Jump to content
RaidersAreOne

Redskins LT Trent Williams placed on non-football illness list and out for season

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Yin-Yang said:

I’m 100% of the belief that his failed physical is...”convenient”, to put it lightly. But why are you mad at Trent? If what’s been reported is remotely true, then Washington did the man dirty (intentionally or not) and then made it a spectacle this season. 

That’s a long story, but the short version is that I believe when you’re breaking a contract that you agreed to, you have at least some obligation to try to make it work out for the other side. And I think he’s had every opportunity to facilitate a trade that would be mutually beneficial, and he’s instead chosen to be as stubborn and obstructive as he can be (ironic, as “be as stubborn and obstructive as you can” could well be the franchise’s motto).

I also don’t really believe they’ve done him dirty. They may have, I guess, if they actively assured him that it was nothing and never actually recommended he get a second opinion — but what doctor ever does that? I strongly suspect that the reason he doesn’t want his medical records reviewed is that they’ll demonstrate that he bears a lot of the responsibility for not addressing this health issue in a timely fashion.

I also just think it’s a bit silly for a grown man who’s made over $100M to blame a sports team and their sports doctors for failing to accurately diagnose a rare form of ultra-slow progressing skin cancer that usually presents on the torso but in his case was on his head. If he was ever remotely concerned about it, all he had to do was go get the second opinion that he was apparently consistently advised to seek out.

I understand why he’s upset. It’s scary stuff. And their doctors were wrong. But I don’t think any of that entitles him to just unilaterally void his contract. As I said, there were ways for him to make this work out tolerably for the party on whom he’s reneging, and he’s chosen to do the opposite at every turn. I like(d) Trent, but I’m a Redskins fan — I care about them much more than I care about him. On a personal level, I’m glad he resolved this health scare and seems to have gotten better, but from a football standpoint, he’s been actively trying to screw the Redskins over, and I can’t get on board with that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dolphins traded Fitzpatrick on a rookie deal like a week after he made it known he doesn't want to be there. Bruce Allen had months to trade Williams, who has said he won't play for the Redskins ever again. Apparently, the Browns offered a first round pick after the first couple of weeks of the season? Allen should have took that trade if it's true. This is almost some Al Davis spiteful junk.

Edited by PapaShogun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, e16bball said:

I strongly suspect that the reason he doesn’t want his medical records reviewed is that they’ll demonstrate that he bears a lot of the responsibility for not addressing this health issue in a timely fashion.

He doesn't want them reviewed because:
There is no upside in making his private life public
There is no upside in letting that POS organization continue to smear him
There is no upside in doctor-shopping to find some MD who will back the team
There is no upside in getting the NFL involved - the League's track record on medical issues is appalling

Your post above suggests exactly what will happen:
You've never examined the patient
You haven't read the reports
You aren't an MD, you don't specialize in rare disease oncology... yet you are already casting aspersions and vilifying him.
Why on earth would any thinking person sign up for that ?

He doesn't want to play for Wash and that is driving everything else.
I'm genuinely sorry your owner is a dbag, I can only imagine how much that sucks.
But Danny will reap as Danny sows and this is merely the latest chapter in a never-ending book about how not to do it.

Remember: Trent didn't set out to screw Wash, he reacted in kind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Shanedorf said:

He doesn't want to play for Wash and that is driving everything else.
I'm genuinely sorry your owner is a dbag, I can only imagine how much that sucks.
But Danny will reap as Danny sows and this is merely the latest chapter in a never-ending book about how not to do it.

Remember: Trent didn't set out to screw Wash, he reacted in kind.

It's actually not Snyder that Trent is mad at:

When it was, the cancer was discovered. He got the call a few weeks after the initial surgery and eventually wound up in Chicago with an oncologist that owner Daniel Snyder had recommended. Snyder initially flew Williams to the doctor and still feels grateful for the help the owner gave him.

"When the diagnosis was grave and they told me that they need to cut my brain and I didn't have long to live, I mean Dan did step up. He called me. He flew me to Chicago. It was all an effort to save my life at that point. And you know, at the end of the day, I still appreciate that, because I didn't have a lot of people stepping up at that time. So even though I went through my hardship, I still maintain a level of gratefulness that he stepped up in that point. Even though a lot of people might say that's his job, it still, when you're in that position and you're kind of depressed, deep in the dumps, any little thing kind of brings a little sunshine. You know what I'm saying? He did get me to the doctor that ultimately extracted the tumor and kind of paid for some things, so I felt like I owed him a level of respect for that. I never wanted to speak out against him."

https://thefandc.radio.com/trent-williams-opens-up-no-reason-to-stay-silent-anymore

Trent's ire is directed at Bruce Allen.  Though Snyder, by extension, as an enabler, can be blamed as well. 

Getting rid of Bruce Allen would win back a massive amount of currently apathetic Redskins fans, and probably would have won over Trent as well if it was done last off-season.  The fact that Snyder is too much of a coward to do it is sickening. 

Edited by HTTRDynasty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shanedorf said:

He doesn't want them reviewed because:
There is no upside in making his private life public
There is no upside in letting that POS organization continue to smear him
There is no upside in doctor-shopping to find some MD who will back the team
There is no upside in getting the NFL involved - the League's track record on medical issues is appalling

Your post above suggests exactly what will happen:
You've never examined the patient
You haven't read the reports
You aren't an MD, you don't specialize in rare disease oncology... yet you are already casting aspersions and vilifying him.
Why on earth would any thinking person sign up for that ?

He doesn't want to play for Wash and that is driving everything else.
I'm genuinely sorry your owner is a dbag, I can only imagine how much that sucks.
But Danny will reap as Danny sows and this is merely the latest chapter in a never-ending book about how not to do it.

Remember: Trent didn't set out to screw Wash, he reacted in kind.

Fair post, except that he’s the one who made this public and he’s the one who made it an issue. 

You don’t get to hold a press conference, in the midst of your latest maneuver to hose the organization that put 9 figures before the decimal in your back account, drop the big “C” word, disparage and “smear” (if not outright slander) the team’s medical staff — and then cry “no, I don’t want anyone looking at my records because I don’t want my private life made public.” He opened that door. I can assure you, the Redskins would have preferred that that particular Pandora’s box remain closed. 

And of course there’s no upside in it for him. He’s already put his whole side of the story out there — at this point, he gets to control the entire narrative and no one else involved gets a chance to defend themselves against these bombshell accusations because they’re bound and gagged by HIPAA and can’t share their side without violating his privacy rights. 

While most of your points about incentives for Trent not to participate are fair, it basically reads as a fair summary of exactly what the status of this situation is at this point: because of what happened, Trent believes he’s entitled to have his cake and eat it too. He wants a trade, but he refuses to do anything to help facilitate a fair return. He wants his accrued season, but he refuses to join the team. He wants his money, but he refuses to do anything to earn it. He wants to blame the team doctors for not catching that this “bump” was cancerous, but he refuses to take any responsibility for doing nothing about it for 6 years. He wants to hold a press conference blaming the organization/medical staff for almost COSTING HIM HIS LIFE, but he refuses to participate in a process where they could defend themselves against such destructive and potentially career-ending accusations. On the grounds that there’s “nothing in it for him.”

And in the court of public opinion, people will be fine with that, as you are. Because the Redskins and the doctors were wrong, because he’s obviously the sympathetic figure in the process, and because the Redskins are perceived by most observers to be at least incompetent and probably downright evil. But being the (rightly) aggrieved party doesn’t entitle you to do and take whatever you want after something negative happens. These doctors, at the very least, deserve an opportunity to clear their names (or at least mitigate the harm his accusations have done to their careers).

Just a couple other quick points:

- The Redskins are a terribly run organization, on basically every level. I accept that. Snyder occasionally shows the stirrings of something resembling a fiber of decency , but Allen is legitimately just a real life version of every soulless villain CEO/politician in TV and film. 

- From what I understand, it’s a review by 3 doctors. One chosen by the Redskins, one chosen by the Williams camp, and one mutually agreed-upon by both parties. I think that’s pretty standard practice, and I think each side would have comparable ability to doctor shop. 

- I’m no oncologist, as you say (nor were the doctors who Trent relied on and who everyone is burying for dangerous incompetence, incidentally), but I am a trial attorney, so I deal daily with people who are trying to suppress the release of evidence/information. And I have yet to see anyone embroiled in a dispute ever attempt to bury facts that cut solely/mostly in their favor, despite all the reasonable thought processes you described above. If it wouldn’t hurt him at least to some degree, I don’t believe he would try to squash it. That’s just my experience. Reasonable minds can differ 🤷🏻‍♂️

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, e16bball said:

Sorry if that was long and/or sarcastic. I’m mad at Trent — and at my parents for giving birth to me in the DC area and turning me into a Redskins fan 😂

I'd be mad too, mostly at my Parents though. Shame on them. 🍺

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, e16bball said:

Can’t argue with the conclusion in your last sentence, but why on earth would they pay him?

Trent can play, he’s just refusing to do so. He announces (thirdhand) just before training camp that he’ll never play for the Redskins again and demands a trade, continues to hold out for the first half of the season, reports just in time to get his “accrued season” on his contract, reiterates his trade demand and refusal to play for the Redskins, and then (lo and behold) he “fails” his physical. 

If you believe he wouldn’t have passed his physical if he was traded to a team he wants to play for, please PM me — I have a bridge that you might be interested in as an investment opportunity. 

If he doesn’t want to play for the Redskins and chooses to break his contract, I guess that’s his prerogative. But the fact that you think they should continue to honor that same contract and pay him, while he’s actively refusing to play, is befuddling to me. That’s like suggesting a player should keep showing up for practice and take the field on Sunday even after a team cuts him and stops sending the checks. 

If he can play then the Redskins can't put him on the NFI list. They can't have it both ways. Either he can play and is choosing not to, or he can't play because of cancer. If the former then no NFI, if the latter they are being *****.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, mse326 said:

If he can play then the Redskins can't put him on the NFI list. They can't have it both ways. Either he can play and is choosing not to, or he can't play because of cancer. If the former then no NFI, if the latter they are being *****.

It's clearly a pi$$ing contest of excuses to see which one prevails.  AB/Ramsey type excuse to get paid br Trent, obvious Troll attempt by Allen to Not.

No way the NFLPA doesn't get involved. Where Trent messed up was saying yet again even after reporting, He wasn't going to play.

Should if shut his mouth and taken a page or 10 out of Ramseys playbook. Or even AJ Greens IMO at the moment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, mse326 said:

If he can play then the Redskins can't put him on the NFI list. They can't have it both ways. Either he can play and is choosing not to, or he can't play because of cancer. If the former then no NFI, if the latter they are being *****.

They wanted him to play. He told the doctor he can’t play. It’s not complicated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, e16bball said:

They wanted him to play. He told the doctor he can’t play. It’s not complicated. 

You're missing the point.

If the Redskins think he can play then they can't put him on the NFI list. There are other things to do for a player that refuses to play. If they do think he's injured then the injury is cancer related and not paying him, even if the have that option, is a terrible decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Shanedorf said:

He doesn't want them reviewed because:
There is no upside in making his private life public
There is no upside in letting that POS organization continue to smear him
There is no upside in doctor-shopping to find some MD who will back the team
There is no upside in getting the NFL involved - the League's track record on medical issues is appalling

Your post above suggests exactly what will happen:
You've never examined the patient
You haven't read the reports
You aren't an MD, you don't specialize in rare disease oncology... yet you are already casting aspersions and vilifying him.
Why on earth would any thinking person sign up for that ?

He doesn't want to play for Wash and that is driving everything else.
I'm genuinely sorry your owner is a dbag, I can only imagine how much that sucks.
But Danny will reap as Danny sows and this is merely the latest chapter in a never-ending book about how not to do it.

Remember: Trent didn't set out to screw Wash, he reacted in kind.

Williams made career ending, massive lawsuit instigating, criminal charges filed against someone accusations. 

There isnt a chance in hell any doctors told him the growth was fine. No doctor in any modern country is going to open himself/herself up to that kind of lawsuit.

For him to then turn around and say he wont participate in the investigative process which the players agreed to is not only absurd, but would indicate he's being untruthful about his motivations for not wanting to play in DC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mse326 said:

You're missing the point.

If the Redskins think he can play then they can't put him on the NFI list. There are other things to do for a player that refuses to play. If they do think he's injured then the injury is cancer related and not paying him, even if the have that option, is a terrible decision.

The Redskins are not a medical entity, so what their FO “thinks” matters about as much as what you and I think. 

They have a player who indisputably had a non-football injury/illness. He reported to the team. He failed his physical based on his report to the evaluating doctor of a condition directly related to that injury/illness. He goes on the non-football injury/illness list.

Like I said, it’s not complicated. There’s no “You say you have a NFI but we don’t believe you, and we don’t want you to get away with defrauding us by lying about your medical status so you don’t have to play” list, so their hands are a little tied — they’re pretty much stuck taking Trent (and the doctor) at his word.

Edited by e16bball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, e16bball said:

That’s a long story, but the short version is that I believe when you’re breaking a contract that you agreed to, you have at least some obligation to try to make it work out for the other side.

So should teams not cut players because they also agreed and signed a contract?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Long story short.

Redskins bad, player good.

Can we just like ban Snyder from the NFL because the redskins might just be the worst run team in the NFL....and remember the browns exist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×