Zimmer: Diggs, Easton may play in London

[Guest]

@Riphawkins said:

@Canthony said:
I think if Diggs can play then let him play. I think the coaches know better than some Jester's

Kind of like how they knew Bradford was ok to play against the Bears?

If medically the doctors clear them and the players say they are good to go how do you stop them from playing? It would get messy with the players union if they didn't let them play. 

Each game is an opportunity for the player to increase their earning potential on their next contract. Holding them out for some strange reason of not wanting them to get injured when they are medically cleared to play wouldn't sit right with the player or the union. And it shouldn't. 

[Guest]

@Mike Olson said:

@Riphawkins said:

@Canthony said:
I think if Diggs can play then let him play. I think the coaches know better than some Jester's

Kind of like how they knew Bradford was ok to play against the Bears?

If medically the doctors clear them and the players say they are good to go how do you stop them from playing? It would get messy with the players union if they didn't let them play. 

Each game is an opportunity for the player to increase their earning potential on their next contract. Holding them out for some strange reason of not wanting them to get injured when they are medically cleared to play wouldn't sit right with the player or the union. And it shouldn't. 

I agree and disagree.  A player may be healthy enough and think they can handle the pain or are mentally ready to play,  but ultimately it has to be a coaches decision in regards to who gives his team the best chance to win as well.   a 75-85% Diggs or a 100% Wright,  erring on the side of caution and taking into account the opponent... I have no problem with a coach sitting the star in a case like this week in regards to Easton and Diggs.

[Guest]

@JimmyinSD said:

@Mike Olson said:

@Riphawkins said:

@Canthony said:
I think if Diggs can play then let him play. I think the coaches know better than some Jester's

Kind of like how they knew Bradford was ok to play against the Bears?

If medically the doctors clear them and the players say they are good to go how do you stop them from playing? It would get messy with the players union if they didn't let them play. 

Each game is an opportunity for the player to increase their earning potential on their next contract. Holding them out for some strange reason of not wanting them to get injured when they are medically cleared to play wouldn't sit right with the player or the union. And it shouldn't. 

I agree and disagree.  A player may be healthy enough and think they can handle the pain or are mentally ready to play,  but ultimately it has to be a coaches decision in regards to who gives his team the best chance to win as well.   a 75-85% Diggs or a 100% Wright,  erring on the side of caution and taking into account the opponent... I have no problem with a coach sitting the star in a case like this week in regards to Easton and Diggs.

My point is this. If you start holding players out of games because you don't want them to get hurt (and the game isn't already in progress and a blowout) Players are going to hate you for it. NOT a good idea. Diggs on his rookie contract. No freaking way is he going to be cool with being held out of a game when he is medically cleared to play. 

[Guest]

@Mike Olson said:

@JimmyinSD said:

@Mike Olson said:

@Riphawkins said:

@Canthony said:
I think if Diggs can play then let him play. I think the coaches know better than some Jester's

Kind of like how they knew Bradford was ok to play against the Bears?

If medically the doctors clear them and the players say they are good to go how do you stop them from playing? It would get messy with the players union if they didn't let them play. 

Each game is an opportunity for the player to increase their earning potential on their next contract. Holding them out for some strange reason of not wanting them to get injured when they are medically cleared to play wouldn't sit right with the player or the union. And it shouldn't. 

I agree and disagree.  A player may be healthy enough and think they can handle the pain or are mentally ready to play,  but ultimately it has to be a coaches decision in regards to who gives his team the best chance to win as well.   a 75-85% Diggs or a 100% Wright,  erring on the side of caution and taking into account the opponent... I have no problem with a coach sitting the star in a case like this week in regards to Easton and Diggs.

My point is this. If you start holding players out of games because you don't want them to get hurt (and the game isn't already in progress and a blowout) Players are going to hate you for it. NOT a good idea. Diggs on his rookie contract. No freaking way is he going to be cool with being held out of a game when he is medically cleared to play. 

if its for extended periods of time,  yes,  but we are talking about 1 game here and a groin isnt something that is really medically "cleared"  its more of a hows it feel thing.  if Diggs is limited or the least bit hobbled I have no issue with a coach making him sit until after the bye... especially against a winless non conference opponent.

[Guest]

The coaches and medical staff cleared Sam to play vs Chicago...after that first pass sailed, it was pretty obvious he wasn't ready to play...based on this and the Diggs health shit show from last year, I doesn't make any sense to play him vs the Browns on a suspect field...

[Guest]

Courtney Cronin
ESPN Staff Writer 
Stefon Diggs (groin/ankle) went through a full practice for the first time in two weeks on the Vikings first day in London. Others nursing injuries who were able to participate fully were Riley Reiff (knee), Case Keenum (chest), Laquon Treadwell (toe), Mackensie Alexander (hip) and Tramaine Brock (hamstring).