Agreed. Ever since the end of the '09 season and the AZ playoff game, we've been waiting for him to become one of, if not the the best TEs in the league (at least as an offensive weapon). All the potential in the world, but something just hasn't clicked with him, injuries, focus, whatever.

I don't wish any thing bad towards him, and I hope he is healthy, can sustain a great career, possibly even with the Packers for a reasonable price...but certainly not at 8mil or anywhere close to that which it sounds like he wants.

Whenever someone talks about players with injuries like this they say "have him sign a disclaimer and let him play" Somehow I don't think it is as easy as all that. Even if they sign something saying they understand the risks and they won't hold the team or the doctors or anyone else responsible if the worst happens I don't think it would necessarily relieve certain parties of responsibility. I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV but something tells me there is more involved. Such as waivers don't apply if the injured party can prove negligence on the part of waivee (team in this case) I don't know how they could prove negligence but as the concussion cases go to show it is being tried.

When you send you kids on a school field trip you sign waivers saying you won't hold them responsible if your kid gets hurt at the zoo but if you school allows a drunken chaperon to let your kid crawl into the lions den that is negligent and the waiver may not apply.

In many pet stores you see signs that say "don't put your fingers into animal cages, animals may bite" thinking that the sign will get them off the hook if dip shit gets a finger taken off by a parrot. It doesn't always work. If they can prove you knew the animal could be dangerous (and you did know because you put up the sign) and you didn't take steps to prevent dipshit from sticking his fingers in the cage you might be liable anyway.

Bottom line, a waiver may not protect the team or the doctors and I think that is why you never see it. I'ts not all because they are good and decent people worried about the health of the player (I'm sure some of it is but not all like they try to make it seem.) Believe me if they thought a waiver was foolproof they would be all over it.

Why shouldn't it be a team decision also? The injury results in a higher risk to the player, which is a risk to the team when they will be on the hook for the money in any contract.

---

If this was MLB, I'd agree - damn that guaranteed money! - look at the Brewers and Rickie Weeks and numerous other cases. But in the NFL, other than bonuses and the current year, the team generally ain't on the hook.

As for Sschind's comment above, that's why I said "get clearance from the lawyers". Not being one, I'm not sure exactly how to word it to protect yourself, but if a sharp lawyer says it's good, probably it's good. A disclaimer generally covers normal activity. I would think the team would somehow have to do something grossly negligent to have a lawsuit override a well written disclaimer.

Bottom line is, if a player is willing to take the risk, and the LAWYER - not the damn doctor - clears him, the team is stupid to be hypercautious.

---

I want Finely back. At an incentive based contract and if multiple doctors state on record he is at no more risk than any other player for neck injury.

---