin]

Doctors are not all knowing. At the same time, you're comparing apples to oranges and assuming that (1) knowledge of concussions and brain injuries is unchanged from "yesterdays"; (2) the investment in and replaceability(?) of players is the same as in generations past and (3) the league is not on notice, and therefore more likely to be liable, that encouraging or even allowing players to play after head injuries increases the risk of further injury over the long term.

Head trauma is taken much more seriously than it was even 10 years ago and considerable more research has been done in the field.

You may be right, perhaps the team doctor shined a light in RGIII's eyes, held up 3 fingers and said - DR.: "How many fingers do you see son?" RGIII: "4" DR.: "Close enough, you're good to go."

Somehow, I doubt that was the extent of it.

And just we're clear - RGIII wanted to return to play last Sunday but Shanahan said no. Immediately after the hit, RGIII got the score and quarter right and asked to go back in. Shanny didn't think he looked right, had him sit a couple and then reasked the questions which Griff then got wrong. At that point, they sent Griff for additional testing.

Had Shanny been unconcerned he could have said "Hey, he got the answers right. I thought he was okay" and just sent him right back in. He didn't even though the player wanted to return.

He's been cleared. He needs to be careful. He will be monitored - his long-term success means too much to too many people in the organization.

[MTK]

This is just beyond ridiculous.

[Sonny9TD]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Doctors are not all knowing. At the same time, you're comparing apples to oranges and assuming that (1) knowledge of concussions and brain injuries is unchanged from "yesterdays"; (2) the investment in and replacability of players is the same as in generations past and (3) the league is on notice, and therefore more likely to be liable, that encouraging or even allowing players to play after head injuries increases the risk of further injury over the long term.

Head trauma is taken much more seriously than it was even 10 years ago and considerable more research has been done in the field.

You may be right, perhaps the team doctor shined a light in RGIII's eyes, held up 3 fingers and said - DR.: "How many fingers do you see son?" RGIII: "4" DR.: "Close enough, you're good to go."

Somehow, I doubt that was the extent of it.

And just we're clear - RGIII wanted to return to play last Sunday but Shanahan said no. Immediately after the hit, RGIII got the score and quarter right and asked to go back in. Shanny didn't think he looked right, had him sit a couple and then reasked the questions which Griff then got wrong. At that point, they sent Griff for additional testing.

Had Shanny been unconcerned he could have said "Hey, he got the answers right. I thought he was okay" and just sent him right back in. He didn't even though the player wanted to return.

He's been cleared. He needs to be careful. He will be monitored - his long-term success means too much to too many people in the organization.

Brian Dawkins also wanted to play. He stated that someone needs to take that decision away from the players. I think most players would also want to keep playing. That doesn't mean they are fine by any means.

But I do appreciate your thoughts and comments. I'm a reasonable man. I understand where you are coming from.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

This is just beyond ridiculous.

Perhaps Goat should just make that his avatar ... or maybe a mod could do it for him.

[Sonny9TD]

It looks like Dale Earnhardt isn't racing the next 2 races because of a concussion he suffered at the race this past weekend. The fact that the question of whether RG3 should play or not whether you believe that he should or shouldn't is proof that the situation of whether he should or not is very relative and important and shouldn't be dismissed or is not a matter of concern by someone who doesn't know any better. My opinion could be wrong but there are many others who feel the same way and others who don't. But to anyone who thinks the question isn't relevant is basically just babbling.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Sonny9TD

Brian Dawkins also wanted to play. He stated that someone needs to take that decision away from the players. I think most players would also want to keep playing. That doesn't mean they are fine by any means.

But I do appreciate your thoughts and comments. I'm a reasonable man. I understand where you are coming from.

First, thank you. Reasonableness is something for which would all should strive.

Second, as to the point, I think a considerable amount of the decision has been taken away from the players - the concussion guidelines are something relatively new. At the same time, one could look at borderline players and a few of them saying "Look, I gotta play or I will be out of a job. I'll sign whatever waiver you want me to." When does the individual have the right to assume whatever risk he wants? As long as a player is fully informed of the dangers, can owners and coaches deny them the right to take the risk in order to play for a couple more years? Maybe football is all they have and, as borderline players, they need to bank all they while they can?

Safety, of course, is paramount - but, in emphasizing safety, when does it begin to infringe a player's right to take on risk for profit?