Reply With Quote
Damn was that really necessary? Come on now.
you have the balls to call out Brady, but the qb of your team is an even bigger pussy. Just STFU you piece of .WTF are you talkin bout!?!?!
You really dont know me then!!
Damn was that really necessary? Come on now.
you have the balls to call out Brady, but the qb of your team is an even bigger pussy. Just STFU you piece of .
Says the dumb who posts his picture on this site and talks about making big bucks while working 3-4 days a week. Brannon....
Um...yeah? I fail to see the insult in this post. Can you please elaborate? I posted my picture on this site because I don't give a who sees it. Others have done the same. And yeah, I used to make good money when I worked for my ex wife's grandfather...but I divorced her..ipso facto, I don't work for him anymore. Not sure what that has to do with you getting your head out of your ass...in fact, makes me think you buried it even deeper...do we need to talk louder so you can hear us?Says the dumb who posts his picture on this site and talks about making big bucks while working 3-4 days a week. Brannon....
Jesus ing christ, mono...how do you still not get the point, and when did you become a soccer mom and the patron saint of the NFLPA?why wont these soft pussies damage each other's brains/bodies and suffer for the rest of their lives in order to amuse me???
All these rules (with exception of the new KO rule) are going to do absolutely to bring down the # of concussions and other injuries. If you'd stop acting like a bleeding and open your slanty in eyes for a second, you'd see this.
There was a running back (Johnny White) who was tackled and his head hit the turf this past weekend. He sustained a concussion and was backboarded and carted off. What do you propose the NFL should do about his case? Concussions (much) more commonly come from the simplest of hits, be them routine tackles, catching a ball and landing hard on the ground, etc.
They can't be avoided as long as you have roided/jacked meathead athletes in full helmet/pads going 100mph at each other. It's the nature of the ing sport. Do you want them to take the pads off, put flags on, and chuck around a nerf ball instead? The only way you lose the concussions and injuries is if you do away with the contact altogether--otherwise you're going to see the same # of injuries and head injuries every year.
Also...like DoK said earlier, Duerson, Dobler, and all the other former athletes from the past unfortunately played in an era where the trainers/drs didn't understand or properly diagnose concussion symptoms during games--so they would just keep playing all-the-while still suffering brain trauma. NFL Docs still this up (that Eagles LB in Week 1 last year), but it's getting better. Those players' biggest contention--and rightfully so--is the lack of benefits/healthcare/pension plan/etc they've received from the NFL.
I'd love to hear the studies you've done to know this.
There's giant risks involved with playing football, and anything that can be done to minimize those risks is worth doing. You can use your "
Concussions (much) more commonly come from the simplest of hits, be them routine tackles, catching a ball and landing hard on the ground, etc.DeadlyDynasty, which science journals can I find your peer reviewed articles on the NFL and concussions?
crofl at asking for studies and statistics about frivolous rules that haven't even been enforced for a full season yet. Despite ever-increasing rule changes, the number of NFL concussions per year has either not changed drastically, or increased (now that they're being reported more). http://www.footballreportersonline.c...ns-rise-by-20/
Tell me bro, how many wanton, malicious head hits are responsible for those 154 (through Week 8 alone!) concussions last year? Do you even remember that many "dirty plays"? The answer is no...there was a handful of Harrison hits, a Merriweather one, the D-Jax hit, and a couple others sprinkled among a mass majority of routine NFL hits, causing concussion--unless you somehow produce evidence to the contrary. It's a violent game, and repeated exposure to it over a 3-hour period, 16 weeks a year for 10 years is going to you up no matter what insignificant rules are implemented.
http://www.inthesetimes.com/working/...ssion_problem/
A small excerpt:
In other words, the game is the game. It's intrinsically violent and that cannot be avoided.Researchers at the University of North Carolina installed accelerometers in the helmets of college players to measure the g-forces acting on their brains. As Malcolm Gladwell explains, the sensors show that players are regularly subjected to g-forces strong enough to cause brain damage during practice:
When we think about football, we worry about the dangers posed by the heat and the fury of compe ion. Yet the HITS data suggest that practice—the routine part of the sport—can be as dangerous as the games themselves. We also tend to focus on the dramatic helmet-to-helmet hits that signal an aggressive and reckless style of play. Those kinds of hits can be policed. But what sidelined the U.N.C. player, the first time around, was an accidental and seemingly innocuous elbow, and none of the blows he suffered that day would have been flagged by a referee as illegal. Most important, though, is what Guskiewicz found when he reviewed all the data for the lineman on that first day in training camp. He didn’t just suffer those four big blows. He was hit in the head thirty-one times that day. What seems to have caused his concussion, in other words, was his ulative exposure.
Better helmets probably won't solve the problem, either. The helmet cushions outside of the head, but it doesn't stop the brain from bashing against the cranium when the player stops suddenly.
The UNC concussion research suggests that returning to the game before a concussion is especially dangerous. Sustaining a second blow before recovering from the first is far more damaging than either blow in isolation.
There's not a lot the NFL can do about the physics of large guys crashing into each other, or the fragility of the human nervous system. However, the NFL can do something about the culture of playing hurt.
Like desperately trying to add 2 games to the regular season?
No, we both love the game and don't wanna see players suffer debilitating injuries, but I'm also not naive as to think that a sport in which you're supposed to bludgeon your opponent on every play is ever going to see a significant decrease in head and/or bodily injuries. Sometimes you just don't understand the big picture and get tunnel visioned with s bags like Harrison, Merriweather, etc. My flag football reference is not just hyperbole to get a rise out of you...If you truly want to crusade for the health and betterment of players--that is, to eradicate all or the majority of head/other injuries--then you'll be unopposed to two-hand touch or flag football. That's the only way you're ever going to see a significant drop in NFL injuries.You can use your "
Here's a routine NFL play that happens every other down: A running back takes a handoff, lowers his shoulder (and by proxy, his head as well), bursts through the hole and is met by a defender who also has to lower his frame (like he was coached) to make the tackle. It's inevitable and unsurprising that a simple play like this could often lead to a concussion.
The rules are going to keep coming until contact is eventually done away with.
It's all about the income generation.
If the QB or star WR gets injured, their team is ed and the fans will not spend money and watch in the stadium.
That's part of it, and therein lies the NFL's hypocrisy towards injuries. The NFL wants an offensive show. The offense is overly protected to the point where you risk penalty every time you make a tackle. The defender often has a split-second to make the hit or tackle and in that window it's not easy to be discriminant where you hit somebody. There are definite exceptions though, like some of Harrison's hits, but that's unquestionably the exception and not the rule.
"We're just looking after you guys, but do you mind playing 2 more games
It's not about injuries, it's about dollars.
So now factor in this exact collision play but at 10Xs the speed as in a kickoff returner getting smacked head on by a full speed tackler.
I don't know if Monoslob is going to find the studies but IIRC the rule was changed based on studies that showed kickoffs produced many more injuries per play then regular snaps. No, i agree with you it won't eliminate the injuries by any means and yes of course the owners are hypo greedy _ucks but.....
Lets see if Mono or anyone can come up with the study(s).
I agree about the kickoffs, Fabbs...which is why I said this:
But that's another interesting point nonetheless. Like stretch said, there'll still be a decent % of returns despite the rule change. If the goal is to put a stop to those injuries, then why allow kick-offs at all? Once again, it's about money and not injuries. The NFL knows kick-offs are an exciting an integral part of the game, so instead of actually doing away with them b/c of injuries, they push it up 5 yards to make it look like they give a . The injuries will still come, but in marginally less numbers. All it takes is another Kevin Everett injury to eliminate KO's entirely though.
Another impotent rule change by the NFL
^^ so in this most recently passed 10 year CBA that has the owners and players faux slobbering each others knobs, how did the vet retired players come out as far as improvements to the NFL taking care of it's injured? I know before it was a joke, the cap $ benefit (and that's for the very few who were awarded it) was like 88K a year. Carl Ellers wife (or one of the injured vets) was saying for injured brain types the 88K doesn't even touch the cost. I mean hey it helps to be sure but.....
Seems like most got an f u and denials thus zero benefit.
Well, they made them increase the medical research funding to $50 mil.
Honestly, I dont care what happens to the brain and what functionality it losses after after lower left side impact...let the car manufacturers research on that and share info.
What I do care for is researching new tech and materials that can be used to protect players on field. like a helmet design that can absorb shock better and pads that stabilizes the knees and shoulders up to the neck area.
I'm not sure the exact terms of the new CBA, but I think it's safe to assume that the vets got shafted again--which is a travesty to say the least. Any player (current or past) who suffers a debilitating injury or illness from the job needs to have his medical costs covered, no questions asked. That should go for just about any employer, imo.
The fact that the NFL (and the NFLPA) largely ignore the past players' injuries is further evidence that they don't give a about the players--just the bottom line. Hey, but we made these neat rule changes! More window dressing for everyone!
Last edited by DeadlyDynasty; 08-23-2011 at 01:11 PM.
The new helmets they have supposedly help in that area, but they can only protect the head from the outside. They want stop coup and contrecoup brain injuries that stem from the rapid acceleration and deceleration of everyday NFL hits.
It's still a noble effort nonetheless, and a better helmet than the one they had before.
They kept kickoffs because of onside kicks being a huge part of the strategy of the game. I don't think they'll ever be completely eliminated.I agree about the kickoffs, Fabbs...which is why I said this:
But that's another interesting point nonetheless. Like stretch said, there'll still be a decent % of returns despite the rule change. If the goal is to put a stop to those injuries, then why allow kick-offs at all? Once again, it's about money and not injuries. The NFL knows kick-offs are an exciting an integral part of the game, so instead of actually doing away with them b/c of injuries, they push it up 5 yards to make it look like they give a . The injuries will still come, but in marginally less numbers. All it takes is another Kevin Everett injury to eliminate KO's entirely though.
Another impotent rule change by the NFL
Okay so which is it then? Are they merely paying lip service by creating insignificant rules that don't change much of anything, or are they making rule changes that alter the fabric of the game thereby making the NFL a soft league of pussies? You can't have it both ways.Another impotent rule change by the NFL
That hasn't stopped you from talking like an expert on it.
The injuries will come either way--unless of course you think the laws of physics will cease to exist on a football field.
My beef is that all they've done is create more opportunities for the game to be affected (in key situations) by unnecessary penalties. If the hit or infraction or whatever is of malicious intent, then yeah--penalize and fine. If it's a bang bang play/tackle/hit/sack where some incidental helmet-to-helmet contact is made, keep the yellow flag in your pocket. As for the kick-offs, you're bro already stated that with the new rules teams are still returning the ball at a decent clip...so if the league's explanation for the new rule is that they want to prevent KO injuries, why the ham-handed 5-yard rule change? Doesn't that seem a tad bit lame?
If the past rule changes haven't decreased the incidence of concussion, what makes you think these rule changes will? Once again, find a way to fix the laws of physics and you'll have a concussion-free league. No expert opinion needed, it's called common ing sense.
so have they altered the fabric of the game with these rules or not?
They certainly haven't altered the injury issues, which is what your initial -coniption was about. Nice try on changing the subject though.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions