Josh Allen in concussion protocol: Update cleared 10/5

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

Allen is the undisputed starter.  

 

Barkley is a backup we all hope can play great while Josh is out. 

 

There is is a lot of good in Josh and a bunch of crap to shake your head at.  

 

Learn from your mistakes Josh

 

[YoloinOhio]

 

[The Wiz]

1 minute ago, YoloinOhio said:

 

Let me know when Duke is catching passes from Allen again. 

[Virgil]

26 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

Interesting - Jarvis Landry has been in the protocol too since Sunday and wasn’t at practice at all this week. Cleared from protocol today and will be at practice. He doesn’t play until Monday though.

Damn it man!  That’s twice this week you’ve done this to me.  
 

Maybe I should be like everyone else and just start my own thread about this 

[rayray808]

he is playing in the game

 

and McD is playing with the Titans prep plans

[nucci]

4 minutes ago, rayray808 said:

he is playing in the game

 

and McD is playing with the Titans prep plans

You just said he is playing. You don't think the Titans expect Allen to play?

Edited October 4, 2019 by nucci

[McBean]

Allen is starting Sunday.

 

Put this thread to bed.

[rayray808]

6 minutes ago, nucci said:

You just said he is playing. You don't think the Titans expect Allen to play?

 

"he" could mean Barkley? 

[The Wiz]

6 minutes ago, McBean said:

Allen is starting Sunday.

 

Put this thread to bed.

Thanks Brandon. 

[nucci]

4 minutes ago, rayray808 said:

 

"he" could mean Barkley? 

yet a local reporter said Allen has practiced all week

[VW82]

21 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I also disagree Allen should sit out to "teach him some kind of lesson", but Allen was absolutely concussed, by "optics" - how the play looked on film.  It looked as though he went limp, he lost consciousness, fencer's reflex with his hands - he absolutely had a concussion.  Ability to jog down the tunnel is not diagnostic for lack of concussion.

 

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.   

Edited October 4, 2019 by VW82

[Hapless Bills Fan]

6 minutes ago, VW82 said:

This makes it sound like fans want him to have a timeout in the corner. Who's saying this exactly?

 

Several have expressed the opinion.  You could search, if it truly interests you. 

 

6 minutes ago, VW82 said:

 

 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. 

 

The distinction between "sit out to teach him some kind of lesson" and "sit and watch Barkley for a week...more than one way to learn" is too subtle for me.

 

I don't think people here aren't considering our QB long term health, but let's get real here - if you're truly considering a guy's overall long term health above everything else, he probably shouldn't be playing American football.  What people here are saying, and do believe, is that if a guy is cleared from concussion protocol by a team physician and an independent neurologist, he's cleared and can play.  I'm not sure Durant, who had missed 9 games with a strained calf, is a good analogy.

 

Last year was last year, this year is this year.  What was helpful last year may not be helpful this year.

 

[VW82]

1 hour ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

You know the ole saying about putting lipstick on a pig...

 

Allen isn't an idiot.

 

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.

[GG]

35 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I don't wash away Barkley putting up 41 points against a bad Jets team last year, but when a guy has a multi-game body of work (Allen or Barkley) one shouldn't focus on one game or one aspect of those games.  You have an example of that latter last year: you mention Barkley having "multiple 300 yard games with a craptastic Bears team.  You fail to mention the fact that in Barkley's 3 - >300 yd games with the Bears, he also threw 10 interceptions (2, 3, and 5) and they lost each of those games.  So why do those games lead you to hope that "he doesn't make the boneheaded mistakes that we've seen Allen make (so that) the comeback isn't needed?"  He won't make the same boneheaded mistakes we've seen Allen make, he's better at reading Ds and getting the ball out quickly at this point in his career, but those aren't everything.  His physical limitations mean he'll make different mistakes with the same result.

 

One shouldn't dismiss Barkley's good game against the Jets, but neither can one wholly focus on it while dismissing the rest of Barkley's playing career.  There's a reason he's overall an under-60% completion guy with 10 career TDs and 19 career INTs.  I hope Barkley has honed his craft since 2016, but the fact is against a very strong NE D if you project what he did vs the Pats out to a full game, he too would have racked up a buttload of turnovers.

 

When the starter on a team struggles, the backup QB is always the most popular guy in town with some fans, but perception is not reality.

 

 

 

It would help if you didn't move the goalposts if you want to have a reasonable discussion.  The topic is how well did Barkley perform on a bad Bears team, not whether the Bears won or lost the games, because then we'd have to compare the defenses.  Do you want to go down that road?   If you want to quibble about statistics that you highlighted, Barkley's sub 60% completion is actually 59.61%, and if you focus on games started, his completion is 62.3%.   He's also averaged 20.5 points scored in his Bears games, which goes up a bit if you include his Bills' start.

 

So getting back to the point, nobody is calling for Barkley to supplant Allen as the QB of this team.  By the same token, it's perfectly reasonable to see that Barkley understands the offensive plan that Daboll has drawn up better than Allen at this point.  Barkley didn't have the same mental breakdowns when he was in, even though Pats* were totally teeing off on him on every down, when there was no threat of the running game.   Barkley moved the ball on two drives under worse circumstances, while Allen was only able to do it on one drive.

 

It's not a crusade to start the backup, it's an acknowledgement that the backup isn't still learning the position, and there's a good probability that this particular offense would perform better with him under center.

[jkeerie]

1 hour ago, CincyBillsFan said:

As others have noted it's pretty straight forward:

 

*  if Allen is cleared he plays.  It gives the best chance to win the game AND it helps us in the LONG RUN as every game Allen plays in makes him a better QB going forward.

 

*  If Allen isn't cleared we go with Barkley who is more then capable of leading us to victory against TN.

 

As an aside I have the same sense that others have noted that there is a small group of Bills fans who want Allen to sit so Barkley can shine and be the guy going forward.  This is NUTS IMO.  If Barkley plays and throws 5 TD passes it doesn't change a thing.  Allen starts against Miami.  If you want another 5 years of 7 - 9 to 9 - 7 seasons collapsing to 4 - 12 when the D runs out of gas hope that Barkley is better then Allen. 

 

If Allen isn't the guy, and I think he is, we're back to square one at QB.  Barkley isn't the guy no matter how well he plays Sunday if called upon.

 

 

 

I would agree with this for the most part.  I think there are some of us who think Allen may sit, but only if the coaching staff is being ultra-conservative for his safety.  I am hoping Allen is 100% healthy and that he plays.  I will, as I have said before, be holding my breath if he should run, that one of Vrabel's (Belichick deciple) defenders doesn't opt for another head shot to knock Allen out of the game again.  

[Gugny]

1 minute ago, VW82 said:

 

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.

 

If he clears protocol, then he's safe to play.

 

It's not like, in two weeks, doctors will say, "Okay ... now he REALLY clears protocol."

[SCBills]

Just now, jkeerie said:

I would agree with this for the most part.  I think there are some of us who think Allen may sit, but only if the coaching staff is being ultra-conservative for his safety.  I am hoping Allen is 100% healthy and that he plays.  I will, as I have said before, be holding my breath if he should run, that one of Vrabel's (Belichick deciple) defenders doesn't opt for another head shot to knock Allen out of the game again.  

 

Ok, so say we sit him to be super safe... what’s to stop Flores, another B.B. disciple, from having a Dolphins defender do that?  

 

If hes cleared, he’s cleared.   No difference between Sunday and two Sundays from now. 

[Gugny]

1 minute ago, SCBills said:

 

Ok, so say we sit him to be super safe... what’s to stop Flores, another B.B. disciple, from having a Dolphins defender do that?  

 

If hes cleared, he’s cleared.   No difference between Sunday and two Sundays from now. 

 

Are you saying that you think Bill Belichick ordered a hit on Allen to take him out of the game?

[VW82]

1 minute ago, Gugny said:

 

If he clears protocol, then he's safe to play.

 

It's not like, in two weeks, doctors will say, "Okay ... now he REALLY clears protocol."

 

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.    

[row_33]

15 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

If he clears protocol, then he's safe to play.

 

It's not like, in two weeks, doctors will say, "Okay ... now he REALLY clears protocol."

 

you mean another hit to the head may knock him back into health?

 

[SCBills]

2 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

Are you saying that you think Bill Belichick ordered a hit on Allen to take him out of the game?

 

No.  I’m responding to people who think we should sit Allen because, apparently, every team is going to try to concuss him. 

 

I do think they were told to light him up if he runs.  Just so happens he got hit like he did. 

 

Edited October 4, 2019 by SCBills

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

3 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

Are you saying that you think Bill Belichick ordered a hit on Allen to take him out of the game?

 

I don't think that's far outside the realm of possibility. Belichick is a jackhole

 

[row_33]

12 minutes ago, SCBills said:

 

No.  I’m responding to people who think we should sit Allen because, apparently, every team is going to try to concuss him. 

 

I do think they were told to light him up if he runs.  Just so happens he got hit like he did. 

 

 

every DB who ever played would gladly hit him like that if given the chance

 

 

[Gugny]

2 minutes ago, VW82 said:

 

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.    

 

Where did you see leg tremors?

 

And with all of the emphasis put on concussions by the NFL, you're doubting the doctors?

[Stank_Nasty]

4 minutes ago, VW82 said:

 

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.    

[VW82]

14 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I don't think people here aren't considering our QB long term health, but let's get real here - if you're truly considering a guy's overall long term health above everything else, he probably shouldn't be playing American football. 

 

 

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.  

Edited October 4, 2019 by VW82

[jkeerie]

4 minutes ago, SCBills said:

 

Ok, so say we sit him to be super safe... what’s to stop Flores, another B.B. disciple, from having a Dolphins defender do that?  

 

If hes cleared, he’s cleared.   No difference between Sunday and two Sundays from now. 

I'm no expert, but I would think the farther out you are from a concussion, time wise, the less impactful even the slightest hit would be because you're body/brain has had greater time to heal.  There would also be the mental aspect on the part of the player.  The hope is Josh won't put himself in harm's way.    I do understand where you're coming from with respect to it can happen 3 weeks from now or two months from now.  And I also agree that if he's cleared, he should play.

[Royale with Cheese]

5 minutes ago, VW82 said:

 

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.    

 

So your knowledge on neurology is at the same level as Neurologists?

Just now, jkeerie said:

I'm no expert, but I would think the farther out you are from a concussion, time wise, the less impactful even the slightest hit would be because you're body/brain has had greater time to heal.  There would also be the mental aspect on the part of the player.  The hope is Josh won't put himself in harm's way.    I do understand where you're coming from with respect to it can happen 3 weeks from now or two months from now.  And I also agree that if he's cleared, he should play.

 

You can't be greater than 100%.  If his brain is 100% ready to go, that means with extra time, it wouldn't matter because it's already healed.  

The NFL is sensitive in particular with this issue....if they're not completely cleared...they're not playing.  

[VW82]

4 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

Where did you see leg tremors?

 

And with all of the emphasis put on concussions by the NFL, you're doubting the doctors?

 

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.

 

 

[Royale with Cheese]

4 minutes ago, VW82 said:

 

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.  

 

Since you said "we", you let Neurologists know what you feel the definition should be.

[jkeerie]

6 minutes ago, SCBills said:

 

No.  I’m responding to people who think we should sit Allen because, apparently, every team is going to try to concuss him. 

 

I do think they were told to light him up if he runs.  Just so happens he got hit like he did. 

 

I didn't say we should sit him.  What I said is that if the coaches decide to sit him (operative word "may"), this would likely be part of their rationale....a second hit this close to the first could cause a second concussion. 

[Royale with Cheese]

Just now, VW82 said:

 

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.

 

 

 

You've admitted you're not a doctor but you're telling a doctor they aren't doing their job very well.

 

Dude...those aren't leg tremors.  

[VW82]

2 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

You've admitted you're not a doctor but you're telling a doctor they aren't doing their job very well.

 

Dude...those aren't leg tremors.  

 

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.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Just now, GG said:

It would help if you didn't move the goalposts if you want to have a reasonable discussion. 

 

I'm moving the goal posts?  You say "The topic is how well did Barkley perform on a bad Bears team, not whether the Bears won or lost the games, because then we'd have to compare the defenses "  Do you think the Bears defense threw Barkley's 10 INTs in those 3 - >300 yd games with the Bears that you reference?  Do you think that throwing 2, 3 or 5 INTs in a game has no bearing on whether or not the team lost, especially a team with a poor D that can't get the stop after a turnover?

 

Look, GG.  Don't paint this as quibbling about statistics.  Your contention is (here, I'll quote you): "Why do you wash away Barkley putting up 41 points last year, or having multiple 300 yard games with a craptastic Bears team, as if they're anomalies?  Allen's physical gifts come in handy when he needs to manufacture a heroic 4Q comeback.  With Barkley, the hope is that he doesn't make the boneheaded mistakes that we've seen Allen make in the first 3Qs that the comeback isn't needed. "

 

It's entirely appropriate to point out that those 3 - 300 yd games also involved 10 INTs, and that (since INTs tend to contribute to a loss, especially with poor D), the team lost - presumably in significant part because of Barkley's INTs.  It's entirely appropriate to point out that every QB has good and bad games and it's not appropriate to hone in on that 41 point performance against the Jets (which as I recall, involved 2 Jets INTs resulting in Bills points) while ignoring the rest of Barkley's professional work. 

 

To say that Barkley won't make boneheaded mistakes (ie INTs) therefore comebacks won't be needed when you're looking at a backup QB who has a significant track record of throwing INTs, is to cherish a worldview with a stunning blind spot.  No, Barkley won't make the same boneheaded mistakes Allen makes, but he does make mistakes.

 

Just now, GG said:

So getting back to the point, nobody is calling for Barkley to supplant Allen as the QB of this team.  By the same token, it's perfectly reasonable to see that Barkley understands the offensive plan that Daboll has drawn up better than Allen at this point.  Barkley didn't have the same mental breakdowns when he was in, even though Pats* were totally teeing off on him on every down, when there was no threat of the running game.   Barkley moved the ball on two drives under worse circumstances, while Allen was only able to do it on one drive.

 

I can't even.

Here:

 

The 3rd quarter 9 play "turnover on downs" was the drive where Allen was injured.  3 plays before the "no play" injury, so Barkley had 6 plays ending in an incompletion - plus an incompletion cancelled by penalty and a "delay of game" penalty.  So somehow Barkley's 6 plays ending in a turnover on downs and another 6 play drive ending in an INT show that he could move the ball better, and the two drives where Allen moved the team within FG range (for a hit and a miss) don't count?

 

 

Just now, GG said:

It's not a crusade to start the backup, it's an acknowledgement that the backup isn't still learning the position, and there's a good probability that this particular offense would perform better with him under center.

 

I won't say you're crusading to start the backup, but you appear to have a couple large blindspots when you calculate your "good probability that this particular offense would perform better with (Barkley) under center".  I'm not sure how you're calculating that "good probability that this offense would perform better with Barkley" but it seems a little selective from here.

 

 

 

[jkeerie]

8 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

So your knowledge on neurology is at the same level as Neurologists?

 

You can't be greater than 100%.  If his brain is 100% ready to go, that means with extra time, it wouldn't matter because it's already healed.  

The NFL is sensitive in particular with this issue....if they're not completely cleared...they're not playing.  

I would agree with this, but when it comes to the human body/brain, can anyone really say 100% following a trauma?  But yes...I do agree...that if he's cleared by the neurologists, they are telling the coaches, it is safe for Josh to play.  Josh just needs to take better care of himself on the field and learn from this episode.

[Royale with Cheese]

2 minutes ago, VW82 said:

 

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.

 

Do you mean "I can't see the forest through the trees?"

 

Yes you are saying something.  You're saying you'll have questions if he gets cleared to play.

 

The Doctor who is evaluating him is an expert in this field.  He will perform the tests.  They will perform scans if they have to.  They will do all the steps in the protocol.

You aren't evaluating him, you don't have your Doctorate in Medicine or performed any tests.  Yet you will have questions on an assessment that you didn't perform or know how to perform? Then come up with a conclusion it's better for him to sit another week?

 

 

[Pabstblueribbon]

The arguements for and against seem valid. From a physical standpoint its understandable you wouldnt want to rush your (hopefully) franchise qb back and put him at risk. From a mental and confidence standpoint I dont know if allowing that last performance to fester until after the bye is the best thing either.. Tough call but I'm in the "if cleared, play him" camp. Hopefully he can stay upright, make some plays, get a win, and put that last performance in the rear view ASAP. 

[boco357]

Never heard anything about a fine for Jones.

[VW82]

6 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

Do you mean "I can't see the forest through the trees?"

 

Yes you are saying something.  You're saying you'll have questions if he gets cleared to play.

 

The Doctor who is evaluating him is an expert in this field.  He will perform the tests.  They will perform scans if they have to.  They will do all the steps in the protocol.

You aren't evaluating him, you don't have your Doctorate in Medicine or performed any tests.  Yet you will have questions on an assessment that you didn't perform or know how to perform? Then come up with a conclusion it's better for him to sit another week?

 

 

 

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. 

Edited October 4, 2019 by VW82

[YoloinOhio]