Keep Texans Talk Google Ad Free!
Venmo Tip Jar | Paypal Tip Jar
Thanks for your support! 🍺😎👍

Will the NFL soon start wearing hoop skirts?

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.
 
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:
 
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.
 
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!!
 
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.
 
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
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
& 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.
 
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
 
Message the NFL sent to the clubs today:




Link

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:
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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...
 
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...
 
Last edited:
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?
 
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...
 
Here's some injury stuff:

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.
 
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...
 
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...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.
 
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...
 
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.
 
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)?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
I wouldn't ever set out to hurt anyone deliberately unless it was, you know, important - like a league game or something.

-Dick Butkus
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
Rey said:
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.
 
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:

Rey said:
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...
 
I have seen the kinds of things "The NFL" 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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top