Re: Redskins Are Insane!
posted at 1/7/2013 3:41 PM EST
In response to seattlepat70's comment:
In response to TexasPat's comment:
In response to ricky12684's comment:
knee jerk.. this was RG3's decision. he made a fuss about missing even one game, then passed all the tests (just as the doc says) and demanded to play. this was weeks ago!RG3 put in a seasons work to get to the playoffs and as the worrior he is he want's to be out there with his team. was shanahan really supposed to risk his relationship with the franchise QB and sit him in a playoff game against his will and after having passed all tests? ha! yeah right!
Shanahan has been a blessing to that organization.
What does it matter what he says? Does anyone really expect a leader and competitor such as he to tell his coach that he isn't ready? It was obvious that the guy was no where near 100%. He should have been yanked for his own good, and the good of the franchise, after the 'Skins had amassed that early 14-0 lead. Shanahan may have ruined his career by leaving him out there.
It agree with ricky on this one. It is the playoffs. The team will suck it up and play whoever they think gives them a better chance of winning. If they thought that RG3 at less than 100% gives them a better chance (even with risk of aggravating an injury) than with cousins, then they should have gone with RG3.
RESPONSE: And expose the franchises' most valuable asset to risk? Surely you jest.
There is nothing wrong with playing RG3 if RG3 wanted to play. He's a smart kid. That is actually the raason why everyone thinks he has a great future in teh NFL. He knew the risks.
RESPONSE: Yeah...so let him go ruin his career. The operative word in your paragraph above is "kid".
The only debate is whether they indeed had a better chance of winning with RG3 than with Cousins. In retrospect, it's easy to see tha playing RG3 did not work. Without hindsight it's a tougher decision.
RESPONSE: Again...like the talking heads, you're missing the point. A blind man could see that RG III was struggling. Why risk his career? Will he be the same player if he's unable to run as he once did? MRI today will tell.
In some ways that decision was similar to...
1) Letting Schilling play on a bad ankle
RESPONSE: Not similar at all. Shilling was 37 or 38 years old...as was told by doctors that pitching with his condition wouldn't ruin his ankle any further.
2) The decision to let the starter continue or replace with a reliever (a never ending debate on the Red Sox Forum) - the most famous of which was Little's decision to leave pedro in.
RESPONSE: Again, missing the point! The kid's career was placed in jeopardy.
3) The decision to fully integrate an injured Gronk into the planning for a SB game.
RESPONSE: No. Gronk had a high ankle sprain...not sprained knee ligaments, on an already once surgically repaired knee.
There will always be people who believe you believe your best horse in.
RESPONSE: I recommend to you the following article": http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8820196/bill-barnwell-weekend-wild-card-games