Week 6 Washington Redskins vs Minnesota Vikings Pregame Thread

[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

[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.

[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 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?

[Sonny9TD]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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?

Indeed. Most interesting.

[MTK]

This is just beyond ridiculous.

[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.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

This is just beyond ridiculous.

I'm enjoying the comedy myself. I think Madden should add in a "Medical Trainer" expansion pack to his football game. It seems he has the market for it.

[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]

and done on that topic. Now to Sunday.

I don't like our chances. We hold Peterson to respectable numbers but we make Ponder look all pro'ish. There D-line destroys our O-line and Morris has no where to go ...

and RGIII can't remember what inning it is.

[Meks]

for anyone wondering why ppl are scared, at least for THIS week and being its 7 days later, about what could happen with being cleared to play too soon......

i'll state again for anyone who follows hockey. See Sidney Crosby.

ppl are worried, and passionatley at that, so arguing is stupid. just let ppl worry about the kid. ultimately nothing we say matters lol, he and the doctors and the coaches are the ones who will decide, but if ppl want to express concerns, so be it... no one here is an expert, just passionate about this team and express the views and opinions they have thusly. ease up on eachother we're humans being humans.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Mechanix544

-You do understand, JoeRedskin, that this isn't really a courtroom setting, as it seems like most of your posts are geared toward arguing specific points, disagreeing with other people, and then of course going through the talking points of why they are intelectually inferior and ultimately incorrect. Sometimes its a good thing, sometimes its a chore to read through some of your statements.

It's not courtroom setting??? Let me go through some talking points to discuss why you are ultimately incorrect and intellectually inferior.

My excuse for the long post was that I was suffering from early morning insomnia and needed something to do at 6:30 a.m. If reading my stuff is a chore, ehhh. it's who I am ... and yeah, I probably am a disagreeable old sot.

[Bucket]

Maybe we should make a Concussion threads..

Man, I feel lucky today. I can just drop my medical insurance. I don't even need to go to the doctors. Next time I have an appointment, i'll just tell the doctor i'm going for a second opinion from the MD professionals at the Warpath.

[JoeRedskin]

^^ lol

If you would like, I can talk to them for you go - I'll hit some talking points and discuss why they are ultimately incorrect and intellectually inferior to everyone on the WP.

[MTK]

Could you imagine Shanahan having to explain that while RG3 was closely monitored all week by an independent neurologist, and despite the fact he passed all the independent testing, that he was going to go ahead and overrule the Dr.'s educated and informed opinion and keep him on the bench anyway?

Lunacy.