2013 NFL Off-Season Thread

[pmoehrin]

Or just ban helmets. That would be even simpler. And the "RAWR RAWR SKIRTS!" crowd would be satisfied.

When plastic shells were introduced in the 1940s, many people (including doctors' groups) worried that they would cause more injuries than they prevented. Seems prescient now, even if they couldn't have foreseen the nature of those injuries.

I actually think that idea isn't as crazy as it sounds.

If they wanted to go in the direction of giving players some kind of hard cap or different model helmet then the one we have now, I wouldn't be against it.

Everything else has been questioned. I really don't know why the plastic helmet hasn't been either. (Well I have an idea why it hasn't been questioned, but not sure how true it is, ie. the NFL likes the sound the helmets make when they hit each other.)

My basic opinion of the NFL is that the game is inherently dangerous and there's nothing you can do to take that element of danger out without significantly changing the way the sport is played.

[Billy B]

My basic opinion of the NFL is that the game is inherently dangerous and there's nothing you can do to take that element of danger out without significantly changing the way the sport is played.

This is what it really comes down to. There was a college player who tweeted something along the lines of "Stop making these rules that take away from the game, we knew football was dangerous when we signed up for it." There's going to be a point where the NFL has to make a decision between being safe and actually playing football.

[BlueSky]

My basic opinion of the NFL is that the game is inherently dangerous and there's nothing you can do to take that element of danger out without significantly changing the way the sport is played.

This is what it really comes down to. There was a college player who tweeted something along the lines of "Stop making these rules that take away from the game, we knew football was dangerous when we signed up for it." There's going to be a point where the NFL has to make a decision between being safe and actually playing football.

Yes. The game should be as safe as it can reasonably be made but in the end it is a voluntary activity. Anyone who doesn't understand the risks...

...please pardon the bad humor...

...needs to have his head examined.

Part of the officiating problem is TV. Before there was TV coverage, the only people who saw a play were at the game and saw it at game speed. Something would have to be very blatant to be controversial. Cut to today and anybody with a DVR can slow or stop any play and point out two or three things that could (and in some cases should) be called. Nobody wants to hear that s*** happens and stuff gets missed, especially when it impacts their team negatively. I'm as guilty as anyone but at least I try to limit my whining to really obvious stuff.

[rams80]

My basic opinion of the NFL is that the game is inherently dangerous and there's nothing you can do to take that element of danger out without significantly changing the way the sport is played.

This is what it really comes down to. There was a college player who tweeted something along the lines of "Stop making these rules that take away from the game, we knew football was dangerous when we signed up for it." There's going to be a point where the NFL has to make a decision between being safe and actually playing football.

Knowing it was dangerous when you signed up for it, and not suing the league for being so dangerous a few decades down the road are two different things and that is likely what Goodell fears.

[BlueSky]

My basic opinion of the NFL is that the game is inherently dangerous and there's nothing you can do to take that element of danger out without significantly changing the way the sport is played.

This is what it really comes down to. There was a college player who tweeted something along the lines of "Stop making these rules that take away from the game, we knew football was dangerous when we signed up for it." There's going to be a point where the NFL has to make a decision between being safe and actually playing football.

Knowing it was dangerous when you signed up for it, and not suing the league for being so dangerous a few decades down the road are two different things and that is likely what Goodell fears.

When I develop arthritis in my hands and the doctor says it's from typing so much I'm going to sue Chris Creamer for everything he's got.

Makes about as much sense as former NFL players suing because they got concussions.

To me we have a couple of issues. For example, if a former player sues because he was given a painkiller and not told about potential side effects or was coerced to take it and play through threats of losing his job, I get that. If they can prove the league covered up definite knowledge about the dangers of concussions and encouraged them to play? I get that too.

But suing because running into large men at full speed causes head trauma? I'm sorry but that seems fairly obvious to me.

Part of the "price" so to speak of participating in any activity is accepting the potential consequences, good or bad. If I go rafting, even if they didn't make me sign a waiver, any reasonable person can deduce that going through swiftly moving water filled with boulders entails some risks, for example drowning or blunt force injuries. Unless the rafting company demonstrates negligence or willful misconduct, where would I get off suing them if I go overboard, crack my skull and end up in the hospital?

[pmoehrin]

My basic opinion of the NFL is that the game is inherently dangerous and there's nothing you can do to take that element of danger out without significantly changing the way the sport is played.

This is what it really comes down to. There was a college player who tweeted something along the lines of "Stop making these rules that take away from the game, we knew football was dangerous when we signed up for it." There's going to be a point where the NFL has to make a decision between being safe and actually playing football.

To me we have a couple of issues. For example, if a former player sues because he was given a painkiller and not told about potential side effects or was coerced to take it and play through threats of losing his job, I get that. If they can prove the league hid definite knowledge about the dangers of concussions and encouraged them to play? I get that too.

But suing because running into large men at full speed causes head trauma? I'm sorry but that seems fairly obvious to me.

Part of the "price" so to speak of participating in any activity is accepting the potential consequences, good or bad. If I go rafting, even if they didn't make me sign a waiver, any reasonable person can deduce that going through swiftly moving water filled with boulders entails some risks, for example drowning or blunt force injuries. Unless the rafting company demonstrates negligence or willful misconduct, where would I get off suing them if I go overboard, crack my skull and end up in the hospital?

Well the argument from the players is the NFL knew head injuries were an issue and did nothing to correct it either because they didn't want to, or felt like it would effect their bottom line, which fall under willful misconduct if true.

If it comes to light that the NFL didn't want the helmets changed simply because of the sounds it made and there is some evidence out there to say that was the case, then I think the players have every right to take them to the cleaners because then you can say definitively they put profits in front of player safety to a point where it had a major impact on players lives.

Do I think you there are players who are in this lawsuit who don't really blame the NFL for their current condition and are just looking for a paycheck out of it? Absolutely. Problem is you can't separate one group from the other, so I don't think its fair either way to judge people's rational for being in the lawsuit on whether or not they should be compensated in a suit like this.

I definitely feel the players in this suit have a point and they should be compensated justly for it irregardless of the long term consequences for the league. I can't listen to people like Carl Banks and Mike Dikita and say your wrong in arguing that the NFL couldn't have done significantly more to treat you better while still being a successful business.

[NEW.ERA]

So are the Orioles seriously playing hard ball and not changing the time of their game on the 5th?

It's kinda funny actually.

[dbadefense1990]

So are the Orioles seriously playing hard ball and not changing the time of their game on the 5th?

It's kinda funny actually.

And to think, it's all over parking lots. I have two things to say about this:

1. Should the Orioles win this dispute, can't the NFL reschedule the season opener to Wednesday 9/4? The Orioles finish a series in Cleveland that night, so the lots are open to Ravens fans all to themselves. And it's not like the NFL hasn't done a Wednesday kickoff before (last year's reschedule to accommodate the DNC).

2. Should the Ravens win this dispute and the O's play their Thursday game in daytime, it's not all that bad. Take what happened in LA last year. There were six games in four days, all at the same Staples Center venue. Between the NHL West Final (Kings-Coyotes), two NBA West Semifinal series (Clippers-Spurs and Lakers-Thunder), a concert at the next door Nokia Plaza area, and the end of the Amgen Tour of California, AEG (corporate proprietor of the entire LA Live area, which includes Staples Center and the Nokia Plaza) and the LAPD did a marvelous job all weekend coordinating the few parking spaces available, along with advising people to take mass transit to their event. I don't see why the Ravens and Orioles can't come to the same conclusion, if the Orioles play first in daytime.

[Island_Style]

The Ravens will open on the road.

[pmoehrin]

So are the Orioles seriously playing hard ball and not changing the time of their game on the 5th?

It's kinda funny actually.

And to think, it's all over parking lots. I have two things to say about this:

1. Should the Orioles win this dispute, can't the NFL reschedule the season opener to Wednesday 9/4? The Orioles finish a series in Cleveland that night, so the lots are open to Ravens fans all to themselves. And it's not like the NFL hasn't done a Wednesday kickoff before (last year's reschedule to accommodate the DNC).

2. Should the Ravens win this dispute and the O's play their Thursday game in daytime, it's not all that bad. Take what happened in LA last year. There were six games in four days, all at the same Staples Center venue. Between the NHL West Final (Kings-Coyotes), two NBA West Semifinal series (Clippers-Spurs and Lakers-Thunder), a concert at the next door Nokia Plaza area, and the end of the Amgen Tour of California, AEG (corporate proprietor of the entire LA Live area, which includes Staples Center and the Nokia Plaza) and the LAPD did a marvelous job all weekend coordinating the few parking spaces available, along with advising people to take mass transit to their event. I don't see why the Ravens and Orioles can't come to the same conclusion, if the Orioles play first in daytime.

It is kind of funny to watch billionaires behave like children.

God forbid a day game get scheduled in the middle of the week in September, or the NFL move the game up a night. Both of which are perfectly acceptable solutions, neither of which will happen because neither side will give an inch of ground to the other purely on account of ego.

[dbadefense1990]

The Ravens will open on the road.

And just when you think the Flacco Curse on the Ravens is safe, bam, the team is over seeded by its MLB counterpart.

And according to this article, I'm just chuckling at the reason the NFL gave for not wanting to move the Ravens' opener to Wednesday. The only other equivalent moment I can think of where a Jewish holiday inferred with sports was with Sandy Koufax.

[Cosmic]

Or just ban helmets. That would be even simpler. And the "RAWR RAWR SKIRTS!" crowd would be satisfied.

When plastic shells were introduced in the 1940s, many people (including doctors' groups) worried that they would cause more injuries than they prevented. Seems prescient now, even if they couldn't have foreseen the nature of those injuries.

I can't believe we've come this far and there hasn't been a good, long look at different options for helmets. Soft ones or maybe even no helmets would be safer. I know rugby has very little equipment and they aren't killing each other. The physics just do not favor having a hard shell helmet.

[BlueSky]

The Ravens will open on the road.

And just when you think the Flacco Curse on the Ravens is safe, bam, the team is over seeded by its MLB counterpart.

And according to this article, I'm just chuckling at the reason the NFL didn't want to move the Ravens' opener to Wednesday. The only other equivalent moment I can think of where a Jewish holiday inferred with sports was with Sandy Koufax.

I heard that on the radio the other day (Jewish holiday conflict). Yet they routinely play on Thanksgiving and Christmas...hmmm...

[Island_Style]

No helmets really could solve a lot of issues. Being a logo/uni fan, I would bust out some Morrissey for a bit. Very depressing.

[pmoehrin]

The Ravens will open on the road.

And just when you think the Flacco Curse on the Ravens is safe, bam, the team is over seeded by its MLB counterpart.

And according to this article, I'm just chuckling at the reason the NFL didn't want to move the Ravens' opener to Wednesday. The only other equivalent moment I can think of where a Jewish holiday inferred with sports was with Sandy Koufax.

I heard that on the radio the other day (Jewish holiday conflict). Yet they routinely play on Thanksgiving and Christmas...hmmm...

That's one of the weakest excuses I've ever heard of.

I know Baltimore has a large Jewish population but it ain't that large to where it might be an issue attendance wise if a game conflicted with a Jewish holiday. And as BlueSky said the NFL hasn't cared much about holidays before in the name of making a buck. Why the sudden caring about one that only about 2% of the American population celebrates?

I don't what the reasoning is for not moving the game up, but I'm not buying that's it for a second.

[NEW.ERA]

The Orioles have every right to say no, but you'd think it would be a gift to the Ravens for winning the Super Bowl. It'd be the nice thing to do. Move your game to a 12:30 or 1:05et start.

[Island_Style]

Cartman would have a field day.

[pmoehrin]

The Orioles have every right to say no, but you'd think it would be a gift to the Ravens for winning the Super Bowl. It'd be the nice thing to do. Move your game to a 12:30 or 1:05et start.

Like I said before this could very easily be worked out provided ego wasn't a major factor.

If the NFL had moved the game up they figured they would have come off as giving in to the Orioles wishes and they don't want to be seen as weak, so the Rosh Hashanah excuse was probably the best they could come up with to why it was impossible to move to the game up a day and boo the Orioles for not being more open about moving their game. We did everything we could to make this happen.

If everyone in world acted like the NFL and Orioles have acted with this, nothing would ever get done.

[rams80]

The Ravens will open on the road.

"an earlier start time would create such enormous logistical difficulties that it would greatly diminish the fan experience" OH FOR 'S SAKE I'M ALL FOR STANDING YOUR GROUND BUT YOU RESCHEDULE GAMES BECAUSE OF RAIN ALL THE FLIPPIN' TIME! DON'T GIVE ME THAT "LOGISTICAL DIFFICULTIES" CRAP!

[Island_Style]

I have no idea how the people of Baltimore think when it comes to sports. Will there be a backlash on the Orioles?