|
I don't know, I haven't seen a tonn on this yet, but from what I've seen it looks like ESPN has taken a standpoint on it and isn't budging. To me, listening to his comments, to me it looks like he is saying:
"I want to go out there and help my team, but at the same time I am injured and at the risk of injuring myself more."
To me that is just the smart thing to do for yourself and for your team. First of all, he has been injured for a while now so if he doesn't play they aren't really losing anything. Then, from what I gather he is still injured, he has been cleared to play, but he is still injured. If thats the case, to me it makes perfect sense to miss this one game and possibly salvage a career. Beyond just money, think about everything he could be losing if he seriously injured himself, no doubt the length of his career could be shortened, he could have a perminant limp or other long term injury, his whole life could be drastically changed because of a stupid decision to play before being in playing condition. I haven't heard anything about this, but if the Jets win I would assume that he would be in a better position to play in the next week, which is more important. To me, the decision is: Have good player miss another week and come back later better then ever vs. force injured player to perform only to lose him for the future.
The way ESPN is looking at what he said is like:
"I am perfectly healthy but don't want to play because if I get injured I won't get as much money next season."
I dunno, I guess I just think that he has just cause to not play, and really I don't think that the Jets are super down on him not playing because he probably wouldn't even play that much. There is more to life then money, and there is more to life then playing football, I don't think an injured player not playing is hurting his team very much.
|