Jump to content

2012 NFL Season Thread


BlueSky

Recommended Posts

A little different but was it all that awful when Cal and A-Rod swiched positions?

I thought it was a nice gesture. However, I agree with McCarthy, why was Saturday a pro-bowler anyway? It had to have been because he was retiring right?

Yeah but Cal Ripken is one of your all-time greats? Jeff Saturday had a good career, but nobody is putting in the same breath as guys like Dwight Stephenson or Mike Webster.

I'm with most people in that I had much more of an issue with Saturday being on the team then him taking snaps for Peyton Manning one last time. Plus I could play offensive line the Pro Bowl. You can count all the times both teams pass blitz on one hand and still fingers left and your longest run of the day went for 13 yards. So from a competitive side of things what difference does it really make?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 4.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

A little different but was it all that awful when Cal and A-Rod swiched positions?

I thought it was a nice gesture. However, I agree with McCarthy, why was Saturday a pro-bowler anyway? It had to have been because he was retiring right?

Yeah but Cal Ripken is one of your all-time greats? Jeff Saturday had a good career, but nobody is putting in the same breath as guys like Dwight Stephenson or Mike Webster.

I'm with most people in that I had much more of an issue with Saturday being on the team then him taking snaps for Peyton Manning one last time. Plus I could play offensive line the Pro Bowl. You can count all the times both teams pass blitz on one hand and still fingers left and your longest run of the day went for 13 yards. So from a competitive side of things what difference does it really make?

The ARod/Ripken example is not even close. They were on the same team. If Saturday was an AFC player who had changed to Guard, for example, and had a Center snap with Manning, I'd have no issue with it. The only thing that makes this even close to acceptable is that the Pro Bowl is about as meaningful as the first scrimmage of the year in training camp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wanted to gauge what people thought about this, which I posted on the ESPN boards earlier. These were my thoughts on the Bernard Pollard comments and the NFL's ongoing concussion problems.

"NFL *should* shorten the season to 14 games, add two bye weeks (with one before the playoffs), and shorten the preseason by two games. Expand the playoffs to 8 teams each conference so an additional two games make up for some of the loss of revenue by shortening the season. Make the higher quality helmets (Revo Speed, etc.) mandatory and make knee braces standard equipment (slows down speed of the game).

All of these things would never happen, however. The fundamental danger of football is still there, but they'd help the problem somewhat. The quality of games would increase, the stakes would be higher, and injuries (including knee injuries) would change for the better, if only in the slightest degree."

Also, I believe that Thursday night games should either be eliminated or staggered along with bye weeks so teams that are playing aren't going to be run down. It's obvious that the quality of Thursday night games are terrible, not to mention the injuries.

There are also other ways to slow down the speed of the game slightly, however I'm not sure how much of a difference that would make. The knee brace suggestion would do that, as well as lower knee injuries. The length of turf on the field also creates a slight difference in speeds.

In terms of lost revenue for games, a natural increase in ticket prices would occur which would counteract some of that. As I mentioned earlier, additional playoff games could help. Preseason games would decrease by two, but they'd probably see higher attendance due to the lower number of games. This argument, at least to me, should be moot considering the money the NFL is already raking in. It would hurt the fan in terms of money, as ticket prices and TV subscription prices would go up, but you'd see players play longer and a higher quality of play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Make the higher quality helmets (Revo Speed, etc.) mandatory

No, no, no.

We need less protection on players, not "better". Unless and until they develop a helmet that sits underneath the skull, more padding on the head will just encourage players to do what's getting them in trouble.

When players have to face the consequences of their hits immediately, not pushing them down the road for a couple decades, then the sport will paradoxically get safer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Make the higher quality helmets (Revo Speed, etc.) mandatory

No, no, no.

We need less protection on players, not "better". Unless and until they develop a helmet that sits underneath the skull, more padding on the head will just encourage players to do what's getting them in trouble.

When players have to face the consequences of their hits immediately, not pushing them down the road for a couple decades, then the sport will paradoxically get safer.

This is why rugby is safer. They don't use pads, so when the players hit each other, they don't go for a hit that could could injure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wanted to gauge what people thought about this, which I posted on the ESPN boards earlier. These were my thoughts on the Bernard Pollard comments and the NFL's ongoing concussion problems.

"NFL *should* shorten the season to 14 games, add two bye weeks (with one before the playoffs), and shorten the preseason by two games. Expand the playoffs to 8 teams each conference so an additional two games make up for some of the loss of revenue by shortening the season. Make the higher quality helmets (Revo Speed, etc.) mandatory and make knee braces standard equipment (slows down speed of the game).

All of these things would never happen, however. The fundamental danger of football is still there, but they'd help the problem somewhat. The quality of games would increase, the stakes would be higher, and injuries (including knee injuries) would change for the better, if only in the slightest degree."

Also, I believe that Thursday night games should either be eliminated or staggered along with bye weeks so teams that are playing aren't going to be run down. It's obvious that the quality of Thursday night games are terrible, not to mention the injuries.

There are also other ways to slow down the speed of the game slightly, however I'm not sure how much of a difference that would make. The knee brace suggestion would do that, as well as lower knee injuries. The length of turf on the field also creates a slight difference in speeds.

In terms of lost revenue for games, a natural increase in ticket prices would occur which would counteract some of that. As I mentioned earlier, additional playoff games could help. Preseason games would decrease by two, but they'd probably see higher attendance due to the lower number of games. This argument, at least to me, should be moot considering the money the NFL is already raking in. It would hurt the fan in terms of money, as ticket prices and TV subscription prices would go up, but you'd see players play longer and a higher quality of play.

I wouldn't be against shortening the regular season or eliminating the Thursday night games. I think its too much of a health game late in the season and the Thursday night games just suck. Its brutal enough on the East coast with the Sunday and Monday night games, now you potentially have to stay up late three times a week.

But my thing is if your really that concerned about safety, then don't play football. Its an inherently dangerous sport. No matter what you do in terms of safety there is always going to be a very large amount of risk involved. Forget the NFL there's plenty of guys that never made it past High School that carry around life long scars. I don't understand why people are just know starting to see that's the case even though its been that way for about as long as the sport has existed. Every year you hear about people being paralyzed and in some cases killed on the field. What else do you need to go in order to figure out the sport is dangerous?

Ndamukong Suh saved Louie Anderson's life. Not making this up.

http://www.huffingto...olp00000003

I'm going to go out a limb and say its probably not the first time Louie Anderson has gotten winded doing a physical activity.

On more serious note good for Suh and glad Anderson's safe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't be against shortening the regular season or eliminating the Thursday night games. I think its too much of a health game late in the season and the Thursday night games just suck. Its brutal enough on the East coast with the Sunday and Monday night games, now you potentially have to stay up late three times a week.

You know, you don't have to stay up to watch all of those games.

"BUT MY FANTASY TEAM RAMS80!"

"Will be there in the morning. Read about it on NFL.com"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Make the higher quality helmets (Revo Speed, etc.) mandatory

No, no, no.

We need less protection on players, not "better". Unless and until they develop a helmet that sits underneath the skull, more padding on the head will just encourage players to do what's getting them in trouble.

When players have to face the consequences of their hits immediately, not pushing them down the road for a couple decades, then the sport will paradoxically get safer.

I used to think this, and conventional wisdom would make one assume that this is true, but it's not. I heard that rugby has a higher incidence of concussions and it took me some searching to find this article from Time Magazine that shows that:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2027053,00.html

"That argument, however, doesn't actually square with reality. Rugby, as it turns out, has plenty of problems with head injuries. According to one study, in South Africa about 14% of high school rugby players and 23% of professional and club players annually are diagnosed with concussions. Further, Michael Keating, the medical director for USA Rugby, says that a review of the scientific literature indicates that the number of incidences of concussions among rugby players and American-football players are similar. Some data suggest rugby incidence is 5% higher.

(See pictures of the IRB Rugby World Cup 2007.)

While concussions have become a major and growing problem in football, helmets have actually been pretty good at preventing much more dire skull fractures. "If there were no helmets and the game was played the way it is today, a lot of people would be dead on Day One," says Chris Nowinski, a former Harvard defensive tackle who is now the co-director of the Center for the Study of Traumatic Encephalopathy at the Boston University School of Medicine, a prominent brain-trauma-research organization.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2027053,00.html#ixzz2JK6K3a9f"

Rugby isn't, in fact, safer (at least by any significant statistic) than American football. In the article, it also mentions some of their rules that the NFL could adopt that help make rugby safer than it was previously, including emphasizing arm tackling.

But my thing is if your really that concerned about safety, then don't play football. Its an inherently dangerous sport. No matter what you do in terms of safety there is always going to be a very large amount of risk involved. Forget the NFL there's plenty of guys that never made it past High School that carry around life long scars. I don't understand why people are just know starting to see that's the case even though its been that way for about as long as the sport has existed. Every year you hear about people being paralyzed and in some cases killed on the field. What else do you need to go in order to figure out the sport is dangerous?

I understand that reasoning but the point of my post is how to make football safer. It's not about eliminating football completely or not participating in it, but making it safer without compromising the nature of the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't be against shortening the regular season or eliminating the Thursday night games. I think its too much of a health game late in the season and the Thursday night games just suck. Its brutal enough on the East coast with the Sunday and Monday night games, now you potentially have to stay up late three times a week.

You know, you don't have to stay up to watch all of those games.

"BUT MY FANTASY TEAM RAMS80!"

"Will be there in the morning. Read about it on NFL.com"

I'm saying it more in the lines of by the time you got to week 5 you already had 4 prime time games involving New York teams. If your a New York football fan that's four times you have to stay up late in roughly a month to watch those games. That sucks and Thursday night games contribute to that.

Then have to turn around for October and MLB playoffs? Its brutal if you want to watch those games.

If you like these games because they make money for the league and you believe whatever is good for the league is inherently good for the game fine. But my guess is public opinion hates these games and I don't you will find a single player or coach that likes these games either. Its a money grab plain and simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't be against shortening the regular season or eliminating the Thursday night games. I think its too much of a health game late in the season and the Thursday night games just suck. Its brutal enough on the East coast with the Sunday and Monday night games, now you potentially have to stay up late three times a week.

You know, you don't have to stay up to watch all of those games.

"BUT MY FANTASY TEAM RAMS80!"

"Will be there in the morning. Read about it on NFL.com"

I'm saying it more in the lines of by the time you got to week 5 you already had 4 prime time games involving New York teams. If your a New York football fan that's four times you have to stay up late in roughly a month to watch those games. That sucks and Thursday night games contribute to that.

Oh poor baby. There are 6 other days to make up your sleep deficit. Also, you also don't have to watch all of the MLB playoffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't be against shortening the regular season or eliminating the Thursday night games. I think its too much of a health game late in the season and the Thursday night games just suck. Its brutal enough on the East coast with the Sunday and Monday night games, now you potentially have to stay up late three times a week.

You know, you don't have to stay up to watch all of those games.

"BUT MY FANTASY TEAM RAMS80!"

"Will be there in the morning. Read about it on NFL.com"

I'm saying it more in the lines of by the time you got to week 5 you already had 4 prime time games involving New York teams. If your a New York football fan that's four times you have to stay up late in roughly a month to watch those games. That sucks and Thursday night games contribute to that.

Oh poor baby. There are 6 other days to make up your sleep deficit. Also, you also don't have to watch all of the MLB playoffs.

I'll stop complaining about these kinds of things when you stop being an ahole.

Been here for over a year and I can probably count the number of non critical posts you've made on one hand including with myself. So either I make good enough points for you to listen to my posts and just never give me credit for them, or I never make any good posts in which case I don't know why you respond to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in which case I don't know why you respond to me.

Because that's what you do on message boards?

Look, bleating about too many prime time football games "because my team always plays in them" is the sports fan version of #UpperClassFirstWorldProblems . You should be called out on that one.

And yes, I don't have the Passive Agressive Pleasant Pollyanna-ism of everyone else who cheers for St. Louis sports teams. Isn't the change of pace fun?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only ones that really complain about the start times for Sunday and Monday night football games are the biggest of sports fans, those whose lives mostly revolve around the sporting calendar. Many folks aren't going to put their work/sleep schedules on hold because of every Sunday, Monday, and Thursday night game......especially when their team isn't involved. They'll watch some of the game, but it doesn't bother them if they miss the end of the game.

I think I'm a big enough sports fan, as well as a huge fantasy football participant.....but I didn't feel compelled enough to watch every prime-time game in its entirety. I watched just about every Falcons game, but I found it very difficult to sit through a half of another game the rest of the day....much less three in one day (Early Sunday game, late afternoon Sunday game, Sunday night game).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Make the higher quality helmets (Revo Speed, etc.) mandatory

No, no, no.

We need less protection on players, not "better". Unless and until they develop a helmet that sits underneath the skull, more padding on the head will just encourage players to do what's getting them in trouble.

When players have to face the consequences of their hits immediately, not pushing them down the road for a couple decades, then the sport will paradoxically get safer.

I used to think this, and conventional wisdom would make one assume that this is true, but it's not. I heard that rugby has a higher incidence of concussions

That would be cool, but we're not talking about concussions. We're talking about CTE, which is not the same thing.

You don't need to get a concussion to suffer from CTE. It's all the small hits that players accumulate over the decades of playing, hits that are exasperated by helmets and the supposed protection that they offer.

I know everybody keeps talking about concussions, but it drives me up the wall every single time. It's not about concussions, as much as the league and the sports journalism machine and everyone with a financial interest would like it to be.

Not that it will ever be totally safe, but based on what we know now I'd trade rugby levels of immediate injury for football's kick-the-can-down-the-road approach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.