Jamaal Jackson, Leonard Weaver Out For Year
The Eagles lost two offensive starters for the year on Sunday. Center Jamaal Jackson tore his biceps, while fullback Leonard Weaver suffered a gruesome knee injury that is currently being classified as strictly a torn ACL. Owen Schmitt is apparently heading to Philadelphia to try out as Weaver's replacement.
Comments
42 comments, Last at 14 Sep 2010, 2:58pm
#1 by bingo762 // Sep 13, 2010 - 12:14pm
Ugh. It's gonna be a loooong year. Dreading what Suh is gonna do next week. Hopefully have October/November baseball to look forward to
#11 by Bobby Womack (not verified) // Sep 13, 2010 - 1:52pm
It's okay, Shaun Hill will be playing, I think the Eagles will be okay, even if Kolb plays.
#2 by Basilicus // Sep 13, 2010 - 12:28pm
As a lifelong football fan, I don't think I've ever been so offended by a coach's decision as when Andy Reid put Stewart Bradley back in the game.
He'd obviously suffered a severe concussion and was punch-drunk on the field, stumbling around, barely keeping his legs, and finally falling to the field directly after the injury. And yet, two plays later, he was sent back in the game. Never have I seen such a blatant disregard for player safety, and this was only compounded by sending Kolb back in for a series after he suffered a concussion.
Reid should get fined by the league. That's all there is to it. If a player can get fined for a dangerous hit, Reid needs to get fined for sending obviously concussed players back into the game.
#5 by CoachDave // Sep 13, 2010 - 1:14pm
I couldn't agree more.
The point of emphasis on concussions in HS has been terrific, great coverage at off season coach's seminars, standard guidelines across state athletic associations, etc....great to see so much working being done to keep kids safe.
But then these same kids watch the Philly game on Sunday and completely get a mixed message.
We are going to spend 5-10 minutes talking about it at warmups today, but unfortunately our team will be in the minority.
#12 by JoeHova // Sep 13, 2010 - 2:15pm
Agreed, it was shameful to send Bradley back into the game. I almost think Reid should be suspended or fired for doing it. There is just no excuse. In boxing, a fight would have been stopped if a guy fell over like that but apparently people involved in a sport where guys get punched in the head for a living have more concern for an athlete's brain than Andy Reid does.
#14 by bingo762 // Sep 13, 2010 - 3:01pm
What do you expect? He's a fat fucking slob who can't even take care of himself or his children
#24 by johnny walker (not verified) // Sep 13, 2010 - 8:09pm
Wow. You're a complete and absolute moron. Take that comment back to PFT where it belongs.
#28 by bingo762 // Sep 13, 2010 - 11:26pm
Waaah
#37 by SamWyatt (not verified) // Sep 14, 2010 - 11:51am
Seriously, just show some maturity.
#3 by Venger // Sep 13, 2010 - 12:48pm
Given the Eagles' strict concussion rules (highlighted by a Football Outsiders extra point earlier this year), I just assumed he had managed to dodge the trainers a la Matthew Stafford.
#4 by ChaosOnion (not verified) // Sep 13, 2010 - 1:10pm
I hope so. While it is bad he (and Kolb?) could avoid trainer evaluations, it is even worse if he was consciously sent back in. If so, Reid does not need a fine, he needs a suspension.
#6 by bingo762 // Sep 13, 2010 - 1:19pm
They didn't dodge the trainers. Here's a quote from Andy Reid in today's Daily News: "They were fine. All of the questions that they answered with the doctors registered well. But as it went on, they weren't feeling well so we took them out."
When asked how someone could make the decision to allow Bradley back into the game after seeing him stagger like that and fall, Reid said, "Our doctors and our trainer were on it. The bottom line is, we ended up taking him out."
#9 by smutsboy // Sep 13, 2010 - 1:42pm
So Reid had no explanation or justification, he refused to answer the question.
#10 by Revenge of the NURBS (not verified) // Sep 13, 2010 - 1:51pm
He said they appeared fine to go back in, so they went back in. That's not refusing to answer the question. It's actually much more disturbing. His answer means that their doctors were so incompetent that they couldn't tell that a guy who had just done the patented Ric Flair pratfall had suffered a head injury.
#13 by Mountain Time … // Sep 13, 2010 - 2:19pm
Agreed with all above. Injuries are the worst part of football, and I do not want my favorite sport to cause lifelong problems for players.
"Just look at that pumpkin."
-John Madden, looking at the moon.
#15 by the cat in the… (not verified) // Sep 13, 2010 - 4:20pm
To be fair, Reid spent about ten minutes of his press conference talking about the situation. He wasn't dodging any questions. what he said was that both players passed the immediate test but they then kept an eye on them.
He also talked about the rehab process, detailing it step by step to give the press timescales on evaluating both players. He refused to speculate the timescale for either Kolb or Bradley's actual return, and would not say whether or not the players could practise on friday, because he didn't know that. The closest to a prediction he made was to say that Kolb 'will be fine down the road here.'
When asked about the decision to send Bradley back in, he said 'When he came off the field and went through the process and the testing, he was clear-minded and able to pass through that.'
I'm conflicted, because it instantly looked like a concussion, but one thing I will say about Andy Reid is that for all his faults, he is ALL about the process, sometimes to ridiculous and frustrating excess. This will have been down their medical staff's decision, utterly, and that staff will have followed strict protocols.
Here's what Reid said about head trainer Rick Burkholder and his staff: 'I know how good Rick Burkholder is and our docs, and how they protect our players. They go to the extreme to follow the medical protocol that is set for everything.' Now, is that lip service? You could argue that, but I trust the person who actually made the decision.
Here's an article about the protocols Burkholder has been putting in place. They really don't sound cavalier about it:
http://www.philly.com/dailynews/sports/columnists/20100824_Rich_Hofmann__Eagles_trainer_s_concussion_plan_is_one_of_a_kind.html#ixzz0xX72fgbg
Like I said, I'm conflicted. I found Bradley's injury frightening, and I was worried to see him back in. I think, looking at it, Reid will maybe question that too.
One thing Reid never does is speculate in public. He wouldn't even go as far as calling Leonard Weaver's gruesome leg injury 'career-threatening,' which it so obviously is. It's just not Reid. If that's 'ducking the question' in your eyes, then he's guilty of it. I don't think that's accurate, however.
#16 by Thomas_beardown // Sep 13, 2010 - 4:23pm
Did any reporter question him on how the process so clearly failed to identify concussion symptoms?
#17 by Revenge of the NURBS (not verified) // Sep 13, 2010 - 4:31pm
Yeah, that's my issue too. I don't care what process was followed, there's such a thing as common sense. All you had to see was Bradley stumbling around the field after the play to know that he should have been done for the day, regardless of whether or not he can answer questions on the sideline.
#18 by TBW (not verified) // Sep 13, 2010 - 4:53pm
It took the "process" several years to figure out that Stinkston and Trash were crappy starting receivers, the "process" still hasn't figured how to get 1 yard on 3rd or 4th and 1, so diagnosing a concussion in 5 minutes might be a little bit much to expect from the "process".
#27 by bingo762 // Sep 13, 2010 - 11:25pm
According to the guidlines, when what happened to Bradley(woozy, loss of balance) happens, that's it. The player is done for the day, regardless of what any test says. It's cut and dried in black and white. Reid and his staff should be fined. Period
#29 by Andrew Potter // Sep 13, 2010 - 11:39pm
Which guidelines are those?
#38 by SamWyatt (not verified) // Sep 14, 2010 - 11:55am
You know, those guidelines that 'everybody knows'
#40 by Andrew Potter // Sep 14, 2010 - 12:48pm
Oh, of course, how could I forget? :)
#31 by Mountainhawk // Sep 14, 2010 - 8:08am
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5568272
"NFL Players Association medical director Dr. Thom Mayer has concluded that the Philadelphia Eagles followed proper procedure when they allowed quarterback Kevin Kolb and linebacker Stewart Bradley to return to play Sunday after both players sustained big hits that would later warrant their removal with a concussion diagnosis. "
You must enjoy being wrong.
#30 by the cat in the… (not verified) // Sep 14, 2010 - 4:23am
You're now talking about things which are utterly irrelevant to the issue because you feel like criticising a coach. Also, you have failed to grasp the point that it was the TRAINING STAFF who made that decision.
The other issue seems to be that they were spending so much time checking out Kolb that perhaps someone with less experience was looking at Bradley. That sounds like a mistake, and quite a bad one. I wouldn't deny that, I'm just more interested in the source of the mistake than immediately assuming Andy Reid is some kind of omnipotent god directly controlling everything the Eagles do on the sidelines. He clearly isn't that.
I don't want to go overboard on defending Reid here, because I was concerned to see Bradley back in the game. I guess my point is that Reid will have put a staff in place and gone with what they said to him. That's what he does.
Also, he won't criticise them openly because he NEVER does that with a player or anyone in his organisation. That frustrates people who wanted to see him say 'yeah, LJ Smith is an absolute waste of space,' or 'yeah, drafting Freddie Mitchell, what the hell was I thinking?' but it's absolutely the right thing to do. I have confidence that he's asking the same questions behind closed doors as others are in public.
#35 by bubqr // Sep 14, 2010 - 9:22am
That is the best nickname, by far, I've seen on FO. Well done !
#39 by Josh // Sep 14, 2010 - 12:44pm
He wins the thread.
#42 by Sinar (not verified) // Sep 14, 2010 - 2:58pm
I especially like that the nickname is "not verified"
Schrodinger would be pleased.
#41 by Thomas_beardown // Sep 14, 2010 - 2:51pm
You misunderstood me. I don't care about Reid.
I do care about watching obviously concussed players making their way back onto the field.
Now, if I was reporter in the room, and Reid said the process allowed them back on, my questions would have been 1) Why did the process fail? and 2) What is being done to improve the process so it doesn't fail on this magnitude again?
Really, I was criticizing the press more than anyone, if those questions were not asked. I don't want to watch the whole press conference to see it.
#7 by bingo762 // Sep 13, 2010 - 1:22pm
Was Mike Bell not active yesterday? Wouldn't he seem like the logical fill in full back instead of Buckley?
#8 by Dean // Sep 13, 2010 - 1:25pm
He had 1 carry and it was called back via penalty.
#26 by DavidL // Sep 13, 2010 - 9:56pm
And he's hurt now.
#33 by Dean // Sep 14, 2010 - 8:22am
I missed that part (but admitedly I was paying more attention to other games). He must have gotten lost in the shuffle with all the other injuries. What happend to him?
#36 by DavidL // Sep 14, 2010 - 10:49am
Toe strain. It wasn't even reported until the next day.
#19 by QCIC (not verified) // Sep 13, 2010 - 5:12pm
Concussions like that regularly happen to kids playing in youth leagues and/or just screwing around. I could care less if people who are getting millions of dollars get them.
The bottom line is if you want a sport that has hitting and not just tackling, there will be LOTS of concussions. Period.
I was concussed several times as a youth, it was fine.
#21 by TomC // Sep 13, 2010 - 6:58pm
I was concussed several times as a youth, it was fine.
Somebody else want to take this one? I just don't quite have the energy.
#22 by Owl Tamale (not verified) // Sep 13, 2010 - 7:16pm
Chris Benoit called to say hello.
#25 by johnny walker (not verified) // Sep 13, 2010 - 8:16pm
"It was fine."
I guess there are differing definitions of "fine," because to my eyes it seems to have turned you into a callous jerk with a cavalier attitude toward brain damage. Or maybe you're just that way naturally?
You "could care less?" Great for you. So basically you're saying that in your eyes, as long as someone gets a big salary it's ok to turn them into a vegetable for our amusement. What about 21 year old kids trying to break in on special teams? The vast majority of players aren't making millions of dollars, they're making a few hundred thousand dollars for a year or two. Tell me then: what's the minimum amount someone must be paid before it's ok to stop caring about their safety? Jackass.
#32 by evenchunkiermonkey (not verified) // Sep 14, 2010 - 8:20am
one million dollars. If someone offers you one million dollars to do anything its probably risky, dangerous and at least slightly ill-advised. so one million dollars a year and I no longer feel sorry if something bad happens to you, because at the end of the day they've been paid twenty times the average amount of US household income to play a game for my amusement.
#34 by Revenge of the NURBS (not verified) // Sep 14, 2010 - 8:42am
"The bottom line is if you want a sport that has hitting and not just tackling, there will be LOTS of concussions. Period."
That is most likely a fact, unfortunately. But that doesn't mean we can't do a better job of handling them when they do occur.
Personally, I'm kind of curious to see where this is all heading. Concussions will never be eliminated from the game, and the evidence of their damaging effects will most likely continue to moout. Something's got to give, or pro football will be considered a bloodsport like boxing. I hope the NFL is smart enough to do something about it before it reaches that point, but these incidents with Kolb and Bradley aren't encouraging. Concussion safety is supposed to be a point of emphasis, and in the first week, two guys get concussed and sent right back into the game. And those are just the two we know about.
#20 by DW94 // Sep 13, 2010 - 5:37pm
Any thoughts on how Mike McGlynn will perform? I haven't watched him enough to have even a semblance of an informed opinion.
#23 by CathyW // Sep 13, 2010 - 7:58pm
I was at the game yesterday, and saw Stewart Bradley just fall down like someone had pole-axed him. For him to have been back in the game a couple of plays later was completely inexcusable - even the fans in the stadium were like "WTF is he in there?"