LaxTV Forums | A Forum About The MCLA

As a Redskins fan, I am a bit bothered by Shanahan's decision to leave RGIII in. I think to a point it is important to allow a player to say he is hurt and not injured. However, after seeing his play for the next few series, it was clear he was struggling. I think you shut him down right there for a couple of reasons.

- He is the future of our franchise
- We are going to lose the game if he stays in since our offense could do nothing.
- We have a very good back-up in Kirk Cousins

However, even more so than that, I think as a coach you must protect a player from himself. He might say he wants to play, but that is what players do. They always want to play. Do you think Shanahan had an obligation as a coach to take RGIII out or let it ride?

panchito_ojeda wrote:However, even more so than that, I think as a coach you must protect a player from himself. He might say he wants to play, but that is what players do. They always want to play. Do you think Shanahan had an obligation as a coach to take RGIII out or let it ride?

RG3 was ineffective and clearly hurt. I get the whole "I don't see you out there as an NFL head coach screwing up lolz!" argument. But that was ridiculous and painful to watch.

*edit*
After the 1st quarter when he was limping and clearly hurting, is when I would have stuck a fork in him.

Steve Spurrier to Marcus Lattimore 4th quarter of the Tennessee game-" You ready to go back in son?"

It was dumb to get RG3 in.

He wasn't even 100% before the game started and last time I check, the Michigan State QB won the game he filled in for and won the next game.

Protecting Player from himself - per Panchito - is the correct answer.

And the Washington coach didn't do it.

so the answer is YES.