2011 NFL Offseason Thread

[sahyder1]

As for the records, I don't really care about that, though someone said no one cared when baseball did it, which is a lie. It's why they had separate 154 and 162 season records for over two decades.

That had more to do with Babe Ruth being larger then life in my opinion. The single season HR record was arguably the biggest accomplishment in American sports for a very long time. I always wonder if Mickey Mantle had been the one to get the record and not Maris if the entire MLB universe would have recognized the record sooner.

[naiwf]

Basically sahyder's argument is he wants to watch two preseason games disguised as regular season games, and it's worth more players getting hurt because it'll generate more money for the league. Of course, the players won't get much out of this money when their already short careers end sooner due to having to play extra games. If the average career truly is in the 3.5-4 year range (which is 56 to 64 games), you'll now be cutting that down to 3-3.5 seasons. In short, the average guy won't make it beyond his rookie contract which will now be capped at a much lower rate than it was for this last rookie crop. So, the average guy in the NFL will make a fraction of what he used to and the owners will pocket most of the cash because ESPN will pay 100 BILLION dollars [Dr. Evil pinkie] to the league to show their expanded season.

[livid]

I'm not saying I agree with sahyder but saying that the 2 extra games will be glorified preseason games because of injuries is awfully over dramatic. I'm sure there will be an increase in the amount of injuries overall but I don't see how it's going to be so dramatic that the quality of the games will be dramatically affected.

[sahyder1]

Basically sahyder's argument is he wants to watch two preseason games disguised as regular season games, and it's worth more players getting hurt because it'll generate more money for the league. Of course, the players won't get much out of this money when their already short careers end sooner due to having to play extra games. If the average career truly is in the 3.5-4 year range (which is 56 to 64 games), you'll now be cutting that down to 3-3.5 seasons. In short, the average guy won't make it beyond his rookie contract which will now be capped at a much lower rate than it was for this last rookie crop. So, the average guy in the NFL will make a fraction of what he used to and the owners will pocket most of the cash because ESPN will pay 100 BILLION dollars [Dr. Evil pinkie] to the league to show their expanded season.

Go ahead. You can keep trying to put words into my mouth. That seems to be your go to thing this week. First with the Sanchez crap and now this. You're saying extra games will be bad because teams will rest guys in weeks 18 and 19.....please tell me how that is any different from teams resting guys in weeks 16 and 17 instead? Being a regular season game teams will try to win a lot more then do for the preseason games.

I side with the NFLPA on contract stuff but I'm really not going to go feeling bad for guys the players. They knew the injury risks when they became football players. I don't care if the owners get the extra money or the players. It won't effect me one way or the other.

[naiwf]

Basically sahyder's argument is he wants to watch two preseason games disguised as regular season games, and it's worth more players getting hurt because it'll generate more money for the league. Of course, the players won't get much out of this money when their already short careers end sooner due to having to play extra games. If the average career truly is in the 3.5-4 year range (which is 56 to 64 games), you'll now be cutting that down to 3-3.5 seasons. In short, the average guy won't make it beyond his rookie contract which will now be capped at a much lower rate than it was for this last rookie crop. So, the average guy in the NFL will make a fraction of what he used to and the owners will pocket most of the cash because ESPN will pay 100 BILLION dollars [Dr. Evil pinkie] to the league to show their expanded season.

Go ahead. You can keep trying to put words into my mouth. That seems to be your go to thing this week. First with the Sanchez crap and now this. You're saying extra games will be bad because teams will rest guys in weeks 18 and 19.....please tell me how that is any different from teams resting guys in weeks 16 and 17 instead? Being a regular season game teams will try to win a lot more then do for the preseason games.

I side with the NFLPA on contract stuff but I'm really not going to go feeling bad for guys the players. They knew the injury risks when they became football players. I don't care if the owners get the extra money or the players. It won't effect me one way or the other.

I don't get what part of "more regular season games = more injuries and more injuries = scrubs playing" you don't understand. Look at the second half of the Super Bowl where the Packers basically had to play with a makeshift secondary. Is that a "better" product than watching a team that doesn't have to pull guys off of the practice squad to fill out a roster because they have 15 guys on IR? Was watching Peyton Manning throwing passes to a bunch of guys off the street exciting? Would you rather see him play with his full receiving group or is watching him try to make the playoffs while throwing passes to Jacob Tamme, Blair White and Joe Schmo somehow preferable?

Look at how decimated some of the teams in the playoff mix were by week 17. . . and now add TWO games they need to play balls to the wall and tell me what's going to be left come playoff time. A team like the Lions is still going to shut down a Matthew Stafford if he's hurt late in the season. Do we really need two more games where Shaun Hill starts versus Joe Webb around the league? That's preseason level shit right there and I don't want to have to watch it to see who makes the playoffs. There's a reason I don't watch it before the season, and there's a reason most people don't want to watch it at the end of the season.

[HailtotheYo]

It is football. Guys get hurt. Players know they can get hurt but that is the the risk they choose to take. Same goes for MMA, boxing, hockey and even pro wrestling. If we really cared about these guys not being able to walk when they are in their 50s we wouldn't really watch football. One of the reasons we watch football are the big hits. No one is going to stop watching football if it went to 18 games.

No shit. Accidents happen, but now we shouldn't drive and not raise a stink when automakers aren't making cars up to standard ?

Pro football is behind every one of those industries except for boxing in terms of current care of performers. After care ? They all suck relative to what the participants endure during their career. Actively though ? Yeah, only boxing is worse than football.

The rest of that paragraph is barely worth a

Go listen to the older NFL players talk about concussions. Concussions weren't diagnosed properly until very recently. That's not just a football thing either. Baseball, hockey and pro wrestling have had the same problems.

Go look at the research that I provided for you ... it paints a completely different picture. But yes, let's ignore the facts because your opinion doesn't line up with them.

I made mention of the fact that it took a while for the league to properly classify things. However, the publically available injury reports are in plain black and white.

What the hell does me not having played football have to do with anything?

We all form our opinions/outlook based on experience. The way you've spoken on this topic made it very clear that you have no actual experience on the field. That has everything to do with how you view the situation. It explains why you seem to think that the pads are good enough when they aren't. It explains why you're so blase on a very serious issue that you want to compound simply because you "want to see more football." Case in point:

If we cared about the long term health of these guys we wouldn't jump out of our seats every time a WR got laid out in open field. We wouldn't cheer every a player rushing from the blindside came from behind and drove a QB into the ground. Injuries are a part of the sport, always have been and always will be. The best they can do is go with the best available padding and helmets.

No, the best they can do is actually sit down and properly address the issue. The best they can do is properly compensate players and not run the league like a meat market. The best they can do is actually get the players guaranteed money and set up the proper post-career care. The best they can do is not try to rape the players further by not taking even more money from them. The best they can do is not compound the issues they aren't taking care of now, by adding games to the schedule.

Now, since you've not answered any of the earlier questions I'm just going to say that you don't have an answer for them that is logical or makes any sense at all.

I'll ask you this though.

What do the owners risk by adding two games to the schedule ? Where is there any negative, at all for the owners ? What do they put on the line ? It's easy to push for it when you've got absolutely nothing to lose and everything to gain. Oh, that bit also goes back to the point I made about you not having played the game, ever. Having been physically invested in the game for half of my life I'm not "playing with other people's money" which is exactly what your attitude/opinion on this matter reflects.

I'm not saying I agree with sahyder but saying that the 2 extra games will be glorified preseason games because of injuries is awfully over dramatic. I'm sure there will be an increase in the amount of injuries overall but I don't see how it's going to be so dramatic that the quality of the games will be dramatically affected.

It's what the injuries are as the season goes on. The Brain related injuries go up from around week 10 and on. They actually spike pretty dramatically in the playoffs. Add 2 more games into that and then playoffs ? Not good. I do think NAIWF went to the other extreme to illustrate a point, but his overall point has some merit. The "overall" injuries go down over the course of the season due to a wide variety of things. However, the severity of the injuries go up. You also get into the issue that already happens with 16 games. Things like the Colts/Cardinals essentially taking games off in the last couple of years. People of course will counter with the added excitement due to there possibly being more teams alive longer now because of more games with a chance to catch up. Well, that isn't going to help the injury issue if we have two more weeks of "up tempo" bouts of teams trying to fight for the playoffs.

[GhostMachine]

There's talk again about moving a team to Los Angeles, and a few organizations have been talked to including the Vikings. Instead of talking to a team with a huge following in their area (including nearby states without a team), the team they should be trying to lure to L.A. is the Jaguars.

[Evil Chase K]

I'd prefer Carson Palmer over McNabb.

WHY?

I have said for years that the NFLPA is really weak and the NFL always wins out but that is more an argument in favor of more games then less. The NFLPA will give in. Equipment does matter. As the padding is getting better and lighter the players will still be able to perform at a top level while having the needed protection. The whole "zero reward" for the players make no sense. NFL revenue is growing every year. Even if players stay at the same % of revenue they are getting more money each year. That doesn't change that the NFL owners have taken advantage of the players but it is far from "zero reward" for the players.

Money isn't everything.

The owners will not give in on healthcare and insurance issues. Right now, an NFL player has to play 3 seasons of football in order to receive 5 years of insurance after their career ends. The NFL has yet to be willing to compromise and drop that number so players would have to play an additional six games just to get health insurance for 5 years.

The owners and by extension Roger Goodell have proven that they do not give a fuck about player safety. The whole hard hits crackdown was a PR move. If the NFL truly cared they would take 18-games off the table or at least concede something toward giving the players better healthcare after they retire from the NFL.

I am hoping that the 18-games idea is just a bargaining chip by the owners to be pulled as a concession for the players giving in to something the owners really want.

I couldn't disagree more with your "concussion/head injuries" comment. These injuries aren't increasing, they are just being diagnosed properly. Ten years ago these guys were being allowed to play thinking they just had a headache.

If you don't think bigger bodies running faster and with more velocity than ever before doesn't cause more concussions then you're naive.

I'm not saying I know for sure that more concussions are happening, but it just makes sense to me that as the players in the league get bigger, stronger, and faster hits are going to be harder and harder and will likely lead to more concussion.

There really is no right or wrong answer here. I want more football and you want less. Neither of us will change our minds on it.

If you're a fan of the game you'd want 16 games.

Why would you want 18 games of watered down football? With 18 games you'll either see more injuries to top players and (with the expanded rosters the owners would have to agree to in order to keep more players on the team for depth reasons) games being played with guys you've never heard of who in years past would've been XFL or UFL players, or you'll see an NFL so concerned with injuries that physical football is all but legislated out of the game in favor of Arena Football League-esque track meets where teams win games 60-54.

18 games is going to be horrible for the players and the fans. But hey the owners and the league make more money so we should all be cool with that right?

[MyKILLv2.0]

I'd prefer Carson Palmer over McNabb.

WHY?

Maybe because Palmer is younger, is coming off a better season, and ya know.... hasn't gotten to the point of his career where he gets benched for Rex Grossman?!?! Don't get me wrong, Palmer not a real option, nor is McNabb a bad choice. Especially considering the Niners are looking at another season with Alex Smith or a rookie QB. However as I said, Carson Palmer is not an option. The Bengals are going to call his bluff and make him retire before they trade him. They didn't cave for Chad Johnson, why would they cave in with Palmer?

[Evil Chase K]

Maybe because Palmer is younger, is coming off a better season, and ya know.... hasn't gotten to the point of his career where he gets benched for Rex Grossman?!?! Don't get me wrong, Palmer not a real option, nor is McNabb a bad choice. Especially considering the Niners are looking at another season with Alex Smith or a rookie QB. However as I said, Carson Palmer is not an option. The Bengals are going to call his bluff and make him retire before they trade him. They didn't cave for Chad Johnson, why would they cave in with Palmer?

I don't think Mike Shanahan benching McNabb for Grossman is an indictment on McNabb's abilities.

While neither QB has been "clutch" in their career, I'd take my chances with McNabb before I'd consider putting my season in the hands of Carson Palmer.

[Meacon Keaton]

I'd rather have Tebow than either.

[Powerhart]

Looks like the Titans are in complete-rebuild mode. Lots of staff moves lately:

- Feb. 07: Mike Munchak's named Head Coach.

- Feb. 08: Mike Heimerdinger is fired from his Off. Coordinator job.

- Feb. 09: Bruce Matthews is named Off. Assistant

- Feb. 12: Jerry Gray is signed as Def. Coordinator.

Bunch of moves but still no news on the QB situation, I don't mind Kerry Collins but he's a vet and he isn't the future of this franchise or who I see as someone who can take us all the way.

[sahyder1]

Edit: Spoilered due to length

If the average career truly is in the 3.5-4 year range (which is 56 to 64 games), you'll now be cutting that down to 3-3.5 seasons. In short, the average guy won't make it beyond his rookie contract which will now be capped at a much lower rate than it was for this last rookie crop. So, the average guy in the NFL will make a fraction of what he used to and the owners will pocket most of the cash because ESPN will pay 100 BILLION dollars [Dr. Evil pinkie] to the league to show their expanded season.

If you're expecting me to feel sorry for a player who for a 3 year career even under a new system will probably make close to $1 million you're going to have to try harder. It takes the average American 20 years to make that. These guys knew what they were getting into. There are plenty of career paths available that don't involved getting hit by freight trains for a living but of course most of them don't pay you close to $400K for only working part of the year. This page has quotes from a few players talking about the players knowing the risks they take. The NFLPA does a horrible job of taking care of its former players. Heck they only formed their whole "NFL Player Care" initiative in 2007. There are still clowns in the NFLPA who oppose the extra padding but yes, lets go blame the NFL. Go read this ESPN article on guys who've worn padded helmets in the past and how players turn down that helmet because it doesn't look good. Go read this article on Mark Kelso and how he was mocked by fellow players for wearing a padded helmet post concussion. Hunter Hillenmeyer is quoted here saying players would get mocked by other players for sitting out because of a concussion. The NFL owners are no saints but the players are far from victims.

I like your sudden concern for the well being of NFL players.

wow that hit that layed out DeSean Jackson was nasty.

Agreed. It's hard to feel sorry for him though since he's one of the most obnoxious players in the league.

There's a reason I don't watch it before the season, and there's a reason most people don't want to watch it at the end of the season.

Is there any data to suggest that NFL TV ratings/attendance drops significantly for weeks 16 and 17? I haven't seen anything that suggests that. The NFL is popular in part because the games are on once a week and has a big time gambling culture (fantasy football included) around it. That won't change with a potential 18 game schedule. It is the same thing for the NCAA tournament. People will still watch if the tournament expands to 96 teams or heck, even 128.

Look at how decimated some of the teams in the playoff mix were by week 17. . . and now add TWO games they need to play balls to the wall and tell me what's going to be left come playoff time. A team like the Lions is still going to shut down a Matthew Stafford if he's hurt late in the season. Do we really need two more games where Shaun Hill starts versus Joe Webb around the league? That's preseason level shit right there and I don't want to have to watch it to see who makes the playoffs.

That is a chart from the link HTTK posted earlier. For whatever reason injuries actually go down later in the season. Whether it is players just being in better game shape or something else no one knows. Teams rest guys in weeks 16 and 17 right now.....how is that any different from teams resting guys in weeks 18 and 19 (or 19 and 20 if an extra bye weeks is added). Like previously mentioned, the players know what they are getting into.

Um, and please don't play dumb. If you honestly think that NFL team doctors/physicians didn't know what a concussion was ten years ago, then you're bordering on MPH levels of dee te dee. They may not have had to report it to the league, but doctors/physicians have to, by law, file proper reports on what they diagnose and keep records of their practice. Where do you think the "publically available" inury reports came from for all the research the NFLPA has been doing ?

Go look at the research that I provided for you ... it paints a completely different picture. But yes, let's ignore the facts because your opinion doesn't line up with them.

I made mention of the fact that it took a while for the league to properly classify things. However, the publically available injury reports are in plain black and white.

Yeah, taking one year versus eight where some parts of the injury data supports your point view is supposed to be taken as painting something?

The only part of that research that stands out is the increase in brain injuries later in the season. Would have liked to see the research expand more on those injuries. Were they as a result of more reps or is the play on the field more physical down the stretch as we are in divisional play with playoff spots on the line? The rest of it doesn't prove anything. It says in 2010 there were 3.7 injuries per team per week vs 3.2 over the previous years. Ok, but that means in multiple seasons out of the previous 8 years it was under 3.2 and probably even under 3. On average in 2010 players missed 4.7 weeks as opposed to 4.3 in the previous 8 years? Ok, what about the years in those previous 8 where guys missed under 3 weeks? 30% of players missed playing time versus 29% over the previous 8 years? Ok, but what about the years that number was closer to 20%? Taking one year out of a 9 year stretch to try and prove a point is pretty stupid. That article makes a big deal out of the number of guys who went on IR in 2010 but makes no mention of the graph in the study they linked to that shows that # of guys on IR declined the previous two seasons.

From that same article.

Mild Traumatic Brain Injury, or MTBI, is the medical term for a concussion. And while the NFL's MTBI Committee had previously found a rate of 0.21 such incidents per game — per team, from 1996 to 2001 — the new NFLPA report shows that number jumping to 0.25 between 2004 and 2009, perhaps due to better diagnosis.

Read more: http://www.esquire.com/the-side/feature/nfl-lockout-2011#ixzz1Dnepfg2e

That is hardly a big climb. Given the number of guys who played through concussions in the 90s it might even be a decline from the actual number from 1996-2001. Now I'm not saying that no concussions were diagnosed back in the day but trying to act though the league and the players both knew the seriousness of the issue is pretty silly. This article on Trent Dilfer mentions that he stayed in the game after a concussion in 1995 and returned to practice just 3 days after another in 2001. Go read this article that mentions former Bears WR Tom Wadell being hospitalized after a playoff game with concussion symptoms but was most likely not diagnosed properly. And that is the 1990s. Ted Johnson played for the Patriots in early 2000s and said his condition worsened when Belichick made him return to practice too early. Mike Ditka has done a lot of work on things like this too. If it wasn't 4 AM already I'd Google more guys from the 90s who's concussions weren't diagnosed properly at the time.

We all form our opinions/outlook based on experience. The way you've spoken on this topic made it very clear that you have no actual experience on the field. That has everything to do with how you view the situation. It explains why you seem to think that the pads are good enough when they aren't. It explains why you're so blase on a very serious issue that you want to compound simply because you "want to see more football." Case in point:

I'm sorry, I must have missed it your pro career or even a high level college career. A large part of why we watch football is the physical nature of the sport. We know what it is does to these guys longterm but we choose to watch and cheer. These guys know what it does to their bodies long term but THEY CHOOSE to play and are compensated fairly well for it. Nowhere did I say that the pads are good enough. They can only go with what is available out there. I agree completely with this Baltimore Sun article that the NFLPA doesn't do nearly enough for former players .

No, the best they can do is actually sit down and properly address the issue. The best they can do is properly compensate players and not run the league like a meat market. The best they can do is actually get the players guaranteed money and set up the proper post-career care. The best they can do is not try to rape the players further by not taking even more money from them. The best they can do is not compound the issues they aren't taking care of now, by adding games to the schedule.

They are making an effort to address the issue though. I agree that they took far too long to do it but the players were in no hurry to do it either. Enforcing the helmet to helmet hits was a great decision despite how much some players and fans whined about it. Them asking the players to wear more padding is another step in the right direction no matter how much the players oppose it. Read this Washington Post article that talks about the equipment being worked on to better monitor concussions. The guaranteed contracts is a CBA issue. like I mentioned earlier the players don't have enough unity to stand together and get that. The players will give in just like they always do. The NFLPA does these guys no favors. They have no idea how to handle their money. The players are too busy blowing away their money and being bankrupt for them to actually sit down and think what is best for them longterm. The owners know this. They will get a deal done without having to give up guaranteed contracts

I'll ask you this though.

What do the owners risk by adding two games to the schedule ? Where is there any negative, at all for the owners ? What do they put on the line ? It's easy to push for it when you've got absolutely nothing to lose and everything to gain. Oh, that bit also goes back to the point I made about you not having played the game, ever. Having been physically invested in the game for half of my life I'm not "playing with other people's money" which is exactly what your attitude/opinion on this matter reflects.

Who said anything about the owners risking anything? This is how it works in collective bargaining in all lines of work. The NFLPA will roll over for them. Lose the "I played High School" bullshit. No one forced you into playing football.

You brought up some fair points and certainly didn't go to the ridiculous extremes that naiwf and ECK have but I think you are pinning too much of this on the owners.

There's talk again about moving a team to Los Angeles, and a few organizations have been talked to including the Vikings. Instead of talking to a team with a huge following in their area (including nearby states without a team), the team they should be trying to lure to L.A. is the Jaguars.

In his State of the League address during Super Bowl weekend it didn't sound like LA was a viable option anytime soon. Perhaps DMN or someone else from that region can chime in on this. Where can a new stadium be built in the LA area? While watching NCIS:LA last week I was shocked to see that The Forum is still standing. Is tearing that down and building something there an option or is there other stuff in the surrounding area that would have to be torn down?

the owners will not give in on healthcare and insurance issues. Right now, an NFL player has to play 3 seasons of football in order to receive 5 years of insurance after their career ends. The NFL has yet to be willing to compromise and drop that number so players would have to play an additional six games just to get health insurance for 5 years.

The owners and by extension Roger Goodell have proven that they do not give a fuck about player safety. The whole hard hits crackdown was a PR move. If the NFL truly cared they would take 18-games off the table or at least concede something toward giving the players better healthcare after they retire from the NFL.

No health care for players? Welcome to the plight of American workers in pretty much every industry. With the number of retired NFL players out there there is no way the NFL would ever be able to get health insurance for all of its alumni. The NFL and the NFLPA should be doing more to educate current players on managing their finances though so they don't end up in situations like so many of their predecessors. You can call the hard hits crackdown a pr stunt (why does it not surprise me that you being the Steelers homer that you are would take that stance) but the NFL had to do something. That was the weekend LeGrand from Rutgers got hurt and if I'm not mistaken that was the week James Harrison laid out Massaquoi.

If you don't think bigger bodies running faster and with more velocity than ever before doesn't cause more concussions then you're naive.

I'm not saying I know for sure that more concussions are happening, but it just makes sense to me that as the players in the league get bigger, stronger, and faster hits are going to be harder and harder and will likely lead to more concussion.

Look at those #s that HTTK linked to above. Concussion numbers haven't risen much since the mid 90s and that is without even factoring in how many concussions that might have been misdiagnosed.

If you're a fan of the game you'd want 16 games.

You've said a lot of stupid NFL related stuff but this one is right up there. Me wanting a 18 game season somehow means I am not a football fan?

One thing I would like to see the NFL do is revamp the IR system. Go to a system similar to that of MLB. IR shouldn't just take a guy off the roster for the remainder of the season. Maybe give teams options that let them IR a guy for 4 or 8 weeks too. If a guy gets hurt early in the year but there is a chance he could be back later in the season there is no need to penalize the teems. Let them put the guy on IR for 8 weeks and get a replacement player for the time being.

Edited February 13, 2011 by sahyder1

[GhostMachine]

Looks like the Titans are in complete-rebuild mode. Lots of staff moves lately:

- Feb. 07: Mike Munchak's named Head Coach.

- Feb. 08: Mike Heimerdinger is fired from his Off. Coordinator job.

- Feb. 09: Bruce Matthews is named Off. Assistant

- Feb. 12: Jerry Gray is signed as Def. Coordinator.

Bunch of moves but still no news on the QB situation, I don't mind Kerry Collins but he's a vet and he isn't the future of this franchise or who I see as someone who can take us all the way.

Someone at another board speculated that they may try to go after Kevin Kolb. If they don't go after him or do but can't cut a deal (I'm betting its more likely he ends up with 49ers or Vikings) and decide to draft a QB instead, I just hope they don't pick Jake Locker.

[rocksta]

If the average career truly is in the 3.5-4 year range (which is 56 to 64 games), you'll now be cutting that down to 3-3.5 seasons. In short, the average guy won't make it beyond his rookie contract which will now be capped at a much lower rate than it was for this last rookie crop. So, the average guy in the NFL will make a fraction of what he used to and the owners will pocket most of the cash because ESPN will pay 100 BILLION dollars [Dr. Evil pinkie] to the league to show their expanded season.

If you're expecting me to feel sorry for a player who for a 3 year career even under a new system will probably make close to $1 million you're going to have to try harder. It takes the average American 20 years to make that. These guys knew what they were getting into. There are plenty of career paths available that don't involved getting hit by freight trains for a living but of course most of them don't pay you close to $400K for only working part of the year. This page has quotes from a few players talking about the players knowing the risks they take. The NFLPA does a horrible job of taking care of its former players. Heck they only formed their whole "NFL Player Care" initiative in 2007. There are still clowns in the NFLPA who oppose the extra padding but yes, lets go blame the NFL. Go read this ESPN article on guys who've worn padded helmets in the past and how players turn down that helmet because it doesn't look good. Go read this article on Mark Kelso and how he was mocked by fellow players for wearing a padded helmet post concussion. Hunter Hillenmeyer is quoted here saying players would get mocked by other players for sitting out because of a concussion. The NFL owners are no saints but the players are far from victims.

I like your sudden concern for the well being of NFL players.

wow that hit that layed out DeSean Jackson was nasty.

Agreed. It's hard to feel sorry for him though since he's one of the most obnoxious players in the league.

There's a reason I don't watch it before the season, and there's a reason most people don't want to watch it at the end of the season.

Is there any data to suggest that NFL TV ratings/attendance drops significantly for weeks 16 and 17? I haven't seen anything that suggests that. The NFL is popular in part because the games are on once a week and has a big time gambling culture (fantasy football included) around it. That won't change with a potential 18 game schedule. It is the same thing for the NCAA tournament. People will still watch if the tournament expands to 96 teams or heck, even 128.

Look at how decimated some of the teams in the playoff mix were by week 17. . . and now add TWO games they need to play balls to the wall and tell me what's going to be left come playoff time. A team like the Lions is still going to shut down a Matthew Stafford if he's hurt late in the season. Do we really need two more games where Shaun Hill starts versus Joe Webb around the league? That's preseason level shit right there and I don't want to have to watch it to see who makes the playoffs.

That is a chart from the link HTTK posted earlier. For whatever reason injuries actually go down later in the season. Whether it is players just being in better game shape or something else no one knows. Teams rest guys in weeks 16 and 17 right now.....how is that any different from teams resting guys in weeks 18 and 19 (or 19 and 20 if an extra bye weeks is added). Like previously mentioned, the players know what they are getting into.

Um, and please don't play dumb. If you honestly think that NFL team doctors/physicians didn't know what a concussion was ten years ago, then you're bordering on MPH levels of dee te dee. They may not have had to report it to the league, but doctors/physicians have to, by law, file proper reports on what they diagnose and keep records of their practice. Where do you think the "publically available" inury reports came from for all the research the NFLPA has been doing ?

Go look at the research that I provided for you ... it paints a completely different picture. But yes, let's ignore the facts because your opinion doesn't line up with them.

I made mention of the fact that it took a while for the league to properly classify things. However, the publically available injury reports are in plain black and white.

Yeah, taking one year versus eight where some parts of the injury data supports your point view is supposed to be taken as painting something?

The only part of that research that stands out is the increase in brain injuries later in the season. Would have liked to see the research expand more on those injuries. Were they as a result of more reps or is the play on the field more physical down the stretch as we are in divisional play with playoff spots on the line? The rest of it doesn't prove anything. It says in 2010 there were 3.7 injuries per team per week vs 3.2 over the previous years. Ok, but that means in multiple seasons out of the previous 8 years it was under 3.2 and probably even under 3. On average in 2010 players missed 4.7 weeks as opposed to 4.3 in the previous 8 years? Ok, what about the years in those previous 8 where guys missed under 3 weeks? 30% of players missed playing time versus 29% over the previous 8 years? Ok, but what about the years that number was closer to 20%? Taking one year out of a 9 year stretch to try and prove a point is pretty stupid. That article makes a big deal out of the number of guys who went on IR in 2010 but makes no mention of the graph in the study they linked to that shows that # of guys on IR declined the previous two seasons.

From that same article.

Mild Traumatic Brain Injury, or MTBI, is the medical term for a concussion. And while the NFL's MTBI Committee had previously found a rate of 0.21 such incidents per game — per team, from 1996 to 2001 — the new NFLPA report shows that number jumping to 0.25 between 2004 and 2009, perhaps due to better diagnosis.

Read more: http://www.esquire.com/the-side/feature/nfl-lockout-2011#ixzz1Dnepfg2e

That is hardly a big climb. Given the number of guys who played through concussions in the 90s it might even be a decline from the actual number from 1996-2001. Now I'm not saying that no concussions were diagnosed back in the day but trying to act though the league and the players both knew the seriousness of the issue is pretty silly. This article on Trent Dilfer mentions that he stayed in the game after a concussion in 1995 and returned to practice just 3 days after another in 2001. Go read this article that mentions former Bears WR Tom Wadell being hospitalized after a playoff game with concussion symptoms but was most likely not diagnosed properly. And that is the 1990s. Ted Johnson played for the Patriots in early 2000s and said his condition worsened when Belichick made him return to practice too early. Mike Ditka has done a lot of work on things like this too. If it wasn't 4 AM already I'd Google more guys from the 90s who's concussions weren't diagnosed properly at the time.

We all form our opinions/outlook based on experience. The way you've spoken on this topic made it very clear that you have no actual experience on the field. That has everything to do with how you view the situation. It explains why you seem to think that the pads are good enough when they aren't. It explains why you're so blase on a very serious issue that you want to compound simply because you "want to see more football." Case in point:

I'm sorry, I must have missed it your pro career or even a high level college career. A large part of why we watch football is the physical nature of the sport. We know what it is does to these guys longterm but we choose to watch and cheer. These guys know what it does to their bodies long term but THEY CHOOSE to play and are compensated fairly well for it. Nowhere did I say that the pads are good enough. They can only go with what is available out there. I agree completely with this Baltimore Sun article that the NFLPA doesn't do nearly enough for former players .

No, the best they can do is actually sit down and properly address the issue. The best they can do is properly compensate players and not run the league like a meat market. The best they can do is actually get the players guaranteed money and set up the proper post-career care. The best they can do is not try to rape the players further by not taking even more money from them. The best they can do is not compound the issues they aren't taking care of now, by adding games to the schedule.

They are making an effort to address the issue though. I agree that they took far too long to do it but the players were in no hurry to do it either. Enforcing the helmet to helmet hits was a great decision despite how much some players and fans whined about it. Them asking the players to wear more padding is another step in the right direction no matter how much the players oppose it. Read this Washington Post article that talks about the equipment being worked on to better monitor concussions. The guaranteed contracts is a CBA issue. like I mentioned earlier the players don't have enough unity to stand together and get that. The players will give in just like they always do. The NFLPA does these guys no favors. They have no idea how to handle their money. The players are too busy blowing away their money and being bankrupt for them to actually sit down and think what is best for them longterm. The owners know this. They will get a deal done without having to give up guaranteed contracts

I'll ask you this though.

What do the owners risk by adding two games to the schedule ? Where is there any negative, at all for the owners ? What do they put on the line ? It's easy to push for it when you've got absolutely nothing to lose and everything to gain. Oh, that bit also goes back to the point I made about you not having played the game, ever. Having been physically invested in the game for half of my life I'm not "playing with other people's money" which is exactly what your attitude/opinion on this matter reflects.

Who said anything about the owners risking anything? This is how it works in collective bargaining in all lines of work. The NFLPA will roll over for them. Lose the "I played High School" bullshit. No one forced you into playing football.

You brought up some fair points and certainly didn't go to the ridiculous extremes that naiwf and ECK have but I think you are pinning too much of this on the owners.

There's talk again about moving a team to Los Angeles, and a few organizations have been talked to including the Vikings. Instead of talking to a team with a huge following in their area (including nearby states without a team), the team they should be trying to lure to L.A. is the Jaguars.

In his State of the League address during Super Bowl weekend it didn't sound like LA was a viable option anytime soon. Perhaps DMN or someone else from that region can chime in on this. Where can a new stadium be built in the LA area? While watching NCIS:LA last week I was shocked to see that The Forum is still standing. Is tearing that down and building something there an option or is there other stuff in the surrounding area that would have to be torn down?

the owners will not give in on healthcare and insurance issues. Right now, an NFL player has to play 3 seasons of football in order to receive 5 years of insurance after their career ends. The NFL has yet to be willing to compromise and drop that number so players would have to play an additional six games just to get health insurance for 5 years.

The owners and by extension Roger Goodell have proven that they do not give a fuck about player safety. The whole hard hits crackdown was a PR move. If the NFL truly cared they would take 18-games off the table or at least concede something toward giving the players better healthcare after they retire from the NFL.

No health care for players? Welcome to the plight of American workers in pretty much every industry. With the number of retired NFL players out there there is no way the NFL would ever be able to get health insurance for all of its alumni. The NFL and the NFLPA should be doing more to educate current players on managing their finances though so they don't end up in situations like so many of their predecessors. You can call the hard hits crackdown a pr stunt (why does it not surprise me that you being the Steelers homer that you are would take that stance) but the NFL had to do something. That was the weekend LeGrand from Rutgers got hurt and if I'm not mistaken that was the week James Harrison laid out Massaquoi.

If you don't think bigger bodies running faster and with more velocity than ever before doesn't cause more concussions then you're naive.

I'm not saying I know for sure that more concussions are happening, but it just makes sense to me that as the players in the league get bigger, stronger, and faster hits are going to be harder and harder and will likely lead to more concussion.

Look at those #s that HTTK linked to above. Concussion numbers haven't risen much since the mid 90s and that is without even factoring in how many concussions that might have been misdiagnosed.

If you're a fan of the game you'd want 16 games.

You've said a lot of stupid NFL related stuff but this one is right up there. Me wanting a 18 game season somehow means I am not a football fan?

One thing I would like to see the NFL do is revamp the IR system. Go to a system similar to that of MLB. IR shouldn't just take a guy off the roster for the remainder of the season. Maybe give teams options that let them IR a guy for 4 or 8 weeks too. If a guy gets hurt early in the year but there is a chance he could be back later in the season there is no need to penalize the teems. Let them put the guy on IR for 8 weeks and get a replacement player for the time being.

Nope.

[SeanDMan]

If the average career truly is in the 3.5-4 year range (which is 56 to 64 games), you'll now be cutting that down to 3-3.5 seasons. In short, the average guy won't make it beyond his rookie contract which will now be capped at a much lower rate than it was for this last rookie crop. So, the average guy in the NFL will make a fraction of what he used to and the owners will pocket most of the cash because ESPN will pay 100 BILLION dollars [Dr. Evil pinkie] to the league to show their expanded season.

If you're expecting me to feel sorry for a player who for a 3 year career even under a new system will probably make close to $1 million you're going to have to try harder. It takes the average American 20 years to make that. These guys knew what they were getting into. There are plenty of career paths available that don't involved getting hit by freight trains for a living but of course most of them don't pay you close to $400K for only working part of the year. This page has quotes from a few players talking about the players knowing the risks they take. The NFLPA does a horrible job of taking care of its former players. Heck they only formed their whole "NFL Player Care" initiative in 2007. There are still clowns in the NFLPA who oppose the extra padding but yes, lets go blame the NFL. Go read this ESPN article on guys who've worn padded helmets in the past and how players turn down that helmet because it doesn't look good. Go read this article on Mark Kelso and how he was mocked by fellow players for wearing a padded helmet post concussion. Hunter Hillenmeyer is quoted here saying players would get mocked by other players for sitting out because of a concussion. The NFL owners are no saints but the players are far from victims.

I like your sudden concern for the well being of NFL players.

wow that hit that layed out DeSean Jackson was nasty.

Agreed. It's hard to feel sorry for him though since he's one of the most obnoxious players in the league.

There's a reason I don't watch it before the season, and there's a reason most people don't want to watch it at the end of the season.

Is there any data to suggest that NFL TV ratings/attendance drops significantly for weeks 16 and 17? I haven't seen anything that suggests that. The NFL is popular in part because the games are on once a week and has a big time gambling culture (fantasy football included) around it. That won't change with a potential 18 game schedule. It is the same thing for the NCAA tournament. People will still watch if the tournament expands to 96 teams or heck, even 128.

Look at how decimated some of the teams in the playoff mix were by week 17. . . and now add TWO games they need to play balls to the wall and tell me what's going to be left come playoff time. A team like the Lions is still going to shut down a Matthew Stafford if he's hurt late in the season. Do we really need two more games where Shaun Hill starts versus Joe Webb around the league? That's preseason level shit right there and I don't want to have to watch it to see who makes the playoffs.

That is a chart from the link HTTK posted earlier. For whatever reason injuries actually go down later in the season. Whether it is players just being in better game shape or something else no one knows. Teams rest guys in weeks 16 and 17 right now.....how is that any different from teams resting guys in weeks 18 and 19 (or 19 and 20 if an extra bye weeks is added). Like previously mentioned, the players know what they are getting into.

Um, and please don't play dumb. If you honestly think that NFL team doctors/physicians didn't know what a concussion was ten years ago, then you're bordering on MPH levels of dee te dee. They may not have had to report it to the league, but doctors/physicians have to, by law, file proper reports on what they diagnose and keep records of their practice. Where do you think the "publically available" inury reports came from for all the research the NFLPA has been doing ?

Go look at the research that I provided for you ... it paints a completely different picture. But yes, let's ignore the facts because your opinion doesn't line up with them.

I made mention of the fact that it took a while for the league to properly classify things. However, the publically available injury reports are in plain black and white.

Yeah, taking one year versus eight where some parts of the injury data supports your point view is supposed to be taken as painting something?

The only part of that research that stands out is the increase in brain injuries later in the season. Would have liked to see the research expand more on those injuries. Were they as a result of more reps or is the play on the field more physical down the stretch as we are in divisional play with playoff spots on the line? The rest of it doesn't prove anything. It says in 2010 there were 3.7 injuries per team per week vs 3.2 over the previous years. Ok, but that means in multiple seasons out of the previous 8 years it was under 3.2 and probably even under 3. On average in 2010 players missed 4.7 weeks as opposed to 4.3 in the previous 8 years? Ok, what about the years in those previous 8 where guys missed under 3 weeks? 30% of players missed playing time versus 29% over the previous 8 years? Ok, but what about the years that number was closer to 20%? Taking one year out of a 9 year stretch to try and prove a point is pretty stupid. That article makes a big deal out of the number of guys who went on IR in 2010 but makes no mention of the graph in the study they linked to that shows that # of guys on IR declined the previous two seasons.

From that same article.

Mild Traumatic Brain Injury, or MTBI, is the medical term for a concussion. And while the NFL's MTBI Committee had previously found a rate of 0.21 such incidents per game — per team, from 1996 to 2001 — the new NFLPA report shows that number jumping to 0.25 between 2004 and 2009, perhaps due to better diagnosis.

Read more: http://www.esquire.com/the-side/feature/nfl-lockout-2011#ixzz1Dnepfg2e

That is hardly a big climb. Given the number of guys who played through concussions in the 90s it might even be a decline from the actual number from 1996-2001. Now I'm not saying that no concussions were diagnosed back in the day but trying to act though the league and the players both knew the seriousness of the issue is pretty silly. This article on Trent Dilfer mentions that he stayed in the game after a concussion in 1995 and returned to practice just 3 days after another in 2001. Go read this article that mentions former Bears WR Tom Wadell being hospitalized after a playoff game with concussion symptoms but was most likely not diagnosed properly. And that is the 1990s. Ted Johnson played for the Patriots in early 2000s and said his condition worsened when Belichick made him return to practice too early. Mike Ditka has done a lot of work on things like this too. If it wasn't 4 AM already I'd Google more guys from the 90s who's concussions weren't diagnosed properly at the time.

We all form our opinions/outlook based on experience. The way you've spoken on this topic made it very clear that you have no actual experience on the field. That has everything to do with how you view the situation. It explains why you seem to think that the pads are good enough when they aren't. It explains why you're so blase on a very serious issue that you want to compound simply because you "want to see more football." Case in point:

I'm sorry, I must have missed it your pro career or even a high level college career. A large part of why we watch football is the physical nature of the sport. We know what it is does to these guys longterm but we choose to watch and cheer. These guys know what it does to their bodies long term but THEY CHOOSE to play and are compensated fairly well for it. Nowhere did I say that the pads are good enough. They can only go with what is available out there. I agree completely with this Baltimore Sun article that the NFLPA doesn't do nearly enough for former players .

No, the best they can do is actually sit down and properly address the issue. The best they can do is properly compensate players and not run the league like a meat market. The best they can do is actually get the players guaranteed money and set up the proper post-career care. The best they can do is not try to rape the players further by not taking even more money from them. The best they can do is not compound the issues they aren't taking care of now, by adding games to the schedule.

They are making an effort to address the issue though. I agree that they took far too long to do it but the players were in no hurry to do it either. Enforcing the helmet to helmet hits was a great decision despite how much some players and fans whined about it. Them asking the players to wear more padding is another step in the right direction no matter how much the players oppose it. Read this Washington Post article that talks about the equipment being worked on to better monitor concussions. The guaranteed contracts is a CBA issue. like I mentioned earlier the players don't have enough unity to stand together and get that. The players will give in just like they always do. The NFLPA does these guys no favors. They have no idea how to handle their money. The players are too busy blowing away their money and being bankrupt for them to actually sit down and think what is best for them longterm. The owners know this. They will get a deal done without having to give up guaranteed contracts

I'll ask you this though.

What do the owners risk by adding two games to the schedule ? Where is there any negative, at all for the owners ? What do they put on the line ? It's easy to push for it when you've got absolutely nothing to lose and everything to gain. Oh, that bit also goes back to the point I made about you not having played the game, ever. Having been physically invested in the game for half of my life I'm not "playing with other people's money" which is exactly what your attitude/opinion on this matter reflects.

Who said anything about the owners risking anything? This is how it works in collective bargaining in all lines of work. The NFLPA will roll over for them. Lose the "I played High School" bullshit. No one forced you into playing football.

You brought up some fair points and certainly didn't go to the ridiculous extremes that naiwf and ECK have but I think you are pinning too much of this on the owners.

There's talk again about moving a team to Los Angeles, and a few organizations have been talked to including the Vikings. Instead of talking to a team with a huge following in their area (including nearby states without a team), the team they should be trying to lure to L.A. is the Jaguars.

In his State of the League address during Super Bowl weekend it didn't sound like LA was a viable option anytime soon. Perhaps DMN or someone else from that region can chime in on this. Where can a new stadium be built in the LA area? While watching NCIS:LA last week I was shocked to see that The Forum is still standing. Is tearing that down and building something there an option or is there other stuff in the surrounding area that would have to be torn down?

the owners will not give in on healthcare and insurance issues. Right now, an NFL player has to play 3 seasons of football in order to receive 5 years of insurance after their career ends. The NFL has yet to be willing to compromise and drop that number so players would have to play an additional six games just to get health insurance for 5 years.

The owners and by extension Roger Goodell have proven that they do not give a fuck about player safety. The whole hard hits crackdown was a PR move. If the NFL truly cared they would take 18-games off the table or at least concede something toward giving the players better healthcare after they retire from the NFL.

No health care for players? Welcome to the plight of American workers in pretty much every industry. With the number of retired NFL players out there there is no way the NFL would ever be able to get health insurance for all of its alumni. The NFL and the NFLPA should be doing more to educate current players on managing their finances though so they don't end up in situations like so many of their predecessors. You can call the hard hits crackdown a pr stunt (why does it not surprise me that you being the Steelers homer that you are would take that stance) but the NFL had to do something. That was the weekend LeGrand from Rutgers got hurt and if I'm not mistaken that was the week James Harrison laid out Massaquoi.

If you don't think bigger bodies running faster and with more velocity than ever before doesn't cause more concussions then you're naive.

I'm not saying I know for sure that more concussions are happening, but it just makes sense to me that as the players in the league get bigger, stronger, and faster hits are going to be harder and harder and will likely lead to more concussion.

Look at those #s that HTTK linked to above. Concussion numbers haven't risen much since the mid 90s and that is without even factoring in how many concussions that might have been misdiagnosed.

If you're a fan of the game you'd want 16 games.

You've said a lot of stupid NFL related stuff but this one is right up there. Me wanting a 18 game season somehow means I am not a football fan?

One thing I would like to see the NFL do is revamp the IR system. Go to a system similar to that of MLB. IR shouldn't just take a guy off the roster for the remainder of the season. Maybe give teams options that let them IR a guy for 4 or 8 weeks too. If a guy gets hurt early in the year but there is a chance he could be back later in the season there is no need to penalize the teems. Let them put the guy on IR for 8 weeks and get a replacement player for the time being.

Nope.

Dude at least add something meaningful to the thread. Quoting a big block of text and not saying anything relevant is a douche move.

[Lowerdeck]

^ and yet you did the same thing

I'd rather hear DMN's take on a team going to LA. Personally I rather it Jax over Minn, Buffalo, or San Diego.

[rocksta]

I'm sorry but there's no point arguing with that. I'm not gonna read his thousand links in this thread or any of the others he bombarded. Like come the fuck on. Does anyone actually click those? I find his opinion hard to fathom to anyone who enjoys watching the game but maybe I'm missing some important details in the millions of other people he linked too.

[sahyder1]

Dude at least add something meaningful to the thread. Quoting a big block of text and not saying anything relevant is a douche move.

It's rocksta. I've come to expect nothing less from him in the past couple of months despite having next to interaction with him here prior to hat.

As for the CBA, the players are already publicly fighting each other. They'll fold ridiculously fast if this keeps up. I have to give the owners credit for keeping their infighting relatively quiet so far. Read an interesting report on PFT (I think) about the potential for some owners to block a CBA agreement. I think only 8 or 9 owners need to vote against an agreement in order for there to be no deal while the players on need a simple majority. Owners like Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder want to keep more of their own revenue. I'd be interested to see if one of them publicly says something about revenue sharing with other owners before the league has an agreement with the players.

[SeanDMan]

^ and yet you did the same thing

Try the veal dude.