Football gonna become unwatchable

JBlood

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Messages
3,159
Reaction score
467
True. The ACL is usually injured on freak plays where a guy has his foot stepped on, or he falls at a strange angle causing the leg to be bent to the inside. It's usually a twisting injury, not an impact injury. The knee-hunters cause a lot of MCL injuries when hit from the outside and PCL injuries when hit from the front, although a hit from the front can certainly cause a torn ACL as well.
You're correct. All ACL injuries occur with the foot planted. Same thing with basketball--the ACL is unable to withstand the forces put on it when an athlete changes direction on a planted foot--Derrick Rose a latest example. It's a much bigger problem with female athletes as well. There would be fewer of them if footwear would change, resulting in less traction. There'd be more slipping, maybe with more muscle strains, but fewer knee injuries.
 
OP
OP
1

12theTruth

Guest
One need look no further than the Textbook hit thread to give more credence to the fact that micro-managing the physicality out of the NFL will neuter the NFL in a profound manner.

If you take what ONCE was considered a clean hit and now put MORE restrictions on a tackle you are indeed making football unwatchable to my eyes. The NFL had better tread carefully.
 

FrankRizzo

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2010
Messages
5,858
Reaction score
771
Location
Dallas
True. The ACL is usually injured on freak plays where a guy has his foot stepped on, or he falls at a strange angle causing the leg to be bent to the inside. It's usually a twisting injury, not an impact injury. The knee-hunters cause a lot of MCL injuries when hit from the outside and PCL injuries when hit from the front, although a hit from the front can certainly cause a torn ACL as well.
Packer ACL tears I can remember:

Eddie Lee Ivory, 2x.... I think one was non-contact but for sure the other was a cheap low hit, both at Chicago turf.
Robert Brooks vs SF.... totally non-contact.
Aaron Kampman vs SF... totally non-contact.
Al Harris vs SF.... totally non-contact. All 3 of those were at Lambeau.
Will Blackmon at Minnesota, contact tangled up.
Mark Tauscher at Minnesota, I think non?
Nick Barnett at Minnesota, I think non-contact.
Bulaga vs Scrimmate, can't remember if I saw it?
 

FrankRizzo

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2010
Messages
5,858
Reaction score
771
Location
Dallas
One need look no further than the Textbook hit thread to give more credence to the fact that micro-managing the physicality out of the NFL will neuter the NFL in a profound manner.

If you take what ONCE was considered a clean hit and now put MORE restrictions on a tackle you are indeed making football unwatchable to my eyes. The NFL had better tread carefully.
But do you miss these hits, which were ONCE considered clean?

You must be logged in to see this image or video!
You must be logged in to see this image or video!

You must be logged in to see this image or video!
You must be logged in to see this image or video!

You must be logged in to see this image or video!
You must be logged in to see this image or video!
 

GoPGo

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 7, 2013
Messages
1,862
Reaction score
150
But do you miss these hits, which were ONCE considered clean?

It's football, Frank. It's a collision sport where a lot of chaos and split-second reactions occur. Things like that are part of the game and for decades players have known and accepted that risk. And just because things like that happen from time to time doesn't mean it's intentional.
 

HyponGrey

Caseus Locutus Est
Joined
Mar 18, 2012
Messages
3,758
Reaction score
221
Location
South Jersey
I just saw in Bleacher Report that the nfl is not going to let you tackle people below the waist. So now where are you supposed to tackle people.
That's bull. It's a batter's box at least, below shoulders and above knees. They'll probably do something more like banning "intentional blows directly to the knee" to make it as vague, convoluted, and subjective as possible.
 
Last edited:

Darth Garfunkel

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 26, 2010
Messages
563
Reaction score
228
Location
denver
Anyone watch that Frontline special last night on NFL head injuries? It didn't look too good for the NFL. I wonder how they are going deal with the fallout from all of the emerging brain injury studies.

I think they should start making players wear giant inflatable helmets, like 3 feet across. That way it will not only protect the players but also add a hilarious bobble head element to the game.
 

Darth Garfunkel

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 26, 2010
Messages
563
Reaction score
228
Location
denver
Yep, I think my idea might work. Time to find a patent attorney!

You must be logged in to see this image or video!
 

Royal Pain

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 8, 2013
Messages
323
Reaction score
59
Location
Charlotte NC
Saw most of it. Most football fans were aware of Mike Webster's story. What's troubling is how vigirously the NFL fought to keep him from getting disability payments. IMO, Tagliabue came across as the biggest villain by appointing an MD that was going to toe the company line, while at the same time covering up the evidence produced by the Neuropathologist from Pittsburgh. This report should certainly stain his legacy.
 

Darth Garfunkel

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 26, 2010
Messages
563
Reaction score
228
Location
denver
Saw most of it. Most football fans were aware of Mike Webster's story. What's troubling is how vigirously the NFL fought to keep him from getting disability payments. IMO, Tagliabue came across as the biggest villain by appointing an MD that was going to toe the company line, while at the same time covering up the evidence produced by the Neuropathologist from Pittsburgh. This report should certainly stain his legacy.
Yeah, definitely the cover up was the most damning thing. And the fact that they produced a pamphlet about dealing head injuries that knowingly downplayed risks. Faulty info that was ultimately used by pee wee leagues to deal with concussions.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
As I noted previously before the recent settlement came down, there is a clear parallel here with the tobacco industry.

That cigarettes cause cancer or that football causes debilitating concussions was never in question. However, as the tobacco companies concealed their own studies showing the severity of the risks while denying their existence, the NFL concealed the severity of the concussion risks in their own studies, or so the plaintiffs have alleged.

The tobacco companies settled with the states for approximately $200 billion (with a "b") in payments over a 25 year period. These settlements had less to do with cancer than the lying about it.

The NFL already settled one suit for $765 million. It was all about the lying. There are more suits to come.

If I were a concerned parent, I'd look to the studies that are the most conservative claiming the highest levels of risk. Or encourage engagement in other sports.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
Here's a little historical perspective, courtesy of Wikipedia. The coming changes to the game are part of long progression toward safer and less violent play, like it or not:

"1905 had been a bloody year on the gridiron; the Chicago Tribune reported 18 players had been killed and 159 seriously injured that season.[4] There were moves to abolish the game. But President Theodore Roosevelt personally intervened and demanded that the rules of the game be reformed. In a meeting of more than 60 schools in late 1905, the commitment was made to make the game safer. This meeting was the first step toward the establishment of what would become the NCAA and was followed by several sessions to work out "the new rules."[5]

The final meeting of the Rules Committee tasked with reshaping the game was held on April 6, 1906, at which time the forward pass officially became a legal play.[2] The New York Times reported in September 1906 on the rationale for the changes: "The main efforts of the football reformers have been to 'open up the game'—that is to provide for the natural elimination of the so-called mass plays and bring about a game in which speed and real skill shall supersede so far as possible mere brute strength and force of weight."[6]

Do those highlighted passages sound familiar 107 years on?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_pass#cite_note-7
 

Darth Garfunkel

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 26, 2010
Messages
563
Reaction score
228
Location
denver
I think the toughest thing the NFL will have to deal with is the little repetitive collisions on the line that add up play after play. They briefly mentioned it on the show that the cumulative g-forces those guys experience in a season equates to roughly 1000-1500 30mph crashes into a brick wall. Each one causing a mini concussion.
I have no idea how they can deal with that short of totally altering the game and making it unwatchable.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
They briefly mentioned it on the show that the cumulative g-forces those guys experience in a season equates to roughly 1000-1500 30mph crashes into a brick wall.

I believe that to be an exageration. To start with, very few players take 1,000 snaps in a season. Second, except for the lineman, there are lot of plays where little or no contact is encountered. Third, those crashes don't involve the head on a large majority of plays. Fourth, you'd need to have two guys wearing bricks for uniforms each running at 15 mph headlong into each other to approximate the effect described. Plays that get close to that scenario are pretty rare.

I don't think we need sketchy physics and bad math to tell us professional football is a violent and dangerous profession, or that the affects of concussions can be cumulative and not here-today-gone-next-week events as was once thought.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Darth Garfunkel

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 26, 2010
Messages
563
Reaction score
228
Location
denver
I think they were talking about cumulative g forces over a year (practice and games) and not equating each snap with a crash. If I recall, a year or two ago some researchers put a bunch of sensors in college linemen's helmets and that was where they got those numbers.

Here's more on how they pull the data. It includes impact as well as whiplash type situations.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nfl/news/20121219/nfl-concussions-helmet/

Then again I was doing my own brain damage via booze when watching the show so I could be mistaken on the numbers.
 
Last edited:

ARPackFan

Knock it off with them negative waves
Joined
Sep 29, 2013
Messages
725
Reaction score
262
Location
Arkansas
Technology is the NFLs best friend if they are willing to forego traditional alliances with Riddell, Nike, and other manufacturers. Simpson-Ganassi makes most racing helmets for NASCAR. Recently they have been producing football helmets with promising results. Good read below on a lighter and apparently more effective helmet.

http://www.autoweek.com/article/20130118/indycar/130119839
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,766
Reaction score
896
I believe that to be an exageration. To start with, very few players take 1,000 snaps in a season. Second, except for the lineman, there are lot of plays where little or no contact is encountered. Third, those crashes don't involve the head on a large majority of plays. Fourth, you'd need to have two guys wearing bricks for uniforms each running at 15 mph headlong into each other to approximate the effect described. Plays that get close to that scenario are pretty rare.

I don't think we need sketchy physics and bad math to tell us professional football is a violent and dangerous profession, or that the affects of concussions can be cumulative and not here-today-gone-next-week events as was once thought.

The comment from the scientisits quoted was closer to "certain players" getting "their bell rung" actually translates to a thousand incidents per year for certain players, in which their brains experience slams equal to running headfirst into a brick wall at 35 mph.

Very similar to what was originally noted. That's why this documentary was so important, plenty of people that haven't studied the issue comprehensively never thought of it this way.
 

toolkien

Cheesehead
Joined
May 9, 2011
Messages
107
Reaction score
12
People need to grasp that the problem isn't just concussions. It's not just the big hits that cause the problems, it's coming from continuous, REGULAR hits to the head. The chronic beating the head takes play after play that begins to affect the brain. The only way to stop that from happening is to remove pretty much all football contact out of the sport. Ketchman over at packers.com says football is turning into basketball on grass. There's certain kinds of contact in basketball, but nothing like tackle football. I don't like basketball on a court, I certainly don't want to watch it on grass. Obviously as football evolves I have a choice to watch or not. I probably won't.
 
OP
OP
1

12theTruth

Guest
People need to grasp that the problem isn't just concussions. It's not just the big hits that cause the problems, it's coming from continuous, REGULAR hits to the head. The chronic beating the head takes play after play that begins to affect the brain. The only way to stop that from happening is to remove pretty much all football contact out of the sport. Ketchman over at packers.com says football is turning into basketball on grass. There's certain kinds of contact in basketball, but nothing like tackle football. I don't like basketball on a court, I certainly don't want to watch it on grass. Obviously as football evolves I have a choice to watch or not. I probably won't.

Well I finally agree with Vic on something. LOL. In 2013 a 13-10 happens because you have inept offenses, in 1985 a 13-10 score elicited more in the vein of an appreciation for the defensive performances.

Why is Brady struggling? Because he's went up against great Defenses. Nope. Its because he has almost no weapons to go to. The overall balance and quality of play has really diminished since the league office hamstrung the D's in the last several years.
 

Darth Garfunkel

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 26, 2010
Messages
563
Reaction score
228
Location
denver
Or maybe we see a situation like boxing where the game more or less stays the same but paticipation drops among those not willing to get punch drunk.
 

Croak

Vincit qui patitur
Moderator
Joined
Aug 15, 2010
Messages
6,478
Reaction score
1,154
Location
New Cumberland, PA
Concussions happen everywhere. The NFL can do some things to help prevent them, but I doubt it will ever be able to eliminate them. Even sports with less contact have regular concussions. My son got a concussion playing soccer. When we were at the specialist with him the Doc said he sees Soccer players with concussions a lot. There is inherent risk in any sport. All the NFL can do is take common sense measures to minimize concussions. But they are still going to happen. When you choose to play a sport, you choose take a risk.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
Concussions happen everywhere. The NFL can do some things to help prevent them, but I doubt it will ever be able to eliminate them. Even sports with less contact have regular concussions. My son got a concussion playing soccer. When we were at the specialist with him the Doc said he sees Soccer players with concussions a lot. There is inherent risk in any sport. All the NFL can do is take common sense measures to minimize concussions. But they are still going to happen. When you choose to play a sport, you choose take a risk.

It's no surprise one would incur a concussion playing soccer. Head-to-head contact on header balls would seem to be a particular area of vulnerability. But you may have missed the point about the football studies.

Studies suggest a typical concussion of mild to average severity does not result in a permanent pathology. Rest and contact-avoidance for a couple of weeks is what the doctor orders and will set things right. NFL protocols follow this time-honored process...concussed players typically sit out one game after the event...a 14 day hiatus, give or take.

The problem with football, the problem the NFL is struggling with and playing dearly for, comes from the research indicating the affects of concussions are cumulative if regularly repeated. Further, the research suggests constant sub-concussive contact may have deleterious long term affects.

The main question I would have about soccer is the sub-concussive events. I'd question whether repeatedly bouncing a soccer ball traveling 50 mph off your head is an innocuous practice. I've not looked at soccer studies, and I couldn't say whether there have been any performed. Perhaps the life expectancy of elite soccer players is also well below average as with ex-NFL players? I think I'd want to know that as a starting point if I had a personal involvement.
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top