Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

!!!!0mgz!!!! Trent Williams finally showed up


Recommended Posts

Interesting piece about his feelings related to teammates not visiting him in the hospital and how that may have contributed to his rationale of not reporting. Many were surprised, due to him being such a team first type of guy. 
 

Not just an issue with the team, but maybe his whole belief system related to football being like his family. Maybe his individual ties to his family have grown since.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, in 2012 the Nationals shut a healthy Stephen Strasburg down because they cared about his long term health and Mike Rizzo had no problems being the bad guy in that situation.

 

Eff the Redskins organization. Its run by snakes. Actually they aren't even snakes because at least snakes can be clever. They're run by idiot baboons who think they're super clever.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RandyHolt said:

Random thought

 

Why do to a doctor when you have a plethora at your disposal at your job?

Exactly.

Especially when those that are at you disposal know your body almost better than you for checking you on a daily basis or so...

 

His explanations are exactly what I thought it was. That tumor story was downplayed by almost anyone, except the one that got it removed, Trent Williams. Which was obvious.

Not a chance I'm gonna blame the guy for wanting out due to this. And Bruce being petty in this circumstances looks even more petty and evil...

If Trent's story is true, then if you're Bruce you just have two things to do:

- Apologize to Trent.

- Trade him ASAP if that's what he wants.

 

But doing this would require being classy. Something Bruce definately is not.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Stadium-Armory said:

Players relying on team doctors for primary care sounds like a bad idea to me. Not only is there a conflict of interest, but also perhaps a gap in expertise. 

 

But no primary care doctor is gonna be an expert on everything.  They all have gaps in expertise.  That's why your primary care doctor refers you to a specialist.  I dont find that to be inherently a bad idea.  The team medical staff are still real doctors.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, RandyHolt said:

Random thought

 

Why go to a doctor when you have a plethora at your disposal at your job?

 

I doubt doctors who specialize in broken bones and muscle pulls know much about cancerous tumors. I would hope the team docs would tell him "hey fella, you might want to consult someone else about this".

 

Who knows 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, veteranskinsfan said:

Next week Trent will have another issue with another body part that he will want the Skins to fix.  Skins medical staff will be blamed for not fixing

a medical problem they did not know about.  Trent is playing games wth the Skins and we can understand since this franchise is clueless but if I was

a General Manager from another NFL team I would have serious doubts about wanting to sign him once he was legally available.  There are some warning

signs for these other General Managers.

 

You mean like how Jalen Ramsey really ruined his trade market? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, justice98 said:

 

But no primary care doctor is gonna be an expert on everything.  They all have gaps in expertise.  That's why your primary care doctor refers you to a specialist.  I dont find that to be inherently a bad idea.  The team medical staff are still real doctors.  

Yup. If they have doubts, go check a specialist. You'd think NFL doctors knows some of the best ones.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I've solved the issue.  I think T.W. doesnt understand the difference between having a tumor and having cancer.  It's a common mistake, hell I didnt understand the difference until my second year of medical school.

 

All cancers are tumors but not all tumors are cancers.  A tumor is benign, or malignant. Generally, a benign tumor has not invaded surrounding tissue, and is therefore not considered cancer. A malignant tumor HAS invaded, and  is termed cancerous.

 

Complicating the situation is that, some types of benign tumors are faster growing and have a higher potential than others to transform into malignant tumors, and this -- along with the location of the tumor, influences the decision of whether to immediately remove the tumor by any means necessary, or to just sit back and watch it.  

 

And even further complicating this is the fact that certain tumors in the brain, such as meningiomas, are most commonly benign AND in so close to the outer surface of the brain to, to make surgical resection an attractive and perhaps still unnecessary route.  Oligodendromas are very slow growing and located so deep in the frontal lobes, that letting these grow is a better option.  These tumors are surrounded by controversy medically, and rare enough that there isnt a lot of literature to support any treatment route, including ignoring it, as superior to another. 

 

 It is not at all unusual for people to live with these tumors for DECADES without experiencing any issues.  Often it is more likely that patient will die of other causes or due to old age, before the tumor has a chance to kill him.  So some doctors feel it is better to leave well enough alone when it comes to these tumors, others say modern surgical practices have improved to minimize the risk of neurosurgery, so removing the tumor is actually the less risky route.

 

NOTHING HAS BEEN SETTLED.   That is, doctors cannot agree on the best way to manage these patients, and in general you have this split seen along the lines of specialty.  Oncologists tend to be of one opinion, and neurosurgeons tend to be of another opinion.  In my experience, neurosurgeons tend to have a God complex, with a high willingness to take risks and dismiss the opinions of other doctors in other specialties.  They make for quite a treat to deal with!

 

Anyhow, I very much envision a situation where Redskins doctors made a medically sound decision not to immediately operate, with the idea that surgery presented more risk than letting the slow growing tumor be and just watching its growth until it became more threatening.  They most likely presented this decision to the patient by minimizing its risk, using words like "minor" or "dont worry".  The problem is, unless you take the time to explain the medical basis of your opinion, it's really not a good idea to use the words tumor and minor in the same sentence  --it makes you look cavalier, and does nothing to reassure the patient.  ALL THE PATIENT THINKS IS I GOT CANCER AND THESE DOCTOR DONT CARE.

 

So fast forward a few years.  Some hotshot neurosurgeon with a god complex and no respect for other physicians of "lesser specialties", gets a hold of Trent Williams and tells him, "oh those guys dont know what they're talking about, I've removed a hundred if those tumors without any issues.  I can get this thing out of you by noon tomorrow", and proceeds to in fact remove the tumor.  This leaves Trent both relieved and understandably upset with Redskins staff.

 

IF THIS IS REALLY TRENTS ISSUE, then a well managed organization would have had a sitdown discussion with Trent, the Redskins doctors, and other unaffiliated doctors to explain what they should have explained to Trent from the very beginning-- both medical basis for their original decision, and the fact that there is controversy in the medical field surrounding the best way to deal with this situation.  So while they are happy Trent found a doctor that resolved the situation to Trents satisfication -- they stand by their decision medically and were in fact looking out for his best interests.  There is simply no cut and dry correct answer in this situation, from a medical perspective.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Koala said:

Okay, I've solved the issue.  I think T.W. doesnt understand the difference between having a tumor and having cancer.  It's a common mistake, hell I didnt understand the difference until my second year of medical school.

 

All cancers are tumors but not all tumors are cancers.  A tumor is benign, or malignant. Generally, a benign tumor has not invaded surrounding tissue, and is therefore not considered cancer. A malignant tumor HAS invaded, and  is termed cancerous.

 

Complicating the situation is that, some types of benign tumors are faster growing and have a higher potential than others to transform into malignant tumors, and this -- along with the location of the tumor, influences the decision of whether to immediately remove the tumor by any means necessary, or to just sit back and watch it.  

 

And even further complicating this is the fact that certain tumors in the brain, such as meningiomas, are most commonly benign AND in so close to the outer surface of the brain to, to make surgical resection an attractive and perhaps still unnecessary route.  Oligodendromas are very slow growing and located so deep in the frontal lobes, that letting these grow is a better option.  These tumors are surrounded by controversy medically, and rare enough that there isnt a lot of literature to support any treatment route, including ignoring it, as superior to another. 

 

 It is not at all unusual for people to live with these tumors for DECADES without experiencing any issues.  Often it is more likely that patient will die of other causes or due to old age, before the tumor has a chance to kill him.  So some doctors feel it is better to leave well enough alone when it comes to these tumors, others say modern surgical practices have improved to minimize the risk of neurosurgery, so removing the tumor is actually the less risky route.

 

NOTHING HAS BEEN SETTLED.   That is, doctors cannot agree on the best way to manage these patients, and in general you have this split seen along the lines of specialty.  Oncologists tend to be of one opinion, and neurosurgeons tend to be of another opinion.  In my experience, neurosurgeons tend to have a God complex, with a high willingness to take risks and dismiss the opinions of other doctors in other specialties.  They make for quite a treat to deal with!

 

Anyhow, I very much envision a situation where Redskins doctors made a medically sound decision not to immediately operate, with the idea that surgery presented more risk than letting the slow growing tumor be and just watching its growth until it became more threatening.  They most likely presented this decision to the patient by minimizing its risk, using words like "minor" or "dont worry".  The problem is, unless you take the time to explain the medical basis of your opinion, it's really not a good idea to use the words tumor and minor in the same sentence  --it makes you look cavalier, and does nothing to reassure the patient.  ALL THE PATIENT THINKS IS I GOT CANCER AND THESE DOCTOR DONT CARE.

 

So fast forward a few years.  Some hotshot neurosurgeon with a god complex and no respect for other physicians of "lesser specialties", gets a hold of Trent Williams and tells him, "oh those guys dont know what they're talking about, I've removed a hundred if those tumors without any issues.  I can get this thing out of you by noon tomorrow", and proceeds to in fact remove the tumor.  This leaves Trent both relieved and understandably upset with Redskins staff.

 

IF THIS IS REALLY TRENTS ISSUE, then a well managed organization would have had a sitdown discussion with Trent, the Redskins doctors, and other unaffiliated doctors to explain what they should have explained to Trent from the very beginning-- both medical basis for their original decision, and the fact that there is controversy in the medical field surrounding the best way to deal with this situation.  So while they are happy Trent found a doctor that resolved the situation to Trents satisfication -- they stand by their decision medically and were in fact looking out for his best interests.  There is simply no cut and dry correct answer in this situation, from a medical perspective.

... nerd

  • Haha 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure that NFL team doctors are likely better than military doctors.

 

Does anybody know anyone who was in the military who asked the military to send them to a civilian hospital for a 2nd opinion?

 

I served over 20 years and I never heard of that being done once. I guess some people are more skeptical of doctors than others.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/22/medical-errors-third-leading-cause-of-death-in-america.html 

 

Medical mistakes are the 3rd leading cause of death in America. 250k people a year die from it. Physicians are very prone to mistakes. It’s inherent in the system and the profession.  That’s reality. That’s why we need lawyers to hold them accountable. Those are the real heroes.  
 

Trent needs to adjust his expectations of what medical care actually provides. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, UKskins said:

This looks like it generally is something you treat by cutting it off. According to this chemo is not typically indicated and metastases are extremely rare. 
 

It also sounds like it can be tough to diagnose because it feels like a scab or scar. 
 

I’d love to hear more because if TW has the most common type/severity of DFSP then it seems he’s blowing it out of proportion. 
 

Anyone have more info?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • TK locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...