Per Schefter: Su'a Cravens Considering Retirement

[JWB]

Do you have sources on the above? Because I don't see any of this printed in stories or even being stated by Sua.

 

How about when Doug Williams was out at USC and couldn't get in touch with him. The guy is not a team player period and this has been stated with story and video repeatedly throughout this thread.

[megared]

8 minutes ago, JWB said:

Do you have sources on the above? Because I don't see any of this printed in stories or even being stated by Sua.

 

How about when Doug Williams was out at USC and couldn't get in touch with him. The guy is not a team player period and this has been stated with story and video repeatedly throughout this thread.

 

Quote

On Saturday night, Cravens was spotted at the USC-Texas game hanging out with Redskins Senior VP of Player Personnel Doug Williams.

 

Washington Redskins' Su'a Cravens expected back this week

[JWB]

Ok noted, what about the rest? 

[Est.1974]

Wow. Best April fool ever, this thread is still open for business. 

[megared]

11 minutes ago, JWB said:

Ok noted, what about the rest? 

 

After suffering from concussions, Su'a Cravens cleared for football

 

Quote

“Redskins play on Sunday. Cravens was actually not there,” Rapoport went on. “But the plan was to show up. I’m not sure what… Let me say this: He was going to show up, and as I talked about on Sunday, that’s definitely not the end of the story. There’s a lot of things going on here from a personal health standpoint, from a personal life standpoint. This was definitely not an open-and-shut case. But before he had the opportunity to actually show up, the Redskins put him on the Leave Squad list and end his season. I’m sure it was extremely frustrating for Cravens, but that’s where we are.”

 

What Is Really Going On With Su’a Cravens And The Redskins?

Anything else?  

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Edited...*thumbsup*

8 hours ago, megared said:

 

I just think it's more complicated than that.  It's real easy to simplify the narrative to justify the front office's motives, but a few things are apparent:

  

 

And it's just as easy to find nothing but fault on the front office's end, even if it means overlooking certain perspectives, contradicting statements and relying on Ian Rapoport of all people lol...

 

F'instance:

 

"The guy wasn't even cleared medically until December 7th, 2017 by independent doctors due to post concussion syndrome.  (Meaning he wouldn't have played until week 15, at the Chargers)"

 

So shutting him down for the year would have been the right thing to do, especially if the Skins could get a roster exemption by doing so. And especially if the only reason Cravens wanted to return to the Skins was to keep getting a paycheck. Take up a roster spot, keep getting paid, all while flip-flopping on whether or not you wanted to retire, and apparently had been doing so since the end of the previous season ("Cravens had suffered a concussion his rookie year, and later that season while nursing another injury again contemplated walking away from the game. However, he did wind up returning to the team..." https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/redskins/2017/12/12/sua-cravens-cleared-washington-redskins/944191001/)

 

 

The problem with that is that the Redskins never listed him having a head injury in any reports (outside of the concussion in week 4 of the 2016 season).

 

There's a very good chance the team didn't know Cravens had any concussion symptoms after he was cleared by independent league doctors in the concussion protocol system. The league won't allow teams to use only their own doctors for concussions. Cravens may not have known, either. Considering having him go back into concussion protocol in the offseason wouldn't have affected the team in any way, shape or form, it seems highly unlikely the front office and coaches would have chosen to keep quiet about it if they knew, especially when they have kept multiple players off the field in the past due to concussion issues. Not sure why Cravens would be an exception.

 

 

He was medically cleared by the team to resume all football activities after a meniscus tear, surgery, and rehab.

 

Yeah, and?...Not sure what that has to do with anything, other than you may be trying to claim the Skins' doctors weren't good enough since they cleared him to resume football activities even though he may have been still experiencing concussion symptoms. 

 

 

After his retirement threat, he, with the team's blessing, visited Dr. Michael Collins of UPMC Sports Medicine Concussion Program where he was diagnosed.

 

Retirement "threat"?...Was the reason you decided to call it a "threat" was in order to make it seem like the team was backed into a corner and had to allow him to see an outside physician? If so, that's laughable lol...so i'll assume there's some other reason the word "threat" was used instead of "decision".. 

 

 

The weekend of the Rams week 2 game, his agent met with team officials and told the them Cravens planned on reporting that following Tuesday, 9/4 (2 weeks into the 4 week 'grace period' the Redskins so 'kindly granted'). 

 

Considering the Redskins were absolutely within their rights to immediately put Cravens on the Reserve/Left Squad list the nanosecond his 5 days on Exempt/Left Team designation ended you're damn skippy that quote-unquote grace period was kindly granted. Also considering that it's been widely reported that Cravens believed he had family issues too distracting to ignore at the tine, the Skins granting him time to work on those issues before either side made a final decision was indeed generous. They weren't required to do this, yanno.

 

And consider this, from PFT:

 

"The fact that Washington has placed Cravens on the exempt/left squad list means that: (1) he has indeed left the team; and (2) the team has issued a five-day letter warning him that, if he doesn’t return in five days, he can be placed on reserve/left squad. Thus, if Washington becomes sufficiently exasperated by the situation within the next four weeks (and after the five days expire), the team could change the designation and end his season, tolling his contract for a full year."

 

The Skins were required to give Cravens 5 days. That's the only time period in which Cravens could have returned to the team on his own. Anything after those 5 days were at the discretion of the Redskins, and ONLY the Redskins. So, yeah...the 4-week "grace period" was "kindly granted" and then rescinded after 2 weeks. Cravens acted as if returning to the team was his right.

 

 

 

That day, without informing Cravens or his agent, the team placed him on the reserve/left squad list, before he could report, ending his season and ensuring that he did not accrue 1 year of service, or receive salary. 

 

At that point, what had Cravens done to deserve either? The rules are set up the way they are set up for a reason. It's to protect teams from players like Cravens (or from players who do what Cravens did, anyway). Anyone who blindly believes that the team, from players to coaches to the front office, aren't seriously affected by player actions like those of Cravens is just naive or uninformed. There is very little the player can do once they do what Cravens did. They immediately give up control. The NFL Players Union signed off on it in the CBA. Its ****ing serious. it's not "poor kid, just needs a few weeks or a month or two to take care of things"...it's "you really ****ed the team, your coaches and teammates over, you know that?" And players don't get to say "OK, I think I'm gonna come back to the team now'...that's not their call. It's solely the team's call. Cravens forfeited that when he retired/"retired"/quit on his coaches and teammates. He can control when he retires. The team controls when, or if, he comes back.

 

 

Where ever your opinion may fall on the spectrum of Cravens quitting/having personal problems, and/or lingering effects of a concussion, it just seems to me that after all of this time (15+ years) of us complaining about our FO not being run in a professional manner, we have more of the same.  Everyone hated Cerrato and felt like we needed someone to restore 'order' and 'credibility'.  

 

There's a reason almost no one is criticizing the Redskins' front office over this (and whatever criticism exists has to do with not getting enough in the trade of a former 2nd round pick). Thats because they made smart moves for the franchise, even if those moves did not help the player much, if at all. This is in no way a sign of continued unprofessional actions or "more of the same." As someone else already mentioned, if Belichick and the Patriots did this, they'd be praised as being decisive, having a no-nonsense approach to players who aren't committed to their teammates, their coaches and the "Patriot way." Nobody on this site would blink and eye, and in fact some would use it to criticize our front office and say things like "If this had been the Skins we would have extended the player with the money saved by letting Cousins go, and then try to spin it by claiming we're doing good in the draft because we extended yet another drafted player." It requires some serious mental contortions to view this as "more of the same".

 

 

I'll bet the FO, coaches and players had to field hundreds of questions this season about the situation due to how it was handled, but again that's not a distraction because the front office did it, right?

 

I severely doubt they did. Whatever questions they had to field all occurred right after Cravens 'retired'...and they were gonna field more questions if he returned but didn't play. When the Skins demolished the Raiders, do you think any of the reporters were asking about Cravens? What about when they beat the 49ers and were 3-2, or when they beat the Seahawks with half their roster on crutches? But even if they did (they didn't), distraction from the media can't hold a candle to distraction inside the locker room and between teammates, which Craven's return could have very well lead to. 

 

 

I'd like to think that how the team deals with situations similar to Cravens' will be dictated by value as the priority, not vindictiveness, or pettiness.  And I'm having a hard time seeing how the latter two didn't drive the situation as the story is pieced together more.   

 

When people use things like pettiness and vindictiveness as the motivating force behind decisions in the NFL, it tells me that they don't have a realistic grasp of how things are actually done. It's a simplistic explanation that connects emotionally instead of logically or intellectually. 

 

(edited to reflect facts more accurately)

[megared]

8 hours ago, Califan007 said:

Edited...*thumbsup*

 

And it's just as easy to find nothing but fault on the front office's end, even if it means overlooking certain perspectives, contradicting statements and relying on Ian Rapoport of all people lol...

 

F'instance:

 

So shutting him down for the year would have been the right thing to do, especially if the Skins could get a roster exemption by doing so. And especially if the only reason Cravens wanted to return to the Skins was to keep getting a paycheck. Take up a roster spot, keep getting paid, all while flip-flopping on whether or not you wanted to retire, and apparently had been doing so since the end of the previous season ("Cravens had suffered a concussion his rookie year, and later that season while nursing another injury again contemplated walking away from the game. However, he did wind up returning to the team..." https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/redskins/2017/12/12/sua-cravens-cleared-washington-redskins/944191001/)

 

There were multiple sources saying that after the meeting his agent had with the Redskins management in LA, that he was planning to report the following Tuesday.  Rapoport just happened to be the first to break it.  While understanding some of his other reports were incorrect, it's said that Cravens was en route to the team facility when he found out he'd been placed on the reserve/left squad list.  

 

The Redskins publicly framed it as Cravens 'deciding if he wanted to play in the NFL', however after he visited the independent neurologists and was diagnosed, they knew the guy was nowhere near ready to contribute.  And it would've made the team's medical staff seem incompetent for not catching it, considering his head injury issues were never listed on any injury report...the only difference to the Redskins was whether he was drawing a salary or not (they would've had to put him on IR more than likely).  

 

8 hours ago, Califan007 said:

There's a very good chance the team didn't know Cravens had any concussion symptoms after he was cleared by independent league doctors in the concussion protocol system. The league won't allow teams to use only their own doctors for concussions. Cravens may not have known, either. Considering having him go back into concussion protocol in the offseason wouldn't have affected the team in any way, shape or form, it seems highly unlikely the front office and coaches would have chosen to keep quiet about it if they knew, especially when they have kept multiple players off the field in the past due to concussion issues. Not sure why Cravens would be an exception.

 

I think the guy disclosed to the team that he wasn't feeling right and was dismissed...which right or wrong led to him contemplating retirement.  Once he saw outside specialists who validated that he had Post Concussion Syndrome, he developed a distrust of the team's medical staff who were clearing him to contribute after the knee issues.  

 

9 hours ago, Califan007 said:

Yeah, and?...Not sure what that has to do with anything, other than you may be trying to claim the Skins' doctors weren't good enough since they cleared him to resume football activities even though he may have been still experiencing concussion symptoms. 

 

Obviously.  This is one of the root causes of the issues...that Cravens couldn't couldn't be correctly diagnosed with our medical team and had to seek an outside diagnosis to understand why he didn't feel right.  After recently hearing Rypien's story about his struggles, this doesn't bother you in the least?

 

9 hours ago, Califan007 said:

Retirement "threat"?...Was the reason you decided to call it a "threat" was in order to make it seem like the team was backed into a corner and had to allow him to see an outside physician? If so, that's laughable lol...so i'll assume there's some other reason the word "threat" was used instead of "decision".. 

 

By all accounts, the guy never filed paperwork to officially be retired.  He met with the team to be talked off the ledge, with the understanding that the team wants him back. That the team will do whatever it takes to assist him in making his decision and get him back to form medically.   Once they discover the guy is, indeed more damaged than they may have known, they take the decision out of his hands and publicly frame it as 'we still aren't sure we can trust you', when the FACT of the matter is, he had Post Concussion Syndrome, and was nowhere close to being able to contribute when he was going to report.  

 

9 hours ago, Califan007 said:

Considering the Redskins were absolutely within their rights to immediately put Cravens on the Reserve/Left Squad list the nanosecond his 5 days on Exempt/Left Team designation ended you're damn skippy that quote-unquote grace period was kindly granted. Also considering that it's been widely reported that Cravens believed he had family issues too distracting to ignore at the tine, the Skins granting him time to work on those issues before either side made a final decision was indeed generous. They weren't required to do this, yanno.

 

And consider this, from PFT:

 

"The fact that Washington has placed Cravens on the exempt/left squad list means that: (1) he has indeed left the team; and (2) the team has issued a five-day letter warning him that, if he doesn’t return in five days, he can be placed on reserve/left squad. Thus, if Washington becomes sufficiently exasperated by the situation within the next four weeks (and after the five days expire), the team could change the designation and end his season, tolling his contract for a full year."

 

The Skins were required to give Cravens 5 days. That's the only time period in which Cravens could have returned to the team on his own. Anything after those 5 days were at the discretion of the Redskins, and ONLY the Redskins. So, yeah...the 4-week "grace period" was "kindly granted" and then rescinded after 2 weeks. Cravens acted as if returning to the team was his right.

 

Within their rights, versus the right thing to do.  They told Cravens he had a month to decide whether he wanted to play football.  So why did they decide for him in a span of two weeks?

 

9 hours ago, Califan007 said:

At that point, what had Cravens done to deserve either? The rules are set up the way they are set up for a reason. It's to protect teams from players like Cravens (or from players who do what Cravens did, anyway). Anyone who blindly believes that the team, from players to coaches to the front office, aren't seriously affected by player actions like those of Cravens is just naive or uninformed. There is very little the player can do once they do what Cravens did. They immediately give up control. The NFL Players Union signed off on it in the CBA. Its ****ing serious. it's not "poor kid, just needs a few weeks or a month or two to take care of things"...it's "you really ****ed the team, your coaches and teammates over, you know that?" And players don't get to say "OK, I think I'm gonna come back to the team now'...that's not their call. It's solely the team's call. Cravens forfeited that when he retired/"retired"/quit on his coaches and teammates. He can control when he retires. The team controls when, or if, he comes back.

 

That was how the Redskins framed it though.  "We'll give him four weeks to get his personal situations settled, and to decide he wants to play". It was never publicly framed as, "Well now he needs to convince us, he's ready to play and won't ever threat retirement again", which is what it turned into once Cravens decided he wanted to play.  The truth of the matter is, the guy wasn't ready to play, and was being pushed to play, and somehow him doing everything short of threatening to retire didn't get him the medical attention he needed. Do you consider all injured guys to be ****ing the team over?

 

9 hours ago, Califan007 said:

There's a reason almost no one is criticizing the Redskins' front office over this (and whatever criticism exists has to do with not getting enough in the trade of a former 2nd round pick). Thats because they made smart moves for the franchise, even if those moves did not help the player much, if at all. This is in no way a sign of continued unprofessional actions or "more of the same." As someone else already mentioned, if Belichick and the Patriots did this, they'd be praised as being decisive, having a no-nonsense approach to players who aren't committed to their teammates, their coaches and the "Patriot way." Nobody on this site would blink and eye, and in fact some would use it to criticize our front office and say things like "If this had been the Skins we would have extended the player with the money saved by letting Cousins go, and then try to spin it by claiming we're doing good in the draft because we extended yet another drafted player." It requires some serious mental contortions to view this as "more of the same".

 

Please stop bringing the Patriots into this discussion.  I'm not seeing them leave value on the table every time they have a personnel matter. Fact of the matter is, they did the exact opposite of what we did with a franchise QB with value.  They also tend to cut ties and gain real compensation for guys in the last year of their contracts, and they consistently groom good players to go elsewhere and get paid, by other organizations in free agency.  They take fliers on 'damaged' players and rebuild their value.  Show me a time Belichick took a bath on value to prove a point....

 

Meanwhile we're over here counting compensation picks as wins...

 

9 hours ago, Califan007 said:

When people use things like pettiness and vindictiveness as the motivating force behind decisions in the NFL, it tells me that they don't have a realistic grasp of how things are actually done. It's a simplistic explanation that connects emotionally instead of logically or intellectually. 

  

Disagree.  I don't think that at this point in time, with the safety market being saturated, and the guy coming off of a serious injury that we couldn't have let the process play out.  People that don't have a process have to cut 'losses' or concede defeat.  As much as everyone frames this as a failure on Cravens' part, I put it equally on the FO, because well it's your job to get production out of these guys.  As much as everyone wants to blame Scott for drafting the kid, I don't think it absolves the current regime from how they handled the situation this year.  

[Butters20]

As an aside, medical staffs on teams very often recommend shortened return to play times. They are generally under immense pressure from teams to return players. 

 

Thats about the only only thing I can see from Cravens side. That he lost trust when an outside neuro told him different 

[CjSuAvE22]

Why is this thread still open this guy doesn’t deserve space on this forum..