PDA

View Full Version : For those who complain how "soft" the NFL is becoming.



BroncoWave
04-21-2012, 07:12 PM
Stories like this are why the NFL should be and is focused on player safety. I'm sure people will respond with the "they know what they are signing up for argument" but when a freaking game is doing this to people's minds/bodies, I don't see how any reasonable person could argue against increased safety measures.

I just pasted pertinent excerpts from the article...


The death of former Atlanta Falcons safety Ray Easterling has been ruled a suicide, Richmond police captain Yvonne Crowder told FoxSports.com on Saturday.

Crowder told the website that Easterling died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound at his home in Richmond, Va. Easterling's wife, Mary Ann, announced the news on Thursday, but declined to release the cause of his death.

After his playing days, Easterling started to suffer the consequences of the years of bruising hits, his wife said. He suffered from depression and insomnia, and as his dementia progressed, he lost the ability to focus, organize his thoughts and relate to people, she said.

"It's been a progression over the last 20 years," she said. "It's very sad to see."

"Half the time the player puts themselves back in the game, and they don't know what kind of impact it has," she said. "Somehow this has got to be stopped. It's destroying people's lives."

Former Chicago Bears safety Dave Duerson also committed suicide a year ago, shooting himself in the chest after having made arrangements to donate his brain to the Center for the Study of Traumatic Encephalopathy at Boston University's School of Medicine. A researcher determined Duerson suffered from a "moderately advanced" case of chronic traumatic encephalopathy. The study indicated the damage to Duerson's brain affected his judgment, inhibition, impulse control, mood and memory.

Full article...

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7839981/police-say-ray-easterling-former-atlanta-falcon-committed-suicide

DenBronx
04-21-2012, 07:28 PM
The game is much faster now then it was back then. Although there were less rules and you could basically lynch mob someone. Todays football players are bigger, stronger and faster. So without modifying things players are at even a bigger risk for serious injuries. Us fans dont like it but when you put yourself in the football players family's shoes then you would understand. I like seeing physical football but I never what to see someone injured.

Technology and equipment need to get better too though and not just a focus on rules. Remember, someone finally realized that a facemask could protect your face and moving the goal post from the front of the endzone to the back would protect you from running into a pole. lol! So, I'm all for player safety but at least they should try and keep it as exciting as possible.

The original UFC's were so bad ass because it was no rounds, no weight classes and basically no rules. But with ratings, money and lawsuits, rule changes will always follow.

Ravage!!!
04-21-2012, 07:52 PM
I think the NFL is going about it wrong. UFC fighting is THE fastest growing sport in the world. Boxing USED to be a top three sport, and now it has fallen completely off the map due to them making changes to "make it safer." First it was changing the weight of the gloves, then the padding...blah blah blah

UFC doesn't hide from the controlled violence that is a PART of their sport, they EMBRACE it. The NFL has become America's sport, but it didnt' become that because of the 'soft' NFL that we are seeing today. It became a NATIONAL PASSION because of the hard hitting. Please don't tell me that the NFL is more dangerous than NASCAR racing. Don't tell me that the NFL "has" to be careful because of lawsuits. NASCAR has drivers sign waivers before EVERY race. The NFL could do the same thing.

Eventually, on the road that Goodell is taking this sport, it will nearly eliminate contact all together. If you take away the "number one reason for injuries" from the NFL, then that means it leave #2 as the #1 reason. Eventually, that will then have to be removed from the game.

This sport is becoming something that would have NEVER made it our nations PASSION, while hiding behind "concern" for those that WILLINGLY participate. The police, fire departments, military... all go into their DANGEROUS jobs knowing that they could be dreadfully injured while on duty. Don't tell me that those participating in football, who's very description of the game, doesn't tell them that dangers of injury are present.

BroncoWave
04-21-2012, 07:57 PM
This sport is becoming something that would have NEVER made it our nations PASSION, while hiding behind "concern" for those that WILLINGLY participate. The police, fire departments, military... all go into their DANGEROUS jobs knowing that they could be dreadfully injured while on duty. Don't tell me that those participating in football, who's very description of the game, doesn't tell them that dangers of injury are present.

Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb argument. Just because they KNOW the risks doesn't mean the NFL shouldn't be obligated to make the league as safe as they can. Based on that logic, why ever create pads or helmets? I mean, the players know it's dangerous so no need in protecting them right?

Ravage!!!
04-21-2012, 08:09 PM
Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb argument. Just because they KNOW the risks doesn't mean the NFL shouldn't be obligated to make the league as safe as they can. Based on that logic, why ever create pads or helmets? I mean, the players know it's dangerous so no need in protecting them right?

No, based on what you are saying, the NFL should follow its policy of changing rules to minimize player injuries.... as it continues to hide behind that "guidline" with every rule change it makes. If that is TRULY the case, then the NFL needs to do what would eliminate injuries. Irradicate tackling altogether, right? Why are they beating around the bush with this? Injuries occur in football because the sport requires grown men to run into one another (or at least it used to). So if running into one another is causing injuries, why are we keeping that around at all??? Doesn't really make sense to what they proclaim they are trying to do.

Instead of running away and changing the sport, embrace the game as it is. We KNOW its a violent sport, and that is why we watch the game. Quit trying to hide from it and try to make it something its not. Other sports aren't running and hiding from the dangers that exist. Why is the NFL? Why is the most popular game in the USA, the sport that has captured our passion, the gladiators of our modern era, changing to make it "nice?" Doesn't make sense. It's diminishing the very game we hold close, and this path will absolutely RUIN the game of football as we know it. No one wants to watch a game that doesn't have kick-offs, QBs can't be hit, WRs MUST catch the ball before they can be stopped.....and the players wearing flags around their hips.

There is a reason we don't watch soccer in the States. We LIKE and WANT our contact. We WANT to watch the smashing, the hitting, the CRUSHING blows that make us go "OOOOHHhh MAN, did you see that HIT!?!?!" Its what brings us back for more.

Deny it if you want. Try to pretend that the fans aren't interested in hard hits and smashing contact if that makes you feel righteous. But the truth is in the numbers. The NFL has tried to eliminate the hard hits because it attracts more WOMEN to the sport. It's been shown that women are more interested if they don't see the controlled violence that has made this sport wonderful. Don't believe for a moment that it truly has to do with "protecting the players"... or protecting the NFL from lawsuites. The hypocrisy in which they claim the reasons behind their rule changes are sickening at best.

Denver Native (Carol)
04-21-2012, 08:16 PM
I really don't believe that there is enough that the league can do to make it safe for the players, other than going to flag football, and no, I am not trying to be a smart***. My opinion is that it should come down to the individual teams responsibility to monitor injuries much better. If a player as much as demonstrates that there is a possibility he has suffered a concussion during a game - take him out, do NOT put him back in, and have him thoroughly checked out. If he has suffered a concussion, then put a time limit on when he will play another game, based on the severity of the concussion. If that means it was severe, and he has to sit out the remainder of the season, so be it.

claymore
04-21-2012, 08:19 PM
Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb argument. Just because they KNOW the risks doesn't mean the NFL shouldn't be obligated to make the league as safe as they can. Based on that logic, why ever create pads or helmets? I mean, the players know it's dangerous so no need in protecting them right?

Lots of jobs are dangerous. Not many jobs have as much oversight, and money thrown into safety. Start a thread about west virginia coal miners and I will feel sorry for those guys.

Nomad
04-21-2012, 08:29 PM
Little League is dangerous.....2 kids killed in the last week.

SmilinAssasSin27
04-21-2012, 09:09 PM
I'll be first...they knew of the risks going in. And they can make millions. They can walk away whenever they choose to. While I agree that some safety measures are necessary (defenseless receiver if he truly is defenseless and the ball has passed him, etc) when they completely change the game, I have to disagree. Removing the kickoffs? Really?

Nomad
04-21-2012, 09:32 PM
Evolution of the NFL and safety rules....

http://nflhealthandsafety.com/commitment/evolution/

Denver Native (Carol)
04-21-2012, 10:03 PM
Evolution of the NFL and safety rules....

http://nflhealthandsafety.com/commitment/evolution/

Obviously I did not read all of those rules, but there are a BUNCH that have been implemented, and that is what I meant when I said there is no way they can totally protect the players from being hurt, unless they change to flag football.

jhildebrand
04-21-2012, 10:08 PM
Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb argument. Just because they KNOW the risks doesn't mean the NFL shouldn't be obligated to make the league as safe as they can. Based on that logic, why ever create pads or helmets? I mean, the players know it's dangerous so no need in protecting them right?

I would buy into this BTB but the reality is the numbers don't support the safety measures taken. In the end, my suspicion is head injuries, CTE, concussions etc... will remain about the same. Players know how to fake the system to stay on the field. They know they need to stay on the field or the "next guy up" will take their job.


Based on that logic, why ever create pads or helmets?

Depending on what you read and whom you believe there are 4-5 BETTER helmets that have dramatically better concussion and safety numbers than those the NFL uses. The NFL REFUSES to address or acknowledge that in any way due to contractual arrangements! It is about money on both sides of the equation: league and players.

Steroids and their affects have been known for years. Despite better testing and education, PED's are still a major issue in pro sports. I dont feel bad for a player whose health is dramatically affected because they sold their body to PED's for a shot a millions. They made that choice. Not me. But that is said to highlight the fact that the league can go overboard on safety and the players, some anyway, will always find a way to cheat the system.

Nomad
04-21-2012, 10:09 PM
Obviously I did not read all of those rules, but there are a BUNCH that have been implemented, and that is what I meant when I said there is no way they can totally protect the players from being hurt, unless they change to flag football.

True! I found the site interesting though I found the site just randomly searching the interweb. Football will never be a "safe" sport as long as it's a collision sport. If a person reads the site, it's the Safety Committee that comes up with the rules and ironicly Ronnie Lott is one.

Broncos Mtnman
04-21-2012, 11:00 PM
A stay-at-home mom with depression can commit suicide. It's a stretch to try to connect the physicality of the NFL to someone suffering from depression and say that if it was a safer game that this wouldn't happen.

BeefStew25
04-21-2012, 11:18 PM
Whatever BTB thinks, I think the exact opposite.

sneakers
04-22-2012, 12:11 AM
People are getting bigger and faster, sooo the collisions are much more violent each year.

Dapper Dan
04-22-2012, 12:28 AM
I feel like the changes aren't helping player safety. You used to throw it 20, 30, and maybe 40 times. Now with the rule changes, teams throw it around 50 times, it seems like, every week. QBs are regularly breaking records because they throw it so much. So increasing passing plays puts QBs/WRs at a greater risk. So I think the I only thing the NFL did with the rule changes is increase scoring, making the game more "exciting" to the casual fan. More money for the NFL. Personally, I don't think it's that much safer.

OrangeHoof
04-22-2012, 01:00 AM
Let's not blur the issue here. The topic is concussions which lead to brain damage which lead to depression and suicide. With guys like Duerson and Easterling, we're really talking about the helmets and rules of 25 years ago, not today. "Solving" the problem isn't going to show results for 30 years unless they end concussions.

I believe safer helmets are out there because I believe NASCAR has them (because of the Dale Earnhardt death). The technology is there but the NFL doesn't want to use them because the helmets would look drastically different and they might not be able to adorn them the way today's logos are shown. THAT'S where the NFL needs to look if they want to make the players safer - not by pussifying the rules but by making safer helmets. It may be expensive but the NFL really needs to do this for the survival of the sport.

Northman
04-22-2012, 03:12 AM
Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb argument. Just because they KNOW the risks doesn't mean the NFL shouldn't be obligated to make the league as safe as they can. Based on that logic, why ever create pads or helmets? I mean, the players know it's dangerous so no need in protecting them right?

Its not a dumb arguement, sorry.

But....if the NFL TRULY wants the game to be safe than just make it flag football. Seriously. Quit dancing around it and pretending that one aspect is more dangerous than another. This mantra they are trying to elude too about kickoffs being more dangerous than a QB taking a blindside hit is a farce. If your someone who believes the game should be "safe" than make it safe. Dont dance around the idea and pick it apart here or there to try and pretend your actually doing something. Its an easy fix but you and i both know they do what i just suggested and the sport will tank and lose revenue.

threefolddead
04-22-2012, 09:42 AM
I don't think the NFL is becoming soft but I believe that there is a line they will soon cross that will irreparably damage the game. I'm all for keeping the players safe but the fact is they do know the risks associated with the game. What else can they do? A lot. They could get lineman out of a three point stance to prevent those collisions. They are already talking about removing the kickoff all together which would completely ruin the last minute onside kick. How much excitement would that take out of the game? I think we see this snowballing as fans. There is only so much "saftey" you can add to football.

Nomad
04-22-2012, 09:52 AM
Eventually the games will be played like the Pro Bowl game minus the kickoff, (which is why no one watches the game).

It all starts with the players (present and former) because they're the ones spearheading this safety campaign and the BRONCOS present QB is one of the biggest whiners when it comes to contact.

Nomad
04-22-2012, 10:00 AM
I don't think the NFL is becoming soft but I believe that there is a line they will soon cross that will irreparably damage the game. I'm all for keeping the players safe but the fact is they do know the risks associated with the game. What else can they do? A lot. They could get lineman out of a three point stance to prevent those collisions. They are already talking about removing the kickoff all together which would completely ruin the last minute onside kick. How much excitement would that take out of the game? I think we see this snowballing as fans. There is only so much "saftey" you can add to football.

After reading the evolution of the NFL safety rules....I'm surprised they still allow the cut block.

Yes, with the way football is going, it would be the equivalent of not letting boxers throw punches and they know concussions.

Dapper Dan
04-22-2012, 10:51 AM
Just look at the players themselves that comment about it, defense AND offense. A lot of players hate these rules.

Chef Zambini
04-22-2012, 10:52 AM
Lots of jobs are dangerous. Not many jobs have as much oversight, and money thrown into safety. Start a thread about west virginia coal miners and I will feel sorry for those guys.you make a valid point, but cmon, the issues of the world go on each day, yet we take time to talk football.
it is what it is , a diversion, and the men that play the game, are hanndsomely rewarded, yet they put themselves in harms way.
That discribes alot of everyday joes too.

Chef Zambini
04-22-2012, 11:00 AM
... I still think QBs should be required to hang on to the ball just like everyone else.
and why is his head more valuable and more protected than anyone elses?

The kick-off may be the first major alteration of the game we love in the interest of safety.
Kick from the 50.
change the onside rules to reflect a 5 yard instead of ten yard requirement.
Place the touch back at the 25 to stimulate offense.
keep the kick-off alive.

Dapper Dan
04-22-2012, 11:21 AM
I just read this...

@OMGFacts: There are more head and spinal injuries from cheerleading than all other high school and college sports combined.

Somewhat relevant.

jhildebrand
04-22-2012, 11:39 AM
Let's not blur the issue here. The topic is concussions which lead to brain damage which lead to depression and suicide. With guys like Duerson and Easterling, we're really talking about the helmets and rules of 25 years ago, not today. "Solving" the problem isn't going to show results for 30 years unless they end concussions.

I believe safer helmets are out there because I believe NASCAR has them (because of the Dale Earnhardt death). The technology is there but the NFL doesn't want to use them because the helmets would look drastically different and they might not be able to adorn them the way today's logos are shown. THAT'S where the NFL needs to look if they want to make the players safer - not by pussifying the rules but by making safer helmets. It may be expensive but the NFL really needs to do this for the survival of the sport.

There are currently 4 or 5 helmets that all RATE better in every category vs the current league accepted helmet. The NFL wont change because of a contract. They wont force the manufacturer of 'their' helmet to change either. It is about $$$$ first and safety second. Mark Schlereth has railed on the helmet issue for the better part of a year now.

Dapper Dan
04-22-2012, 01:11 PM
I just watched an irritating play in the Steelers/Patriots game replay.

Gronk comes up the sideline and lowers his shoulder, knocking over a defender. Right behind that defender was a safety that put a hit in Gronk. 15 yard penalty.

During that play, a blocker nailed a defender with a helmet to helmet hit. Also, Gronk bulldozes a defender with a helmet to helmet hit. Then the defender gets the penalty after he does the same thing.

Is it "player" safety? It seems like offensive player safety.

OrangeHoof
04-22-2012, 03:20 PM
I just watched an irritating play in the Steelers/Patriots game replay.

Gronk comes up the sideline and lowers his shoulder, knocking over a defender. Right behind that defender was a safety that put a hit in Gronk. 15 yard penalty.

During that play, a blocker nailed a defender with a helmet to helmet hit. Also, Gronk bulldozes a defender with a helmet to helmet hit. Then the defender gets the penalty after he does the same thing.

Is it "player" safety? It seems like offensive player safety.

Its about protecting the stars, which are almost always on offense because they get to score the touchdowns while the defensive players are considered the aggressors because their job is to hit and take down the offensive players. The defensive players are expected to "stick their nose in the pile" and we all know where the nose is located.

So, yes, it's unfair by design. I hate the "defenseless receiver" rule too because it's so arbitrary. You're talking a fraction of a second between "the receiver was defenseless" and "that was a well-timed hit". The defenders should not have to be mind-readers.

Shazam!
04-22-2012, 08:52 PM
I think the NFL is going about it wrong. UFC fighting is THE fastest growing sport in the world. Boxing USED to be a top three sport, and now it has fallen completely off the map due to them making changes to "make it safer." First it was changing the weight of the gloves, then the padding...blah blah blah

UFC doesn't hide from the controlled violence that is a PART of their sport, they EMBRACE it. The NFL has become America's sport, but it didnt' become that because of the 'soft' NFL that we are seeing today. It became a NATIONAL PASSION because of the hard hitting. Please don't tell me that the NFL is more dangerous than NASCAR racing. Don't tell me that the NFL "has" to be careful because of lawsuits. NASCAR has drivers sign waivers before EVERY race. The NFL could do the same thing.

Eventually, on the road that Goodell is taking this sport, it will nearly eliminate contact all together. If you take away the "number one reason for injuries" from the NFL, then that means it leave #2 as the #1 reason. Eventually, that will then have to be removed from the game.

This sport is becoming something that would have NEVER made it our nations PASSION, while hiding behind "concern" for those that WILLINGLY participate. The police, fire departments, military... all go into their DANGEROUS jobs knowing that they could be dreadfully injured while on duty. Don't tell me that those participating in football, who's very description of the game, doesn't tell them that dangers of injury are present.

Your best post EVER. I'd salute this if I could but I'm on my phone.

Ravage!!!
04-23-2012, 12:33 PM
Your best post EVER. I'd salute this if I could but I'm on my phone.

Thanks, but I think I've had a lot of great posts better than that one!! :salute: :D

Northman
04-23-2012, 12:36 PM
Thanks, but I think I've had a lot of great posts better than that one!! :salute: :D

No you havent......




*snicker*

Ravage!!!
04-23-2012, 12:41 PM
no you havent......




*snicker*

tons!!!

jhildebrand
04-23-2012, 03:46 PM
I think the NFL is going about it wrong. UFC fighting is THE fastest growing sport in the world. Boxing USED to be a top three sport, and now it has fallen completely off the map due to them making changes to "make it safer." First it was changing the weight of the gloves, then the padding...blah blah blah

UFC doesn't hide from the controlled violence that is a PART of their sport, they EMBRACE it. The NFL has become America's sport, but it didnt' become that because of the 'soft' NFL that we are seeing today. It became a NATIONAL PASSION because of the hard hitting. Please don't tell me that the NFL is more dangerous than NASCAR racing. Don't tell me that the NFL "has" to be careful because of lawsuits. NASCAR has drivers sign waivers before EVERY race. The NFL could do the same thing.

Eventually, on the road that Goodell is taking this sport, it will nearly eliminate contact all together. If you take away the "number one reason for injuries" from the NFL, then that means it leave #2 as the #1 reason. Eventually, that will then have to be removed from the game.

This sport is becoming something that would have NEVER made it our nations PASSION, while hiding behind "concern" for those that WILLINGLY participate. The police, fire departments, military... all go into their DANGEROUS jobs knowing that they could be dreadfully injured while on duty. Don't tell me that those participating in football, who's very description of the game, doesn't tell them that dangers of injury are present.

I was going to post almost this VERY SAME line of logic.

We always hear how "America doesn't want violence in their sports" i.e. fighting in hockey, vicious hits in football, bench clearing brawls in baseball. Who is this America they are referring to? :confused: When the UFC and other fighting type empires are growing as fast as possible I would think the opposite is true.

This isn't cricket. This isn't croquet. It is football. Ish is gonna happen.

Ravage!!!
04-23-2012, 09:09 PM
I was going to post almost this VERY SAME line of logic.

We always hear how "America doesn't want violence in their sports" i.e. fighting in hockey, vicious hits in football, bench clearing brawls in baseball. Who is this America they are referring to? :confused: When the UFC and other fighting type empires are growing as fast as possible I would think the opposite is true.

This isn't cricket. This isn't croquet. It is football. Ish is gonna happen.

Most people watch NASCAR just to see the crashes. There is a reason we don't watch soccer, and why basketball is on a major decline. Boxing its basically a complete afterthought, while UFC is BOOMING. Its not because america doesn't want violence.

jhildebrand
04-23-2012, 11:39 PM
Most people watch NASCAR just to see the crashes. There is a reason we don't watch soccer, and why basketball is on a major decline. Boxing its basically a complete afterthought, while UFC is BOOMING. Its not because america doesn't want violence.

Right. People don't PAY EXTRA MONEY to subscribe to HBO for the documentaries. :lol: They pay to see shows like Oz, The Sopranos, The Wire, and other great series. The common theme is they are all very violent.

Modern Warfare, Halo, name any video game and chances are there is a LARGE amount of violence to it.

OrangeHoof
04-23-2012, 11:55 PM
I'm ready for Death Row PPV cage matches. If it was good enough for Rome (and I don't mean Jim Rome although, come to think of it, Jim Rome in a caged death match would be satisfying...)

jhildebrand
04-24-2012, 12:16 PM
I'm ready for Death Row PPV cage matches. If it was good enough for Rome (and I don't mean Jim Rome although, come to think of it, Jim Rome in a caged death match would be satisfying...)

As long as it is with Chris er Jim Everett. :lol: