Goodell to ban the 3 point stance?

[shotgun styles]

Quote: Originally Posted by 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.

This game has not "evolved" it has been tampered with. If you don't want injuries, PLAY FLAG FOOTBALL. This argument hold no weight. This is tackle football, big boy sports. If you want a game with no "thugs" in it's image then you should try a sport that doesn't get it's players from the inner city. Like golf.

Quote: Originally Posted by pietasterp

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.

Boxing? MMA? The entire purpose of these sports is TO HARM THE OPPONENT. Injuries are part of the game, man. That's why it's called tackle football and not two hand touch. The point of boxing is to INTENTIONALLY cause a conscussion sufficient enough to render your opponent unconscious. That's the nature of contact sports. If you don't like that, stick to tennis and bowling.

Quote: Originally Posted by pietasterp

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...

Wow. The owners risk some of their wealth. The players risk both their lives and their quality of life every time they lace up their gear. Now I don't want to see the game softened, but I also realize that the players are the one who risk life altering injuries and death every game. Some oil millionaire losing a few million on his football team does not compare to spending his life in a wheelchair.

[shotgun styles]

Quote: Originally Posted by SuperChargers

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.

The UFL was a poorly planned and executed league. They were doomed from day one.

Many of the things that need to happen, like playing in the summer, playing under higher impact rules, and bringing in 18-21 year olds have been considered taboo. Thus, the things that would make the league competitive have not even been tried yet. They keep trying to COPY the NFL so that they can force a merger. They should have learned from the USFL that this is a failed strategy, and employ a new business model.

[pietasterp]

Quote: Originally Posted by shotgun styles

This game has not "evolved" it has been tampered with. If you don't want injuries, PLAY FLAG FOOTBALL. This argument hold no weight. This is tackle football, big boy sports. If you want a game with no "thugs" in it's image then you should try a sport that doesn't get it's players from the inner city. Like golf.

If you really think the game hasn't evolved, watch footage from the days of leather helmets and no forward passing. Of course the game's evolved over time - it's not an opinion statement. No one is saying injuries aren't a risk every snap, but don't you think it would be a better game if guys didn't get seriously injured at quite as high a rate? How anyone can be against that is beyond me. I'm not sure what to make of your inference that getting players from the "inner city" equates with "thugs". I neither explicitly stated nor implied that. I'm not asking guys to be squeaky clean, just stay off the police blotter. And I do like golf. A lot, actually.

Quote: Originally Posted by shotgun styles

Boxing? MMA? The entire purpose of these sports is TO HARM THE OPPONENT. Injuries are part of the game, man. That's why it's called tackle football and not two hand touch. The point of boxing is to INTENTIONALLY cause a conscussion sufficient enough to render your opponent unconscious. That's the nature of contact sports. If you don't like that, stick to tennis and bowling.

I disagree with you that the "entire purpose" of football is to render an opponent unconscious. I would say the point of football is to get the ball into the endzone on offense, and on defense get the ball-carrier to the ground. I wouldn't say that's the same as trying to harm your opponent. And being a proponent of increased safety is not the same as being a pansy, as you seem to imply. By your logic, why have any rules at all? Why have any pads or equipment? Do you think it should be legal spear to a defenseless player in the head with your helmet? Or clothesline a player in the neck? Why not just let guys punch and kick each other out there? After all, if you don't like that sort of thing, by your logic we should all just stick to tennis.

Quote: Originally Posted by shotgun styles

Wow. The owners risk some of their wealth. The players risk both their lives and their quality of life every time they lace up their gear. Now I don't want to see the game softened, but I also realize that the players are the one who risk life altering injuries and death every game. Some oil millionaire losing a few million on his football team does not compare to spending his life in a wheelchair.

Here's the thing: no one is demanding that the players risk their lives and quality of life every time they gear up (and people that are anti-safety don't make their lives any better...). I think it's better if the game is safer (within reason), but ultimately there are going to be risks (even though mitigating them is probably a good idea for everyone). If they can get a better job doing something else, by all means go to it. But I don't think risk enters into the equation at all, especially with professional athletes. You know who else risks death/serious injury every time they go to work? Construction workers. Farmers. Fishermen. Steelworkers. Factory workers. The list goes on; but no one on that lengthy list makes a million dollars a year. The bottom line is that the league, the franchises, everything about sports only exists because a bunch of rich guys got together and made it happen. If they want to pull back some of their expenditures, those are the breaks. But no one has a right to make a living doing whatever it is they do best; if that were true, I should get paid to sit on my rear and watch TV all day. No one's saying the players should go back to the days of working off-season jobs (although I wouldn't care if they did); but maybe $8 million for 16 weeks of work is a bit extravagant, especially in this day and age?

[EWRMETS]

They'd probably be better moving to no helmets or leather helmets. Better helmets has only increased the chances that players are willing to take. I doubt there'd be many players leading with their head if they didn't have the false security blanket of a helmet. The concussion issue is a major problem that the NFL needs to tackle. If they keep things at the status quo, there will be tons of lawsuits and eventually the general public will turn away from the game.

[JBH3]

Quote: Originally Posted by Roger Goodell

Concerned about concussions, Goodell said the league will keep looking for ways to make the game safer

Dear Roger,

No one likes football because it is "safe".

[lonewolf371]

Quote: Originally Posted by JBH3

Dear Roger, No one likes football because it is "safe".

Oh but they do. Fans hate it when their star players get injured, especially the QBs. Fans also hate the preseason, and if the NFL is going to move to 18 games and keep guys healthy the three-point stance has got to go. It also helps offense and moves the focus of the game away from the line of scrimmage.

This is what most fans, and probably most people on this forum have wanted for years. It's just that right now we're actually getting it.

[elgreazy1]

I think there are far too many factors in player injuries nowadays to just pin it on one thing. Look at the league and how it has changed in only the last few years. Players are CLEARLY much larger, faster, & stronger than they ever have been, on top of that, the league has turned into one where defenders lead with their heads & go for "big hits" as opposed to the wrap up tackle. At some point, physics outtakes any kinds of precautions that can be made by the league.

There simply is no cure-all for the impacts these players take on the regular except possibly time. Look at MMA & boxing, a sport where blows to the head are common place; in those sports participants have weeks, sometimes months to years, at a time before they put their bodies through the grinder. Now, conversely you have football where players take repeated blows to the head during practices, games, etc on the daily/weekly. This probably isn't the best for one's brain & mental health regardless of the strides that have been made in equipment. You don't run on a hurt ankle, you don't lift with an aching back, you don't bench with bad wrists/shoulders/etc so why are players expected to go out and take more impact to the head when they're already punch-drunk to begin with?

[TheWatcher]

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.

Let me just be clear and say that while we've always agreed that a number of rules are indeed ruining Pro Football, I don't go to other extremes that you've "told me so" in the past We still disagree on those others.

What this is more than likely, is a response to the dips in running production league-wide over the past few years, and while it doesn't look hopeless now, they probably looked at some projections and made this a priority. And while I understand the concern, I totally disagree with throwing fundamental football out the window in order to "fix it". It fixes nothing. It's just cutting off your nose to spite your face. I hate that type of management philosophy, it's just plain weak.

Also, I understand Gooddell's desire to want to keep top players on the field, but it's not worth destroying the lifeblood of football to do it. Plus, considering the fact that someone always emerges and some of the best stories ever have happened when a backup took over for a guy and became a star. Injuries are going to happen, players will be lost for a season, some will have their careers ended. That's the way it is, and trying to manipulate that with dumb rule changes that really won't change the situation is total foolishness.

I love to watch the stars as much as the next guy, but injuries are part of the game. Rather than making up more stupid Pee-Wee league rules (even Pee-Wee leagues don't do this kind of stupid stuff), what they need to do is improve the performance of equipment. The way I see it, the NFL knows REAL monumental equipment advancements are going to cost a lot of money, but just making up new ridiculous rules is free. For them, it's a no-brainer.

If they really cared about players AND the integrity of the game at the same time (it can't be separated), then they'd be rallying the league together to spend money to make some next level equipment advancements.

I'm really concerned with the future of the NFL. There are some really stupid people in charge right now, and they all seem to think it's necessary to put their stamp on their regimes, and I throw that shot at both the League and the NFLPA leadership. All they really had to do was steer a ship that was on a perfect course, and it just seems like they're determined to find ways to sink the ship and drown themselves and everybody on it.