Seahag's Sherman: Poster child of IDOT

I make some of my soundest decisions moments after I get my bell rung.

if you eliminate the warrior mentality from the NFL do you still have a viable game?

it's happened, it's going to happen and it will continue to happen.

it's a game of physically beating your opponent through the course of 4 quarters.

Sherman may be an idiot but I see nothing but a ton of truth being told.

 

on one hand - millions of dollars, stature and fame and possibly legend if you play good enough and long enough

on the other hand - your next play could be your last and/or have lasting physical consequences.

it's their choice, I won't begrudge 'em.  lots of people have sacrificed/gambled their health for their profession/livelihood/family.

 

 

Those are good points Tdog. Ask anyone who remembers Jack Youngblood what they specifically remember about him, and it's always him playing in the SB with a broken leg. 

I agree, Tdog. But, and it's a big one, then I don't want them suing the NFL or anyone else for something they willingly accept the risk for. I get why the older guys sued: it was pretty clear the NFL didn't tell anyone of the risks. Okay, now it's out there. Don't whine about the job you've clearly chosen now that you know the risks. Just like a police officer, know what you sign up for and then don't cry about the consequences.

 

At the end of the article, Sherman almost dares fans. He says that if they don't like it, don't watch. And more and more people will pull the plug. Let's see what happens to those millions of dollars, the adulation, etc., if the player pool starts drying up. Oh, I'm not naive enough to think it will ever go away, but with fewer players to pull from the quality will suffer, etc.

 

Indeed they do. But then they don't turn around and sue their employers for it like many a NFL player is trying to do. Again, I appreciate his honesty but for plenty a primary or HS school kid who looks up to guys like Sherman, that's certainly not the message you want to be telling kids.

 

The point of many of these lawsuits are that the league didn't do enough to protect players from concussions, sent them out there to play, denied their long term effects, etc and therefore the player is due a lifetime of disability/medical coverage/monies

 

If Sherman is 35, status post who knows how many concussions/traumatic brain injuries sitting in a wheelchair drooling on himself and in an adult diaper with his family suing the NFL for his long term care think the Jerruh Jones of the league won't pull this lil' gem up as proof he OR other players knew what they were doing and therefore aren't due one red cent?

 

On the outside, our boy Roger will poo-poo this and say "this is not at all what we want/not consistent with policy" blah blah. But behind close doors, champagne is getting cracked open.

 

 

I like how Sherman assumes he's completely over the effects of his concussion. That's just funny.

Kind of takes some of the lustre off his "went to Stanford."

I guess I don't understand what is wrong with these comments (other than the fact that I hate Richard Sherman)? He's saying that it should be up to him whether he plays concussed and not the team/league. He's right, it should be up to him. He's acknowledging that the NFL is doing their part to educate players about the short and long term effects, something the they didn't do for most of it's existence. So he and every other player has the information easily available to them, should it not be up to them whether they stay in the game? NFL careers are so short and there are so many challengers for spots that missing 1 game with a concussion can get you a "concussion prone" label, lowering your NFL worth and chances of getting paid. Do the concussion tests, educate the player about his condition, urge him to sit out, but to me it needs to be up to him whether he plays. The coach can pull him if his performance drops off due to the concussion, but these guys are adults. 

if your employer knows your decision making is compromised due to a head injury, and that compromise could lead to more damage, they kinda need to disregard your macho statements and pull you ass out of the game. 

       
       

I contend to this day that Aaron Rodgers played with a concussion against the Bears in the NFCC game. He was sharp as a tack until he took a shot (I think it was 3rd q). Played pretty average the rest of the game.

 

Big- head thinking wins over small- head thinking every time....

I wonder what Sherman will think of this column after he retires and gets CTE.

If any industry had a injury rate for a 3 hour a week job like the NFL is there any doubt that OSHA would be knocking at their door?

Bert through a TD pass completely unconscious.  

 

edit:  I r gud speler.

And many an interception completely conscious.

Figure that one out.

He isn't suing anyone, he won't have grounds to do so after this article, and he pretty much says that with these comments.  "I assume the risk. I'm an adult and it's my choice."

 

I like his attitude.

 

 

 

Assume you are an owner of a football team, and let's remember it is a business, and one of your employees may be doing something that endangers himself as well as possibly others, not to mention potentially cheapening your product... you have every right to remove that employee from the work force.

 

 

The assumption is each owner is competent. Which unfortunately isn't the case.

 

Daniel Snyder allowed Robert Griffin play on a screwed up knee in the playoffs AND continues to allow Brandon Meriweather to start at safety.

 

One endangered himself. The other endangers himself and others. No one stopped either of them.

 

I get your point and agree with it 100%. It's spot on. But it requires intelligence at the decision making level to operate properly,

Assuming risk isn't the qualifier here, lots of vocations assume risks, like policemen, farmers, and coal miners.  Football players are compensated very well for the risk they take physically and I have no problem with that, neither should they. 

 

If that risk becomes negligent through medical evaluation, whether that be a concussion in the second half, or a neck injury doctors feel puts you at risk for losing the capacity to walk, then the employer has an obligation to stop that person from walking on the field, whether they want to or not.   I understand the desire from the player perspective, because you earn by being on the field, but once the risk is amplified, machismo aside, you leave the field.  Were not talking about playing through stiff knees or bruises that take forever to heal or a sore ankle.  Coach can push you through that. 

I don't think all of the owners feel that obligation to the employee.  This is a multi-billion-dollar, turn-and-burn industry.  You squeeze every drop out of the talent you have while it's viable, and when it's not you move on.  

 

Bridges don't collapse if you toss a football player on the field who shouldn't be there. The human cost doesn't always seem to be a big part of the equation in the NFL.  Should it be?  I believe so, and I believe the GBP are a team that puts value on that.  Not all of them do, though.

Dr James Andrews was on the Redskin sideline last year in the playoffs. He cleared RGIII good to go depending on who you believe. That's a huge question mark.

 

Not to come off as a huge Green and Gold Homer. But a coach like McCarthy that knows he's got 110% support from management won't sacrifice a guys future for the sake of winning a game. That effing matters. "You didn't win but we completely trust you as our guy no matter what" and mean it. It changes how you do things. Trust matters. If you think you may get fired because you lose players are going to get put at risk. It's that simple.

These most recent posts, particularly JJSD's, inspire a few thoughts:

 

It's worth repeating that owners (ultimately) likely view/treat players as commodities, and their "worth" at any given time is subject to change.

The debacle the Redskins had last year with RG3 is proof positive, IMHO. That's as bad as I've seen a player literally abused in recent years. And that's a guy with talent; think about the dozens of Ponder/Freeman/Sanchez-type QBs that are really  treated like crap! 

They certainly don't want any financial obligations to them in the future, especially if they're not producing any income to offset that, so they won't allow risks that would expose them to future litigation, regardless of what a player claims/stated while he played for that team. Right now, the hot button has been concussion/head injury. Owners pressure the GM's to get ROI from the players, so that gets passed on to the HC, who shares that with the training and medical staff, so they will ignore an injury as much/for as long as they can to keep a player on the field. Never mind if it's a knee, shoulder, or rib injury; who cares about that? But if they can't ignore an obvious concussion-type injury, they will pull a player.

That's also a large part of the reason why players who sustain a serious/severe neck injuries are rarely allowed to continue playing after they have 'healed'. Nor are they signed by other teams. They're not about to assume the risk of paralysis or significant loss of function.

I agree there are teams that do care more about a player's long-term health when these type injuries occur, and the Packers are as good, or better, as anyone (of course ) being proactive and extremely prudent, but the bottom line is still risk.

 

 

quote:

Indeed they do. But then they don't turn around and sue their employers for it like many a NFL player is trying to do.

 

There is a cottage industry out there for attorneys that file hearing loss claims on behalf of employees against employers that have worked in manufacturing operations over the last 30-40 years.   Especially now because some retirees may have started work before OSHA was even in existence or before hearing conservation programs were in place.  It is a complete racket IMO.

 

Sherman makes an interesting point but I think what he's really getting at is that despite how good he is he's deathly afraid that someone else could steal his job due to injury.  The NFL lifespan for players is extremely short and we see it all the time.   It's like JJSD said- turn and burn.   For every Emmitt Smith there are 25 other guys that only play 3 years because they get dinged or wash out for physical reasons, or simply due to competition for roster spots or coaching/front office turnover.  

That was the biggest bullchit circus ever!

I swear, in 5-7 years, I can see a big trial similar to Michael Jackson's mother suing that concert promoter for "hiring" that doctor who was convicted for his "role" in his death.

RG3's lawyers will sue Shannahan, the team doctor, Snyderbrenner, Andrews, and anybody else that can attach to his case, with each defendent passing along their culpability to the next guy. There will be daily news updates with 'bombshells' exposing the inner workings of a NFL team, email communications, and other inflammatory items.

When it's over, nobody wins except the lawyers, and people cluck their tongues and say "Man, what coulda been...".

It's really not much different than concussion/brain injury long-term complications in the end, especially in RG3's case. He's likely to have a helluva time walking and being mobile, if not a peg leg!

I don't wish to make fun of these kind of injuries, but the point is the constant pain and search for relief, at the very least, and maybe even being wheelchair-bound at worst, are as detrimental to their quality of life as brain-related injuries are. And he's 'lucky' that he has will likely have monies available to live as best he can as opposed to the average Joe.

I gained a little more respect for Sherman after reading that article.  I appreciate his honesty.  

Surprise surprise surprise.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/...rement-rams/3183279/

If the player is not performing at the level that is expected of him, he should be removed from the game. That's true whether you have a concussion or not. It's the coach's prerogative to put the best 11 on the field. Business wise, the player gains nothing from leaving the game or even reporting concussion symptoms. So no, I don't blame players for taking matters into their own hands, as I said missing time due to a concussion can cost a player millions. Sherman isn't suing the league and acknowledges that the NFL didn't educate the players who are suing them properly. 

I'm still wondering what any of this has to do with Sherman being the poster child for the Indiana Dept. Of Transportation...???

That's what Sherman says now.....who knows what his future stance may be.  We just recently saw the president fight to extend the debt ceiling when in his senate past he opposed it, and the Heritage fund once promoted what became  the ACA Which they now shut down gov to try and repeal it.

 

Things and opinions change with circumstances.

The players have proven themselves to "not be the brightest bulbs" in almost every single area of their lives from unprotected sex with ho's to pissing away millions to smoking dope and getting kicked off the team. Drunk driving, making it rain, bad real estate investments. The list is endless

 

They have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they make dumb short- term, instant gratification decisions over taking the more prudent course. Darelle Revis is going to wake up this morning and realize what an idiotic decision he made in choosing a POS franchise like the bucs, when he could have gotten just as many millions from a team with an actual chance to win. Dum

 

At no point in time have these players demonstrated the ability to think with their big head instead of their little one and this is just further proof of the dumdums we watch on Sunday.

 

Now we're supposed to let them make medical decisions when they can't even be counted on to make basic life decisions ?

 

**** Dick Sherman, he will get exactly what he deserves - the only thing he has going for him is that the dropoff from dumdum to drooler isn't steep and he'll be able to afford to hire somebody to wipe his ass for him.

 

Players lose millions with a torn ACL, but we don't let them back in the game either

Can't understand why scrambled brains would be any different and ceding medical decisions to the concussed brain of a short-term thinker seems like the height of stupidity, lawsuits or not

 

Exactly Satan.  A player tears his knee up, he can still contribute after the NFL.  Destroying what is left of a player's mental capacity (and some of them don't have much to begin with)--that is a recipe for disaster if people think they are going to be actually contributing members of society.  Let's make the dumb dumber and put them out on the street.

Per usual, good posting Satan.

 

Not even a Neurologist who graduated from the Univ. Of Phoenix would admit a player who is concussed has the medical capacity to decide for themselves to keep playing. Your brain has literally slammed itself onto the side of your skull. Sherman admitted himself being half blinded and playing. At the moment of concussion, their mental capacity to make sound decisions for their short and long-term well being no longer exists. We're expecting the NFL to turn a blind eye to that ?

 

And as Satan correctly points out, these players often mass breed. So it goes beyond what the player wants. They have kids. They're going to be Daddy's long after they walk away from the game. And that includes being financially, socially, and morally responsible for them. Sometimes it takes corporations like an NFL to keep a complete moron like Sherman from his biggest liability. Himself.

 

 

The difference is that Sherman was still capable of playing with a concussion whereas Darrelle Revis couldn't walk because of his blowed out knee. That's apples and oranges. When a player breaks his finger, hand, wrist, nose, etc. and stays in the game he's revered as tough...we've all seen Larry McCarren's jacked up fingers. How many times did Larry cause permanent damage to his body, but stayed in? Didn't Nick Perry go back in the game 2 weeks ago with a broken foot? What about those ridiculous stories Jason Taylor told about dealing with horrible foot and back injuries? He easily caused permanent damage to his body that impacted his ability to take care of his kids because he couldn't even bend over or pick them up. Most people said it was stupid on his part, but that's just the culture of the NFL. What's the difference between that and Sherman making the decision to stay in the game? 

I guess I can see a difference between the brain and a bone in the foot.

 

No.

 

He's not capable.

 

That's the whole point GD. At the moment the player is 1st concussed, that's it. They are done and must be done until the current concussion no longer exists. He now no longer has the capacity to make the decision to continue playing. Playing with a broken foot risks the player from further displacing the fracture and worsening the injury. Playing while actively concussed? Try death:

 

Second-impact syndrome (SIS) is a condition in which the brain swells rapidly and catastrophically after a person suffers a second concussion before symptoms from an earlier one have subsided. This deadly second blow may occur minutes, days or even weeks after an initial concussion,^[1] and even the mildest grade of concussion can lead to SIS.^[2] The condition is often fatal, and almost everyone who is not killed is severely disabled. The cause of SIS is uncertain, but it is thought that the brain's arterioles lose their ability to regulate their diameter, and therefore lose control over cerebral blood flow, causing massive cerebral edema.^[2]

 

Most cases of SIS have occurred in young people, who are thought to be particularly vulnerable. Young athletes are most at risk. In order to prevent SIS, guidelines have been established to prohibit athletes from returning to a game prematurely. For example, professionals recommend that athletes not return to play before symptoms of an initial head injury have resolved.

Natasha Richardson would like a few words with you, GD.

She wasn't wearing a helmet. Not saying I agree with GD or that Sherman is right, just that your comparison misses a bit wide left.

Assumed risk of death is still assumed risk.