Couple NFL questions

[TheMan]

Don't know if any of you other football geeks are still following league news in the summer, but I try to keep up and I had a few things I wondered if someone could clarify.

The general consensus is that Goodell is turning the league into a flag football league. He has tried to eliminate the head shots and dirty hits as he sees fit. People seem to think his player safety ideals are just for his own enjoyment.

However, isn't the league constantly fighting retired players demands for payment to cover expenses of injuries due to football? So Goodell is enacting these rule changes to help players not have these issues and in effect cover the leagues own behind from being sued by ex players in the future.

It seems to me that Goodell is just looking out for the business side of the NFL due to the players own negligence. This is how I am understanding it and I can't see how people blame the Commish for these changes.

Is there something I am missing? Or misunderstanding?

 

[aygov]

That was my take on it. Current players want to play all out and lay people on the ground fast forward 10-15 years and they are suing the league for not protecting them...

You can't have it both ways. You either get free reign with hits and deal with the consequences down the road or you have the league define what a safe hit is and pay the man when you miss it.

 

[Homercidal]

I just wish they'd do a better job of allowing a reasonable hit to a QB. They are just Prima Donnas.

"Oh, you can't touch me, I'm SPECIAL!" </GirlyVoice>

"Welcome to the Big Leagues, Nancy. Next time try keeping an eye out for the defensive lineman..." </ManlyVoice>



EDIT: Aw, my cute fake hypertext end statements got stripped!

 

[TyTanium]

That's it, I think. Good comments.

Compounding the issue:
Guys are bigger, faster and stronger than they were even 5 or 10 years ago, but resilience of ligaments, joints, bones and brains have not increased commensurately.

 

[the_bird]

The League also needs to walk a fairly tight line. They want to protect player safety in large part to protect the League from the lawsuits, but if they're TOO aggressive in some things (like mandating that players wear the more concussion-resistant helmets), there's a danger that they're acknowledging that they've KNOWN about things like the long-term effects of multiple concussions and therefore potentially subject to more liability.

One thing I read once that was interesting - might have been on Freakonomics or something; the best way to protect player safety might be to remove the helmets. Comparison was made between the NFL and rugby players, who are also known to deliver a pretty vicious hit but who also seem to suffer fewer head injuries. Theory is that by not having a helmet, rugby players don't use their heads as weapons.

I do think the NFL goes a little too far with protecting QBs. Clean, body-shot hits that are not going for the knee or the head should be allowed, even those where the ball has left the QB's hand a half-step before the defender gets there. Lot of penalties where it seems unreasonable to essentially expect the defender to let up while the QB still has the ball. Mostly, though, I'm fine with most of the changes the NFL has made - essentially banning guys like Rodney Harrison.

 

[TheMan]

I read articles and forum comments and I couldn't understand for the life of me why fans and some players think the Commish is ruining the game, I guess they are just ignorant.

Glad to hear others agreeing with my point of view.

I have little sympathy for a man that CHOOSES to play a violent game and earn $350k a year (I think that's around the minimum now?) and complains about his injuries. I understand that players of yesteryear did not get paid as well, but it's still your choice to play and collect that paycheck. You know you could snap your neck any given play, you take that chance.

As for the QB's, I completely agree. They get paid the highest of any player AND get the most protection. Any other offender or any defender can be running full speed and get clocked by another dude running full speed at him and it's fair. Yet a QB can't deal with a guy hitting him, not even at full speed yet?

And kickers...I don't see why they get the protection they get either. I don't see how he is so much more susceptible to injury than anyone else out there.

I've heard the removal of helmets option. I think the theory also says that they wouldn't hit as hard as often, in addition to not leading with their head. The helmet isn't only there to protect when leading with it, but also when the head hits the ground, other players, etc...

 

[JeepDiver]

10-15 years ago, players could actually tackle, not just make the hard hit. Then Madden and the other games came out, and everyone wanted the big play. These days, most college teams can't even tackle worth a damn.

I'd love to see the game get back to fundamentals, and actual tackling going on. Though I agree 100% on the fact they are protecting the QB too much.

 

[Homercidal]

10-15 years ago, players could actually tackle, not just make the hard hit. Then Madden and the other games came out, and everyone wanted the big play. These days, most college teams can't even tackle worth a damn.

I'd love to see the game get back to fundamentals, and actual tackling going on. Though I agree 100% on the fact they are protecting the QB too much.

Agreed. Tackling sucks nowadays. I watched WAY too many missed open tackles last year due to the tackler simply launching his body at the ball carrier.

 

[Airborneguy]

Tackling is non-existent. I see better tackles at work than I do in the NFL.

 

[TheMan]

Maybe without the bounties this year they will just tackle the guy instead of trying to destroy him with the big hit...

 

[ReverseApacheMaster]

The league is definitely interested in checking its legal liability for player-related injuries. The union is looking for the best way to protect players, especially as they retire. The current players are a mix of thought on the subject. On one hand you have the players like the QBs that don't want to get destroyed. Then you have some of the defensive players who want to be able to make the big hits because that's what people want to see them do (and get paid for) and since they are less likely to be hit, there's little incentive for them to support safety rules. If you look at the offensive backs and receivers, they don't want the crap knocked out of them but they have to play with light padding to run faster and more agile.

Fans always want the big plays and big hits but it's easy to call for more aggressive plays when they are sitting on the couch having a beer with no risk of a career-ending injury or being 35 with all sorts of pain and medical problems.

 

[tally350z]

This may have been answered but since each player in the NFL signes a contract agreement with the teams. Doesn't it say somewhere in the contract the player is unable to sue on terms of getting injured? I mean its the National Football League, injuries are going to occure due to play and if the player refuses to sign then they don't get the $5 million a year for 6 years or whatever the contract is, and then the next guy in line will sign? I must be missing something. anyone who can clearify this..

 

[BrewKnurd]

This may have been answered but since each player in the NFL signes a contract agreement with the teams. Doesn't it say somewhere in the contract the player is unable to sue on terms of getting injured? I mean its the National Football League, injuries are going to occure due to play and if the player refuses to sign then they don't get the $5 million a year for 6 years or whatever the contract is, and then the next guy in line will sign? I must be missing something. anyone who can clearify this..

I don't think you can ever contract your way out of the right to sue. If the issue is that clear cut, the judge might just dismiss the suit, but i don't think any contract is every sue-proof.

 

[dfc]

Goodell is making changes just to put his stamp on the league. It's getting to a point where players have to think too much and play a lot less. That's a big reason for the lack of tackling/blown tackles. They don't know if they'll get penalized for a tackle even if it is a legit tackle within the rules. I've seen it countless times where a defender makes a legit hit and knocks the wind out of someone only to get flags thrown just because the guy who got hit doesn't get up right away. I understand wanting to protect the players, but they know what they're getting in to. It's a violent game and that's why they get compensated so well.

I also agree that they need to stop issuing skirts to guys like Brady, Manning and Brees and treat them like guys by the names of Roethlisberger, Vick and Garrard get treated. Guys like that get downright abused during games with no calls, but if you so much as swipe the back of Manning's helmet flags come out from everywhere. I've seen it countless times where Brady gets hit, no flags are thrown and then he cries to the refs only to get a late flag. It's ridiculous.

 

[bosdave]

The League also needs to walk a fairly tight line. They want to protect player safety in large part to protect the League from the lawsuits, but if they're TOO aggressive in some things (like mandating that players wear the more concussion-resistant helmets), there's a danger that they're acknowledging that they've KNOWN about things like the long-term effects of multiple concussions and therefore potentially subject to more liability.

One thing I read once that was interesting - might have been on Freakonomics or something; the best way to protect player safety might be to remove the helmets. Comparison was made between the NFL and rugby players, who are also known to deliver a pretty vicious hit but who also seem to suffer fewer head injuries. Theory is that by not having a helmet, rugby players don't use their heads as weapons.

I do think the NFL goes a little too far with protecting QBs. Clean, body-shot hits that are not going for the knee or the head should be allowed, even those where the ball has left the QB's hand a half-step before the defender gets there. Lot of penalties where it seems unreasonable to essentially expect the defender to let up while the QB still has the ball. Mostly, though, I'm fine with most of the changes the NFL has made - essentially banning guys like Rodney Harrison.

This is a very intelligent post. A few thoughts to add to it.

1. There is a lot of belief that, as you mentioned, Goodell opened the NFL up to these lawsuits by taking on player safety as urgently and aggressively as he did. Once he made it an issue of his office then there was all of a sudden a responsibility to the players.

However Goodell is a very smart man and may have assumed that the law suits were going to roll in eventually so urgent action was needed.

2. As a rugby player, it is not just the lack of helmet that stops us from delivering hits with our heads. It is being taught how to properly break down and tackle a player and even further, how to be tackled, that prevents some of these same catastrophic injuries.

On the flip side though there are no helmets to protect from freak occurrences. A teammate and friend of mine was comatose for a month and has a long road to recovery because another player trying to make a tackle got swung around connecting his knee with the side of my friend's head. A helmet there would have reduced it to a minor concussion or nothing at all.

There are risks and rewards to helmets. I will say that I do believe that rugby is a far safer game in general and I would imagine that the statistics back that up. When I have kids they will be playing rugby over football if they want to play a contact sport.

 

[TyTanium]

I don't think you can ever contract your way out of the right to sue. If the issue is that clear cut, the judge might just dismiss the suit, but i don't think any contract is every sue-proof.

Yup - agreed.

 

[JeepDiver]

2. As a rugby player, it is not just the lack of helmet that stops us from delivering hits with our heads. It is being taught how to properly break down and tackle a player and even further, how to be tackled, that prevents some of these same catastrophic injuries.

.

Football use to be like that. In PeeWee we were taught to never lead with your head, and the shoulder is the first thing to make contact. They don't teach this much any more at any level. Watch a high school or college game. They suck as much as the NFL. Yards after first contact should be very little if you are tackling correctly (yes some great backs will always have the higher stats). Now you have the guy go for the big hit, barley touch someone and they get another 10 yards before someone brings them down. Look at the stats 20 years ago. When someone got hit, they didn't make it much further because they were going to get tackled.

And I would much rather watch a good defensive game than the offenseive shoot outs these days, but guess I am in the minority there

 

[motobrewer]

This is a very intelligent post. A few thoughts to add to it.

first, you don't need to stroke bird's ego, he's plenty apt at stroking himself

second, I think the main reason tackling is better in rugby is that you have to bring the ball carrier to the ground. if you're the ball carrier and you're on the ground and nobody's holding you there, you can just get back up and start running (well, we're talking union here, cause, well, league blows). in football, all you have to do is force the guy to get his knee down.

and yeah, I had a teammate go head to head with a guy. he just had a minor concussion tho. definite benefits to helmets.

 

[TheMan]

None of this changes the fact that it's not Goodell who is the bad guy. He is just protecting the business. The fact that he so readily implemented these safety rules tells me he is trying to prevent further lawsuits by current players. I don't see this as any indication that they knew the inherent dangers of the sport and were hiding it. Any idiot knows that playing such a contact sport will lead to injuries.

It's the players that I blame for the new age of "sissy" football. Goodell is just idiot proofing the business due to those that are taking advantage of it much like the McDonalds hot coffee incident from years ago. No one needs those "Caution" signs on packaging until someone takes advantage of it and forces your hand. He has to implement safety because of the players decision to go after the league for it.

 

[ReverseApacheMaster]

None of this changes the fact that it's not Goodell who is the bad guy. He is just protecting the business. The fact that he so readily implemented these safety rules tells me he is trying to prevent further lawsuits by current players. I don't see this as any indication that they knew the inherent dangers of the sport and were hiding it. Any idiot knows that playing such a contact sport will lead to injuries.

There is very good evidence that the NFL was aware of the probable effects of the way the game was played and how teams trained player to be physically but declined to share those probable effects with the players or make any serious effort to limit them for a long time. In particular, the coaching staff would push players to continue to play with concussions where repeated injuries or lack of immediate medical attention can lead to permanent brain injuries. Evidence suggests the NFL knew that was going on and failed to either tell teams to knock it off or inform the players of the risk.

It's the players that I blame for the new age of "sissy" football. Goodell is just idiot proofing the business due to those that are taking advantage of it much like the McDonalds hot coffee incident from years ago. No one needs those "Caution" signs on packaging until someone takes advantage of it and forces your hand. He has to implement safety because of the players decision to go after the league for it.

Well we won't get into how off base you are about the coffee incident but the two aren't comparable. We can also avoid a deep discussion of how product liability laws actually encourage companies to provide sufficient warnings before injuries occur, not after.

The players are in something of a unique situation. If you are injured on the job, even if you perform a job with inherent and known safety risks, you can be compensated through the worker's compensation system for your injuries. Players who left the game years or even decades ago and are now developing neurological problems from injuries caused in the past generally cannot recover under worker's compensation. (The same would probably hold true if you were injured but failed to develop symptoms until years after you retired but most job-related injuries present immediate symptoms.) So what do you do with 40 or 50 year old players developing neurological conditions of a 70 or 80 year old? They aren't taking advantage of anybody. They need medical treatment.

 

[JeepDiver]

The players are in something of a unique situation. If you are injured on the job, even if you perform a job with inherent and known safety risks, you can be compensated through the worker's compensation system for your injuries. Players who left the game years or even decades ago and are now developing neurological problems from injuries caused in the past generally cannot recover under worker's compensation. (The same would probably hold true if you were injured but failed to develop symptoms until years after you retired but most job-related injuries present immediate symptoms.) So what do you do with 40 or 50 year old players developing neurological conditions of a 70 or 80 year old? They aren't taking advantage of anybody. They need medical treatment.

People really didn't understand the effects of repeated concustions until the last few years. Yeah they knew boxers got punch drunk, and some football players did too, but they didn't understand the reasons behind it.

And for the players, they got paid a lot of money to get beat up. They should have saved some $$$ for their medical condtions instead of blowing it on Coke and hookers.

And yes, I know this isn;t the case with all of them, but as a whole, I really don't feel sorry for a bunch of people who make more in a year than I do in several years, or for the upper pay scale, more than I'll make in a lifetime

 

[FTG-05]

There is very good evidence that the NFL was aware of the probable effects of the way the game was played and how teams trained player to be physically but declined to share those probable effects with the players or make any serious effort to limit them for a long time. In particular, the coaching staff would push players to continue to play with concussions where repeated injuries or lack of immediate medical attention can lead to permanent brain injuries. Evidence suggests the NFL knew that was going on and failed to either tell teams to knock it off or inform the players of the risk.


[snip]

I too believe the NFL has known for quite some time and are now taking steps to protect themselves. The players long term health, although it should have been commonsense what they were in for, came in second in priority to the NFL.

 

[the_bird]

People really didn't understand the effects of repeated concustions until the last few years. Yeah they knew boxers got punch drunk, and some football players did too, but they didn't understand the reasons behind it.

Well, that's the question right there. There are a whole bunch of former NFL players who are essentially claiming that the NFL *did* know (and hid that information), and the League saying exactly what you're saying.

 

[JeepDiver]

Well, that's the question right there. There are a whole bunch of former NFL players who are essentially claiming that the NFL *did* know (and hid that information), and the League saying exactly what you're saying.

The doctors say they didn't really know, so how did the league? They new a lot of people had issues several years down the road, but there wasn't any sicentific proof on the cause.

 

[the_bird]

Which doctors?

All I'm saying is that your statement is not something I would submit as fact. There may have been some doctors who weren't certain about the linkages between concussions and long-term issues, but I'm not sure that NO ONE knew about it, or had a strong inkling that players might be subject to severe medical issues in the future. I tend to think the tobacco industry may be a good precedent; Philip Morris, et al, appeared to have pretty good plausible deniability because "the evidence is mixed! we don't know!," until it came out that they really knew a lot more than they cared to admit.

But, that's ultimately a question for the courts to decide. If the former NFL players can prove that the League knew about the dangers, and yet turned a blind eye while concussed players were pushed back onto the field... they're in for a lot of trouble. If the NFL can prove that they truly were ignorant of these issues (and it wasn't willful ignorance), they should be OK. In the end, there will probably be some kind of settlement that puts aside a massive amount of money to help former players and perhaps to fund more research into treatment options.