Ten months ago, the Commanders were celebrating an upset win over the Lions in the Divisional Round of the playoffs and preparing to face the Eagles for a chance at a Super Bowl berth all on the arm and legs of a rookie quarterback. Fast forward to today, and Washington’s season has gone anything but according to plan. As second-year passer Jayden Daniels continues to work his way back from his third injury of the season, the surprising position the team finds themselves in could dictate the grounds for his return. 
A week ago, Jeremy Fowler of ESPN passed on rumors that the Commanders were preparing for a potential five- to six-week absence for Daniels, despite other reports estimating a mere three weeks of recovery. The potential for a longer than expected recovery combined with a loss to the Dolphins in Madrid had Fowler speculating about a situation in which Daniels doesn’t play again this year.
A week later, that loss to Miami has actualized, and Washington, as a result, now faces a week of reflection and decision-making. Fellow ESPN reporter Dan Graziano noted today that the Commanders will take this Week 12 bye week to “examine everything” and acknowledged that “external debates” have taken place concerning the reasonableness of Daniels not returning this year, but ultimately, he asserted that he’s been told “the plan in Washington is still that Daniels will return to the starting lineup once doctors clear him from his elbow injury.”
While Fowler didn’t dispel the notion of that being the Commanders’ plan, he maintained that his sources have Daniels possibly being back for Week 13, though “the team has loosely braced for an absence of five to six weeks, just in case.” No teams have been mathematically eliminated from the playoffs yet, but if this turns into a six-week absence and the team’s six-game losing streak continues, Washington could find itself well out of playoff contention with three games left on the schedule against division-rivals who could be playing for postseason positioning.
If the Commanders are sitting at 3-11 with games left against the Eagles, Cowboys, and Eagles, again, sending Daniels out with nothing on the line feels borderline irresponsible. Considering that Daniels has sustained three different injuries this year, testing his durability with nothing to play for could obviously do more harm than good. Graziano, though, points out that Daniels is likely advocating to get back on the field and, because this latest injury was not related to his legs or his throwing arm, the team may not be as cautious with their approach to his return.
They’ll have the rest of the week to consider all of this before they have to start game-planning for a Week 13 game against the Broncos. If Daniels is good to for the matchup with Denver, the chances of reinjury may be a bit higher against a defense that has a 15-sack lead on the second-best sack-getting team in the NFL.
They should, they’ll have maybe 4 wins when he comes back. Him getting banged up some more won’t help develop him.
Would be the smart thing to do. Team isn’t going anywhere this season with or without him.
His game and most importantly his body given his game probably won’t last in the NFL….the big guys just are going to continue to beat this kid up to the point that it will affect his game….saw this coming when last year he ran wild making defenses look silly….those big guys have memories and when they get the chance have and will inflict pain on him when they get the chance…which given his RPO game might be often…..
Uhhh
Yeah ? lol
It’s smart, but I’ll push back on that. I would worry about the message that it sends, if Daniels is healthy again and yet not playing. I don’t argue that’s it isn’t smart from a long term view, not at all, but I think there are negative side effects. It makes your QB look more valuable than the rest of the team. Is that true? In many ways, yes, but just coming out and saying “He’s healthy, but he’s not playing because it’s not worth it to injure him,” tells the other guys that 1. you’re done competing and 2. they’re not worth the same consideration. Even if the players get it, they they’re worth less than the quarterback, it still feels like it will affect morale. Hopelessness is a huge thing that can kill a franchise, after all-and what happens when one of them gets injured when Daniels sits?
The NFL might have an issue with it, too, behind closed doors. They want people watching, and if people won’t watch a game because Mariota is starting as a backup with a team that’s given up, then the league could have something to say. It’s not fair to Washington in that case, as the league shouldn’t interfere in competitive decisions, but could I see it? Certainly. The new touch football rules when it comes to cradling the QBs in today’s game are all aimed at keeping them playing, after all, as the league has pushed its desire for high scoring offense.
This would definitely smart for Washington in that it help preserve Daniels for the future, but I do fear that shutting down their starter for the express justification that it’s just not worth it to play him I fear will hurt the burgeoning culture that they’re trying to create. Not playing starters in a final game is one thing; making that decision in Week 11 is another. They could just say that Daniels still isn’t healthy and try to ride that as a reason, but packaging him in plastic wrapping for next year might impede their progress in building a quality culture and trust.
The message is important and by sitting a healthy Daniels the message would be “It’s okay to be a quitter”. That is absolutely the last thing you should be putting in the heads of your players.
Burrow’s coming back to the Bengals and they’re not going anywhere.
Yeah, that’s true, and that one is a case where the quarterback also has much more power. Burrow is pretty much the player in Cincinnati’s organization that has say in team strategy. I’ll bet that he wants to play.
But the argument is similar. Burrow playing is all about his own competitiveness and them wanting to set a tone (they also kept Hendrickson at the deadline and in the offseason, so they need to at least try to win).
As a sidenote, I’m actually more worried about Burrow than about Daniels. Burrow’s had a ton of injuries, is paid a ton more money on an unmoveable contract, and is behind one of the worst pass protection groups in the league. In either case, though, sitting a healthy quarterback does send a message to the team, and it isn’t good-even if it is smart in some important ways for a QB to be healthy going forward.
And that, too, is an absolutely stupid decision by the Bengals.
That would be the smart play!
He’s RGIII 2.0
They could. Or, they could not. But, they might. Also, maybe not.