Goodell to ban the 3 point stance?

[mvb34]

Quote: Originally Posted by shotgun styles

I told you, man! I told you! They are ruining the game. And let me DISPEL THIS LIE RIGHT NOW: this is NOT about concussions. It's about leverage for D Linemen. If they can't get low, they get blown off the ball. They will have no leverage in the running game. They are going to doctor the running game the way they have doctored the passing game. It's a disgrace. If you saw Deacon Jones' interviews this week, he TRASHED the NFL's rules. Defense is being outlawed one rule at a time.

Is the 4 point stance begin banned as well?

[SuperChargers]

Quote:

The league’s current labor contract expires in March 2011. NFL Players Association executive director DeMaurice Smith said Thursday the chance of a lockout next year is “14” on a scale of 1 to 10.

What exactly is a lockout? And Goodell better not do this. I don't see it ever happening.

[Segagendude]

Quote: Originally Posted by SuperChargers

What exactly is a lockout? And Goodell better not do this. I don't see it ever happening.

Basically, the owners "lock out" the players----meaning, they won't allow the players to play. Basically, like a strike, there'll be no football.

It happened with the NHL a couple years ago, and it dam near killed the sport.

[shotgun styles]

Quote: Originally Posted by mvb34

Is the 4 point stance begin banned as well?

I'd have to assume so. The argument for "concussions" is about the proximity of helmets to each other, so any low stance would have to be banned.

Then it's going to be Christmas for O-linemen and RBs the same way it is for QBs and WRs in the NFL.

[SPTO]

Quote: Originally Posted by SuperChargers

What exactly is a lockout? And Goodell better not do this. I don't see it ever happening.

Segagendude nailed it on the head but to elaborate more, the folks that deserve the scorn if there's a lockout is the owners because the players aren't the ones forcing the issue with a strike.

[shotgun styles]

Quote: Originally Posted by SPTO

Segagendude nailed it on the head but to elaborate more, the folks that deserve the scorn if there's a lockout is the owners because the players aren't the ones forcing the issue with a strike.

All that money and they're too greedy to work it out. Amazing. Every other sports league in America would kill for the NFL's revenues, and they're willing to run the league aground over a few percentage points.

We need a new league. Without competition the NFL will continue to do stupid things like this because they feel invincible.

[pietasterp]

I don't think Goodell is off the rails on this one. I actually like that he came in and started cleaning up the game's image a bit, trying to get rid of at least some small part of the thug image of the league, and generally trying to keep the league a step ahead. I think taking concussions and head injuries seriously is a step in the right direction, and if there is at least some preliminary or circumstantial evidence that the 3-point stance and subsequent violence involved in launching huge 300+ pound guys at each other is contributing to some serious long-term health problems for the linemen in the league, I have no problem with the league taking a look at it. There are very few rules in any sports league, especially one as relatively young as the NFL, that are totally sacred. Leagues change rules a lot, the game evolves, I think it's reasonable for the rules to evolve as well.

As counter-intuitive as it sounds, the advancing technology in personal protection (pads, helmets, etc) have actually made the game more dangerous than it used to be, because guys are being taught to just use their heads/bodies as a missile and pretty much decapitate the other guys. Couple that with the fact that the level of flat-out freak athleticism in big men (6'6" 300+ pound guys that can run 4.8 40's) has exploded in recent years, and the game is just a lot more dangerous and violent than it used to be. I think the league is right to at least be concerned about that trend.

Listen, I like seeing guys get murdered on the field as much as the next guy - earth-shattering hits are a crowd favorite no matter what your point of view is. But it's hard for me to justify, on some personal, human level, cheering for what amounts to potentially serious injuries week-in and week-out. If nothing else, it would make me feel better about being as big a fan as I am of football if measures were taken to make the game safer for the athletes...so when I yell "Kill that #$!@(*&!!", the odds of that actually happening are vanishingly remote.

Not gonna comment on the labor situation other than to say that I almost always side with management in these issues. Yes, they're greedy billionaires scuffling with millionaires (players), but the difference is the owners have made their money doing something else, presumably productive to society, and employ a lot of people. In other words, they're somewhat important somewhere other than in sports. The players, on the other hand, don't employ other people, don't run companies that contribute to the tax base and general productivity of society, and basically make millions just to play games. Their share of applied revenues is currently 59%. I don't think it's that unreasonable for owners to ask that that figure come down somewhat, especially if we all understood how many costs there are in running a pro sports franchise...

[SuperChargers]

Quote: Originally Posted by shotgun styles

We need a new league. Without competition the NFL will continue to do stupid things like this because they feel invincible.

Sadly I don't see the UFL catching on too much. Maybe they could snag a highly touted draft prospect in a few years ala Steve Young and the USFL.