Im Confused about the Shawn Merriman signing

[Meark]

Why did the Bills spend 2.5 millon per year on a guy that probably will get hurt in pre-season?

 

What has he done in the last 3 years except prove that he can't stay healthy. I don't understand the Bills direction on that decision.

 

 

just my opinion. Im sure that 2.5 million could have been better utilized somewhere else.

 

Ok I'll bite.... so how would you have utilized that 2.5 million? (Since you are "sure" it could have been better utilized I assume you can tell us where.)

Edited January 27, 2011 by markinsd

[Van_phelaN1]

The opportunity to "pick someone else" didn't begin at the time they signed Merriman. They could have also not picked him up. There may be a very large number of guys who could play once and were recently (or not so recently) released.

 

 

The subtlety you are missing is that Merriman was already chronically injured. He then was reinjured very soon after his clearance physical, at the beginning of his first practice.

 

 

Wow. Anyway, I don't dispute anything in bold, so not sure what the "fictitious" yammering is about.

 

Very simply, he fell apart soon after what was clearly by a cursory exam meant to satisfy the GMs desire to put his former pet on the roster. That's hardly a conspiracy--it's just how things are done.

 

You say he "reaggrevated" an existing injury--how? By doing a simple, non contact position drill. If, as you say, this was a reinjury, then it was likely never fully healed and the same reaggravation would likely have appeared during a rigorous presigning workout and physical.

 

Why on earth would you not want to go above and beyond the standard exam for a guy with chronic injuries? That is my point. No need to bash your head. It's a simple premise and common sense.

 

Fictitious was a bad choice of word I guess. How about just plain "wrong" point of view. Is that better?

 

Now I am not arguing with you that he was given a Cursory exam. Should the exam have been tougher? Maybe. The problem is he wasn't going to get anything different than any other player got. If he passed, he passed.

 

I said "re-aggravate" because I thought that was what was said in a report that had been made about it around the time that this whole practice injury happened. I thought I read that they believed it was not a new injury but that his original injury never fully healed and it was not apparent until he went out and tried to practice on it. On this particular point I agree with you that had he been tested more vigorously this might have been more apparent to the team doctors.

 

However, the problem is "why wouldn't you want to" because my opinion (or yours for that matter) are of no consequence what so ever. I don't know all the ins- and outs of the business but I am willing to bet that there is a guideline for how these physical's are meant to go and I am sure that the organization met those requirements. What you would have done doesn't really matter, even if it was the more intelligent way to do things.

 

Arguments about what people should have done or would have done are non-constructive, self serving and futile. In the end the team is either out 2.5 mill or they get a return on their investment.

 

You personally sound like you just want people to see things the way you do and you are wasting your time. It is what it is. Not to mention the fact that his contract is (IMHO) one of the least important things that this team has on it's plate going in to this off season. At 2.5 all he has to do is get on the field, help out some of the younger guys that we have drafted or will be drafting and be a stop gap for something better to go along.

[Mr. WEO]

Cuz you cant make tougher standards to select few, its called discrimination, dosnt matter your intent , if you were to be able to pick who would have to pass a tougher test than everyone else, that would be the definition of discrimination. So that means it is against the law, and the NFL standards, that would be why you would not want to go above and beyond the standard exam.

Ok, you just made this up. The is no federal law barring a physician from doing a more extensive physical examination on a specific player prior to clearing a player to play football in the NFL.

 

MEDICAL STAFF aka idiotsDr. Leslie Bisson Team Orthopedist

Dr. Andrew Cappuccino Team Physician

Dr. Greg Hudecki Team Dentist

Dr. John Marzo Medical Director

Dr. Tom White Team Physician

Andrew Cappuccino, MD '88, a team physician with the Bills, performed emergency spine surgery on Everett at Millard...

 

All you need is google to find out that Cappuccino did Dwan Edwards' physical and regularly is assigned this task for incoming FAs.

I'm not calling anyone an idiot. I just don't think they did much more than a standard player exam on a guy who was, essentially, moments away from reinjuring an existing problem in a simple exercise on the first day of practice. It's my opinion that if they had really worked him out in a physically stenuous manner, the injury would have manifested itself at the time of the testing. Would they still have signed him? Who knows.

 

Perhaps you think that the reinjury was a freak accident that could in no way have been exposed through any method of examination prior to his simple "backpedaling" exercise on day one. That's too hard for me to believe, but perhaps easy for you.

 

Yes, Andrew Cappucino's (along with Kevin Gibbons, who was my Chief Resident on the Neurosurgery service at Millard when I was an intern years ago)very ballsy intervention saved Everett's mobility. He's a spine surgeon in practice. I don't know if he was the one who examined Merriman's gimpy legs.

 

Maybe if you thought of it another way: say you are going to buy a used car. You see a late model but clearly beat up beauty (with a carfax many pages long) on the internet that you feel has potential. You want that car and it's only $1000. You tell your certified mechanic friend you have to have it. He goes to see it, drives it around the parking lot and declares it fit and you buy it. You pull out of the lot, get her up to 20 mph, take a turn and the car won't shift into 2nd gear because the transmission is disintegrating (it had some recent "work" done). Do you say to your mechanic "did you really test drive this car??-it's had many problems" or do you say "oh, well--it was ony $1000 dollars"?

[mikey98277]

Ok, you just made this up. The is no federal law barring a physician from doing a more extensive physical examination on a specific player prior to clearing a player to play football in the NFL.

 

 

I'm not calling anyone an idiot. I just don't think they did much more than a standard player exam on a guy who was, essentially, moments away from reinjuring an existing problem in a simple exercise on the first day of practice. It's my opinion that if they had really worked him out in a physically stenuous manner, the injury would have manifested itself at the time of the testing. Would they still have signed him? Who knows.

 

Perhaps you think that the reinjury was a freak accident that could in no way have been exposed through any method of examination prior to his simple "backpedaling" exercise on day one. That's too hard for me to believe, but perhaps easy for you.

 

Yes, Andrew Cappucino's (along with Kevin Gibbons, who was my Chief Resident on the Neurosurgery service at Millard when I was an intern years ago)very ballsy intervention saved Everett's mobility. He's a spine surgeon in practice. I don't know if he was the one who examined Merriman's gimpy legs.

 

Maybe if you thought of it another way: say you are going to buy a used car. You see a late model but clearly beat up beauty (with a carfax many pages long) on the internet that you feel has potential. You want that car and it's only $1000. You tell your certified mechanic friend you have to have it. He goes to see it, drives it around the parking lot and declares it fit and you buy it. You pull out of the lot, get her up to 20 mph, take a turn and the car won't shift into 2nd gear because the transmission is disintegrating (it had some recent "work" done). Do you say to your mechanic "did you really test drive this car??-it's had many problems" or do you say "oh, well--it was ony $1000 dollars"?

 

 

 

So you are saying that I made up a law against discrimination.. thats absurd. I made no reference to medical examinations or anything else, my point is that you cannot hold one person to a higher standard than another. If you do so then it is discrimination. As I said before it does not matter your intent of why you are holding them to a higher standard, if you leave it up to people there will be corruption, that is why it is a general law that states you cannot hold one person to a higher standard regardless of your intent to do good. If you think I am making up laws against discriminating then you are a lost cause.

[BEAST MODE BABY!]

Maybe if you thought of it another way: say you are going to buy a used car. You see a late model but clearly beat up beauty (with a carfax many pages long) on the internet that you feel has potential. You want that car and it's only $1000. You tell your certified mechanic friend you have to have it. He goes to see it, drives it around the parking lot and declares it fit and you buy it. You pull out of the lot, get her up to 20 mph, take a turn and the car won't shift into 2nd gear because the transmission is disintegrating (it had some recent "work" done). Do you say to your mechanic "did you really test drive this car??-it's had many problems" or do you say "oh, well--it was ony $1000 dollars"?

 

Actually, I am pretty sure the training and medical staff were working with Merriman and came to the conclusion that they had a solution to his injury BEFORE they re-signed him to the new contract.

 

So, I think all those words you typed above are not an appropriate analogy since they gave Merriman more than a once-over.

[QCity]

Maybe if you thought of it another way: say you are going to buy a used car. You see a late model but clearly beat up beauty (with a carfax many pages long) on the internet that you feel has potential. You want that car and it's only $1000. You tell your certified mechanic friend you have to have it. He goes to see it, drives it around the parking lot and declares it fit and you buy it. You pull out of the lot, get her up to 20 mph, take a turn and the car won't shift into 2nd gear because the transmission is disintegrating (it had some recent "work" done). Do you say to your mechanic "did you really test drive this car??-it's had many problems" or do you say "oh, well--it was ony $1000 dollars"?

If the car is still worth $10,000 when running, then yes, it was a great gamble for only $1,000. If Merriman is half as good as he was 4 years ago then this works out great. As it was said earlier in the thread, 2.5M isn't a lot in today's NFL, and unless any physicians on this board personally examined him, you aren't in a better position to evaluate the risk involved.

[Captain Caveman]

WEO, you keep implying that a Dr. would run Merriman to the point of injury. Is your Dr. as tough on you?

Edited January 28, 2011 by Captain Caveman

[Heitz]

Lets see what they do in draft and free agency before jumping to conclusions.

 

 

NEVER!!!!!!

 

Maybe if you thought of it another way: say you are going to buy a used car. You see a late model but clearly beat up beauty (with a carfax many pages long) on the internet that you feel has potential. You want that car and it's only $1000. You tell your certified mechanic friend you have to have it. He goes to see it, drives it around the parking lot and declares it fit and you buy it. You pull out of the lot, get her up to 20 mph, take a turn and the car won't shift into 2nd gear because the transmission is disintegrating (it had some recent "work" done). Do you say to your mechanic "did you really test drive this car??-it's had many problems" or do you say "oh, well--it was ony $1000 dollars"?

 

Humans have potential to heal, cars don't.

[jkhmlf]

We dont know what grade Merriman's injury was to his achilles tendon. Also, there are three flexor and three extensor tendons in the foot/ankle. There are multiple ligaments in the ankle/foot as well. He might have injured something else during his rehab or it might not have been recognized or called on his mri in San Diego. Either way, without knowing the exact medical details, its hard to talk about his long term prognosis. Sa Cowart and Takeo spikes had "Achilles" injuries but we cant intelligently compare them to merriman without knowing there exact injuries. Lets hope for the best ?

[Mr. WEO]

If the car is still worth $10,000 when running, then yes, it was a great gamble for only $1,000. If Merriman is half as good as he was 4 years ago then this works out great. As it was said earlier in the thread, 2.5M isn't a lot in today's NFL, and unless any physicians on this board personally examined him, you aren't in a better position to evaluate the risk involved.

The car wasn't worth $10,0000--the previous owner bought it new and junked it (for nothing) only a few years after because it broke down and stopped running after being driven too hard.

 

WEO, you keep implying that a Dr. would run Merriman to the point of injury. Is your Dr. as tough on you?

A doctor wouldn't run him to cause an injury, but to expose and injury. Docs do "stress tests" all the time. If you are suspected of having heart disease, a competent doc wouldn't just listen to your heart and lungs and tell you to take a baby aspirin a day--he would order a stress test where they would put you on a treadmill in order to actually provoke the heart to see if there are changes consistent with ischemia. Real crazy, huh?

 

All the Bills docs had to do was tell the chronically injured Merriman to put on cleats and pads, head onto the field and "backpedal". Boom--he has an achilles injury. Is that being "too tough"? I think it is known as due diligence.

 

I try to avoid doctors, which can be difficult in my line of work.

 

 

Humans have potential to heal, cars don't.

Over the past 3 seasons, this particular human has shown little propensity to heal. In fact he is more prone to injury, hence the need for a little more skepticism on the part of an examining doc.

[Mr. WEO]

So you are saying that I made up a law against discrimination.. thats absurd. I made no reference to medical examinations or anything else, my point is that you cannot hold one person to a higher standard than another. If you do so then it is discrimination. As I said before it does not matter your intent of why you are holding them to a higher standard, if you leave it up to people there will be corruption, that is why it is a general law that states you cannot hold one person to a higher standard regardless of your intent to do good. If you think I am making up laws against discriminating then you are a lost cause.

Yes, you made up a law against performing a more detailed exam on an individual who is highly suspect for injury or repeated injury. It's actually in the best interest of the health and safety of the individual and is good medicine.

 

You are clearly confused. "Discrimination", per se, is not illegal. Certain types of discrimination in certain circumstances are illegal. The rest is just fine with the government.

 

Legal (and state sponsored) "discrimination" is everywhere you look. How many women are there in the NFL? Men in the WNBA? Women on the front lines in combat? Openly gay soldiers in the military? Astronauts and fighter pilots have strict medical requirements to be accepted into their respective training programs (a "higher standard" is demanded of their health, so they are tested far more rigorously than the ground crew).

 

An 18 year old can vote and die in combat, yet alcholic drinkers are "held to a higher standard" and therefore must be 21 years old before they legally imbibe. Some workers are not drug tested by their employer, others in the same job type are "held to a higher standard" by their employer and are thus tested.

 

If the sole reason for "discrimnation" is race, sex, religion, age, sexual orientation (maybe)--then you have a case because there are actually laws against that. Everything else, including a complete physical based on an individuals health history, is quite legal.

[1B4IDie]

The car wasn't worth $10,0000--the previous owner bought it new and junked it (for nothing) only a few years after because it broke down and stopped running after being driven too hard.

 

 

A doctor wouldn't run him to cause an injury, but to expose and injury. Docs do "stress tests" all the time. If you are suspected of having heart disease, a competent doc wouldn't just listen to your heart and lungs and tell you to take a baby aspirin a day--he would order a stress test where they would put you on a treadmill in order to actually provoke the heart to see if there are changes consistent with ischemia. Real crazy, huh?

 

All the Bills docs had to do was tell the chronically injured Merriman to put on cleats and pads, head onto the field and "backpedal". Boom--he has an achilles injury. Is that being "too tough"? I think it is known as due diligence.

 

I try to avoid doctors, which can be difficult in my line of work.

 

Over the past 3 seasons, this particular human has shown little propensity to heal. In fact he is more prone to injury, hence the need for a little more skepticism on the part of an examining doc.

 

You are a medical professional ?

Can you get your hands on some designer HGH?

 

That's what Merriman really needs.

 

I hope he gets some in the off season.

[T master]

It's a gamble type situation , but the Bills set it up in the contract from what i understood from the article on BB.com .

 

If the guy can get reasonably healthy and play to half of what he was in his hay day he is still a force on the field . As i understand it if he is to be hurt the Bills set it up in his contract that he will get paid the minimum salary .

 

So as i see it with what Nix & Gailey are trying to do , change the culture from a losing one to a winning one the price they will pay to keep Merriman around for his leadership & example will be well worth it .

 

Look if they can blow money like they did on some no account QB like R. Johnson & his contract was for 25 mill. 2.5 mill or under for some one that has a proven track record is a far better or less of a gamble to me than the others taken by the Bills !!

[1B4IDie]

It's a gamble type situation , but the Bills set it up in the contract from what i understood from the article on BB.com .

 

If the guy can get reasonably healthy and play to half of what he was in his hay day he is still a force on the field . As i understand it if he is to be hurt the Bills set it up in his contract that he will get paid the minimum salary .

 

So as i see it with what Nix & Gailey are trying to do , change the culture from a losing one to a winning one the price they will pay to keep Merriman around for his leadership & example will be well worth it .

 

Look if they can blow money like they did on some no account QB like R. Johnson & his contract was for 25 mill. 2.5 mill or under for some one that has a proven track record is a far better or less of a gamble to me than the others taken by the Bills !!

Nice point!

[Mr. WEO]

You are a medical professional ?

Can you get your hands on some designer HGH?

 

That's what Merriman really needs.

 

I hope he gets some in the off season.

Might not be a bad idea. It seems the only way this guy is going to get well, given the damage the steroids have done.

[JPicc2114]

This thread needs to be archived so we can revisit after he gets hurt within the first 3 games.

[mikey98277]

Yes, you made up a law against performing a more detailed exam on an individual who is highly suspect for injury or repeated injury. It's actually in the best interest of the health and safety of the individual and is good medicine.

 

You are clearly confused. "Discrimination", per se, is not illegal. Certain types of discrimination in certain circumstances are illegal. The rest is just fine with the government.

 

Legal (and state sponsored) "discrimination" is everywhere you look. How many women are there in the NFL? Men in the WNBA? Women on the front lines in combat? Openly gay soldiers in the military? Astronauts and fighter pilots have strict medical requirements to be accepted into their respective training programs (a "higher standard" is demanded of their health, so they are tested far more rigorously than the ground crew).

 

An 18 year old can vote and die in combat, yet alcholic drinkers are "held to a higher standard" and therefore must be 21 years old before they legally imbibe. Some workers are not drug tested by their employer, others in the same job type are "held to a higher standard" by their employer and are thus tested.

 

If the sole reason for "discrimnation" is race, sex, religion, age, sexual orientation (maybe)--then you have a case because there are actually laws against that. Everything else, including a complete physical based on an individuals health history, is quite legal.

 

Your just rambling on, about 1 sentence of what your replied had anything to do with what I said, you went into left field about military, which I am in, second just becasue you can point to other wrongs dosnt change anything. If you think that he and his agent would have let himself be held to a higher standard then you must live in a box and not get out much. I am done trying to talk common sense into you. You want to live in a dream world where everything is simple and your idea is the only one. And your last point is about what "discrimination" is, you think its about race, sex, religion, age, sexual orientation, but it is acutally just picking and choosing who you want to hold to a standard. And nobody else has too meet that standard, unless buffalo were to do that type of test on anyone who had been hurt (which they didnt and have not done, which is my whole point) you cannot do it to him.

Edited January 28, 2011 by mikey98277

[Mr. WEO]

Your just rambling on, about 1 sentence of what your replied had anything to do with what I said, you went into left field about military, which I am in, second just becasue you can point to other wrongs dosnt change anything. If you think that he and his agent would have let himself be held to a higher standard then you must live in a box and not get out much. I am done trying to talk common sense into you. You want to live in a dream world where everything is simple and your idea is the only one. And your last point is about what "discrimination" is, you think its about race, sex, religion, age, sexual orientation, but it is acutally just picking and choosing who you want to hold to a standard. And nobody else has too meet that standard, unless buffalo were to do that type of test on anyone who had been hurt (which they didnt and have not done, which is my whole point) you cannot do it to him.

Asking a player to undergo tests that are specific to a player's medical history is not illegal activity. It is sound medical practice--it also makes obvious good business sense.

 

You put forth this idea of illegal or actionable discrimination and you cannot cogently defend your position. Not your fault, because it's indefensible. A higher standard is not illegal discrimination. I've given you several examples of completely legal and state sponsored "discrimination"--none of them are "wrongs" (WTF???). They are usually logical and borne of common sense.

 

Yours is the dream world, apparently, where there are no forms of discrimination and there are no requirements for "higher standards" under any circumstance.

 

...wait, are you putting me on? Oh man! you really had me going there--well played!

[mikey98277]

Asking a player to undergo tests that are specific to a player's medical history is not illegal activity. It is sound medical practice--it also makes obvious good business sense.

 

You put forth this idea of illegal or actionable discrimination and you cannot cogently defend your position. Not your fault, because it's indefensible. A higher standard is not illegal discrimination. I've given you several examples of completely legal and state sponsored "discrimination"--none of them are "wrongs" (WTF???). They are usually logical and borne of common sense.

 

Yours is the dream world, apparently, where there are no forms of discrimination and there are no requirements for "higher standards" under any circumstance.

 

...wait, are you putting me on? Oh man! you really had me going there--well played!

 

 

Well to start, he did pass the tests that he had to, that is made clear by the bills releasing a statement that they cleared him, I think your miss guided, In theory I agree that it should be ok, but it has to be common practice, which it is not. So as soon as you just pick one person to do that test and not make it common practice then you just discriminated. In a perfect world it would make sense to do those tests. I wish they did. But the fact is they dont. So again you cannot just start to do that with only one person. I will not reply to this again, we are just going around in circles. What you want and ask for makes sense if it is a standard everyone is held to, problem is they are not so you cannot just do it once and not expect them to throw up a flag that he was singled out.

[Mr. WEO]

Well to start, he did pass the tests that he had to, that is made clear by the bills releasing a statement that they cleared him, I think your miss guided, In theory I agree that it should be ok, but it has to be common practice, which it is not. So as soon as you just pick one person to do that test and not make it common practice then you just discriminated. In a perfect world it would make sense to do those tests. I wish they did. But the fact is they dont. So again you cannot just start to do that with only one person. I will not reply to this again, we are just going around in circles. What you want and ask for makes sense if it is a standard everyone is held to, problem is they are not so you cannot just do it once and not expect them to throw up a flag that he was singled out.

I'm going to let this gem stand for itself.