The information that there was "no structural damage" was not, in fact, available to Talib in-game.
I am stipulating to the "taking himself out of the game" part; it may also be the case that the training room staff said "uh-uhhhhh. playing with fire."
But let's just say the training staff said, "Up to you, Aqib. We don't have proof you're good to go but on the other hand, we don't really know until the MRI." In other words, let's say it's all up to Aqib.
Here are some outcomes he could imagine given the information at hand. Precede each with "maybe":
1) My body has no structural damage. I can numb it up and we win the game. We win, and my body is not damaged for the SB and/or my career. (optimal)
2) My body has structural damage. I numb it up and we win. My body is not further damaged in the SB but I am not 100%.
3) My body has structural damage. I make it worse by playing. We win the game.
4) My body has structural damage. I make it worse by playing. We lose the game anyway.
5) My body has structural damage. I end my career by playing. We lose (or win) the game.
As you can see the lack of information available militates for caution in this situation.
Now as you guys sort of imply, there are those who play a whole quarter with a broken arm and are still the most effective guy on the field, blah blah blah blah, things like that. We idolize those guys. They are heroes for being tough.
I don't think you can put those guys on too much of a pedestal these days however. For the dropoff to be that bad between a guy and the "next guy up" that you are lost w/o him, just raises the stakes if he makes the wrong call for years into the future.
Kinda rankles.
But what if he stayed in... and the MRI had said there was structural damage... and he probably made it worse by continuing to play?
PFnV