Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, kimball said:

I'm over the Jags' uniforms and channeling all of that frustration and dislike to the Titans. If we're going to act like a mob to uniforms let's fight the true offenders together.

We critique the Jags uniforms because they actually aren't terrible and have potential. The Titans uniforms are a lost cause - why would we put lipstick on a pig?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, kimball said:

I'm over the Jags' uniforms and channeling all of that frustration and dislike to the Titans. If we're going to act like a mob to uniforms let's fight the true offenders together.

 

40529200354_e9185a5bfd_k.jpg

Tennessee has worn navy over white in the preseason. I wonder if they plan to wear that combo, or white over white, this regular season?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kimball said:

I'm over the Jags' uniforms and channeling all of that frustration and dislike to the Titans. If we're going to act like a mob to uniforms let's fight the true offenders together.

 

40529200354_e9185a5bfd_k.jpg

Those uniforms disgust me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BJ Sands said:

At least the Titans tried. Then again...

 

wrb6kPt.gif

You’re darn right, they tried; they tried to create duds that would get them likes on instagram and fire emojis on twitter, and ended up with a football uniform that actively attacks your retina when you glance in their direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, AndrewMLind said:

 

Actually, playing the game without facemasks would reduce the desire to tackle while leading with your head, limiting concussions and brain damage down the road... but that conversation is for another time. 

 

However, I’m more so just pointing out the fact that there were teams in existence during and before the era posted (1962) that looked good without stripes. There are still teams that look good without stripes, too.

actually, there's a reason facemasks were added.. the game is MUCH safer with them than without them.. plus, it wouldn't affect a runner's desire to lead with his lowered head, increasing concussions and brain damage to facemask-less tacklers who are attempting to lead with their shoulder.. at least now, both sides are equally affected.. plus all the facial injuries and life-altering damage that would come with removing facemasks would be outrageous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One- and two-bar plastic facemasks were added to the helmet to reduce the number of broken noses and teeth. They’ve since developed into overbuilt, multi-bar titanium, stainless steel or carbon steel facemasks, thus weaponizing a player’s entire head. But if a ball-carrier lowering his head for protection is just as likely to end up with a life-changing injury or concussion, let’s go one step further. A game played with just shoulder pads and the soft-shell helmets used in 7-on-7 football (notably featured at Nike’s The Opening) would make the game much safer and teach proper ways to tackle, and runners would be less likely to lower their heads without the protection of a hard shell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, AndrewMLind said:

One- and two-bar plastic facemasks were added to the helmet to reduce the number of broken noses and teeth. They’ve since developed into overbuilt, multi-bar titanium, stainless steel or carbon steel facemasks, thus weaponizing a player’s entire head. But if a ball-carrier lowering his head for protection is just as likely to end up with a life-changing injury or concussion, let’s go one step further. A game played with just shoulder pads and the soft-shell helmets used in 7-on-7 football (notably featured at Nike’s The Opening) would make the game much safer and teach proper ways to tackle, and runners would be less likely to lower their heads without the protection of a hard shell.

I think we've tried that already too.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, WavePunter said:

actually, there's a reason facemasks were added.. the game is MUCH safer with them than without them.. 

 

That is far from certain. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

That is far from certain. 

 

Rugby players still get jacked up pretty good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, WSU151 said:

Rugby players still get jacked up pretty good.

 

Yes, they do.  But that has little to do with the subject at hand, unless you would care to expound upon that observation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gothamite said:

 

Yes, they do.  But that has little to do with the subject at hand, unless you would care to expound upon that observation?

 

Similar game without facemasks. We always ponder about stuff like "If they didn't have helmets it'd be a lot safer"...but I think we likely forget about the closest proxy we have because we don't have a major rugby league here. There are concussion problems in rugby despite the lack of protection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Concussions are a red herring. 

 

Concussions are not the problem with football - all the seemingly minor sub-concussive hits that happen on every single play are the problem. 

 

Now, maybe rugby has a similar CTE problem.  We should find out.  And maybe rugby will need to make the same significant rule changes to address that issue.  Because nobody is saying that removing face masks is all that’s needed.  It’s just one small step in a long line of rules and equipment changes that absolutely must be made. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

Concussions are a red herring. 

 

Concussions are not the problem with football - all the seemingly minor sub-concussive hits that happen on every single play are the problem. 

 

Now, maybe rugby has a similar CTE problem.  We should find out.  And maybe rugby will need to make the same significant rule changes to address that issue.  Because nobody is saying that removing face masks is all that’s needed.  It’s just one small step in a long line of rules and equipment changes that absolutely must be made. 

Removing facemasks (solely) is the absolute last thing we should do.. In fact, if rule changes are enacted (and actually enforced), then no equipment changes are necessary.. You wanna take "weaponizing the helmet" out of the game, then make it a severe penalty with severe repercussions.. Make other padded equipment (particularly shoulder pads) soft-shelled, so they're more forgiving when they collide with heads as well, etc..

 

Also, jacking up facial fractures, lost teeth, damaged vision, dislocated jaws, etc. to reduce a small fraction of sub-concussive hits each play isn't a fair or worthwhile tradeoff imho..

 

And a final point: no one whose brain has been studied has spent any significant amount of time in the "better" helmets of today.. As technology advances, so should our case studies.. Comparing an athlete today with Junior Seau (R.I.P.) is like comparing apples and pinecones.. We can't truly know what's going on now because the helmets are changing so rapidly.. Prior to 2005-ish, helmets remained largely unchanged for 20+ years.. All the players retiring or (Very unfortunately) dying now, played nearly their entire careers in obsolete helmets.. And helmets still have room to grow (no current, standard Riddell or Schutt helmet has a front air-bladder - I mean, WTF?!?! That's the "crown" of the helmet that receives the most damage), so I'm not saying things are perfect, but to suggest one issue is the ENTIRE issue, and to suggest it's unaffected by technology is not an entirely accurate view imo..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Helmets appear to be doing a good job of addressing the large impacts. But as I said before, concussions are a red herring. Every time you hear somebody from the league or in the press use the word “concussion”, you know they’re not actually serious about the issue. 

 

No helmet, even the so-called “better helmets of today”, stops the sub-concussive hits. And that is the real danger inherent in the sport. Unless and until there is a helmet that sits beneath the player’s skull, we cannot innovate our way out of this crisis. 

 

Helmets have not made the game ultimately safer.  They have only given players a false sense of safety, removing the smaller immediate dangers while causing a much, much larger one down the road.  It’s a bad trade, but we cannot be surprised when young, “invincible” men make it.

 

Minimizing or removing helmets will help.  So will banning the three-point stance.  So will any number of other alterations to the game, big and small. It will take a combination of equipment and rule changes for football to get itself right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Gothamite said:

Helmets appear to be doing a good job of addressing the large impacts. But as I said before, concussions are a red herring. Every time you hear somebody from the league or in the press use the word “concussion”, you know they’re not actually serious about the issue. 

 

No helmet, even the so-called “better helmets of today”, stops the sub-concussive hits. And that is the real danger inherent in the sport. Unless and until there is a helmet that sits beneath the player’s skull, we cannot innovate our way out of this crisis. 

 

Helmets have not made the game ultimately safer.  They have only given players a false sense of safety, removing the smaller immediate dangers while causing a much, much larger one down the road.  It’s a bad trade, but we cannot be surprised when young, “invincible” men make it.

 

Minimizing or removing helmets will help.  So will banning the three-point stance.  So will any number of other alterations to the game, big and small. It will take a combination of equipment and rule changes for football to get itself right. 

Again, Equipment is not the issue.. Rules are the issue.. And to your point above, helmets themselves aren't causing anything.. They are limiting the immediate dangers, both small and large.. Putting a helmet on your head doesn't cause brain damage.. Playing the game like a human bowling ball does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't the venue to discuss the health risks involved with playing football, or the degrees to which equipment adds or detracts from that risk.

 

Please direct that conversation here...

 

 

 

...and leave this thread to NFL logo and uniform design. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cowboys Opt for Rare Uni Combo This Weekend

November 3, 2018 - 17:58 PM

The Dallas Cowboys might look a little different when they take the field this weekend. For their home game Monday Night against the Tennessee Titans, the Cowboys will be wearing navy blue tops with *white* pants. It’s already rare enough […]

Read More...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.