The NFL 2010 thread

[Rimbo]

I think you have a good point on this one.

Oh, no, you must understand; Tim James is obligated to give me shit for posting that. :)

[Rimbo]

Actually, I was thinking about the Fins-Pack game where I got sick to my stomach watching Aaron Rodgers whine every time a Fins’ passrusher crossed the line of scrimmage….

Aaron Rodgers whining? NAWWWWWWW, NEVERRRRRRR

[Rimbo]

Or this JoePa thinks it should be removed.
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/JoePa-didn-t-wear-a-facemask-He-doesn-t-think-t?urn=ncaaf-278329

Which leads to This

The first hard-shell helmets, which became popular in the 1940s, weren’t designed to prevent concussions but to prevent players in that rough-and-tumble era from suffering catastrophic injuries like fractured skulls.

But while these helmets reduced the chances of death on the field, they also created a sense of invulnerability that encouraged players to collide more forcefully and more often. “Almost every single play, you’re going to get hit in the head,” says Miami Dolphins offensive tackle Jake Long.

One of the strongest arguments for banning helmets comes from the Australian Football League. While it’s a similarly rough game, the AFL never added any of the body armor Americans wear. When comparing AFL research studies and official NFL injury reports, AFL players appear to get hurt more often on the whole with things like shoulder injuries and tweaked knees. But when it comes to head injuries, the helmeted NFL players are about 25% more likely to sustain one.

Nonetheless, the strongest argument for the helmet may turn out to be an economic one. The NFL is shaped around the notion that players can run into each other at high speeds without consequence. It’s the same sort of idea that has made Nascar the nation’s most popular form of motorsport. And beyond all this, there’s the very real question of whether the prospect of serious mental impairment later in life will ever discourage people from playing the game—let alone watching.

Channing Crowder thinks the NFL is being a bunch of pussies… and he intends to keep using his helmet as a weapon.

[Lloyd_Heilbrunn]

Crowder is a funny guy.

Edit: Shoot, I checked the link, they missed the best quote:

“If they’re going to keep making us go more and more and more like a feminine sport, we’re going to wear pink every game, not just on the breast cancer months,” Crowder said in a reference to the league’s October awareness campaign.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/sports/dolphins/miami-dolphins-channing-crowder-nfl-campaign-against-helmet-981382.html

[TimJames]

It would have been more funny if he said “I’ll keep using my helmet… against anyone from Florida State.”

Also, taking their helmets away might be the best business move the NFL could ever make. It must be a struggle to market players wearing masks.

[Major_Malphunktion]

It would have been more funny if he said “I’ll keep using my helmet… against anyone from Florida State.”

Also, taking their helmets away might be the best business move the NFL could ever make. It must be a struggle to market players wearing masks.

Actually the NFL is against marketing individuals. Hence why end zone celebrations, and removing your helmet after a play are penalties. The NFL is all about ‘TEAM’ and the Shield. They have built a great mythology around team play that really will break down if the individual player becomes bigger than the game. Huh…The NFL is the modern version of Rollerball…Jonathan E…

[Cubit]

Re hits: clearly guys are going for highlight reel hits. This also pretty clearly has safety implications. And finally, fines are not a deterrent.

I’m not sure where the line is regarding what an illegal hit ought to be, but deterrence ought to start with a suspension and go from there. Perhaps also immediate ejection from the game.

Precisely.

I’m leaning more and more to just removing protection from the players. Take away face masks and give them helmets they can’t lead with as easily (aren’t as heavy and don’t make good battering rams). Make shoulder pads smaller too.

If you make players more concerned for their own safety, instead of feeling like they are wearing armor going to war, they’ll quit trying to act like missiles out there.

I was going to post the same thing yesterday, but I cannot find anything to back up my feeling that this would be a good thing.

This is nonsense. You don’t protect players by removing their protection. As Jeff said, you protect heads by enforcing the rules, which is best done by suspending offending players for a game with no pay.

[sluggo]

I think they should just wrap all the players in giant Nerf outfits and let them go nuts.

[Orangist]

I think they should just wrap all the players in giant Nerf outfits and let them go nuts.

Sounds great to me.

[Matt_Perkins]

This is nonsense. You don’t protect players by removing their protection. As Jeff said, you protect heads by enforcing the rules, which is best done by suspending offending players for a game with no pay.

Or by designing better headgear, if you’re going to keep using it. As was stated above, helmets were designed to stop heads from literally being broken. Great, that has been acheived. Now, they are being used like weapons and to not just hurt, but injure other players.

Harrison and Crowder and their ilk, “We need to hurt people with our helmets” type people, will whine no matter what happens. They aren’t even really the problem. The problem are people like offensive linemen who are getting hit helmet to helmet with enough force to cause minor concussions most plays. Those guys? Many of them don’t live long. Not play long, live long. Literally.

That’s a problem.

Look, I’ve never played in the NFL. I never will. But I played tackle football without pads or helmets for many years. Not one of us got a concussion. Not once. We had people blow out their knees, get spinal injuries, break hands, feet, multiple sprains, etc. Not one concussion.

If you give people weapons, they are going to find a way to use them.

[Walter_Yarbrough]

I like the NFL’s response:

Player safety

[olaf]

The gear is there to save lives and prevent permanent, crippling injuries. It works and its not going anywhere. I think they should sink a bunch more money into helmet technology though, to see if anything more can be done about concussions, which are fast becoming the bane of the sport.

That said, I didnt think any of the hits that drew fines were really dirty at all and I think the NFL is overreacting. As long as you look at what you are hitting (which is what players are taught as soon as they put on pads, and its to protect the tackler more than the tacklee), and the whistle hasnt blown, its a clean hit in my book.

[Major_Malphunktion]

The thing is, with a cage in front of your face, you will lead with it. You are taught to do it.
I agree that there will be no changes to the equipment. But like posted, you have to wonder why there is such a difference in head injury statistics between, AL Football and Rugby compared to US Football. If the tackler has to worry about hurting himself, he will be more careful. It is human nature.
I say keep the helmet, remove the cage, or go down to a single bar. Allow eye shields. If the player has a chance of breaking his face launching himself at another player’s helmet…he wont do it.

[Walter_Yarbrough]

That said, I didnt think any of the hits that drew fines were really dirty at all and I think the NFL is overreacting. As long as you look at what you are hitting (which is what players are taught as soon as they put on pads, and its to protect the tackler more than the tacklee), and the whistle hasnt blown, its a clean hit in my book.

As the NFL stated in their video, the rule is that you can’t hit the head or neck of a defenseless player. So all of those hits were not legal in accordance with the existing NFL rules.

The NFL needs to clarify and communicate that.

[Robert_Sharp]

The gear is there to save lives and prevent permanent, crippling injuries. It works and its not going anywhere. I think they should sink a bunch more money into helmet technology though, to see if anything more can be done about concussions, which are fast becoming the bane of the sport.

I don’t see how that’s possible. Isn’t it an inertia injury? Essentially, your head stops, but your brain keeps moving, like being in a car crash. The helmet can’t prevent any of that really. You can disperse the energy in different ways, but the violent stopping will still be there, I think.

[jeffd]

The thing is, with a cage in front of your face, you will lead with it. You are taught to do it.
I agree that there will be no changes to the equipment. But like posted, you have to wonder why there is such a difference in head injury statistics between, AL Football and Rugby compared to US Football. If the tackler has to worry about hurting himself, he will be more careful. It is human nature.
I say keep the helmet, remove the cage, or go down to a single bar. Allow eye shields. If the player has a chance of breaking his face launching himself at another player’s helmet…he wont do it.

One reason rugby sees fewer injuries is that, iirc, the collisions are more oblique e.g. Not head on.

[Mark_Asher]

When I played football a million years ago, we were taught to tackle with our shoulders and wrap up with our arms. I don’t know why anyone would teach players to lead with their heads – that’s asking for a neck injury.

[ckessel]

When I played football a million years ago, we were taught to tackle with our shoulders and wrap up with our arms. I don’t know why anyone would teach players to lead with their heads – that’s asking for a neck injury.

Indeed. I watched the NFL’s video of a bunch of illegal (well, now) hits and every single one was a pure hit with no attempt to wrap up at all. Just lowering the head and shoulder and ramming.

There are incidental head-to-head collisions. Two bodies, juking, ducking, etc, and it just happens. I think the flagrant part should come in if the refs don’t see you making any attempt to also wrap up. Much like the refs judging if a pass defender is looking for a ball, I’d think the attempt to wrap up would be relatively easy to judge.

[Lorini]

OK so Pittsburgh fumbles the ball at the opposition’s goal line. The only players around the ball are Dolphins but the refs can’t determine who recovered the ball. Why can’t common sense rules be implemented? If the Steelers were nowhere near the ball, how the hell could they recover it? How stupid is that? EDITED after DVR’ing.

[Sarkus]

OK so Pittsburgh fumbles the ball at the opposition’s goal line. The only players around the ball are Dolphins but the refs can’t determine who recovered the ball. Why can’t common sense rules be implemented? If the Steelers were nowhere near the ball, how the hell could they recover it? How stupid is that? And then at the end of the game, ruling Henne’s loss of the ball as an interception, except it wasn’t an interception, what the hell was that about? Why wasn’t that reviewed?

I can kind of see the refs POV on the fumble. The rules for replay say there has to be clear evidence in the replay. On the replay you didn’t clearly see a Dolphin controlling the ball and then it disappeared after Steelers started jumping into the mix. So from the refs point of view they know Ben fumbled the ball but they don’t know who got it. Not a touchdown and still the Steelers ball ends up being the only justifiable decision, IMHO.