Azazello1313 Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 Wow, and here I thought you stood for that whole personal responsibility thing. are you arguing that the coaches, doctors, trainers (basically everyone other than the player) have NO personal responsibilities when it comes to the ethics of player injuries? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 While I wouldn't put this past Belichick (or a lot of other coaches, for that matter), this line is very telling: Johnson sat out the next two preseason games on the advice of his neurologist but played in the final one. Then, thinking he was still going to be left off the active roster for the season opener against Pittsburgh, he angrily left camp for two days before returning and meeting with Belichick."It's as clear as a bell, 'I had to see if you could play,'" Johnson recalled Belichick saying, according to the Times. It sounds like Johnson clearly knew that he wasn't supposed to play, but did so willingly because he was afraid of getting cut. And the fact that he stormed out of camp in anger suggests that he has some non-concussion-related issues as well. I feel bad for the guy, but if the doctors TELL him that he's not supposed to play and he does anyway, why is he blaming Belichick? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charty Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 (edited) While I wouldn't put this past Belichick (or a lot of other coaches, for that matter), this line is very telling: It sounds like Johnson clearly knew that he wasn't supposed to play, but did so willingly because he was afraid of getting cut. And the fact that he stormed out of camp in anger suggests that he has some non-concussion-related issues as well. I feel bad for the guy, but if the doctors TELL him that he's not supposed to play and he does anyway, why is he blaming Belichick? Exactly, but he wasn't afraid of getting cut, he was afraid of being inactive for the opening game. So he sits out 2 preseason games, and then feels like he has to play the next preseason game. So even though he played the last preseason game, there may have been some hints he was not going to suit up for opening night, so he left the team in anger. Could it be that Belichick was going to inactivate him because he didn't feel like he was 100%? Nobody told him to suit up that final preseason game, he did it to show he could play. Edited February 3, 2007 by charty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 (edited) Exactly, but he wasn't afraid of getting cut, he was afraid of being inactive for the opening game. Why would he be so afraid of being inactive for the opening game? Unless I'm missing something obvious, that doesn't make much sense. I would think that Belichick was going to make final cuts after that last pre-season game. At least, that's what this quote suggests... "It's as clear as a bell, 'I had to see if you could play,'" Johnson recalled Belichick saying, according to the Times. And I would also think that Belichick knows that post-concussion symptoms can linger for a long time (e.g., Dan Morgan, Trent Green) and that he'd probably be more inclined to cut an aging vet like Johnson than put him on the PUP list. Edited February 3, 2007 by Bill Swerski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bier Meister Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 Why would he be so afraid of being inactive for the opening game? Unless I'm missing something obvious, that doesn't make much sense. I would think that Belichick was going to make final cuts after that last pre-season game. At least, that's what this quote suggests... And I would also think that Belichick knows that post-concussion symptoms can linger for a long time (e.g., Dan Morgan, Trent Green) and that he'd probably be more inclined to cut an aging vet like Johnson than put him on the PUP list. not sure, but could it have anything to do with payment? possibly some clause that would state he gets a lot less for being inactive for 1st game.... or possible nfl rules about how many games he would have to miss if inactive???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 not sure, but could it have anything to do with payment? possibly some clause that would state he gets a lot less for being inactive for 1st game.... or possible nfl rules about how many games he would have to miss if inactive???? For a vested vereran, he would be paid the whole season is he is on the opening-day roster (actice or inactive), so being cut for week 1 and then re-signed voids that provision of the CBA. So that was likely his concern. Being inactive for one week does not make any rulings for other weeks, and the PUP can only occur if the injury occured prior to training camp starting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 (edited) For a vested vereran, he would be paid the whole season is he is on the opening-day roster (actice or inactive), so being cut for week 1 and then re-signed voids that provision of the CBA. So that was likely his concern. Being inactive for one week does not make any rulings for other weeks, and the PUP can only occur if the injury occured prior to training camp starting. Thanks, Big John. Didn't know that about PUP. Edited February 3, 2007 by Bill Swerski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.