PDA

View Full Version : Will the NFL soon start wearing hoop skirts?


Dread-Head
10-19-2010, 09:12 AM
When I was a kid watching the Oilers play it was not uncommon to see great QB's like Tarkington, Fouts, Staubach, John Elway, Bernie Kosar, Dan Marino, Mr. Warren Moon and Bradshaw taking bone crunching hits a good five or six seconds after they threw the ball. They only called roughing the passer if it was quite apparent that you were damned near trying to decapitate the guy.
After the death of the Late Great Pete Roselle (May he rest in peace) the league somehow WUSSIFIED. If you run into a QB after he's let go of the ball you're flagged for roughing the passer. Wimps like Eli Manning, and Toni Romo wouldn't have made it in football before the year 2000. Now a new cadre of whiners are crying that precious little receivers are getting hit too hard.
Hmmm. Lynn Swann, Mike Ditka, Chris Collinsworth, Steve Largent,Ernest Givens, Golden Richards, Daryl Johnson, Dwight Clark, Amad Rashad and DOZENS of other guys who played receiver and tight end took hits that still make them wince when they watched them today, yet they're all walking and most of them still speak in complete sentences. My point? Hits are part of football. Men like Dick Butkis, Merlin Olsen, Alex Karras, Jack Hamm, "Mean" Joe Green, Howie Long, Bubba Smith, Rosie Grier, Fred "The Hammer" Williamson, Lawrence Taylor and Deacon Jones in their respective day were delivering hard hits and playing smash mouth football. When they were excessive, they were fined but for the most part the league simply let them play and NEEDS to return to that policy.
If the league keeps wussing things up they might as well make all teams uniforms different shades of PINK, make them wear tiny dresses, and instead of tackling the guy with the ball simply tagging him and then going into therapy with him to talk about your feelings over sympathy tea because he felt you violated his space when you touched him. I THOUGHT this was a man's game.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101019/ap_on_sp_fo_ne/fbn_helmet_to_helmet_hits

gtexan02
10-19-2010, 10:20 AM
As our research into the negative effects of what is at its basest a game continue to unveil some scary, horrific, lasting consequences, the rules and safety have started to change accordingly. Players are bigger, faster, and stronger. Salaries are higher than ever. And for the first time, we have a clear picture of what the lasting consequences of these changes is.

I can't believe people start threads like this. These players are humans first, and nfl players second. Football is still plenty violent, plenty competitive. Are there some sissy calls every once in a while? Absolutely. Would I trade those calls for more paralysis, more permanent brain damage, etc? No. And frankly, I find it pretty depressing that anyone would.

One of the dirtiest players in the history of the game, Rodney Harrison, said that he never took the illegal hit rules seriously until he was suspended. This new rule is going to suspend players who make illegal hits using their helmets and attacking other players head areas. I can't believe you are complaining about that.

Edit: Here are some stats for you:

reported more problems with memory, concentration, speech impediments, headaches and other neurological problems

20.2 percent said they had been found to have depression. That is three times the rate of players who have not sustained concussions.

Alzheimer's disease or similar memory-related diseases appear to have been diagnosed in the league's former players vastly more often than in the national population — including a rate of 19 times the normal rate for men ages 30 through 49.
http://www.nytimes.com/info/concussions-in-football/

Texan_Bill
10-19-2010, 10:26 AM
http://10minuteramble.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/ermey.jpg

Mamby Pamby Land!!

silvrhand
10-19-2010, 10:31 AM
It's the concussion guys, come on people can't keep taking shots in the head at the current speed/size/strength these guys are getting. The long term effects are right up there with boxers if not worse now.

Goatcheese
10-19-2010, 10:31 AM
I think having a round table where players can discuss their feelings after each play would be good for the game. Just think, Mack and that Chiefs DL who grabbed his little guy could have sat down and discussed their feelings(mental you pervs) about the incident.

Just because this is a fight doesn't mean we can't be civil. *stabs helpless guy laying on the ground in the heart with a spear*

mootini
10-19-2010, 10:32 AM
http://10minuteramble.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/ermey.jpg

Mamby Pamby Land!!

Exactly!!!! Hello people this is football....we might as well turn the NFL into flag football.

Double Barrel
10-19-2010, 10:42 AM
This thread is sad and pathetic, IMO. These rules are designed for PLAYER SAFETY. But some folks need to see serious injuries for their entertainment fix, I guess.

I also notice those that call it a "man's game" aren't out there taking those brutal hits.

Dread-Head
10-19-2010, 10:42 AM
As our research into the negative effects of what is at its basest a game continue to unveil some scary, horrific, lasting consequences, the rules and safety have started to change accordingly. Players are bigger, faster, and stronger. Salaries are higher than ever. And for the first time, we have a clear picture of what the lasting consequences of these changes is.

I can't believe people start threads like this. These players are humans first, and nfl players second. Football is still plenty violent, plenty competitive. Are there some sissy calls every once in a while? Absolutely. Would I trade those calls for more paralysis, more permanent brain damage, etc? No. And frankly, I find it pretty depressing that anyone would.

One of the dirtiest players in the history of the game, Rodney Harrison, said that he never took the illegal hit rules seriously until he was suspended. This new rule is going to suspend players who make illegal hits using their helmets and attacking other players head areas. I can't believe you are complaining about that.

Edit: Here are some stats for you:






http://www.nytimes.com/info/concussions-in-football/

Man. It's a good thing I like, respect and admire many people on this board lest I'd be kinda hurt via the questioning of my mental state...which we all know to be questionable. Okay, here goes.

In the course of my life I've had maybe six concussions the last of which I suffered last year while skating. Only ONE of them was football related. My point? Had I never put on pads and a helmet I would have STILL suffered five concussions.

Anyone with half a brain knows that football is a contact sport and there exist a very REAL possibility that you might sustain a head injury OR break a bone. You KNOW that going in and if you don't maybe you should sit back and WATCH the game or simply participate in a sport which doesn't place an emphasis on power and speed.

Last I checked according to Newton's laws: "objects in motion tended to remain in motion unless acted upon by an outside force." If you're that object in motion and I'm that outside force, there is a good chance that (Mass x Acceleration) means there's a pretty good chance that one of us will smart from the collision. As was the case with Mr. Robinson over the weekend we BOTH might be on the ground.
It's the nature of the game. These guys decided to play football knowing that. No one forced them at gun point to play. Helmet to helmet should be done away with, but the fru-fru, girly girl, "You looked at Tom Brady and made him cry" penalties are F'ing up the game.

Blake
10-19-2010, 10:52 AM
When I was a kid watching the Oilers play it was not uncommon to see great QB's like Tarkington, Fouts, Staubach, John Elway, Bernie Kosar, Dan Marino, Mr. Warren Moon and Bradshaw taking bone crunching hits a good five or six seconds after they threw the ball. They only called roughing the passer if it was quite apparent that you were damned near trying to decapitate the guy.
After the death of the Late Great Pete Roselle (May he rest in peace) the league somehow WUSSIFIED. If you run into a QB after he's let go of the ball you're flagged for roughing the passer. Wimps like Eli Manning, and Toni Romo wouldn't have made it in football before the year 2000. Now a new cadre of whiners are crying that precious little receivers are getting hit too hard.
Hmmm. Lynn Swann, Mike Ditka, Chris Collinsworth, Steve Largent,Ernest Givens, Golden Richards, Daryl Johnson, Dwight Clark, Amad Rashad and DOZENS of other guys who played receiver and tight end took hits that still make them wince when they watched them today, yet they're all walking and most of them still speak in complete sentences. My point? Hits are part of football. Men like Dick Butkis, Merlin Olsen, Alex Karras, Jack Hamm, "Mean" Joe Green, Howie Long, Bubba Smith, Rosie Grier, Fred "The Hammer" Williamson, Lawrence Taylor and Deacon Jones in their respective day were delivering hard hits and playing smash mouth football. When they were excessive, they were fined but for the most part the league simply let them play and NEEDS to return to that policy.
If the league keeps wussing things up they might as well make all teams uniforms different shades of PINK, make them wear tiny dresses, and instead of tackling the guy with the ball simply tagging him and then going into therapy with him to talk about your feelings over sympathy tea because he felt you violated his space when you touched him. I THOUGHT this was a man's game.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101019/ap_on_sp_fo_ne/fbn_helmet_to_helmet_hits

Have you actually researched the long term effects of multiple concussions from these types of hits? Its really kind of scary. Read up on players like Merril Hoge.

http://www.arrowheadpride.com/2009/11/29/1177823/hoge-shares-chilling-story-on-post

I think the NFL owes it to the players to protect them from a few *******s who would rather torpedo tackle and use the helmet as a weapon, rahter than form tackle and use the helmet for what it was intended for, Protection.

Dread-Head
10-19-2010, 10:53 AM
Exactly!!!! Hello people this is football....we might as well turn the NFL into flag football.

Instead of Hank Williams singing "Are ya readyforsome...FOOTBALL!" for Monday Night Football, they should just get Cool & The Gang to sing "Ladies Night."

Mr teX
10-19-2010, 10:55 AM
My thoughts exactly....pretty soon defensive players won't even be able to touch offensive players. I get it, concussions are becoming an increasing concern, but it is an unfortunate consequence of playing such a violent game & no matter how much legislation you try to put in, guys will still get them. I agree, stifer penalties will need to be handed out for obvious infractions, but those bang-bang hits where guys are getting jacked up are split 2nd & are a big part of playing defense..as in intimidation.

What i'm more concerned with is this trend of slanting the rules towards offensive players. Nearly every rule or increased attention to a rule in the last 10 or so years has primarily been to help offensive players.

-5 yard jam rule - direct result of Colts WR's complaining about the pats getting too rough with them in the playoffs in 2002..

Horsecollar rule - direct result of Roy Williams' tendency to tackle guys by the collar & finally came to a head when TO broke his leg.

- hitting a qb low - direct result of Brady getting rolled up on by pollard. - this 1 especially ticks me off b/c Palmer essentially had the same thing happen to him years prior & it wasn't until the golden boy got his knee shreaded that the league felt the had to do something about it.

- defenseless WR rule-

& now this..

Dread-Head
10-19-2010, 11:09 AM
"Take this pink ribbon off my eyes. I'm exposed and it's no big surprise. Don't you think I know exactly who I am. This world is forcing me to hold your hand. Yes I am just a girl. Poor little old me, so don't let me out of your sight. Oh I am just a girl so pretty and petite so don't let me have any rights.

The moment that I step outside, so many reasons for me to run and hide. I can't do those little things I hold so dear. I can't do those little things...that I fear. Oh I'm just a girl I'd rather not be cause you won't let me drive late at night. Oh I'm just a girl guess I'm some kind of freak cause they often stare with their eyes.

I am just a girl...I am just a girl in the world. It's all that you'll let me be!"


:Quarterbacks and Receivers of the National Football League.

Double Barrel
10-19-2010, 11:11 AM
My thoughts exactly....pretty soon defensive players won't even be able to touch offensive players. I get it, concussions are becoming an increasing concern, but it is an unfortunate consequence of playing such a violent game & no matter how much legislation you try to put in, guys will still get them. I agree, stifer penalties will need to be handed out for obvious infractions, but those bang-bang hits where guys are getting jacked up are split 2nd & are a big part of playing defense..as in intimidation.

What i'm more concerned with is this trend of slanting the rules towards offensive players. Nearly every rule or increased attention to a rule in the last 10 or so years has primarily been to help offensive players.

-5 yard jam rule - direct result of Colts WR's complaining about the pats getting too rough with them in the playoffs in 2002..

Horsecollar rule - direct result of Roy Williams' tendency to tackle guys by the collar & finally came to a head when TO broke his leg.

- hitting a qb low - direct result of Brady getting rolled up on by pollard. - this 1 especially ticks me off b/c Palmer essentially had the same thing happen to him years prior & it wasn't until the golden boy got his knee shreaded that the league felt the had to do something about it.

- defenseless WR rule-

& now this..

The bolded part is the entire point of this rule, IMO. I like big hits and tackles as much as the next guy, but some of them are clearly obvious that there is ill intent behind the hit. I have a hard time believing that a professional player cannot control his technique, so I cannot accept that spearing with helmets is accidental. It's malicious play and should be penalized accordingly.

Texan_Bill
10-19-2010, 11:22 AM
This thread is sad and pathetic, IMO. These rules are designed for PLAYER SAFETY. But some folks need to see serious injuries for their entertainment fix, I guess.

I also notice those that call it a "man's game" aren't out there taking those brutal hits.

Make no mistake, we're not talking about serious injuries, i.e. Patrick Edwards compound fracture at Marshall last season. We're talking about rules that "baby" QB's and receivers. Dan Pastorini played with broken ribs for crying out loud. I think it was Jack Youngblood who once played with a broken leg.

I know concussions are a serious issue as I have been concussed more than a couple of times. I get that head trauma has many lasting effects that may not be realized for years to come. That said, these guys choose to play a violent sport. Truth be told, there are thousands of guys that would give up a testacle to play the game they love so much. It comes with the territory. Don't be the highest payed actor in Hollywood and then ***** because you get mobbed when you go out. It comes with the territory....

Now. After the diatribe I still think the NFL and the NFLPA need to do a lot better job of caring for those guys who gave life and limb to make the game what it is today, without the compensation today's players make.

*gets off :soapbox: *

gtexan02
10-19-2010, 11:25 AM
"Take this pink ribbon off my eyes. I'm exposed and it's no big surprise. Don't you think I know exactly who I am. This world is forcing me to hold your hand. Yes I am just a girl. Poor little old me, so don't let me out of your sight. Oh I am just a girl so pretty and petite so don't let me have any rights.

The moment that I step outside, so many reasons for me to run and hide. I can't do those little things I hold so dear. I can't do those little things...that I fear. Oh I'm just a girl I'd rather not be cause you won't let me drive late at night. Oh I'm just a girl guess I'm some kind of freak cause they often stare with their eyes.

I am just a girl...I am just a girl in the world. It's all that you'll let me be!"


:Quarterbacks and Receivers of the National Football League.

I can't tell if youre trolling or if this is your response to a pretty serious debate?

This whole "you're not a man because back in the day..." stuff is pretty absurd. Is there something your insecure about? :stirpot:

Rules change as we learn more about the sport. Thats called evolution of player safety. We didnt know the lasting effects of certain behaviors, therefore there was no reason to outlaw them. Now we know, so we evolve.

Back in the day, we used to paint our houses with lead paint and use asbestos to insulate them. We now know that its dangerous to do so. Therefore we change. We adapt.

I understand the difference. The NFL is dangerous, and its a choice. You aren't forced into it.

However, its also a job. Employers in this country have a legal right to ensure the safest conditions possible for all their employees. Its like that across all businesses.

The NFL today is the best sport on the planet. I dont get what all the whining is about. Speaking of being a man...

mootini
10-19-2010, 11:45 AM
Man. It's a good thing I like, respect and admire many people on this board lest I'd be kinda hurt via the questioning of my mental state...which we all know to be questionable. Okay, here goes.

In the course of my life I've had maybe six concussions the last of which I suffered last year while skating. Only ONE of them was football related. My point? Had I never put on pads and a helmet I would have STILL suffered five concussions.

Anyone with half a brain knows that football is a contact sport and there exist a very REAL possibility that you might sustain a head injury OR break a bone. You KNOW that going in and if you don't maybe you should sit back and WATCH the game or simply participate in a sport which doesn't place an emphasis on power and speed.

Last I checked according to Newton's laws: "objects in motion tended to remain in motion unless acted upon by an outside force." If you're that object in motion and I'm that outside force, there is a good chance that (Mass x Acceleration) means there's a pretty good chance that one of us will smart from the collision. As was the case with Mr. Robinson over the weekend we BOTH might be on the ground.
It's the nature of the game. These guys decided to play football knowing that. No one forced them at gun point to play. Helmet to helmet should be done away with, but the fru-fru, girly girl, "You looked at Tom Brady and made him cry" penalties are F'ing up the game.

I skate too...old guys rule! Football is a contact sport, always has... and the question, always will be? What's the fear for WR to go across the middle, knowing he won't be hit? How can you defend this?

Texan_Bill
10-19-2010, 11:47 AM
I skate too...old guys rule! Football is a contact sport, always has... and the question, always will be? What's the fear for WR to go across the middle, knowing he won't be hit? How can you defend this?

Correction. Basketball is a contact sport. Football is a collision sport.

gtexan02
10-19-2010, 11:53 AM
I skate too...old guys rule! Football is a contact sport, always has... and the question, always will be? What's the fear for WR to go across the middle, knowing he won't be hit? How can you defend this?

How does
We are going to suspend players who flagratly use their helmet to spear other defenless players in their helmet

translate to
WRs wont get hit?


There is some huge overreaction going on it seems...

Texan_Bill
10-19-2010, 12:02 PM
Instead of Hank Williams singing "Are ya readyforsome...FOOTBALL!" for Monday Night Football, they should just get Cool & The Gang to sing "Ladies Night."

:spit: That was awesome!

infantrycak
10-19-2010, 12:05 PM
The NFL is dangerous, and its a choice. You aren't forced into it.

However, its also a job.

Yup, there are lots of jobs which involve danger and folks voluntarily engage in those occupations - the military, oilfield work, crabbing, etc. Doesn't mean employers shouldn't provide safety equipment and good procedures for safety.

How does
We are going to suspend players who flagratly use their helmet to spear other defenless players in their helmet

translate to
WRs wont get hit?


There is some huge overreaction going on it seems...

It doesn't translate to that and this is an overreaction. QBs are still getting hammered with big blows despite defenders not being able to go low or leave their feet and pile drive. The devastating hits stuff is BS because it can't be defined adequately. The helmet to helmet rule isn't even a change and people act like the sky is falling. It's been around for years. The league is just trying to figure out how to make players follow it.

Texan_Bill
10-19-2010, 12:24 PM
Yup, there are lots of jobs which involve danger and folks voluntarily engage in those occupations - the military, oilfield work, crabbing, etc. Doesn't mean employers shouldn't provide safety equipment and good procedures for safety.

Project Management! Carpal Tunnel Syndrome.

It doesn't translate to that and this is an overreaction. QBs are still getting hammered with big blows despite defenders not being able to go low or leave their feet and pile drive. The devastating hits stuff is BS because it can't be defined adequately. The helmet to helmet rule isn't even a change and people act like the sky is falling. It's been around for years. The league is just trying to figure out how to make players follow it.

I'm pretty sure Dread's point is the long term wussificaiton of the game. The rule changes going back almost 20 years now. When recievers still had to be men. What kind of ridiculous numbers would Lynn Swann have put up with the rules in place today versus the muggings that he and receivers of the 60's, 70's and early 80's endured?


*******************

Dunta's hit was more about lack of fundamentals than anything. You are supposed to see what you hit. Dip your butt, NOT your head..

TEXANRED
10-19-2010, 12:53 PM
This thread is sad and pathetic, IMO. These rules are designed for PLAYER SAFETY. But some folks need to see serious injuries for their entertainment fix, I guess.

I also notice those that call it a "man's game" aren't out there taking those brutal hits.

We aren't making that pay check either.

Football is a mans game and one played by choice. Nobody is forcing these people to go out and play.

Next thing you know headgear will be worn in MMA.

silvrhand
10-19-2010, 01:02 PM
Project Management! Carpal Tunnel Syndrome.



I'm pretty sure Dread's point is the long term wussificaiton of the game. The rule changes going back almost 20 years now. When recievers still had to be men. What kind of ridiculous numbers would Lynn Swann have put up with the rules in place today versus the muggings that he and receivers of the 60's, 70's and early 80's endured?


*******************

Dunta's hit was more about lack of fundamentals than anything. You are supposed to see what you hit. Dip your butt, NOT your head..

20 years ago is a long time we didn't play 16 game seasons, players were not as big and fast as they are today. Sticking your head in the sand and saying hey it's a game your choice is a bit limited in my view..

But hey opinions are like *******s and we have them all, the rule totally depends on how they enforce it. The NFLPA doesn't allow them to fine them the amount of money to catch their attention so suspending them for a game gets the team after them, and docks them one of their paychecks..

When Rodney Harrison stood on national TV and told the world he set aside 50k a year for fines for big hits and didn't care till he got suspended, he pretty much told the NFL how to fix it.

Texan_Bill
10-19-2010, 01:02 PM
Maybe baseball players should wear hockey goalie masks. Why not after Dickie Thon had his orbital bone shattered from a Torrez fastball? :choke:

gtexan02
10-19-2010, 01:04 PM
Maybe baseball players should wear hockey goalie masks. Why not after Dickie Thon had his orbital bone shattered from a Torrez fastball? :choke:

Are you upset that catchers wear masks?

Texan_Bill
10-19-2010, 01:07 PM
Are you upset that catchers wear masks?

Absolutely not. Am I upset that football players wear helmets? No. Do I care that hockey players wear helmets? No. Do I care that NASCAR drivers use the Hans device? Again, no!

IDEXAN
10-19-2010, 01:20 PM
They need to take some time to analize and think thru the consequences of what thier action(s) are to be ? In other words, don't overreact in response to public opinion. These guys have been playing one way for years and years, even decades if you consider their time in scholastic and college ball.
If suspension is threatened, some players will begin to immediately play differently without any training or prep in the modified method, taking different angles and differenct speeds at contact which can in itself be conducive to injury.
This is something which should be handled in the offseason, but PR mode
has probably taken over full control by now.

infantrycak
10-19-2010, 01:33 PM
They need to take some time to analize and think thru the consequences of what thier action(s) are to be ? In other words, don't overreact in response to public opinion. These guys have been playing one way for years and years, even decades if you consider their time in scholastic and college ball.
If suspension is threatened, some players will begin to immediately play differently without any training or prep in the modified method, taking different angles and differenct speeds at contact which can in itself be conducive to injury.
This is something which should be handled in the offseason, but PR mode
has probably taken over full control by now.

Frankly you are making the point for stiffer enforcement because the rule isn't changing. It has been on the books for years and players are ignoring it.

Mr teX
10-19-2010, 01:34 PM
I don' think defensive guys go in to hit a guy trying injure them..just make their prescence felt & to intimidate a bit. In saying that, i think what those of us who are "overreacting" are saying is even if you hit someone fundamentally sound (wrap up, see what you hit etc..) there's still a chance that helmet to helmet hits & concussions will happen & you're not going to be able to eradicate that & concussions out of the game.

A defensive guy can to a certain degree control how he comes to hit a guy, but he cannot control what an offensive player does. If a WR turns or ducks down even a few inches 1 way or the other it can alter the angle & place a defensive guy is aiming to hit. So my thing is why should it only be on the defensive guy to worry about getting suspended b/c he inadvertently hit a guy in the wrong manner?

HOU-TEX
10-19-2010, 01:39 PM
Project Management! Carpal Tunnel Syndrome.



I'm pretty sure Dread's point is the long term wussificaiton of the game. The rule changes going back almost 20 years now. When recievers still had to be men. What kind of ridiculous numbers would Lynn Swann have put up with the rules in place today versus the muggings that he and receivers of the 60's, 70's and early 80's endured?


*******************

Dunta's hit was more about lack of fundamentals than anything. You are supposed to see what you hit. Dip your butt, NOT your head..

While that may be true, the fundamentals of a good quality defensive tackle went out the window years ago. It's not really even taught anymore, much less used. It's unfortunate, but true

Texan_Bill
10-19-2010, 01:45 PM
The first thing they should do is penalize a guy when his helmet comes off because he doesn't have it buttoned up properly. I am sick and tired of seeing helmets rolling around everywhere!

gtexan02
10-19-2010, 01:48 PM
I don' think defensive guys go in to hit a guy trying injure them..just make their prescence felt & to intimidate a bit.

Interesting.

PITTSBURGH -- Pittsburgh Steelers linebacker James Harrison states his objective matter-of-factly: He's out to hurt any opposing player who roams into his vicinity.

If he sees players down on the turf -- as he did Sunday when he sidelined Browns wide receivers Josh Cribbs and Mohamed Massaquoi with concussion-causing hits only minutes apart -- he knows he has done his job.

Now, he does go on to say he doesnt want to knock people out for long periods of time, but he counters that later with a ridiculous commment like this one:

The crown of Harrison's helmet slammed into the left side of Cribbs' helmet as the receiver was running a Wildcat formation play, causing Cribbs to crumple face-first into the turf. He appeared to be momentarily knocked out.
...
"I thought Cribbs was asleep," Harrison said. "A hit like that geeks you up, especially when you find out the guy is not really hurt, he's just sleeping. He's knocked out but he's going to be OK."

This tells me that NFL players dont understand how serious a concussion is. Sleeping? Really? Wow.

In saying that, i think what those of us who are "overreacting" are saying is even if you hit someone fundamentally sound (wrap up, see what you hit etc..) there's still a chance that helmet to helmet hits & concussions will happen & you're not going to be able to eradicate that & concussions out of the game.

A defensive guy can to a certain degree control how he comes to hit a guy, but he cannot control what an offensive player does. If a WR turns or ducks down even a few inches 1 way or the other it can alter the angle & place a defensive guy is aiming to hit. So my thing is why should it only be on the defensive guy to worry about getting suspended b/c he inadvertently hit a guy in the wrong manner?

That doesnt really matter. See below:

Because Cribbs was a runner, such helmet-to-helmet contact is permissible.

The illegal part comes when you hit a receiver who doesnt have a chance to prepare himself to absorb a helmet hit like that


http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5699976

IDEXAN
10-19-2010, 01:49 PM
Frankly you are making the point for stiffer enforcement because the rule isn't changing. It has been on the books for years and players are ignoring it.
So you're saying it's strictly an enforcement issue ?

infantrycak
10-19-2010, 01:58 PM
So you're saying it's strictly an enforcement issue ?

I don't know what they are talking about with devastating hits but the helmet to helmet rule is going to remain the same. They are just contemplating exercising their discretion to eject and suspend instead of just fine.

BIG TORO
10-19-2010, 02:08 PM
http://ts1.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=281780035284&id=f5d5db6dd25d557a61af607801097060
Are you not Entertained?!!

Double Barrel
10-19-2010, 02:17 PM
Project Management! Carpal Tunnel Syndrome.



I'm pretty sure Dread's point is the long term wussificaiton of the game. The rule changes going back almost 20 years now. When recievers still had to be men. What kind of ridiculous numbers would Lynn Swann have put up with the rules in place today versus the muggings that he and receivers of the 60's, 70's and early 80's endured?


*******************

Dunta's hit was more about lack of fundamentals than anything. You are supposed to see what you hit. Dip your butt, NOT your head..

Chop blocks used to be a part of the sport when it was a so-called "man's game", too. Same with head slaps as Deacon Jones will constantly tell you. I'm sure that as a fan of the NFL for many years, you know of many techniques that have been outlawed in the past several decades. Do you honestly think we should bring those tactics back for your entertainment pleasure?

I guess by your logic Lynn Swann is a total wuss because he didn't play back in the day when they didn't wear helmets and were allowed to eye gouge and fish hook each other on tackles.

At what point do we admit we want a blood sport and not an athletic form of entertainment?

This all about player safety, fellas. Do you really want to see a bunch of scrubs playing in the playoffs of an 18 game season because some fans have some twisted desire that has to be satiated with season and even career ending injuries?

Like 'cak said, this is an existing rule that's getting a tougher enforcement. Guys will still get creamed up the middle, and QBs are still getting hit hard and losing time.

We aren't making that pay check either.

Football is a mans game and one played by choice. Nobody is forcing these people to go out and play.

Next thing you know headgear will be worn in MMA.

Pay has nothing to do with it. That's a free market capitalism topic, but has absolutely nothing to do with player safety during games. I guess if a guy gets paid enough then you expect blood, 'eh?

And give me a break comparing it to MMA. I've got ALL the old UFC tournaments on DVD, and that sport has evolved quicker and further than the NFL could ever dream of. Are you seriously trying to make that case? Because if so, you only show a lack of education about the history of MMA when you try to make such a point.

Some of the attitudes about player safety really amaze me, because it's obvious that being entertained is a much higher priority than player safety for some fans.

gary
10-19-2010, 02:20 PM
I don't have an opinion on this because I don't know what should be done to please everyone.

Texan_Bill
10-19-2010, 02:37 PM
Chop blocks used to be a part of the sport when it was a so-called "man's game", too. Same with head slaps as Deacon Jones will constantly tell you. I'm sure that as a fan of the NFL for many years, you know of many techniques that have been outlawed in the past several decades. Do you honestly think we should bring those tactics back for your entertainment pleasure?

I guess by your logic Lynn Swann is a total wuss because he didn't play back in the day when they didn't wear helmets and were allowed to eye gouge and fish hook each other on tackles.

At what point do we admit we want a blood sport and not an athletic form of entertainment?

This all about player safety, fellas. Do you really want to see a bunch of scrubs playing in the playoffs of an 18 game season because some fans have some twisted desire that has to be satiated with season and even career ending injuries?

Like 'cak said, this is an existing rule that's getting a tougher enforcement. Guys will still get creamed up the middle, and QBs are still getting hit hard and losing time.



Pay has nothing to do with it. That's a free market capitalism topic, but has absolutely nothing to do with player safety during games. I guess if a guy gets paid enough then you expect blood, 'eh?

And give me a break comparing it to MMA. I've got ALL the old UFC tournaments on DVD, and that sport has evolved quicker and further than the NFL could ever dream of. Are you seriously trying to make that case? Because if so, you only show a lack of education about the history of MMA when you try to make such a point.

Some of the attitudes about player safety really amaze me, because it's obvious that being entertained is a much higher priority than player safety for some fans.

First, please don't miss understand me. I am all for the helmet to helmet rule. I know for a fact there are high school kids suffering concussions out there. and I think that's another thread. Somehow this thread evolved into that and I don't necessariy think that was Dread's intent with the OP...

BTW, I'm all for protecting knees in the form of outlawing chop blocks. I wish they would call d-lineman for going after offensive players knees too *cough Jared Allen cough* However, where do you stop?. There used to be a time when receivers had to earn their living. That pass interference on the corner covering AJ was a bull**** call. Luckily AJ caught the pass and the Texans declined the penalty anyway, but that flag doesn't fly 20 years ago. Lester Hayes (who wore so much stickum, it looked like he jacked off an elephant) used to get away with felonious assault while in coverage. Jack Tatum was a bad man, the Darryl Stingley unfortunate accident not withstanding, he used to be tough as nails, but so were many of the receivers from that time period. Back them you had cornerbacks that actually wanted to hit people unlike many of the sissy corners in recent history (Deion Sanders comes to mind). Hell, many players today are prima donnas when compared to players 20 years ago.

Are all those penalties slanted to benefit the offense safety issues? No that's an NFL decision to increase the offensive player's production. Production = scoring (in theory). What about the discussion a few weeks ago, with regard to Manning getting away with murder at the line of scrimmage? Advantage offense.

That is the type of wussification of football that I am talking about. Again, I agree with the helmet to helmet rule. That's a good and necessary rule.

Double Barrel
10-19-2010, 02:50 PM
I know what you're saying, TB, and I'll admit that I was a big fan of ESPN's "Jacked UP!" segment before they canned it. Those hits are part of football and I have only the desire to see them clean up the malicious hits.

With regards to the overall trend toward offense, that's today's NFL. It's not going to change and we just have to get used to it. The fact of the matter is just like homeruns in baseball put fannies in the seats (much to the chagrin of baseball purists), offenses scoring points are the same for football. And fannies in the seats = revenue, which is the primary focal point of this business called the NFL.

I don't know the true intention of DH's initial post to start this thread, as he uses players from many different eras to illustrate his point. Different techniques were used throughout the many different eras of the NFL, so who's to say what players from the past would do today when modern players are bigger, faster, and stronger than just a couple of decades ago. The post read to me as a diatribe that the vicious NFL past is what he yearns for, which is directly related to many of the bad health problems that those old dudes are suffering from today.

I find it disrespectful to players to tell them that they need to wear skirts because player safety has become a primary concern of the league. But, that's just my perspective and nothing personal against anyone that disagrees with my take.

Texan_Bill
10-19-2010, 03:03 PM
Admittedly I loved "Jacked Up!" too. The difference there though is they were hard hits and clean (usually), not turning your body into a missile and using your helmet as the war head.

*sigh* I guess I'm dying breed because I can enjoy a 17-14 or 10-3 game as much as I can 38-35 shoot-out.

Double Barrel
10-19-2010, 03:08 PM
Admittedly I loved "Jacked Up!" too. The difference there though is they were hard hits and clean (usually), not turning your body into a missile and using your helmet as the war head.

*sigh* I guess I'm dying breed because I can enjoy a 17-14 or 10-3 game as much as I can 38-35 shoot-out.

We are a dying breed, TB. I love a good, solid defense. Unfortunately, that's just not something we've seen in H-town for many, many years.

The dominating defenses of the past are most likely just that for a variety of reasons. Along with rule changes favoring offense, teams cannot be as deep with talent as the Steel Curtain or Doomsday Defense were back in the day.

Mr teX
10-19-2010, 03:08 PM
Interesting.



Now, he does go on to say he doesnt want to knock people out for long periods of time, but he counters that later with a ridiculous commment like this one:



This tells me that NFL players dont understand how serious a concussion is. Sleeping? Really? Wow.



That doesnt really matter. See below:



The illegal part comes when you hit a receiver who doesnt have a chance to prepare himself to absorb a helmet hit like that


http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5699976

It does matter b/c concussions & the prevention of them is ultimately what has brought this issue of helmet to helmet contact to the forefront. The league deeming it acceptable in 1 instance & illegal in another is what doesn't matter b/c ultimately the recieving player is still gonna get them.


Don't just try & make this about defensive guys. james harrison's comments are only him being truthful about the situation. Every player regardless of what side of the ball they are on get amped up when they make a bone crushing hit on another player. Example: when an offensive player gets the better of a defender through crack backs or crack back like hits they jump around & chest bump just as much as a defender does b/c the tables were turned. Hines Ward has routinely done this over the years to Db's & LBs (leading with his helmet as well) & then promptly stands over the defender with his "man-down" taunt. Of course when an offensive guy does it its always " he's just a football player!" A bad weekend of misplaced hits by a few defensive guys & there's outrage.

Its as much apart of the game as baseball players hitting baseballs back at pitchers at twice the speeds they are pitched at. Would you really suspend hitters b/c they have control over where they hit the ball?

Dread-Head
10-19-2010, 03:19 PM
Project Management! Carpal Tunnel Syndrome.



I'm pretty sure Dread's point is the long term wussificaiton of the game. The rule changes going back almost 20 years now. When recievers still had to be men. What kind of ridiculous numbers would Lynn Swann have put up with the rules in place today versus the muggings that he and receivers of the 60's, 70's and early 80's endured?


*******************

Dunta's hit was more about lack of fundamentals than anything. You are supposed to see what you hit. Dip your butt, NOT your head..


As usual BILL gets me! :thinking: Why can't tall Asian chicks with big racks "get me?"

infantrycak
10-19-2010, 03:20 PM
I don't know what they are talking about with devastating hits but the helmet to helmet rule is going to remain the same. They are just contemplating exercising their discretion to eject and suspend instead of just fine.

To clarify, the league rep retracted his devastating comment (so no new rules for some ambiguous category of hits) and said the only thing they are contemplating is upping the enforcement on the currently existing rules.

Are all those penalties slanted to benefit the offense safety issues? No that's an NFL decision to increase the offensive player's production.

This doesn't really address your point but I found this offense v. defense perspective issue interesting. In discussing Harrison's hit on WR Masaquoi (sp?) defensive guy Bruschi felt like it was clearly a hit that should draw a suspension while offensive guy Tim Hasselbeck did not.

Update - fines but no suspensions - $50k Meriweather, $75k Harrison, $50k Robinson

I'm guessing they made a lot of fuss of suspensions but they'll come out next time so it doesn't seem unfair for no notice.

Texan_Bill
10-19-2010, 03:28 PM
This doesn't really address your point but I found this offense v. defense perspective issue interesting. In discussing Harrison's hit on WR Masaquoi (sp?) defensive guy Bruschi felt like it was clearly a hit that should draw a suspension while offensive guy Tim Hasselbeck did not.

That is interesting. I've seen similar situations where the offensive and defensive guys have totally opposite opinion of what you may think they have.

HOU-TEX
10-19-2010, 03:29 PM
Admittedly I loved "Jacked Up!" too. The difference there though is they were hard hits and clean (usually), not turning your body into a missile and using your helmet as the war head.

*sigh* I guess I'm dying breed because I can enjoy a 17-14 or 10-3 game as much as I can 38-35 shoot-out.

We are a dying breed, TB. I love a good, solid defense. Unfortunately, that's just not something we've seen in H-town for many, many years.

The dominating defenses of the past are most likely just that for a variety of reasons. Along with rule changes favoring offense, teams cannot be as deep with talent as the Steel Curtain or Doomsday Defense were back in the day.

Come on now, I'm right there with y'all. I'm as much of a defense kinda guy you can get. I agree though, the days of dominating defense's are slowly disappearing. The NFL's more about entertainment than it's ever been. High flying offenses = entertainment for the new school fanatics....I reckon

Texan_Bill
10-19-2010, 03:31 PM
We are a dying breed, TB. I love a good, solid defense. Unfortunately, that's just not something we've seen in H-town for many, many years.

The dominating defenses of the past are most likely just that for a variety of reasons. Along with rule changes favoring offense, teams cannot be as deep with talent as the Steel Curtain or Doomsday Defense were back in the day.

Yup, old fashioned slobberknockers!

That's a good point with the way teams are structured today.

As usual BILL gets me! :thinking: Why can't tall Asian chicks with big racks "get me?"

My answer for everything? Treasures!

Dread-Head
10-19-2010, 03:32 PM
IWith regards to the overall trend toward offense, that's today's NFL. It's not going to change and we just have to get used to it.
I don't know the true intention of DH's initial post to start this thread, as he uses players from many different eras to illustrate his point. Different techniques were used throughout the many different eras of the NFL, so who's to say what players from the past would do today when modern players are bigger, faster, and stronger than just a couple of decades ago. The post read to me as a diatribe that the vicious NFL past is what he yearns for, which is directly related to many of the bad health problems that those old dudes are suffering from today.

I find it disrespectful to players to tell them that they need to wear skirts because player safety has become a primary concern of the league. But, that's just my perspective and nothing personal against anyone that disagrees with my take.

I thought my initial post was more of a "treastie" than a "diatribe" but I digress.

I think the league moving the umpire so that QBs could no longer use him as a shield to complete passes greatly helped defenses.

I don't want the "clothesline" or the "head slap" to return and don't advocate the whole sale butchery of offensive players. I am however saying that the suits who govern the game need to come to terms that the men playing this sport are conditioned athletes and that while it IS a buisness it's still a very rough sport.

The "Hoop skirt" thing was a take off on something Terry Bradshaw (former QB) said about roughing the passer penalties the league put in place a few years ago.

gtexan02
10-19-2010, 03:48 PM
I think many of you have a very short memory when it comes to offense/defense. If you'll check out the statistics of points per game, I bet (and Im going off hunches here) that you'll find that the average number of points per game really hasn't changed all that much throughout the last few decades when all the rule impelementations and changes have been made.

The defenses of the 80s and before are well thought of, but there were great offenses back then too.

For example, the Rams averaged 34 points a game in 2000
The '83 Redskins did better than that
The '98 Vikes had 35 points a game
'84 Dolphins averaged 32
The 1950 Rams had 39 points a game
etc, etc

Sure these are the best of the best, but good teams were scoring in bunches then, and they are scoring in bunches now.

Its not like we were having 10-9 sludge matches week after week before the new rules came into play. Plenty of teams were lighting up scoreboards. Id love to see a chart of average points a game by year.

infantrycak
10-19-2010, 03:51 PM
I am however saying that the suits who govern the game need to come to terms that the men playing this sport are conditioned athletes and that while it IS a buisness it's still a very rough sport.

I don't have a link for this but for perspective on wussification, some commentator said the league is on its highest recorded pace for concussions this year. That's with all the wussy rules.

gtexan02
10-19-2010, 03:59 PM
I know what you're saying, TB, and I'll admit that I was a big fan of ESPN's "Jacked UP!" segment before they canned it. Those hits are part of football and I have only the desire to see them clean up the malicious hits.

With regards to the overall trend toward offense, that's today's NFL. It's not going to change and we just have to get used to it. The fact of the matter is just like homeruns in baseball put fannies in the seats (much to the chagrin of baseball purists), offenses scoring points are the same for football. And fannies in the seats = revenue, which is the primary focal point of this business called the NFL.

Found something interesting to back up my previous post:

With all the gaudy passing stats of the past decade, you'd think that scoring is at an alltime high, too.

But you'd be wrong. Way wrong.

The truth is the revolution in the modern passing game has not produced a revolution on the scoreboard. The truth is offenses scored at a greater clip back when the helmets were leather and the handoff was the preferred offensive weapon.

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/kerry_byrne/08/26/passing/index.html#ixzz12qAQK6Rc

...

The Cold, Hard Football Facts recently conducted a study of annual scoring rates throughout the entire history of pro football and the results were shocking. In fact, the findings cause us to call into question the obsession that contemporary coaches, coordinators, quarterbacks (and even fans) have with the passing game.

...

Nope, the most explosive offensive season in NFL history was way back in 1948, when Philadelphia's Tommy Thompson led the NFL with 25 touchdown tosses and NFL teams averaged a record 23.2 points per game. Three of the league's 10 clubs averaged more than 30 PPG in 1948. To put that scoring clip into perspective, consider that just one of 32 teams, the Super Bowl champion Saints, topped 30 PPG in 2009.


So I dont really buy into the theory that the NFL incorporated all these new rules to increase scoring or boost revenue. Nor do I feel like the dominating defenses of the past are long gone. In fact, it would appear that defenses have improved throughout the history of the NFL



All the rule changes that we've seen to improve player safety have not negatively impacted the game to the point that it outweighs the benefits to safety.

Furthermore, all the rule changes we've seen on defensive players has not created some offensive biased league at all. If anything, the rules have helped balance offense and defense to a point we've never seen before. Teams averaged close to 24 points a game 60 years ago.

Double Barrel
10-19-2010, 04:20 PM
Very interesting points, gt. It's one of those assumptions that you hear and it sorta' makes sense so you repeat it. But, very interesting to see the actual statistical history of it, because it flies in the face of commonly accepted wisdom.

Points to ponder, indeed. :thinking:

TimeKiller
10-19-2010, 05:15 PM
It's not like these rules are going to stop injuries. It's not going to stop the physicality of the game. I understand player safety but that starts with the players. If they want all these special considerations as retired players and ahem....anyone needing an alibi then they need to stop doing this to each other. Emphasis on wrap up, not "hitting" heads or knees. Not deliberately going for killshots. Dunta robinson could've hit Jackson in the numbers and blown Jackson right the hell up. He went above his shoulders. Fined. Appeal it all you want fool, that 50K belongs to the league now. I just say screw all these rules they come out with one by one. Require a "strike zone" if you will, require a wrap up attempt and make a "hit" a flatout illegal manuever.

Texan_Bill
10-19-2010, 07:21 PM
Come on now, I'm right there with y'all. I'm as much of a defense kinda guy you can get. I agree though, the days of dominating defense's are slowly disappearing. The NFL's more about entertainment than it's ever been. High flying offenses = entertainment for the new school fanatics....I reckon

I'm sure there are plenty of us folks (albeit older folks) that enjoy good solid defenses. This is one the reasons I was so stoked when the Texans picked up Jamie Sharper from Baltimore. Ray Lewis was the main attraction (and rightfully so), but I watched what Sharper did in that dominating defense so when he came here, I reached solidity!!

HJam72
10-19-2010, 07:23 PM
Well, of course they scored. You wanna tackle people all day with a leather helmet? Talk about incentive to slack off.

Regarding the skirts, I really do wish they would consider replacing all the players with cheerleaders, but that's just me.

JB
10-19-2010, 07:44 PM
Well, of course they scored. You wanna tackle people all day with a leather helmet? Talk about incentive to slack off.

Regarding the skirts, I really do wish they would consider replacing all the players with cheerleaders, but that's just me.

You may be interested in the LFL...

Link (http://www.lflus.com/)

HJam72
10-19-2010, 07:51 PM
You may be interested in the LFL...

Link (http://www.lflus.com/)

Ya think? :)

Texan_Bill
10-19-2010, 08:21 PM
You may be interested in the LFL...

Link (http://www.lflus.com/)

Ya think? :)

Where the hell is our team??!? I read something over a year ago that we were supposed to get one... I volunteer to be the team's trainer; giving massages or rub-downs and whatnot!!

JB
10-19-2010, 08:33 PM
Where the hell is our team??!? I read something over a year ago that we were supposed to get one... I volunteer to be the team's trainer; giving massages or rub-downs and whatnot!!

C'mon Bill, you would be happy being the assistant equipment manager and washing used laundry...


so would I! :D

Texan_Bill
10-19-2010, 09:23 PM
C'mon Bill, you would be happy being the assistant equipment manager and washing used laundry...


so would I! :D

Absolutely!!! ;)

Mr teX
10-20-2010, 09:18 AM
I don't have a link for this but for perspective on wussification, some commentator said the league is on its highest recorded pace for concussions this year. That's with all the wussy rules.

Only b/c their is increased attention being paid to them this year. I know of at least 4 this year that have happened b/c the player's head bounced on the turf during a tackle (kolb, cutler, witten & gerrard). Can we expect the league to try & legislate how a tackler brings a guy to the ground too now? I'd be interested to see the breakdown on how these concussions happened.

infantrycak
10-20-2010, 10:08 AM
Only b/c their is increased attention being paid to them this year. I know of at least 4 this year that have happened b/c the player's head bounced on the turf during a tackle (kolb, cutler, witten & gerrard). Can we expect the league to try & legislate how a tackler brings a guy to the ground too now? I'd be interested to see the breakdown on how these concussions happened.

You are historically and logically incorrect. The league has been paying increased attention for decades now and really started looking at it after losing Hall of Fame players like Troy Aikman and Steve Young to them. And increased attention isn't causing concussions. In any event, the cause of the concussion is irrelevant to the point which was the NFL isn't wussified if people are getting injured at a higher rate.

For the record there have already been 36 concussions this season.

People keep whining about QB's not being hit and it's silly. They object to rule changes out of fear of wussification and then don't look at the results. We just completed week 6. Let's look just at our division. Manning and Schaub are the only ones to have survived 6 weeks. VY down, Garrard down, his backup down.

Dread-Head
10-20-2010, 10:11 AM
I don't have a link for this but for perspective on wussification, some commentator said the league is on its highest recorded pace for concussions this year. That's with all the wussy rules.

Teach me your keen debate skills and powers of persuasion oh great one...that I may one day be the clear headed voice of reason...and have a hot redheaded wife

The1ApplePie
10-20-2010, 12:09 PM
I have always thought the recent safety rules were more about ratings than actual health issues.

Offense sells tickets, moves merch, and brings in viewers. Its in the best interest of the NFL to make defenses weaker while offenses get stronger. Taking out hard hits gives the offense an even bigger advantage.

Mr teX
10-20-2010, 12:13 PM
You are historically and logically incorrect. The league has been paying increased attention for decades now and really started looking at it after losing Hall of Fame players like Troy Aikman and Steve Young to them. And increased attention isn't causing concussions. In any event, the cause of the concussion is irrelevant to the point which was the NFL isn't wussified if people are getting injured at a higher rate.

For the record there have already been 36 concussions this season.

People keep whining about QB's not being hit and it's silly. They object to rule changes out of fear of wussification and then don't look at the results. We just completed week 6. Let's look just at our division. Manning and Schaub are the only ones to have survived 6 weeks. VY down, Garrard down, his backup down.

I love ya I-cak but you are just wrong dude. Sure, they've been aware of it & paying attention to concussions, but you cannot sit here & deny that this present year, the league has been paying more attention than they usually have to concussions & its effects. it has become even more a hot topic than years prior b/c of the looming possible work stoppage, the issues of retired players & health insurance & the possible 18 game schedule owners are trying to push through. & now we have the further enforcement of this rule specifically aimed at trying to reduce the incidents of concussions.

Don't you think that b/c we know more about concussions & its long term effects now than in years past that the incidents of diagnosis of them would likely increase gradually? & again, how many of these concussions are b/c guys are getting blown up with helmet to helmet contact vs. guys getting hit & their heads bouncing on the turf? I can name at least 4 off the top of my head where helmet to helmet contact was not the reason a player got a concussion. Also what about linemen who go helmet to helmet every play damn near? I just think it's ridiculous that folks are heaping all the responsibility for these type of hits on the defense when alot of these unfortunate incidents happen just by chance.

The problem is the league & some people in general are reacting way too much to the abrupt visual nature of the hit rather than the actual intent & concussion itself. matt & adam talked about it this morning. You have 1 hit that looked absoulutely terrible from a pain standpoint (dunta's) but perfectly legal by the letter of the rules & another that was totally out of bounds & didn't look all that bad (merriweather). what's the explanation for dunta being fined the same amount as merriweather even though 1 was legal & the other was absoultely illegal? There's only 1 answer to that & its b/c dunta's looked & probably was a whole lot worse.

infantrycak
10-20-2010, 12:44 PM
Sure there is an increasing emphasis on concussions. Know why? - because despite increased rules for safety and improved equipment they are occurring at an increased rate. But they have been a focus for a while now. Concussions were the cause of the helmet to helmet rule years ago. Players are getting bigger, stronger and faster but you know what doesn't change? - their heads.

And again increased attention isn't causing the concussions. That's your logical fallacy. It isn't over diagnosis either. There isn't a whole lot of question when you see Dunta and Jackson go down, not get up for several minutes, get helped off the field and then say they don't remember that day of their life.

The problem is the league & some people in general are reacting way too much to the abrupt visual nature of the hit rather than the actual intent & concussion itself. matt & adam talked about it this morning. You have 1 hit that looked absoulutely terrible from a pain standpoint (dunta's) but perfectly legal by the letter of the rules & another that was totally out of bounds & didn't look all that bad (merriweather). what's the explanation for dunta being fined the same amount as merriweather even though 1 was legal & the other was absoultely illegal? There's only 1 answer to that & its b/c dunta's looked & probably was a whole lot worse.

Merriweather and Dunta got the same fine because both were first time offenders. Personally I would have fined Merriweather more as the more egregious violation but they decided to go with a first offense rule. Fine you think Dunta's hit was legal. I don't, many other people do not, the ref a few feet away did not and the NFL did not.

gtexan02
10-20-2010, 12:53 PM
I have always thought the recent safety rules were more about ratings than actual health issues.

Offense sells tickets, moves merch, and brings in viewers. Its in the best interest of the NFL to make defenses weaker while offenses get stronger. Taking out hard hits gives the offense an even bigger advantage.

Not sure if you saw my previous post, but scoring and offense in this generation of football is significantly lower than it was in previous generations. Fact is, the rule changes have not made scoring go up at all.

Mr teX
10-20-2010, 01:22 PM
Sure there is an increasing emphasis on concussions. Know why? - because despite increased rules for safety and improved equipment they are occurring at an increased rate. But they have been a focus for a while now. Concussions were the cause of the helmet to helmet rule years ago. Players are getting bigger, stronger and faster but you know what doesn't change? - their heads.

And again increased attention isn't causing the concussions. That's your logical fallacy. It isn't over diagnosis either. There isn't a whole lot of question when you see Dunta and Jackson go down, not get up for several minutes, get helped off the field and then say they don't remember that day of their life.



Merriweather and Dunta got the same fine because both were first time offenders. Personally I would have fined Merriweather more as the more egregious violation but they decided to go with a first offense rule. Fine you think Dunta's hit was legal. I don't, many other people do not, the ref a few feet away did not and the NFL did not.


I never said that they were causing concussions nor did i say it was over diagnosis so it's actually your logical fallacy. But the increased info becoming more & more available about the effects & signs of concussions probably have led to an increase in the accuracy of the diagnosis of them than from years past is all i'm saying. Who's to say that this hasn't been the pace concussions have really been on over the years & that it levels off after this? This increase in accuracy has also led to docs erroring on the side of caution more than in years past.

Look at the 1 witten suffered(caused by his head hitting the turf by the way). The team doctor held him out the rest of the game & errored on the side of caution even though witten pleaded to go back in. Now that isn't entirely uncommon for a player to do in that situation............But in years past, team doctors would've been more inclined to let guys go back out & try to play if they vehemently argued with docs the way witten did.

& as far as dunta's hit, you can deny it all you want, but the fact is that dunta did lead with his shoulder not his helmet; the same kind of hit we've seen him administer a few other times over the years here with us & he wasn't flagged for it. The helmet to helmet contact was mostly due to the whiplash of blowing D-jack up. The fact that the refs decided to throw a flag is inconsequential b/c we all know they are as fickle as fans when it comes to things like that. I'm also willing to bet that the league fined dunta mostly b/c of how bad the hit looked & the fact that d-jack was seriously hurt by it.

infantrycak
10-20-2010, 01:36 PM
& as far as dunta's hit, you can deny it all you want, but the fact is that dunta did lead with his shoulder not his helmet; the same kind of hit we've seen him administer a few other times over the years here with us & he wasn't flagged for it. The helmet to helmet contact was mostly due to the whiplash of blowing D-jack up. The fact that the refs decided to throw a flag is inconsequential b/c we all know they are as fickle as fans when it comes to things like that. I'm also willing to bet that the league fined dunta mostly b/c of how bad the hit looked & the fact that d-jack was seriously hurt by it.

We aren't going to get anywhere on the other (which really has been sidetracked from the initial point which was there are still plenty of hard hits in the NFL) and probably not on this either but the bold misapprehends the rule. The rule is frequently called helmet to helmet and that is a classic example but the rule is you can't hit a defenseless receiver in the head with your helmet, shoulder or forearm. Maybe his intent was to put his shoulder into Jackson's chest but his head was in front (as obviously the nature of human physiology dictates) and did impact Jackson's head. Note that I haven't said Dunta should be fined or suspended. I'd like to see his fine reduced as I do not think it should be the same as Merriweather's.

Double Barrel
10-20-2010, 02:01 PM
I heard a good idea to stop this: make them wear leather helmets.

JB
10-20-2010, 05:42 PM
Message the NFL sent to the clubs today:


NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell notified teams today that more significant discipline, including suspensions, will be imposed on players that strike an opponent in the head or neck area in violation of the rules.

A memo to the clubs from Commissioner Goodell was accompanied by a message and video to NFL players and coaches. The head coach of each club has been instructed to show the video and read the message to his players and coaching staff as soon as possible. The video includes examples of illegal hits and legal hits under NFL rules.

"One of our most important priorities is protecting our players from needless injury," Commissioner Goodell said. "In recent years, we have emphasized minimizing contact to the head and neck, especially where a defenseless player is involved. It is clear to me that further action is required to emphasize the importance of teaching safe and controlled techniques, and of playing within the rules. It is incumbent on all of us to support the rules we have in place to protect players."

The enhanced discipline will be imposed even in cases of a first offense, including the possibility of suspension for first-time offenders, the clubs were told.

Following is the message to be read to all coaches and players:

TO NFL PLAYERS AND COACHES:

One of our highest priorities is player safety. We all know that football is a tough game that includes hard contact. But that carries with it an obligation to do all that we can to protect all players from unnecessary injury caused by dangerous techniques from those who play outside the rules.

The video shown today shows what kind of hits are against the rules, but also makes clear that you can play a hard, physical game within the rules.

Violations of the playing rules that unreasonably put the safety of another player in jeopardy have no place in the game, and that is especially true in the case of hits to the head and neck. Accordingly, from this point forward, you should be clear on the following points:

1. Players are expected to play within the rules. Those who do not will face increased discipline, including suspensions, starting with the first offense.

2. Coaches are expected to teach playing within the rules. Failure to do so will subject both the coach and the employing club to discipline.

3. Game officials have been directed to emphasize protecting players from illegal and dangerous hits, and particularly from hits to the head and neck. In appropriate cases, they have the authority to eject players from a game.


Link (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81b7b9ef/article/goodell-issues-memo-enforcing-player-safety-rules)

CloakNNNdagger
10-20-2010, 08:34 PM
Message the NFL sent to the clubs today:




Link (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81b7b9ef/article/goodell-issues-memo-enforcing-player-safety-rules)

2. Coaches are expected to teach playing within the rules. Failure to do so will subject both the coach and the employing club to discipline.

This is what will catch one's attention, something they ought to have begun with all the off-field criminal and civil occurences involving teams' players.:cowboy1:

sbalderrama
10-20-2010, 10:06 PM
I think the "big hit" is often the lazy approach to defensive football. Players don't know how to tackle properly or strip a ball so the only thing they know how to do is whack somebody and hope the ball comes loose. I wouldn't mind seeing a return to some fundamental defensive football.

gtexan02
10-20-2010, 10:21 PM
Furhter proof that the players are doing it on purpose and trying to injure each other:


DAVIE, Fla. -- Miami Dolphins linebacker Channing Crowder says the only way of preventing helmet-to-helmet hits is to eliminate the helmet.

Otherwise he's going to use his, regardless of punishment from league officials.

"If I get a chance to knock somebody out, I'm going to knock them out and take what they give me," Crowder said Wednesday. "They give me a helmet, I'm going to use it.".

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5708701

Rey
10-20-2010, 10:22 PM
For the record there have already been 36 concussions this season.

What does this number mean to you?

It doesn't mean anything to me, because over time we have gotten better at diagnosing concussions. We have gotten more weary about it.

In the past I'm pretty sure there were a lot of concussed players that either went undiagnosed, or unreported. With then new concussion rules I think it pushes a lot of this through some of the filters it used to get caught in.


People keep whining about QB's not being hit and it's silly. They object to rule changes out of fear of wussification and then don't look at the results. We just completed week 6. Let's look just at our division. Manning and Schaub are the only ones to have survived 6 weeks. VY down, Garrard down, his backup down.

Is this uncommon?

Matt Schaub, Tom Brad, Carson Palmer...These are guys who have missed a lot of time recently for injuries not caused due to illegal hits...Drew Brees had a serious injury a few years ago and I don't remember that being a dirty play on him...

What would be a good percentage of QB's staying healthy? 50? 75? 100?

Were QB's more injury prone before they put in the rules to protect them? I dunno...Probably so, but I'd be interested to see some kind of numbers on it...

Just seems like they add new rules to protect players when high profile stuff happens...I don't think it really has a lot to do with safety and more to do with appearance...

I posted an article in the Dunta Robinson hit thread that said DB's actually sustain the most injuries out of any position. Yet the rules don't really seem to reflect that.

JB
10-20-2010, 10:23 PM
I think the "big hit" is often the lazy approach to defensive football. Players don't know how to tackle properly or strip a ball so the only thing they know how to do is whack somebody and hope the ball comes loose. I wouldn't mind seeing a return to some fundamental defensive football.

It's not that they don't know how. They have been taught since a very young age the proper way to make tackles. But they are looking for the highlight reel tackles.

What made Cushing so effective last year was not big tackles, but sure tackles all over the field.

Rey
10-20-2010, 10:25 PM
Furhter proof that the players are doing it on purpose and trying to injure each other:

.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5708701

Is it really a secret that football players are trying to knock each others lights out?

Have you ever played football? Jesus...

As a blocker you look for crack back blocks...You love catching a defender slipping and lighting him up...

You don't want to seriously injure the guy, but you realize that sometimes injuries happen...Your main goal though, is to just knock the living shyt out of him though...Nothing dirty, nothing that's not within the rules...

Rey
10-20-2010, 10:29 PM
I think the "big hit" is often the lazy approach to defensive football. Players don't know how to tackle properly or strip a ball so the only thing they know how to do is whack somebody and hope the ball comes loose. I wouldn't mind seeing a return to some fundamental defensive football.

Big hits have been a part of football for a very, very long time...

I don't know which era you want to return to, but I can't even think of time when big/hard hits weren't a part of football...I'd even imagine that when they had leather or no helmets guys were knocking the mess out of each other...They do in rugby...

Big hits aren't just about not knowing how to tackle or strip...

It's also an intimidation factor...As a DB you want receivers to be looking for you when you cross the middle..You want guys to get alligator arms...

And yes there is actually a benefit to putting your helmet on the ball or jacking a receiver up...it causes turnovers...And like I mentioned...at the least it deters the receiver from running full speed across the middle of the field or jumping up to make a big catch...

That's what makes big, physical, and fearless receivers so special..The fact that they go across the middle without fear and can dish as well as they take it...

gtexan02
10-20-2010, 10:29 PM
Is it really a secret that football players are trying to knock each others lights out?

Have you ever played football? Jesus...

As a blocker you look for crack back blocks...You love catching a defender slipping and lighting him up...

You don't want to seriously injure the guy, but you realize that sometimes injuries happen...Your main goal though, is to just knock the living shyt out of him though...Nothing dirty, nothing that's not within the rules...

Apparently it is to a lot of people. Theres been a lot of talk about how concussions just happen and that they dont need to penalize because its mostly incidental.

Weve got countless guys coming out saying its not incidental.

And now we've got this guy saying he is purposely trying to use his helmet to knock people out and the only way they are going to get him to stop using his helmet like a weapon is if they take it off his head.

How is that not dirty?

Rey
10-20-2010, 10:38 PM
Apparently it is to a lot of people. Theres been a lot of talk about how concussions just happen and that they dont need to penalize because its mostly incidental.

Weve got countless guys coming out saying its not incidental.

And now we've got this guy saying he is purposely trying to use his helmet to knock people out and the only way they are going to get him to stop using his helmet like a weapon is if they take it off his head.

How is that not dirty?

Because that is how you are taught to tackle since the first time you put your pads on.

Put your helmet on the guy...Get your head across his body...

Hell, it's not even just tackling...It's blocking too...When you fire off the ball you are pretty much banging heads with the defensive player ever snap...

There have been a lot of players sounding off like Crowder because that is the way they they've always played football and they've never thought it was dirty. The same people who played football before them are the people that's coaching them now...They used to play like that too...

Not putting your helmet on a guy when you hit him doesn't even feel right....Imagining it now, it seems like you'd be more likely to hurt yourself...

Running back comes through the hole, ducks his head, gets low ready for contact and you go in with your chest exposed...That = fail...

And you are making stuff up...No where did he say he was trying to use his helmet to knock people out...He said the only way to eliminate that contact is to take his helmet..You can try to put your helmet somewhere else, but you can't always help the fact that there will be some helmet to helmet contact...

Rey
10-20-2010, 10:54 PM
Here's some injury stuff:

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/391106/vfvBS_medium.jpg

I've been thinking about this since the Falcons drafted Corey Peters. While most of us here think it was a fine pick, DT wasn't a *need* in any obvious sense. If we'd drafted a guard, for instance, we could have an instant starter instead of the likely backup (for the time being) we have in Peters. However, could it be that certain positions tend to experience such turnover that teams must stockpile extra talent?

I had a strong hunch that defensive tackles get hurt more often than other players. How to test such an assumption? To the mathmobile!

At which position groups should teams collect the most injury insurance? Let's break down end-of-season injured reserve data

The chart accounts for how many players of each position are usually on the field at the same time. This means that while about 10 NFL teams can expect to have a QB on injured reserve by the end of each year, about 24 can expect to have either a FS or SS on IR. 24 IR safeties, divided by 2 safety positions, equals 12 average IR players per safety position. (I'll explain more.)

A verdict: As we saw last year when Jason Snelling was our last man running for half a month, RBs get hurt a lot. It's no wonder their careers tend to be the shortest of any position group, while OL stick around forever. The difference between DTs and non-RB positions seems pretty substantial. Of course quarterbacks get hurt the least -- every NFL offense, except San Francisco's, is designed to protect the QB. Safeties are also pretty safe (LOL), perhaps because they're the least likely defender to face contact during the average play.

Star-divide

This also means that, in the average year, most NFL teams can expect to lose one of their DTs (or, even more critically, their NT) for the season. Thus, losing Peria Jerry for '09 was no surprise at all.

Here's how I came up with this chart (you can skip all the rest if you want):

Finding the numbers: I'm pretty confident in the best IR data available for 2009 and 2008, while 2007's came from an old post in a gambling forum I've lost the link to and can't find again. That last one might sound shady -- however, gamble bros care about accurate and up-to-date injury reports more than anybody. Plus it's not like the '07 numbers ended up way off from the other two. All three years were pretty consistent, with the only really alarming outlier being the massacre of '09 linebackers (a dozen more IR LBs in '09 than in '07 and '08 combined).

And fiddling with them: I added the number of IR players for each position group from '07, '08, and '09. If a player was listed as something vague like DB or DL, I gave both sub-groups (CB and S, and DT and DE respectively) half credit for that player. I divided the total for each position group by 3 (for 3 years of data), providing an average for each position group. You're with me so far.

I then divided that average by the number of players from each position group that are usually on the field at once. Let me explain that. There are always 2 OTs on the field, while there's always only 1 QB, smartass wildcat objections notwishstanding. So I divided the total number of OTs by 2 and let QBs ride. I also left C at 1 and divided G by 2, DE by 2, and S by 2, as that's how many players from each of these position groups are almost always on the field.

Rey
10-20-2010, 10:56 PM
Old article, but good read:


In an NFL filled with Lions, Bengals and Bears, the most endangered species might be the defensive back.

It's the most dangerous spot on the field. In 2000 through 2003, NFL data showed that the highest injury rates belong to cornerbacks and safeties. Nearly seven of 10 DBs are hurt every year, according to the NFL's weekly injury reports.

For those who get hurt, half will suffer another, unrelated injury before the season ends.

They also sustain the highest rates of the injuries most likely to be catastrophic; 102 defensive backs have suffered brain concussions or neck and spinal injuries during the past four years.

"With as many hits as we take, as much pain as we have after the game, it kind of scares you a little bit, you know?" said Eric Brown, a seven-year safety for the Houston Texans.

Players, managers and NFL executives all point to two factors that make defensive backs so vulnerable: their size and their job description.

Cornerbacks or safeties, who must be fast to hang with receivers, are predators watching their prey outgrow them.

Since 1943, the average NFL player has super-sized himself 25 percent in body mass. But the DB is barely bigger than his World War II counterpart, who averaged 6 feet and 187 pounds. Today, same height, with a mere 8 pounds of extra weight.

And now the DB faces a trend in the NFL for taller, thicker and faster wide receivers such as the Steelers' Plaxico Burress (6-5, 225) and the Minnesota Vikings' Randy Moss (6-4, 210).

"You're trying to tackle a man who weighs, what, 230? 240? Most of the time, we're hitting tight ends, guys weighing 250, 260. And they tell us we have to hit these guys the same way? We're giving up 40, 50 pounds?" Brown said.

To compensate for his lack of body mass, a DB generates great speed before hitting a rusher or wideout. The collisions often come in midair.

"You don't have time to put yourself in the position for the perfect tackle," said Oakland Raiders safety David Terrell. "Pretty much, you're thinking, 'I've got to get this guy down.' Or hit him as hard as you can. I mean, it's a violent sport and most guys don't think about that when they tackle. They just throw their bodies around."

Players like Terrell learn from youth leagues on to keep their "neck up" when tackling. Lowering their heads runs the risk of fracturing spine and neck bones. Broken vertebrae have given the league two paralysis cases over the past 30 years, Mike Utley and Daryl Stingley.

At the same time, however, DBs are expected to go for the ball and force turnovers. They try to create fumbles by turning their helmets, necks and trunks into a human bottle openers, prying the pigskin loose.

Their helmets often act like the tip of a spear, a 4-pound bludgeon pinning the ball against the receiver's trunk and breaking his ribs.

In fact, wideouts suffer the most rib trauma in the league -- 35 over the last four years, according to NFL injury reports. Not surprisingly, DBs suffer a third more head, neck and spine injuries than their fellow players -- and are 26 percent more likely to sustain a concussion -- but report no fractured ribs.

Medical experts point to those anomalies and worry DBs are taking too many risks with head-first contact. In March, the National Athletic Trainers Association asked the NFL to better enforce rules outlawing head-down contact, or "spearing."

Spearing is a unique rule in football because, properly enforced, it's the only penalty designed to protect the player committing the foul. In any given game, 40 or more hits might meet the NFL's definition of spearing because of now routine head-down contact, according to the athletic trainers' studies of game film.

"That's what we're trying to fight, this idea that somehow head-down contact has been ingrained as part of the game, that it's part of football, and that nobody can do anything about it, and when it does happen, it's a 'freak accident' that wasn't preventable," said Jonathan Heck, athletic training coordinator at Richard Stockton College in New Jersey and a co-author of the trainers' report.

The problem for DBs is that game films say they're four times more likely to lead with their heads than the players they're hitting, so they will accrue the most penalties and fines.

"Pretty soon, I don't even think they're going to keep safeties around," said Brown, the Houston player. "I think they're going to get rid of us. It's to the point where they don't even need us there anymore."

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/specialreports/specialnfl/s_291035.html

Basically, spare me about WR's and offensive players getting hurt...The defensive players hurt themselves just as much (more according to this article)...

It's not about injuring anyone, otherwise they wouldn't be hurting themselves as much...It's just about being physical and playing how they've always played...

Rey
10-20-2010, 11:09 PM
It's not that they don't know how. They have been taught since a very young age the proper way to make tackles. But they are looking for the highlight reel tackles.

What made Cushing so effective last year was not big tackles, but sure tackles all over the field.

JB...A lot of the players look for 'highlight reel tackles' when they get the chance to get them...

Most good players know when to really let a player have it, and when is a good time to just tackle him...

If you aren't in position to knock the crap out of him, then you aren't going to do it...

Trust me, If Cushing got a chance to really knock snot bubble out of someone, he'd do it...A long with any other defensive or offensive player in the league that enjoys playing physical..

Just like a lineman...You aren't going to really let a guy have it unless it's a good time for it..otherwise you are gonna just gonna attempt to make a good block...But if you have to chance to lay a guy out with a devastating crack back, most of the time, you do it...

JB
10-20-2010, 11:33 PM
JB...A lot of the players look for 'highlight reel tackles' when they get the chance to get them...

Most good players know when to really let a player have it, and when is a good time to just tackle him...If you aren't in position to knock the crap out of him, then you aren't going to do it...

Trust me, If Cushing got a chance to really knock snot bubble out of someone, he'd do it...A long with any other defensive or offensive player in the league that enjoys playing physical..Just like a lineman...You aren't going to really let a guy have it unless it's a good time for it..otherwise you are gonna just gonna attempt to make a good block...But if you have to chance to lay a guy out with a devastating crack back, most of the time, you do it...

1. I agree that this is what should happen. But the not so good try to get their name out there.

2. Absolutely, everyone wants to blow someone up. My point was the numerous instances where last year Cushing made the decision to make the sure tackle, rather than the big hit.

Rey
10-20-2010, 11:35 PM
1. I agree that this is what should happen. But the not so good try to get their name out there.

2. Absolutely, everyone wants to blow someone up. My point was the numerous instances where last year Cushing made the decision to make the sure tackle, rather than the big hit.

Well yeah....I completely agree with that...

infantrycak
10-21-2010, 12:35 AM
It's not that they don't know how. They have been taught since a very young age the proper way to make tackles. But they are looking for the highlight reel tackles.

What made Cushing so effective last year was not big tackles, but sure tackles all over the field.

Exactly on both counts.

I'm done with this thread and folks trying to act uber tough. Bernard Pollard slobber knockered Gradkowski on two plays with no flag. There are plenty of big hits in the NFL. Obey the rules you to the game you are paid millions to play.

Dan B.
10-21-2010, 02:22 AM
Found something interesting to back up my previous post:




So I dont really buy into the theory that the NFL incorporated all these new rules to increase scoring or boost revenue. Nor do I feel like the dominating defenses of the past are long gone. In fact, it would appear that defenses have improved throughout the history of the NFL



All the rule changes that we've seen to improve player safety have not negatively impacted the game to the point that it outweighs the benefits to safety.

Furthermore, all the rule changes we've seen on defensive players has not created some offensive biased league at all. If anything, the rules have helped balance offense and defense to a point we've never seen before. Teams averaged close to 24 points a game 60 years ago.

I should preface this post by pointing out that I LOVE a good defensive game. I prefer it to run and gun finesse style offensive teams. Frankly I think that the Texans are a little too gimmicky and not nearly tough enough. I love a defense with attitude.

That being said, I'm betting that turnovers have increased the past few decades too. Those can be very exciting, even if they reduce points scored per game.

I don't think the appeal to the general public of a better passing offense comes just from more points scored. It comes from the simple fact that the ball is moving and things are happening. It makes for a more entertaining and exciting game to watch. More passing can lead to more turnovers and thus not automatically increase the offense's points scored. But it does result in the ball going up and down the field constantly. It results in offenses that put up 500 yards a game. Even when the offense doesn't score at the end, a 70 yard drive followed by a missed field goal, INT, or failed 4th and 1 attempt is more exciting for most people than a series of three and outs. There is a base part of the human instinct that this appeals to. Think about when you are stuck in traffic on a freeway. It may be quicker to simply sit in traffic moving an average of 10 miles an hour than it would be to exit and go miles out of your way to get home. But people still exit and take the long way. Because even if it is less efficient, it FEELS like they are doing something. It may take longer, but your car is at least in motion. Standing in place is boring for most people, especially in these days of instant gratification when they want something exciting to watch.

Just a random observation: wouldn't enforcing this rule benefit the Texans immensely? Especially at the expense of teams like the Jets, Ravens, or Steelers (teams I consider our primary competition for a WC spot if we don't win the South)?

Mr teX
10-21-2010, 08:33 AM
Somebody rep Rey for me please..

I don't think its anyone in here acting uber tough, we just realize that the game is what it is; a violent sport & while strengthening of this rule enforcement might reduce the "kill shot" mentality, i doubt it's going to have very much impact on the increased incidents of concussions. People are just reacting to the highest profile ones b/c they look the worst. I wonder if all this posturing by the league this past week would've taken place had none of the 3 hits happened but we had 3-5 more concussions suffered by other means.

I doubt Clay Matthews III was trying to intentionally hurt Kevin Kolb when he sacked him & subsequently gave him his concussion. The same for London Fletcher when his knee hit Brian Westbrook in the head giving him his 2nd concussion for the year.

The1ApplePie
10-21-2010, 09:56 AM
I find it weird that a few years ago, when that Buffalo Bill broke his neck, no one used it as a teaching tool. It would have been a good way to teach kids about not dropping your head when going for a hit.

Double Barrel
10-21-2010, 10:04 AM
I find it extremely disingenuous to hear this crapola about defensive players don't want to hurt anyone. That is pure B.S., especially when they refer to themselves as "gladiators" and "warriors" and the game as a "battle" and "war". Those terms mean something, have definitions rooted in violent actions meant to cause harm, so it's just lies to act like they aren't trying to knock people out when they hit opposing players like missiles instead of wrapping up to make a tackle.

Retired players by the dozens admit to the mean streak they had during their playing days, and even some current players are honest enough to admit that they are trying to hurt someone. Bo Eason, former safety for the Oilers, has a one man play now called "Runt of the Litter" (great play, btw). In it, he talks about launching himself at players with the intention of taking them out, of smelling the burn of friction from the hit, of hating the opposing player while on the field. We can go on and on with examples of this mentality, so it is dishonest to act like they don't have that attitude today.

Let's be honest here and admit that the violence is part of what appeals to us as football fans and players. It is not the entire attraction, of course, but just being honest about it can help to temper it to avoid the malicious hits that are clearly meant to inflict pain and damage to opponents. If you don't believe that intent, then you just aren't paying attention.

The1ApplePie
10-21-2010, 11:24 AM
I wouldn't ever set out to hurt anyone deliberately unless it was, you know, important - like a league game or something.

-Dick Butkus

Mr teX
10-21-2010, 02:12 PM
I find it extremely disingenuous to hear this crapola about defensive players don't want to hurt anyone. That is pure B.S., especially when they refer to themselves as "gladiators" and "warriors" and the game as a "battle" and "war". Those terms mean something, have definitions rooted in violent actions meant to cause harm, so it's just lies to act like they aren't trying to knock people out when they hit opposing players like missiles instead of wrapping up to make a tackle.

Retired players by the dozens admit to the mean streak they had during their playing days, and even some current players are honest enough to admit that they are trying to hurt someone. Bo Eason, former safety for the Oilers, has a one man play now called "Runt of the Litter" (great play, btw). In it, he talks about launching himself at players with the intention of taking them out, of smelling the burn of friction from the hit, of hating the opposing player while on the field. We can go on and on with examples of this mentality, so it is dishonest to act like they don't have that attitude today.

Let's be honest here and admit that the violence is part of what appeals to us as football fans and players. It is not the entire attraction, of course, but just being honest about it can help to temper it to avoid the malicious hits that are clearly meant to inflict pain and damage to opponents. If you don't believe that intent, then you just aren't paying attention.


inflict temporary pain from play to play? yes. Cause debilitating brain damage & devastating injury ending careers & potentially ruining guys' lives for life after football..no. You've seen after bad collisions, every player from both teams is at mid field or on the sideline, most praying & on 1 knee.

Besides, these guys are already shaving years off their lives just by playing the game at the highest level...even if they don't ever 1 concussion.

Dread-Head
10-21-2010, 02:56 PM
Old article, but good read:




http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/specialreports/specialnfl/s_291035.html

Basically, spare me about WR's and offensive players getting hurt...The defensive players hurt themselves just as much (more according to this article)...

It's not about injuring anyone, otherwise they wouldn't be hurting themselves as much...It's just about being physical and playing how they've always played...



When I was playing pop warner I was told to put your shoulder in the receiver's number or his sides. Translation aim for the rib cage.

Dread-Head
10-21-2010, 02:57 PM
I wouldn't ever set out to hurt anyone deliberately unless it was, you know, important - like a league game or something.

Hall of Famer -Dick Butkus

:thinking:

Dread-Head
10-21-2010, 02:59 PM
JB...A lot of the players look for 'highlight reel tackles' when they get the chance to get them...

Most good players know when to really let a player have it, and when is a good time to just tackle him...

If you aren't in position to knock the crap out of him, then you aren't going to do it...
Trust me, If Cushing got a chance to really knock snot bubble out of someone, he'd do it...A long with any other defensive or offensive player in the league that enjoys playing physical..

Just like a lineman...You aren't going to really let a guy have it unless it's a good time for it..otherwise you are gonna just gonna attempt to make a good block...But if you have to chance to lay a guy out with a devastating crack back, most of the time, you do it...

Very true

Rey
10-21-2010, 03:14 PM
I find it extremely disingenuous to hear this crapola about defensive players don't want to hurt anyone.

Hurt and injure are two very different things.

Of course as a football player you want to hurt your opponent. You want him to get up slow. You want him to be in pain and remember the shots he took from you after the game.

But that doesn't mean you want to crack his spinal cord and paralyze him.


What I find funny is that a lot of the same people that will complain about a football player saying he tries to inflict pain are the same people that love watching a boxing or MMA match.

What is the difference?

It's a physical sport...Are people really surprised to hear a boxer or MMA artist say they want to bring pain to their opponent?

I really think a lot of folks are confused. JMHO. Of course there are sports where you are trying to hurt your opponent. Tis the nature of the sport. There are some sports where you want to knock the brakes off someone...This is nothing new...


Now I'm in no way saying there aren't any dirty players that will take cheap shots, but to act like there are players running rampant that want to give permanent damage or long lasting damage to their opponents is kinda disingenuous.


Anybody ever see a player that has gotten a serious injury and how a majority of the players take a knee and/or pray for that player?

That isn't just for show. Every player that plays football knows the risks involved. And most players have respect for their opponents beyond the field and they realize that it could very, very easily be them on that stretcher.

Just seems to me that when high profile things happen it draws more attention to it and people get riled up. Tom Brady gets injured..new rule...Hall of Famer QB's get concussions...new rule....

If there is ever a time when a high profile DE gets chop blocked and seriously injured...You better believe there will be a new rule or some major emphasis being put on existing rules...

WR's aren't any more likely to get injured by a big hit from a DB than the DB himself. IF it was all about injuring another player, they wouldn't be taking such risks themselves.

Double Barrel
10-21-2010, 03:45 PM
Of course as a football player you want to hurt your opponent. You want him to get up slow. You want him to be in pain and remember the shots he took from you after the game.

Then why don't we hear more players saying this instead of the exact opposite? I've read/heard so many quotes from players this week saying that they don't want to hurt anyone, but according to you, they are being disingenuous. Thanks for supporting my point in a roundabout way.

I never said anything about players wanting to inflict permanent damage. That's your perspective running through your fingers. Hey, let's take an assumption and run with it! :rake:

Inflicting pain and causing injury are two different subjects. Intimidation by inflicting pain through powerful hits and tackles is part of football. I've got not problem with this and have no desire to see it altered or abolished.

However, purposefully trying to injure someone should not be part of the sport. It's a very fine line, but world class athletes can walk it. If you honestly think that no player is out there headhunting, then you're just being naive. I'm not painting with a broad brush, but it's a simple law of average that some of them have this attitude. These are the players that this subject is about, not the ones that play physical. Ray Lewis is an honest player, and he certainly instills fear from his intimidation. He's not the player I'm talking about. Brandon Merriweather, on the other hand, is a chump with that shot on Todd Heap. Can you not see the difference?

And give me a freakin' break comparing football to MMA. Two different sports, and like I've said recently, if you look at the UFC from the beginning, they have upgraded rules about safety much more deep and much quicker than the NFL could ever dream of.

The overreaction from people is borderline goofy. The NFL is just beefing up enforcement of an already existing rule. Do you understand? The rule has not been changed. It is now being enforced in a way that will certainly get players' attentions.

Rey
10-21-2010, 04:14 PM
Then why don't we hear more players saying this instead of the exact opposite? I've read/heard so many quotes from players this week saying that they don't want to hurt anyone, but according to you, they are being disingenuous. Thanks for supporting my point in a roundabout way.

I was responding specifically and directly to your quote. You said nothing about quotes from defensive players. You're adding stuff in now.

If a defensive player said they don't want to hurt anyone they are probably lying or don't know the difference between hurt and injure like a lot of people here apparently don't.

In your initial posts about players not wanting to "hurt" anyone you went on a long rant about gladiators and stuff and players mean streaks. I'm sorry, but I don't buy you saying that you really didn't mean "injure" there.


However, purposefully trying to injure someone should not be part of the sport. It's a very fine line, but world class athletes can walk it. If you honestly think that no player is out there headhunting, then you're just being naive.

I guess you missed this part or just forgot when you started posting:

Now I'm in no way saying there aren't any dirty players that will take cheap shots, but to act like there are players running rampant that want to give permanent damage or long lasting damage to their opponents is kinda disingenuous.



And give me a freakin' break comparing football to MMA. Two different sports, and like I've said recently, if you look at the UFC from the beginning, they have upgraded rules about safety much more deep and much quicker than the NFL could ever dream of.


Not sure why you can't comprehend the comparisons to MMA or boxing...or hell, even Rugby...

Maybe you just missed the point which was that they are physical sports where players are trying to hurt one another. Doesn't mean they want to cause any permanent damage.



The overreaction from people is borderline goofy. The NFL is just beefing up enforcement of an already existing rule. Do you understand? The rule has not been changed. It is now being enforced in a way that will certainly get players' attentions.

Please find a quote from me where I said anything about the NFL's enforcement of the current rule. Do you even understand the other side of the argument because what I'm getting from you makes 0 sense.

No one is complaining about the NFL's enforcement of the rule. Mostly people are complaining about folks wanting to take some of the aggression away from the players. Defensive players are complaining a bit because they don't want to be on the field thinking too much when they are closing in on a receiver when the ball is in the air...They do enough thinking before the play and when they are making their reads...They don't wanna have to think about whether or not they will get fined because they were attempting to hit a receiver in the chest but he made a sudden move and they caught some of his helmet...

Often times DB's hurt themselves just as much as they hurt the receiver when they crash into them like that. They are willing to deal with that at the expense of doing their job.

No one is taking up for dirty players. Atleast I'm not...I'm taking up for the DB that just wants to go to work with out the inspector leaning over their shoulder saying "you're dangerously close to doing it wrong".....Every time some high profile hits happen people get their panties in a bunch about safety. But it's not about safety...It's about marketing...

Hervoyel
10-21-2010, 05:04 PM
I have seen the kinds of things "The NFL (http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=37103)" posts and I would not be even a little surprised if he soon started wearing hoop skirts. In fact, based on the logo he's using as an avatar I'm counting on it happening.

Double Barrel
10-21-2010, 05:28 PM
I was responding specifically and directly to your quote. You said nothing about quotes from defensive players. You're adding stuff in now.

"Adding in stuff"? :um: We're having a discussion, man. That means elaborating on points and expanding our perspectives. I'm not trying engage in an argument with you, contrary to what you may (or may not) think.

My previous post said: "Retired players by the dozens admit to the mean streak they had during their playing days, and even some current players are honest enough to admit that they are trying to hurt someone."

What is this talking about except for actual quotes from players? :hmmm:

If a defensive player said they don't want to hurt anyone they are probably lying or don't know the difference between hurt and injure like a lot of people here apparently don't.

In your initial posts about players not wanting to "hurt" anyone you went on a long rant about gladiators and stuff and players mean streaks. I'm sorry, but I don't buy you saying that you really didn't mean "injure" there.

lol! I'm careful with my words, so regardless of what you think I might mean, I meant what I previously stated by purpose of stating a point.

And I'd say that I was sorry my "long rant" went over your head, but I'd be lying. :whistle:

Not sure why you can't comprehend the comparisons to MMA or boxing...or hell, even Rugby...

Maybe you just missed the point which was that they are physical sports where players are trying to hurt one another. Doesn't mean they want to cause any permanent damage.

Apples and oranges, man. Both are fruit, but different kinds of fruit. Yeah, both MMA and football are violent sports, but I don't see comparisons that you're reaching to make.

But that's cool, not all metaphors, examples, and/or comparisons have to work for everyone.

I actually think the NFL is a much more violent sport than MMA. On the surface, it wouldn't appear so, but fighters are both aggressors and defenders, highly trained to deal in both areas, and a ref and a corner ready to throw in the towel to end a fight.

A WR going up the middle, jumping for a ball, and getting clobbered by a defender in full pads/helmet at full speed is in a much more vulnerable position than any MMA fighter.

Please find a quote from me where I said anything about the NFL's enforcement of the current rule. Do you even understand the other side of the argument because what I'm getting from you makes 0 sense.

I understand both sides, so I'm not sure what you're assuming here. My take is that the NFL is not trying to phase out hard hits, but rather setting a standard by which flagrant "dirty" hits can be enforced with stronger measures.

I'm not quite sure what you're disagreeing with, unless being obtuse is just something you like doing to disagree. I think we are actually agreeing some many of the same things, so animosity is not really needed in our discussion.

No one is complaining about the NFL's enforcement of the rule. Mostly people are complaining about folks wanting to take some of the aggression away from the players.

I guess this is where we disagree. I don't think stronger enforcement of an existing rule will take away some of the aggression when it's holding players to certain standards of play.

It's cool to agree to disagree, though.

Often times DB's hurt themselves just as much as they hurt the receiver when they crash into them like that. They are willing to deal with that at the expense of doing their job.

Poor technique in my opinion. Instead of wrapping players up for a tackle, they are going for the explosive hit to shake the ball loose.

No one is taking up for dirty players. Atleast I'm not...I'm taking up for the DB that just wants to go to work with out the inspector leaning over their shoulder saying "you're dangerously close to doing it wrong".....Every time some high profile hits happen people get their panties in a bunch about safety. But it's not about safety...It's about marketing...

I'm only talking about dirty players like Brandon Merriweather's hit last weekend. I agree with you that the potential is there for the league to go overboard, but I honestly don't think it will in the end. Like you said, it's marketing, and they don't want to kill the so-called golden goose. I think the big hits will still be there, the NFL will still market them accordingly, but we will see less of the so-called 'egregious' hits that this is all about.

Double Barrel
10-22-2010, 09:55 AM
Well, while I can see both sides of the issue, and I've tried to rationalize the NFL's updated policy with the optimistic hope that it won't change a fundamental nature of the game...

...but, after watching NFL Live last night and seeing the NFL's video to teams, I'm not sure if my optimism was well placed. It was confusing, to say the least, and y'all very well could be right that they are trying to outlaw all powerful hits up the middle. Which, if that's the case, I can see my interest in the sport slowly diminish. The phantom pass interference calls have been bad enough, and the overzealous attitude toward protecting the QBs at all costs continues to water down the pass rush, and if what I think I saw last night comes to pass and defenders are pretty much prevented from any intimidation in the middle of the field...I'm just not sure if this 'new' NFL is one that keeps my attention.

I'm not jumping to conclusions, as a game has yet to be played under the new enforcement policy, and obviously only time will tell. However, that being said, I can see your points about the potential can o' worms that this might be opening and the potential long term repercussions that could result in some fundamental aspects of the game being altered forever.

drs23
10-22-2010, 08:24 PM
Well, while I can see both sides of the issue, and I've tried to rationalize the NFL's updated policy with the optimistic hope that it won't change a fundamental nature of the game...

...but, after watching NFL Live last night and seeing the NFL's video to teams, I'm not sure if my optimism was well placed. It was confusing, to say the least, and y'all very well could be right that they are trying to outlaw all powerful hits up the middle. Which, if that's the case, I can see my interest in the sport slowly diminish. The phantom pass interference calls have been bad enough, and the overzealous attitude toward protecting the QBs at all costs continues to water down the pass rush, and if what I think I saw last night comes to pass and defenders are pretty much prevented from any intimidation in the middle of the field...I'm just not sure if this 'new' NFL is one that keeps my attention.

I'm not jumping to conclusions, as a game has yet to be played under the new enforcement policy, and obviously only time will tell. However, that being said, I can see your points about the potential can o' worms that this might be opening and the potential long term repercussions that could result in some fundamental aspects of the game being altered forever.

Thank you DB, you just saved me a whole lot of typing.:)

Rey
10-22-2010, 08:32 PM
Well, while I can see both sides of the issue, and I've tried to rationalize the NFL's updated policy with the optimistic hope that it won't change a fundamental nature of the game...

...but, after watching NFL Live last night and seeing the NFL's video to teams, I'm not sure if my optimism was well placed. It was confusing, to say the least, and y'all very well could be right that they are trying to outlaw all powerful hits up the middle. Which, if that's the case, I can see my interest in the sport slowly diminish. The phantom pass interference calls have been bad enough, and the overzealous attitude toward protecting the QBs at all costs continues to water down the pass rush, and if what I think I saw last night comes to pass and defenders are pretty much prevented from any intimidation in the middle of the field...I'm just not sure if this 'new' NFL is one that keeps my attention.

I'm not jumping to conclusions, as a game has yet to be played under the new enforcement policy, and obviously only time will tell. However, that being said, I can see your points about the potential can o' worms that this might be opening and the potential long term repercussions that could result in some fundamental aspects of the game being altered forever.

...must spread rep....

Good post...Especially the part about a game having not been played yet...


But you pretty much nailed why I am personally concerned about this...I know a lot of people will disagree, but the Dunta hit was completely legal IMO. Obviously he was not trying to do anything dirty, or he wouldn't have hurt himself...It's just part of the game...Players get hit hard, sometimes they hit a player in the head and it's not intentional...

I just don't want the intimidation factor of a WR running across the middle to be taken out of the game...That would really suck IMO...Those are some of the best hits...

And yes, some players sustain injuries when that happens, but out of all the times it's happens I would guess that the percentage is very small for those suffering serious injuries...

Just seems like high profile hits, public perception, and marketing determine the NFL's decisions in this regard and not the actual player safety. They even went as far as to sell pictures of the 'illegal' hits.

But yeah, I'm with you...I just don't want to see guys hesitating to make hits and/or getting suspended for trying to make a play...

CloakNNNdagger
10-23-2010, 02:46 PM
Now for the coaches and teams..............


Titans' William Hayes fined, could get coach and team fined (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/10/23/titans-william-hayes-fined-could-get-coach-and-team-fined/)

Posted by Michael David Smith on October 23, 2010 1:25 PM ET
Titans defensive end William Hayes was fined $10,000 this week for a late hit. When he found out about the fine, he made some comments that could get a Titans coach and the Titans' franchise fined as well.

"I'm trying to figure out what it was about,'' Hayes said, per Jim Wyatt of the Tennessean. "I guess you can't run and tackle no more. I got fined for running to the ball and tackling. I talked to my coach and he felt the same way. Next time I'll just fall at the line of scrimmage and they'll probably get me for a clipping call or some [expletive].''

Hayes didn't specify which coach felt the same way, but his comments could result in the Titans and/or a Titans coach getting fined as well.

When NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell distributed his memo on illegal hits this week, he made a specific point of saying that "Coaches are expected to teach playing within the rules. Failure to do so will subject both the coach and the employing club to discipline." But if Hayes broke a rule and he's being told by one of his coaches that he didn't do anything wrong, that would indicate that the Titans' coaches aren't teaching playing within the rules.

So maybe Hayes won't be the only one fined for that late hit.