Brian Westbrook

[PackersRS]

is a deal close?

I don't think so. I think it's just stated that the Packers do have an interest in him.

The Packers also had interest in Randy Moss, Tony Gonzales, Hunter Smith...

 

[3irty1]

(Probably why Ted doesn't return my calls on joining his scouting dept).

Me and Ted are pretty close, and he told me it was because you kept calling him sweetheart


I don't like the sound of signing Westbrook either, I know a lot of Eagle fans and Giant fans. Eagle fans hate him (but then again they hated Donovan) and Giants love him... when he's injured. Just seems like he is made of peanut brittle.

 

[ivo610]

Well, OK, then it's the decision one must make with their family. Either way, the responsibility should ultimately lie with the player. The NFL shouldn't be a nanny state, and teams shouldn't be required to protect players from themselves. The players (and their families) know the risks, and should use that to make their own decisions.

The most important job the commish has is to protect the shield. If you have issues with health issues of former players that could have been prevented then its bad for the shield. Thus the reason they are taking the precautions they have.

 

[ivo610]

This isnt like a Marcus Allen signing, this is just stupid. Just when I thought TT was making great choices. But who knows, maybe its just all talk.

 

[Corey Lee]

Sign Westbrook and PLEASE sign Sharper. There is no safety in the draft that would even come close to his knowledge of the game and I'm sure retiring a Packer would be attractive.

 

[ivo610]

Sign Westbrook and PLEASE sign Sharper. There is no safety in the draft that would even come close to his knowledge of the game and I'm sure retiring a Packer would be attractive.

Sharper was a pain in the butt and still is. The front office was glad to see him leave and I doubt he would be offered a contract by us.

If we are going to sign an old guy it should be Jason Taylor, since him and Capers have such great history together and we could use someone like him right now.

 

[PackersRS]

Sign Westbrook and PLEASE sign Sharper. There is no safety in the draft that would even come close to his knowledge of the game and I'm sure retiring a Packer would be attractive.

Yeah, because the same front office that let him go would sign him for MORE money, when he's OLDER...

 

[Cardsmc25]

Sign Westbrook and PLEASE sign Sharper. There is no safety in the draft that would even come close to his knowledge of the game and I'm sure retiring a Packer would be attractive.

While doing that please also wash down any hopes of a Superbowl too... Hasn't anyone noticed the trend in the NFL... YOU HAVE TO STAY HEALTHY. Playoff teams (generally) miss the injury bug. Lets sign two guys who are old and aren't the safest bet to stay healthy. I'm not saying that bringing in rookies from the draft won't bring injuries (coughHarrellcough), but you reduce the risk a little. I am much more opposed to signing Sharper to signing Westbrook (I would rather see us get McCluster).

This isn't a Charles Woodson thing... Westbrook is on the way out. I think he will have one more decent year (next year, if he makes it that long). If we do sign him, we can kiss my McCluster hopes good bye.

 

[SpartaChris]

The most important job the commish has is to protect the shield. If you have issues with health issues of former players that could have been prevented then its bad for the shield. Thus the reason they are taking the precautions they have.

I get that, but the only thing the NFL can, and really should do is make a strong suggestion to the player that they hang it up. Leave it up to the players as to whether they choose to keep playing or not.

Seriously, enough with the nanny state. We're getting more than enough of that with our federal and state governments. Lets not force the league into it too.

 

[PackersRS]

I get that, but the only thing the NFL can, and really should do is make a strong suggestion to the player that they hang it up. Leave it up to the players as to whether they choose to keep playing or not.

Seriously, enough with the nanny state. We're getting more than enough of that with our federal and state governments. Lets not force the league into it too.

I agree. Asking the league to ban players from being employed and perform their jobs because of risk of injuries is actually illegal, if I'm not mistaken.

They must inform the players of the hazards of doing so, but they cannot prevent them from playing...

 

[ivo610]

I agree. Asking the league to ban players from being employed and perform their jobs because of risk of injuries is actually illegal, if I'm not mistaken.

They must inform the players of the hazards of doing so, but they cannot prevent them from playing...

NFL.com Blogs

Yeah... the NFL should be sued for doing something soooo illegal. lol

 

[ivo610]

I get that, but the only thing the NFL can, and really should do is make a strong suggestion to the player that they hang it up. Leave it up to the players as to whether they choose to keep playing or not.

Seriously, enough with the nanny state. We're getting more than enough of that with our federal and state governments. Lets not force the league into it too.

The NFL is already socialist!! so scary

 

[SpartaChris]

And since most of these guys have been playing since they were kids, they're already well aware of the risks. Many players have retired due to injuries, so it's not like the possibility of getting hurt is a big secret.

The league is doing quite a bit to ensure the safety of the players, but I don't think it's their job to prevent a guy from getting on the field, should said player choose to play. Make a strong recommendation against it, sure. Have them sign a waiver if you choose. But stop them? Nope.

 

[DILLIGAFF]

I get that, but the only thing the NFL can, and really should do is make a strong suggestion to the player that they hang it up. Leave it up to the players as to whether they choose to keep playing or not.

Seriously, enough with the nanny state. We're getting more than enough of that with our federal and state governments. Lets not force the league into it too.

I agree with you on the fed. gov't and state gov't involvement.

Yet in the working world employers have to make certain moral judgment calls in regards to the health of their employees as it relates to the physical nature of their jobs. For instance commercial diving, your heart has to be at a certain level of health for the company to employee that person to dive or be allowed to dive.

If the NFL has enough data on concussions as it relates to playing football at this level, there is some responsibility and a line that can not be crossed. Even if the player is in denial.

This comes down to how much the NFL knows about concussions as it relates to the physical nature of the NFL. I would argue that the NFL as a whole with all their resources knows more about this than an emotional Westbrook that wants to continue playing for that ring.

If the NFL knows that Westbrook and another player suffer the same kind of hit that results in a concussion, but that because of Westbrooks preexisting condition, will suffer a traumatic injury that the other player will not, has an obligation to make a judgment call.

It comes down to what we know and if the difference is significant. The NFL is a dangerous job with no guarantees

 

[Mack_20]

If Westbrook can stay healthy, I would like it, because he's a great team guy and veteran leader.. However, I would hate to not draft an RB in the draft because we are trying him out for a year or two.

 

[ivo610]

The league is doing quite a bit to ensure the safety of the players, but I don't think it's their job to prevent a guy from getting on the field, should said player choose to play. Make a strong recommendation against it, sure. Have them sign a waiver if you choose. But stop them? Nope.

Well they do it, reguadless of whether the players feels one way or another. They have been holding out players from playing due to concussions for awhile now. You would think if this was so illegal someone would have stopped it awhile ago...

 

[PackersRS]

NFL.com Blogs

Yeah... the NFL should be sued for doing something soooo illegal. lol

Return to play. ON THE SAME DAY. AFTER A CONCUSSION.

How is this even close to be allowed to play, a year after having a concussion or a series of concussions?

If an employee is sick, usually a company sends him home. It saves them from having to deal with lawsuits...

If the employee is still sick, he doesn't go to work.

But a company doesn't stop him from working AFTER the sickness is gone!

 

[ivo610]

Return to play. ON THE SAME DAY. AFTER A CONCUSSION.

How is this even close to be allowed to play, a year after having a concussion or a series of concussions?

If an employee is sick, usually a company sends him home. It saves them from having to deal with lawsuits...

If the employee is still sick, he doesn't go to work.

But a company doesn't stop him from working AFTER the sickness is gone!

Are you saying a concussion is a sickness? Who said the effects were gone? Your more likely to have subsequent concussions after your first.

Researchers have found that athletes with three or more concussions were nine times more likely to suffer more severe concussion symptoms (loss of conciousness and memory) than players with no prior history of concussion.

Boston University has already provided some of the most compelling evidence of footballs long term effects on the brain. All 11 retired players examined for a chronic traumatic encephalopathy, an exceedingly rare disorder caused by concussive and subconcussive blows to the head, have been found to have the disease, which is associated with early onset dementia, emotional disturbances, and drug abuse.

Bottom line the NFL needs to be very careful when dealing with players that have a history brain injuries. Studies have only scratched the surface of this problem. I think it would be in the best interest for the Packers and the NFL to have a qualified neurologist take a good look at Brian Westbrook before talking about a contract. I do not want to see any players long term health jeopardized.

 

[ivo610]

DMN: Should Pack take a chance on Westbrook? | National Football Post

basically outlines my concerns

 

[PackersRS]

Are you saying a concussion is a sickness? Who said the effects were gone? Your more likely to have subsequent concussions after your first.

You didn't part of the premise that the effects of the concussion were gone. You said that the league should ban players from taking the field, when they had an history of concussion. I haven't heard one single talk about him still having concussion effects. But he hasn't denied he doesn't, so he must have...

Researchers have found that athletes with three or more concussions were nine times more likely to suffer more severe concussion symptoms (loss of conciousness and memory) than players with no prior history of concussion.

This will never stick. This is positivism. By this logic, someone who has stolen something should be never set free, because there's a larger chance that someone who comitted a crime will do it again than someone who hasn't...

On a lighter note, base jumpers have one of the highest death rates of any sports, yet they're not banned to do so. There's a possibility of DEATH to professional racers (Ayrton Senna comes to mind), but they're not prohibited to race...

Boston University has already provided some of the most compelling evidence of footballs long term effects on the brain. All 11 retired players examined for a chronic traumatic encephalopathy, an exceedingly rare disorder caused by concussive and subconcussive blows to the head, have been found to have the disease, which is associated with early onset dementia, emotional disturbances, and drug abuse.

Yes, it's a disturbing fact, and the league should provide better equipment (starting by making the most high-tech safety equipment MANDATORY, and not optional, as it is), better rules. But in the end it is a brutal game.

Bottom line the NFL needs to be very careful when dealing with players that have a history brain injuries. Studies have only scratched the surface of this problem. I think it would be in the best interest for the Packers and the NFL to have a qualified neurologist take a good look at Brian Westbrook before talking about a contract. I do not want to see any players long term health jeopardized.

Absolutely agree. Even though there hasn't surfaced any news about him still having concussions, I believe it's a given that he has to pass a medical test to sign with the Packers. I think it's a common procedure. Don't know about neuroligists, though. Also think, in his case, should be looked at.

Also think that it's the league's RESPONSIBILITY to warn all the players about the possible damage the game does to their health, specially those who have suffered injuries. Medical tests should be mandatory, if they aren't.

But we're talking about prohibition of a seemingly healthy person to exercise his job... Fully armed with the up-to-date knowledge of the situation, it's still their choice to put their health in jeopardy or not...

 

[ivo610]

You said that the league should ban players from taking the field, when they had an history of concussion. I haven't heard one single talk about him still having concussion effects. But he hasn't denied he doesn't, so he must have...

I never said that. I just said that Brian shouldnt be allowed on the field for the same reason the Holmes Ali fight should have never happened. As far as other players I think it depends on the situation. I agree with the new rules as far as players going back into games like favre did several years ago.

Article about Brian talking about his concussions.

[ame="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4727140"]Recovering Brian Westbrook worried about future - ESPN@@AMEPARAM@@http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=4726471@@AMEPARAM@@4726471[/ame]

This will never stick. This is positivism. By this logic, someone who has stolen something should be never set free, because there's a larger chance that someone who comitted a crime will do it again than someone who hasn't...

On a lighter note, base jumpers have one of the highest death rates of any sports, yet they're not banned to do so. There's a possibility of DEATH to professional racers (Ayrton Senna comes to mind), but they're not prohibited to race...

Yes, it's a disturbing fact, and the league should provide better equipment (starting by making the most high-tech safety equipment MANDATORY, and not optional, as it is), better rules. But in the end it is a brutal game.


Absolutely agree. Even though there hasn't surfaced any news about him still having concussions, I believe it's a given that he has to pass a medical test to sign with the Packers. I think it's a common procedure. Don't know about neuroligists, though. Also think, in his case, should be looked at.

Also think that it's the league's RESPONSIBILITY to warn all the players about the possible damage the game does to their health, specially those who have suffered injuries. Medical tests should be mandatory, if they aren't.

But we're talking about prohibition of a seemingly healthy person to exercise his job... Fully armed with the up-to-date knowledge of the situation, it's still their choice to put their health in jeopardy or not...

The equipment thing is a whole deal onto itself as players dont want to wear new or different helmets even though they provide better protection.

The whole base jumping/ robber thing I disagree with and this its a fallacy but no point in arguing it.

 

[ivo610]

didnt mean for the video to pop up, so just click on the link on top. Didnt even know it would pop up.

 

[DILLIGAFF]

On a lighter note, base jumpers have one of the highest death rates of any sports, yet they're not banned to do so. There's a possibility of DEATH to professional racers (Ayrton Senna comes to mind), but they're not prohibited to race...

This is not a fair comparison. You are not going to eliminate the dangers of a base jumper or the NFL. If two healthy base jumpers jump, they have the same accident, they more than likely will have the same injuries.

Now if one of the base jumpers has a significant preexisting condition, say a weak heart, the adrenalin rush combine with the same accident kills that person or suffers a more sever injury than the healthy person having the same accident.

No one is saying no one can jump, but a person with a significant preexisting condition should not jump or drive race cars, especially being paid to do so. There is an obligation of the employer to not put people at risk, over and above the obvious dangers of the NFL.

 

[PackersRS]

This is not a fair comparison. You are not going to eliminate the dangers of a base jumper or the NFL. If two healthy base jumpers jump, they have the same accident, they more than likely will have the same injuries.

Now if one of the base jumpers has a significant preexisting condition, say a weak heart, the adrenalin rush combine with the same accident kills that person or suffers a more sever injury than the healthy person having the same accident.

No one is saying no one can jump, but a person with a significant preexisting condition should not jump or drive race cars, especially being paid to do so. There is an obligation of the employer to not put people at risk, over and above the obvious dangers of the NFL.

I agree that the comparison wasn't correct...

But history of concussions SO FAR isn't a preexisting condition... It aggravates the chances of more concussions, like ivo said, but it's not life threatening, as far as we know.

If it's made so, like heart disease, then it won't even be the league that will prohibit them. It will be the law.

But it's not right now... Just because he had several concussions isn't an indication that he will, for a fact, suffer another, and that it'll surely affect his health.

Does it has the risk of doing so? Yes. As much as players with a surgically repaired knee have the risk of further aggravating it, and affecting their future quality of life...

Let me put it this way: A person that has suffered a heart attack has affirmatively a heart condition, and any physical sport puts his life in danger.

A person that has suffered a concussion DOESN"T have a brain condition, and so far doctors haven't affirmed that engaging in contact sports will leave them permanently damaged, or that it'll threaten their lives... There's so far suggestion that it may, or more certainly, there's evidence that it could increase the chances of injury. But not a certainty of permanent damage or chance of death.

Remember, we're talking about a concussion he had more than a year ago, basically...

 

[Jess]

If you can get Westbrook to sign a minimum contract laced with incentives, there's no risk on Green Bay's end. And from that end, I would love it.

I do worry about Westbrook's concussion issue, though. But he's going to play somewhere this year, I don't think anybody's keeping him off a football field, so if he is dead set on risking it and wants to do so in Green Bay, I'm all for it. This guy was one of the best not long ago.