When a brain injury puts a surefire pro football prospect's institutional loyalty into question, he must rediscover himself and rise to protect his teammates from a ruthless coaching staff.

What attracts me to the story is the dilemma implicit in the situation, the dilemma too many aspiring athletes face, to wit: the terrible trade off between short term glory and and long term mental and physical decrepitude — the steep price that must be paid to become a professional.

However, the logline fails to address this directly. Obviously, the injury puts into dramatic question all of his dreams and aspirations to become a pro football player. (That was why he played football, that was his original objective goal, wasn’t it?) But what becomes of his objective goal after the injury? What is his new objective goal for himself, for the rest of his life — the rest of the story? The logline doesn’t really say.

“Rediscover himself”? What does that mean? It seems to me to be rather vague and more of a subjective need rather than an objective goal. “Rise to protect his teammates from a ruthless coaching staff” seems to be his post-trauma objective goal, but I suggest it needs a tighter focus, to be more concrete. Specifically, it needs to focus on the antagonist. “A ruthless coaching staff” is not the primary antagonist. The primary antagonist is the ruthless leader of the coaching staff: the head coach.

Also, how is the coach the villain, the one responsible for the brain injury when (American) football by its very nature is a violent contact sport? How do you propose to lay the blame on the coach (and his staff) when a high risk of injury is intrinsic to the way the game is played? (According to NFL statistics, the average length of a career is only 6 years)

As usual, Richiev rises to the challenge with a pithy logline, one that focus on, imho, the more serious, hence more dramatically compelling injury.

My gutless instinct tells me that the story might be better served by focusing upon, building upon, intensifying the dilemma for the protagonist created by the brain injury. That is, the more he plays after the injury has been diagnosed, the more he puts him at risk of additional blows that will exacerbate his condition.

My gutless instinct also tells me that the broken leg injury might work better if that befalls a teammate . My reasoning is that if the protagonist’s goal is to protect his team mates than the audience needs scenes to show WHY he has that goal: to wit, other players are being hobbled, even taken out for the season, with injuries.

And my gutless instinct tells me the leg injury — or something similar– would work best if it befalls a team mate with whom the protagonist forms a strong emotional investment — a bond of friendship that extends beyond the gladiatorial arena — er, football field.

IOW: a stake character. A stake character is a fellow victim, a character other than the protagonist who has a lot to gain or lose in the protagonist’s struggle. [See “The Hunger Games”, the emotional bond that develops between Katniss and Rue — it’s more than just a expedient alliance for survival.]

And a stake character can also represent the plight of a whole group of victims, in this case the entire team. Other team mates suffer, too, but the stake character can focus and intensify the suffering in a way that more directly and immediately motivates the protagonist.

fwiw.