Drew's Bio
The only person in the history of Baltimore sports-talk to attend Game 2 of the 1983 World Series, shoot 64 in golf (twice) and sit next to Dave Grohl on a flight from Baltimore to Cleveland (1997), Drew is the host of The Comcast Morning Show from 6am-10am Monday through Friday. Topics routinely range from the Ravens, Terps and the Orioles and their decision to not improve the team for the (insert number of years here) consecutive season. His favorite movie is "Wiggle Bay" and his favorite member of Little Einstein's is June. Drew's son Ethan said, "Daddy, why do the Flyers stink so bad?" when he was only 8 days old. "Gotta start 'em young," the proud papa said that night.
Drew's Posts
How do you say, “Relief pitching is best for me” in Japanese? That’s the story for ...
Read It »With a handful of veteran NCAA coaches getting dismissed on Monday, you’d have to understand ...
Read It »It’s not a shock, but Tiger Woods is returning to golf. Woods announced this morning he’ll ...
Read It »Last Friday morning, I announced a concept designed to bring together 9 groups of parent/child ...
Read It »Just to get all of the fancy disclaimers out of the way: I’ve been a Washington ...
Read It »
Drew's Archive
While everyone is lining up to applaud the NFL for their suddenly-righteous treatment of players who have sustained a concussion during league play, I’ll be the one to speak the truth about it.
The league should NOT be allowed to tell a team and/or a player that he’s not allowed to play because of a health/injury condition.
I notice the league didn’t care last January when Terrell Suggs had a shoulder injury that *probably* (ahem) required some sort of pain-killing, anti-inflammatory shot just so he could line up against the Steelers in the AFC title game.
I can almost guarantee the same thing happened in every stadium in the league last Sunday.
“Coach, my foot is killing me…”
“Go see the trainer, he’ll take care of it.”
Suddenly, now, the league is overly-concerned with this concussion issue.
And, naturally, they should be concerned.
The league has a long history of ignoring player injuries and ailments that wind up becoming long-term disability issues 10 or 20 years after they’re out of the game.
The league SHOULD be concerned about concussions.
The league SHOULD NOT be telling a player he can’t play in the game this Sunday.
That is, unless they want to start dictating the competitive balance of the league.
No one is saying for sure what REALLY happened in Arizona and Pittsburgh last weekend…because the NFL is still in the beginning stages of finalizing their policies on concussion treatment and eligibility to return to play, it’s not known whether or not they sent word to the member teams that the medical recommendation they received on Kurt Warner and Ben Roethlisberger translated into a mandate that neither of them would be eligible to play on Sunday.
There are plenty of stories floating around that the league - through their medical folks - “benched” both of them on Sunday.
That’s wrong.
What the league SHOULD be doing is educating the players on the seriousness of concussions, the after-effects of concussions and the long-term risks associated with multiple concussion-head trauma injuries during their career.
The league’s been lax in that area for a long time — as in, forever, basically.
They’ve now decided the best method to handle concussion issues is to sit players out of games.
Yet, oddly enough, the league is looking to ADD games to the regular season schedule?
The league has allowed more mini-camps, official team activities and training camp options over the last five years or so. The league is now almost a 12-month a year occupation. More work-outs, more hitting, more contact, more football.
All of that, by the way, means more money. For the teams. For the league. For everyone associated with the NFL.
They don’t care when a player risks arthritis or joint wear and tear by taking a pre-game “pain killing” shot (I had one Raven - now ex-Raven - tell me he took 4 “shots” in the last month or so of the 2006 season).
They’d never tell a player he can’t play because he has a shoulder injury.
But now they care when a player has a head injury.
And they care enough to tell him he can’t play this weekend.
That’s not right.
Inform them, provide them with every opportunity to have a doctor make his professional assessment on their concussion and, if nothing else, give them a mandate to sign some sort of waiver form that acknowledges they’ve been informed of the dangers of playing based on the medical evidence that’s been presented to them in light of their head injury.
But if the player - with the team’s approval - wants to play, he should be playing.
Unless the league wants to disrupt the competitive balance of the games.
I don’t know what happened in Arizona and Pittsburgh last weekend because no one really knows the truth yet.
But if - and that’s IF - Warner and Roethlisberger were both “held out” by the league and their medical folks, that mandate cost the Cardinals and the Steelers a chance to win a huge game.
No disrespect…but the Cardinals would have had a MUCH better chance of winning with Kurt Warner playing and the Steelers would have had a MUCH better chance of winning if Ben Roethlisberger played in Baltimore.
And I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with not playing, by the way.
If after hearing the information and evidence about possible long-term risks, both Warner and Roethlisberger decided on their own accord they didn’t want to play, that’s completely their right and their call.
As it should be.
But the league shouldn’t unilaterally have the right to tell a player he can’t play in a game based on an injury.
Player suspensions for on-field and off-field infractions are part of the supervisory role attached to the NFL. Someone has to monitor the players as it relates to penalties and such.
But it’s not right for the league to sit a player out of a game for an injury when the player would otherwise be willing to play for his team.
Inform the players and make them smarter. Educate them.
Sitting them out doesn’t do anything except make me wonder if the league cares more about who wins and loses than maybe they should.
Blog categories
Share
Email
Print
RSS
Comment
Set Gravatar
December 1st, 2009 at 1:54 pm
As I stated this morning, when it comes to players’ physical well being, the decision to allow them to play is best left to the meical profession. You can bet that part of the league’s desire to become more proactive in this matter has to do with legal liability fears. However, if the determination is left in the hands of the attending and/or team physicians, that would remove the league from liability. Conversely, if the league plays a role in the decision making process, they would open themselves to future legal liability. That’s one “old” lawyers unsolicited opinion for what it’s worth. And, remember, you get what you pay for……..
Set Gravatar
December 1st, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Drew,
I could not agree with you more that the NFL has no business telling players they can not play.
I understand where the NFL is coming from and the research that says concussions could lead to minor/major health problems later in life. But it’s a slippery slope the NFL is going down.
If the NFL mandates a player has to sit out the following week, do the owners have the option of docking a player his game check because he is not playing?
Also, that player (such as Warner/Rothlisberger) could be instrumental in their team’s winning or losing. In a 16 game season, where the difference between success and failure is razor thin, and playoff hopes could be in jeopardy (or lost), it should not be out of that team’s hands to determine if that player suits up.
If the player passes all the necessary neurological tests and shows no ill effects following a concussion, he should be cleared and allowed to play. At the very least, give him a waiver to sign like you said.
We all know the NFL is about the “bottom line.” What would happen if every week multiple star players are sitting out because of concussions or symptoms from one? It COULD (I stress could)lead to fans losing interest, ratings from that market go down, loss of sponsors, etc. I know it’s far-fetched, but what happens when a team is 6-10, 5-11 or worse? Almost all the above that I mentioned happens. (Think Ravens ‘07)
It’s not out of the realm of possibilities. This past week, it was Rothlisberger, Warner, Westbrooke in Philly (D. Jackson went down with one during the game). And that is the players we knew who had concussions. But how many “lied” to the docs to play last week? Extrapolate that with the normal injury report and a team could be without a few playmakers.
The NFL cannot make the determination if a player can go the next week following a concussion. A team’s season, a player’s job, and possibly a coach’s job are all on the line. Educate the players, run the proper tests, and allow the team physicians and staff to make the call.
Set Gravatar
December 1st, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Drew,
Saying that the player should be allowed to play if he feels he’s okay to go is like saying a drunk should be allowed to drive if they say they’re okay to drive. Their capacity to render a sound judgement on their condition is negatively affected by said condition.
Because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I think that people are having a greater awareness of what mild Traumatic Brain Injury (mTBI) can do to a person, both in the short term and in the long term. It’s not good.
The league has used many rules to affect the competetive balance of the league, namely, how teams draft amateur players. My opinion is that the forces that most want to keep the league out of this decision are the ones who stand the most to lose if a crucial player has to sit–the gamblers.
You’re dealing with the lives of people here, real people who can’t get brain surgery to fix their brain like they can get surgery to fix their rotator cuff or their ACL. Let the league do the right thing. The right thing is to keep the players out who have a brain injury.
It’s only a game, folks. It’s only a game.
(DF: The drunk driving comparison was so ridiculous, I stopped reading. You might have made some valid points after that…but I wouldn’t know.)
Set Gravatar
December 1st, 2009 at 4:43 pm
I didn’t say it because I thought it would change your mind, Drew. I put you in the category of people who put sports out of proportion to their real importance. And that’s okay, bud. Really, it is.
Yes, we all like to watch sports. Yes, we all want our teams to win and are disappointed when they lose. So what? It’s just sports. Because you want to watch someone play doesn’t mean you’re entitled to have others put themselves at risk–or be put at risk–so you can be entertained. Forget about the money, brain injuries are things that affect people for the rest of their lives.
I gotta laugh sometimes at the losers on sports radio who get all lathered up about the Ravens or the Orioles or the Terps–or whoever it is that they root for. It’s…just…a…game. Just a game. (DF: There’s no reason for me to change my mind on this. I think I’m right. I talk sports for a living. Other than my family, it’s the most important thing I know or do. It puts food on my family’s table. The players put themselves at risk every single day. I’m not asking them to do that. That’s THEIR call. And that was the principle of the blog. The NFL has no business telling a player if he should or shouldn’t play, just like you don’t…or I don’t…the NFL can present evidence to a player and suggest based on that evidence that he not play. But if said player determines that he wants to play, he should be afforded the option of doing so. We still live in America, last I checked.)
Set Gravatar
December 1st, 2009 at 5:31 pm
When your getting sued by former players, you can do what you want to protect your business.
Part of the American way of life these days.
Set Gravatar
December 1st, 2009 at 5:50 pm
drew u want these players to have life long head injuries u dope or u want them to go around play while they have brain damage. u are wrong, NFL is doin the right thing about protecting the players. (DF: I don’t want players to have ANY injuries. Unfortunately, guys get hurt all the time. What I also don’t want is the league telling the team you can’t play “that player” this weekend. That is, unless the league wants to be run like they run the WWE…and the results are pre-determined.)
Set Gravatar
December 1st, 2009 at 8:28 pm
The NFL has no business to tell a player to sit out??? You gotta be kidding me. We’re talking about something which could be causing permanent brain damage. Do you really think the NFL wants a bunch Muhammed Ali’s running around 20 years from now? I agree with gilbyg27. What prevents a player from suing the NFL if the NFL knew that a player should not be playing. The NFL has to protect their business and they can do whatever they want within in the law just like any other business. Comparing getting shot up for a sore shoulder to a concussion which can cause permanent brain damage is irresponsible. Let’s use some common sense and get some independent doctor(s) involved who would make the call on whether a player should be playing or not. (DF: You and I disagree. Gee, what a shock. If I said the sky was blue you’d say, “looks like light gray to me…”. Whatever.)
Set Gravatar
December 1st, 2009 at 8:29 pm
but drew: youve watched so much football you have to be lying to yourself saying the cards and steelers would have played better with warner and ben.
im half your age and ive seen multiple players come back from a concussion and play the next week and they were like deer in headlights. favre in 2004 i think, ben in 2006, even westbrook this year took like 2 snaps and had 2nd concussion after sitting out a week! or terrell davis going in to play when he couldnt even SEE due to migraines
*****youre absolutely right. the league has no right to exempt players from playing due to medical conditions.*****
BUT: theres another fundamental concern you didnt really address. the one where you will tell ethan not to cry over pain or to walk it off after he plays his first little league game and gets beaned by a line drive. the undeniable male standard that says not to be a sissy, or be made fun of.
football players have come out and said theyve either seen people ridiculed for not playing through the pain (especially non-visible pain i.e. concussions, migraines), or have played through it just to avoid the perceived ridicule.
did you see hines ward come out that night and say ben should have played through it? and theyre like BFF’s!
if teams and players are unwilling to stand up and accept that some things arent worth the risk, then maybe the league DOES have a right to sit players.
(DF: You, like most everyone else, keeps missing the point. I wish you folks could read. I did NOT say players with concussions should play. What I said, for the 1,000th time, is that the league should NOT mandate if a player can play or not. Arizona and Pittsburgh both suffered on Sunday because they played without their regular quarterbacks. You’re just not facing reality if you disagree with that. You’re behind the times…Ward apologized today once he found out Ben didn’t play because the doctors advised Mike Tomlin to sit him out and that’s what Tomlin did…and Ward didn’t know that when he was interviewed on Saturday. The entire point to my blog: The NFL should not be allowed to “bench” a player because of an injury. Period.)
Set Gravatar
December 1st, 2009 at 8:37 pm
i also forgot to mention how players came out and said their teammates helped them get back in games from concussions by telling them how many fingers the doctors held up to test them. and other methods of tricking the medical staff to get back into the game. people can die because of this new “red/white/blue shield of silence”. if the players are too afraid to be made fun of, then someone has to step in
——————-
and you blew off another incredibly good point that pat made drew:
his analogy was perfect about the drunk drivers. players always say theyre fine and drunk drivers always say theyre fine.
and then you get brain damage or hit a kid in the street.
what? you brushed it off because maybe youve lost friends from drunk driving. yeah, me too. thats why i CAN see how similar it is
—————–
stephen gio: the medical field is self admittedly saying that they have very far to go to fully understand concussions
(DF: I don’t agree with you. Hopefully that ends your involvement on this subject. I’m not changing my mind. The league should NOT be allowed to determine which players play and which players don’t.)
Set Gravatar
December 1st, 2009 at 8:40 pm
i agreed with you drew. i even put a bunch of ****asterisks***** around it. the league shouldnt. but the players and teams should. which is also what i said.
you get on us listeners for not getting your points when the conversation goes both ways.
but you didnt acknowledge my point about the players coming back from concussion. they are deer in headlights. neither the steelers or cards would have benefited based on trends in history (which i mentioned). and we all know history repeats itself.
(DF: I see what happened. You actually agreed with me. But instead of just writing, “you’re right”, you went into a missive about deers and other stuff and I lost interest. I wrote that the player and the team should be the ones to determine if the player plays. Not the league. If the player has a concussion and wants to play and the team has their medical folks look at him and they deem it’s safe for him to play, he should play. Period. Evidently, you agreed with that. We should have a parade to celebrate that fact tomorrow.)
Set Gravatar
December 1st, 2009 at 8:47 pm
you must be a leo drew. because youre so stubborn you cant even let people agree with you. and since you refuse to see that i was agreeing with you, then you immediately dismiss everything else ive said that true. and that goes for all the other people who post valid points on here and get shot down.
boiled down i said:
1) youre right the nfl cant keep players out
2) there is an underlying problem of “manliness” that could eventually get someone killed trying to play the game
3) history has proven that players playing immediately after concussions have not been assets to their teams.
(DF: I’m not a Leo, I’m a Buddhist. In the future when you agree with me, just say, “Drew, I agree with you.” Those five words will take care of it. You’ll spend a lot less time making your point that winds up being foggy and unclear.)
Set Gravatar
December 2nd, 2009 at 10:08 am
[...] Drew Forrester says NFL has no more right to determine whether player plays with head injury than they would have h… [...]
Set Gravatar
December 2nd, 2009 at 10:33 am
Drew,
Last time I checked you’re right–we do still live in America, where employers are empowered to set workplace rules that people sometimes don’t like. I think you’re wrong–and that’s okay, we can agree to disagree.
I don’t like how Walmart treats their employees or their suppliers, so I don’t shop there. If you don’t like how the NFL runs their business, then don’t you shop there. It’s that simple.
Of course, your job is to follow, report on, and render opinions about the NFL, so you have to watch. The wise thing is for the NFL to do the right thing and sit these guys down. They need to determine the standard, communicate the standard, train the teams on it, and enforce it. It will save lives. Period.
Who knows, maybe by having Roethlisberger sit one game, he actually is able to extend his career by giving his body the ability to heal itself. There’s a novel concept.