VW82

My personal view is that if you get knocked out or have your bell rung in a car wreck type of hit you shouldn't play the next week (at least). I get that isn't very scientific but the optics of rushing a player through protocol so he can play next game just isn't great, to say nothing of what's best for the player. To answer your question, the results absolutely matter. I'm not suggesting that the whole process is corrupt -- it's certainly better than it used to be. It's possible that Josh would truly be 100% once he's through protocol. I just don't believe that doctors, even neurologists, know for sure when it comes to head injuries. That opinion is based at least in part from a discussion I had with a local neurologist (former client of mine). Look, it was a really big hit. I just don't want to see Josh come back too soon, get tagged again, and be out for extended time. I feel like that's a reasonable concern given the way he plays, and I'd be hard pressed to believe that he wouldn't benefit from 3x the recovery length. Anyways, I've said all I can on this subject.

Yes, I'm assuming he was grade 3. No, just because his legs were moving post hit that does not mean wasn't unconscious either prior or during. So now we're back to the discussion of whether it's appropriate or smart to play your concussed QB seven days after the incident (regardless of passing tests from NFL paid doctors), and whether there's any additional benefit to waiting until three weeks (i.e. after the bye). I'm suggesting there's likely both a medical benefit, however minor that might be, and developmental benefit by allowing Josh to watch Matt for a week and gain another perspective. Feels like we're going around in circles here.

It's a great question. I'd also like to know the answer definitively, as I might change my opinion if that's the case. I'm assuming yes. I think he's out cold when his legs are moving or at least had his bell rung hard enough that he isn't fully conscious during that 5-10 second period. I've witnessed people IRL who got knocked out and had similar involuntary movements with their arms/legs so I don't think that by itself proves he was conscious the whole time. It doesn't prove he was unconscious either.

Clearly you have again missed the point. I am not a neurologist; I am, however, reasonably capable of having conversations with doctors who have treated patients for concussions as well as performing basic google searches on the subject. Although this does not make me an expert in the field, it allows me to gather enough information to at least ask some good questions, like why would we want to rush our QB back after sustaining what appeared to be a somewhat serious head injury before the typical time frame for recovery would suggest? https://brighamhealthhub.org/prevention/when-is-it-safe-to-return-to-play-after-sports-related-injuries

I will admit you have a point. Take last week for example. My employer paid for me to see a doctor to see if it was ok to return to work. We chatted for two mins then he signed the slip. Then he somehow managed to sew my hand to my face. I was going to complain but then I remembered I'm not a doctor so I shouldn't have opinions on such things. Edit: RE that expression I believe both forms are deemed acceptable.

I think you're missing the forest for the trees here. First of all I'm not saying anything yet. We don't know whether Josh will be cleared. But yes, if he gets cleared and plays Sunday I'd have some questions. And yes, I'm not saying anything for certain because I don't know but I can't imagine it'd be helpful to get hit again so soon after being knocked out like that. Just my opinion.

Yes I am. Given the history with the NFL and concussions, and really sports medicine and the inherent conflicts of interest in general, I don't think it's unreasonable to be skeptical. As for the leg tremors, and whether they were involuntary or not, it's hard to say. I'm not a doctor. Josh's legs flapping around immediately after the hit didn't look good.

I suspect this is probably the logic football people used for decades when it came to head injuries. I disagree that just because football is a violent sport we shouldn't be doing everything possible to ensure players are fully recovered from head injuries before returning to the field, and if "everything possible" includes letting QBs play within a week of being knocked unconscious then I think we need to re-visit the definition.

If he gets cleared to play less than a week after laying on the turf unconscious, exhibiting post-traumatic leg tremors then I highly question what these doctors are doing/saying. The difference between getting hit again one week after vs. three weeks after could very likely be the difference between sustaining a second concussion or not.

Maybe you have to take out the part about being honest that he sucked on Sunday -- lol that a little harsh -- but putting the kid's long-term health first isn't a pig move, it's the right move.

This makes it sound like fans want him to have a timeout in the corner. Who's saying this exactly? To clarify -- in case this was directed at me -- I think there might be a hidden opportunity for development by allowing Allen sit and watch Barkley for a week. He's been learning by doing for two straight months. There's more than one way to learn. Hard to argue that there was anything but dramatic improvement after sitting out and getting to watch a different perspective last year. More importantly, Allen got knocked the F out. I'm low key surprised that more people on here aren't putting our QB's long-term health above everything else. Isn't that more important than one NFL game, albeit one against a legitimate threat for wild card? I'd argue yes. Ask Kevin Durant and the Warriors whether they'd like a re-do. Just because Josh might clear concussion protocol that doesn't mean he's 100% healed. It means he passed the tests. A little conservatism here might be beneficial in more ways than one. Edit: RE your post about Barkley and the Bears, I agree. But in this one game and against this specific opponent, I think there's a credible argument that Barkley is just as good of an option. Over the course of a season and for our future, Josh is obviously the answer (unless/until he proves otherwise). Anyone who watched that Titans v Browns game to start the year knows we need someone who gets the ball out quickly this week. Food for thought.

Yeah I can't tell if Hawks have a good offense this year or if Rams' D just sucks (besides Donald who's ridiculous). Edit: Oh man that didn't look good. Cooks's head got turned around in an unnatural way at the end there.

Gotcha. I was looking at committed $$. It's incredible how much the cap has risen over the last ten years. Doubled basically. It's a pretty huge built in advantage for good teams. You can pay everyone and it doesn't matter because the cap keeps rising.

Looks to me like it's 132M in 2021. Am I missing something? https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/los-angeles-rams/yearly/cap/ Rams are also going to need to do something about their Oline, and half their defense will become UFAs over the next two years. Think it's going to be tough. Maybe they can trade Cooks or Woods to open up some space.

We'll see. They just paid Gurley, Goff, and Donald biiiiig $$. I'd be surprised if they didn't explore trading him next year. Will they even have the room to franchise him??

PSA: Cooper Kupp is set to be a free agent in 2021. How good would he look in our offense right now? I can't think of a better receiver for Josh. He just knows how to get open.

This isn't exactly true. https://www.si.com/nfl/2019/10/03/buffalo-bills-offense-josh-allen I agree that the overall tone of the article is that of a hatchet job. This makes sense given that the thesis is the Bills offense under Allen hasn't been very reliable. Think of it from this perspective: who would you say is the worst starting QB in the NFL? Based on passer rating it's Josh Rosen. Well even Josh Rosen does more good things than bad in an NFL game -- these guys are professionals after all. Does that mean NFL writers should have to equally focus on all the good things Rosen does as well as the bad when they're writing about how he's the worst QB in the league? I'd argue that would just confuse the point (and the reader). FWIW among QBs who have played all four weeks to date, Allen ranks second last in passer rating and third last in QBR which takes into account his running and clutch play in the 4th quarter. Focusing more on the negative isn't exactly being disingenuous.

You definitely missed the point. I wasn't defending Josh at all or even talking about him. It was about another poster who was assuming that Andy Benoit, the SI MMQB writer, was only writing critical things about Allen because he didn't like him / was trying to protect some alleged prior bias against him. That poster was exhibiting hostile attribution bias.

I think you may have missed the point. If Benoit cares most about being right then he probably isn't stuck on some preconceived bias which might get in the way of that. Also, you seem to be talking in generalities about something that has nothing to do with this conversation. Benoit might be considered an analytics type (I don't know) but he certainly didn't use that as the basis for this article. Rather, he broke down game film and talked about play design, coverage scheme, and the QB decision tree. This article was anything but a hot take.

This is an example of hostile attribution bias among others. Instead of taking a third party’s most likely unbiased view at face value you assume they must be saying negative things because they are out to get Josh or are protecting their previous critical stance (as if they would care more about doing that than just being right).

So you think Benoit, a respected NFL writer, authors a piece exclusively about Allen, provides numerous examples of plays in it where he details not only the play designs but the coverages and reads of those plays, but he didn’t watch the games? There are many things we can point to in support of our guy but this “others don’t watch the games and I do” argument that is oft repeated on this site is such a head scratcher to me.

This article does a really good job illustrating what many of us have been trying to say wrt Josh's issues. Lots more in the link.

I suspect there are a lot of times in the NFL where the best thing to do is sit a guy out for a week, especially a young player, and have him work on his weaknesses and watch someone else do it to provide a different perspective. Unfortunately, that doesn't happen because of the politics of the game. I think this concussion provides a unique opportunity to do that with Allen. Also, just because he gets cleared doesn't mean he wouldn't be less susceptible to getting another concussion if he sat out until Miami. Like most injuries, you have a better chance of avoiding a repeat occurrence the longer you wait to test it again.

I agree there was an element of bad luck in a couple of those turnovers but also some very good luck in having one ugly INT called back and another easy INT dropped by the Jets secondary. The fact is he made a lot of mistakes vs Jets and in the end we only scored 17 points, so even though he did some things very well in that game it isn't fair or accurate to only credit him with the good stuff. I can't comment on Josh's college career but he certainly has improved since the beginning of last season. Very few would dispute that. The problem is that the areas where he struggles (accuracy, decision making, etc.) haven't improved enough to say he's now a franchise NFL QB. You seem to acknowledge this fact. The question we're left with is this: is it realistic to think he's still going to improve enough moving forward to get there? I don't know the answer to this but I've tried and struggled to come up with a recent example (as the game has changed a lot in the last 5-10 years) of a QB who only became good after multiple years of playing. In every instance I can think of the QB was either good by his second year or never got there. Eventually there will be a shallow learning curve guy who bucks this trend , and maybe it's Josh -- he certainly would fit the profile of that type of player given his talent and background -- but finding examples of that in today's NFL is becoming much tougher.

It all depends how the message is delivered. McD is eminently capable of putting a positive spin on it; something along the lines of, "Great job on getting through the protocol so quickly. You're one tough MFer! Brian and I talked it over with Terry and Kim and we've decided to play it safe on this one and go with Matt this week. That was one hell of shot you took. You're the future of this team and we want to be 100% sure we're not jeopardizing that. Plus, if we're being honest that was a rough performance Sunday. There are some things we want you to work on with Brian over the bye -- footwork, reads -- so we come back strong vs. Miami. You're doing great, just keep working." If Josh can't handle an explanation like that and loses his confidence over it then perhaps we've all misjudged him. I think it's easier to get over the idea that you're being held back than going out there and failing before you're ready.