Sean Payton suspended for 2012, Tebow a Jet

[trekbkr]

It's worth pointing out that the NFL's stance in this matter is only partially about player safety.

There's another reason in-game incentive bonuses are illegal: Competitive balance. All teams are required to play by the same set of rules, which includes consistency and uniformity in player compensation. You can't sign Linebacker Bob to a contract that's worth a million dollars on paper and then wink-wink-wink pay him another thousand per tackle under the table. Free agents can't be choosing teams based on which employer has the best locker room bonus program. Everything has to be legitimate; all performance bonuses have to be spelled out in the player's contract.

Bonuses like this, whether they're awarded for injured opponents or touchdown passes, amount to a de facto circumvention of the salary cap, especially if the kitty has money in it from outside the organization, as appears to have been the case with the Saints.

[Billy B]

There's also a legal/monetary reason that could contribute to why they're cracking down on everything. Former players that suffered injuries, mainly concussions, are bringing lawsuits to the NFL claiming they didn't do all they could to prevent and treat concussions. As I'm typing this, Jim McMahon is on ESPN talking about it and he's one of the players involved in the lawsuit. We don't know why the exact reason is they're coming down so hard, but it's a good thing for player safety that they are.

[Gothamite]

Of course they're cracking down for many reasons; some legal, some financial. Some might even be moral.

In the end, I don't think it particularly matters why they're improving the game. Only that they are.

[BlueSky]

Of course they're cracking down for many reasons; some legal, some financial. Some might even be moral.

In the end, I don't think it particularly matters why they're improving the game. Only that they are.

Not sure that's the right word, but as usual, you're a spin doctor extraordinaire. Like those who call Obama's healthcare plan "reform." Depends on your point of view I suppose.

Don't get me wrong, I'm for player safety, but as I've posted, the hypocrisy on the parts of many involved would choke a goat.

[Gothamite]

I think anything that reduces traumatic brain injury, early onset dementia and suicide in the players qualifies as "improving the game", yes. It's also "reform".

You still haven't explained how this is somehow "hypocritical", unless your dictionary has a different definition. Doing one thing in the past, and another after facts come out and circumstances change, doesn't qualify.

[BlueSky]

I think anything that reduces traumatic brain injury, early onset dementia and suicide in the players qualifies as "improving the game", yes. It's also "reform".

You still haven't explained how this is somehow "hypocritical", unless your dictionary has a different definition. Doing one thing in the past, and another after facts come out and circumstances change, doesn't qualify.

It does if the real motivation is really money and covering the league's a** against lawsuits. If they're so concerned about these issues, why don't they "reform" the benefits and health coverage for the former players who are suffering and can't get the time of day from the league?

In other related news, ESPN is reporting that Payton has approached Bill Parcells about coaching the Saints this season.

[Gothamite]

Parcells, that's an interesting choice.

Sky, you seem to indicate that the NFL can't have multiple motivations for reforming and improving the game. That's simply not so.

Do I think they should set aside about $100M for the former players who are now suffering? Absolutely. But while the court cases are going on, it's not hypocritical for them to improve the lot of current players. Too little too late? CYA? Cynical? Sure. But not hypocritical.

Do I think that they're entirely altruistic? Not on your life. But as I said above, in the end I don't think it particularly matters why they're improving the game. Only that they are.

[pmoehrin]

My question with the Saints would be could they bring in a Brian Billick, a Jon Gruden, or Tony Dungy type of name to be the coach for one year or are they stuck with whatever they have? I could see alot of coaches being willing to take a team with this kind of talent for one season because they are legit Super Bowl contenders.

If Sean Payton approached Bill Parcells about the Saints job that answers that question then.

[Gothamite]

And if that's true, it would somewhat validate the thoughts of Hall of Fame voters who weren't sure Parcells was really done.

[BlueSky]

Parcells, that's an interesting choice.

Sky, you seem to indicate that the NFL can't have multiple motivations for reforming and improving the game. That's simply not so.

Do I think they should set aside about $100M for the former players who are now suffering? Absolutely. But while the court cases are going on, it's not hypocritical for them to improve the lot of current players. Too little too late? CYA? Cynical? Sure. But not hypocritical.

Do I think that they're entirely altruistic? Not on your life. But as I said above, in the end I don't think it particularly matters why they're improving the game. Only that they are.

At least we agree on something. Are they donating the profits from DVDs like Moment of Impact to those retired, injured players? That would be a nice gesture and go a long way towards erasing the hypocrisy.

As for Parcells, the gun may have been jumped so to speak. Now reports say merely that Payton asked him for an opinion on how to handle the situation, not necessarily to step in. A developing story I guess.

Going back to player safety, the worst "improvement" ever forced on players at any level has to be first-gen artificial turf. How many guys are limping today because of that crap?

[Gothamite]

Too many. One more reason to hate artificial turf. Was that ever considered a safety improvement? I seem to recall it was always considered to cause injuries.

[Norva]

I don't think it was ever considered for player safety, more that it didn't require watering or mowing.

[Gothamite]

Yeah, it was cheap.

But even back in 1971, they knew it caused injuries.

[rams80]

I don't think it was ever considered for player safety, more that it didn't require watering or mowing.

It also didn't die if you put a roof over it.

[BlueSky]

Too many. One more reason to hate artificial turf. Was that ever considered a safety improvement? I seem to recall it was always considered to cause injuries.

By improvement I meant the league and owners saw it as such in the ways others cited, field maintenance, flexibility for multi-use stadiums, etc., not safety. As I said, until the lawsuits poured in, the NFL wasn't very concerned about player safety.

Rhetorically speaking, how is it that the league is suddenly so aware of long-term debilitation? Was there nobody from the early years who showed these symptoms in the '50s or '60s? Maybe they were considered exceptions? Just seems weird that the game has been played since the '20s on the NFL level and it took until now for the league to become concerned.

[rams80]

Too many. One more reason to hate artificial turf. Was that ever considered a safety improvement? I seem to recall it was always considered to cause injuries.

By improvement I meant the league and owners saw it as such in the ways others cited, field maintenance, flexibility for multi-use stadiums, etc., not safety. As I said, until the lawsuits poured in, the NFL wasn't very concerned about player safety.

Rhetorically speaking, how is it that the league is suddenly so aware of long-term debilitation? Was there nobody from the early years who showed these symptoms in the '50s or '60s? Maybe they were considered exceptions? Just seems weird that the game has been played since the '20s on the NFL level and it took until now for the league to become concerned.

Back then, when you had a concussion, you just had your bell rung and needed to sit out a play or two. Subsequent to that, there was no sense of football being the causation of subsequent medical ailments.

Additionally, the plastic helmets used today didn't get deployed widely until the 1950s and most of the current rigid materials didn't get used until the 1980s and 1990s. Maybe there's something to the theory that the "improved protection" is actually harming the players.

On that note, when did coaches really start pushing the concept of weaponizing the padding/helmet during on field play?

[pmoehrin]

Additionally, the plastic helmets used today didn't get deployed widely until the 1950s and most of the current rigid materials didn't get used until the 1980s and 1990s. Maybe there's something to the theory that the "improved protection" is actually harming the players.

On that note, when did coaches really start pushing the concept of weaponizing the padding/helmet during on field play?

I think there is definitely something to it.

I don't think you would see guys like James Harrison trying to torpedo into other players if they didn't have as strong of a helmet.

As far as when this started to happen, I would say around the early to mid 70's with guys like Jack Tatum.

[BlueSky]

@ Goth, re the league's deep concern for player safety, how do you explain their push for an 18-game schedule? Nothing screams hypocrisy more because that's clearly about money no matter how often or how hard Goodell pushes his disingenuous argument that "the fans want it." No, the fans want less preseason football, or preseason football at preseason prices. That does not equate to more regular season football. A 2+16 format would be fine with everyone except those who would lose the associated revenue.

On Bountygate, where was the shock and outrage when Bill Romanowski called for the Niners to play a "stretcher game" against the Saints in the playoffs and the Niners made it happen?

Oh wait, there was no bounty (as far as we know) so that makes it okay.

[Gothamite]

Romanowski is a classless thug, and I've said so for years. But who really cares what nonsense a former player spews?

I think increased concern for player safety goes perfectly with their push for an 18-game schedule. The owners want to play more downs, and to do so they'll need to reduce injuries.

Rhetorically speaking, how is it that the league is suddenly so aware of long-term debilitation? Was there nobody from the early years who showed these symptoms in the '50s or '60s? Maybe they were considered exceptions? Just seems weird that the game has been played since the '20s on the NFL level and it took until now for the league to become concerned.

I don't think that question is rhetorical at all. I think it's a great question, and one that deserves a serious answer.

Our understanding of the brain is evolving all the time. Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy wasn't associated with football until 2002, and that was only because one man suspected a connection. Even today, we're seeing cases of CTE in new places - the first college player diagnosed, the first player diagnosed who never suffered a known concussion, etc.

In order to properly diagnose CTE, you have to biopsy the brain. Hard to diagnose a living person, and until Dr. Omalu started looking for it in former football players, how many of them were volunteering to donate their brains to science?

I also suspect that the rise of the Internet had something to do with this. Nowadays it's much easier to keep tabs on former players, and when they die in similar circumstances the parallels are much easier to draw. Consider also that CTE claims them decades after their careers are over, when they're out of the spotlight. Twenty years ago, these men would have died in relative anonymity (expecially the homeless ones), maybe warranting a paragraph buried in the sports pages. Now, even a small mention can get picked up by anyone in the world. Add to that the fact that we're now watching for symptoms that went unnoticed or ignored, and it should be no surprise that cases are coming out of the woodwork.

[illwauk]

On Bountygate, where was the shock and outrage when Bill Romanowski called for the Niners to play a "stretcher game" against the Saints in the playoffs and the Niners made it happen?

Oh wait, there was no bounty (as far as we know) so that makes it okay.

I'm pretty sure Bill Romanowski is generally (and correctly) thought of as one of the scummiest people to ever put on an NFL uniform precisely because of things like this.