NFL Changes 2014+

[guest23]

Yeah, this decision only makes sense if we take the league at its word.

Considering the league hired unqualified medical professionals to pollute the media discussion with absolute junk science and suppress findings that are counter to their position, I'd say the league has zero credibility on the subject of head injuries and player welfare.

There's no empirical evidence or data cited that supports such a claim by the league yet people continue to support this nonsense. Breaking in a helmet's padding does nothing to protect players, it's a complete myth. Breaking in is purely about comfort/preference. As a matter of fact I'd say a well broken in helmet is more dangerous than a new one as it's more likely the foam padding has degraded to a small degree, thus losing some of its protective properties and additionally may have changed shape which could cause the fit to change.

Lastly these helmets are engineered to be worn out of the box and are able to be played at full speed the minute the player gets on field.

[daveindc]

I'm surprised they haven't added gray/tan to look like a desert cardinal.

I put this together years ago along those same lines...the Arizona Pyrrhuloxias.

... and that looks beautiful!

Gray is such a trendy color, and the real life example is out there... I'd bet this is at least on Nike's radar.

I also mentioned this a while ago. I'm actually surprised they don't have a "Desert Cardinal" alt already. It's too perfect. It would even look better than most of what they have now.

Something like this? (quick mock up)

Yes, that looks great. That looks a lot better than the all black unis too.

[Chawls]

The helmet rule sucks because we don't get to see one of my favorite fauxback helmets.

[shaydre1019]

Yeah, I've been pretty hard on the NFL for its treatment of head injuries, but I think the "one helmet" rule is coming from the right place.

My question is why can't they use vinyl wraps and apply throwback stickers over that?

And don't most second helmets have their insides/ padding swapped to the new helmet

Because that's a ton of unnecessary work and I don't even think would work with current technology. Especially in like a 2 day window.

Iirc the issue was with players that still wear old helmets (and there's a handful). Those aren't just filled with air to fit a player and swapped from helmet to helmet. They are like foam that molds to your head with time/moisture/sweat, and I don't believe were intended to be moved as easily from shell to shell and even if they were those specific helmet models have been out of circulation so long that teams don't carry multiple shells so they'd have to be in an entirely different helmet wherein lies the problem.

So that's why colleges don't have an issue with multiple helmets. They don't carry the old foam padded helmets.

[hbgoo1975]

I'm surprised they haven't added gray/tan to look like a desert cardinal.

That pic of the fat cardinal there reminds me of Bruce Arians! Nice!

[TheOldRoman]

Yeah, this decision only makes sense if we take the league at its word.

Considering the league hired unqualified medical professionals to pollute the media discussion with absolute junk science and suppress findings that are counter to their position, I'd say the league has zero credibility on the subject of head injuries and player welfare.

There's no empirical evidence or data cited that supports such a claim by the league yet people continue to support this nonsense. Breaking in a helmet's padding does nothing to protect players, it's a complete myth. Breaking in is purely about comfort/preference. As a matter of fact I'd say a well broken in helmet is more dangerous than a new one as it's more likely the foam padding has degraded to a small degree, thus losing some of its protective properties and additionally may have changed shape which could cause the fit to change.

Lastly these helmets are engineered to be worn out of the box and are able to be played at full speed the minute the player gets on field.

As we've established, the NFL likes money. They try their hardest to sell more things to get them more money. By not allowing teams to wear throwback helmets, they are undoubtedly costing themselves money, as people won't be as likely to buy a throwback jersey if the team isn't wearing them. So, has there been anything to back-up the NFL's current one helmet stance? Maybe not, but it's clearly them covering their asses and trying to be proactive about this, rather than ducking the issue again. I lament that we won't get to see a few great throwbacks again (most notably Tampa Bay's), but oh well. In the end, the NFL is leaving potentially millions of dollars on the table, us uni-tards are annoyed we get fewer throwbacks, and nobody is ultimately inconvenienced or hurt by this decision. They are forgoing revenue and there's no way this rule would do anything to make players less safe, so whatever. I don't see how this particular decision could be seen as part of their diabolical plan.

[oldschoolvikings]

Yeah, this decision only makes sense if we take the league at its word.

Considering the league hired unqualified medical professionals to pollute the media discussion with absolute junk science and suppress findings that are counter to their position, I'd say the league has zero credibility on the subject of head injuries and player welfare.

There's no empirical evidence or data cited that supports such a claim by the league yet people continue to support this nonsense. Breaking in a helmet's padding does nothing to protect players, it's a complete myth. Breaking in is purely about comfort/preference. As a matter of fact I'd say a well broken in helmet is more dangerous than a new one as it's more likely the foam padding has degraded to a small degree, thus losing some of its protective properties and additionally may have changed shape which could cause the fit to change.

Lastly these helmets are engineered to be worn out of the box and are able to be played at full speed the minute the player gets on field.

As we've established, the NFL likes money. They try their hardest to sell more things to get them more money. By not allowing teams to wear throwback helmets, they are undoubtedly costing themselves money, as people won't be as likely to buy a throwback jersey if the team isn't wearing them. So, has there been anything to back-up the NFL's current one helmet stance? Maybe not, but it's clearly them covering their asses and trying to be proactive about this, rather than ducking the issue again. I lament that we won't get to see a few great throwbacks again (most notably Tampa Bay's), but oh well. In the end, the NFL is leaving potentially millions of dollars on the table, us uni-tards are annoyed we get fewer throwbacks, and nobody is ultimately inconvenienced or hurt by this decision. They are forgoing revenue and there's no way this rule would do anything to make players less safe, so whatever. I don't see how this particular decision could be seen as part of their diabolical plan.

Exactly. If you believe the one helmet rule is nonsense, and more to the point, if you believe the one helmet rule is nonsense deliberately created by the NFL, you have to ask yourself why? What do they gain by lying about it? Why wouldn't they just publish a study saying they looked into the issue, found that multiple helmets are safe, and continue using them? Again, they stand to make more money with throwbacks in use than without.

I agree the NFL does some serious bending of the truth when it suits them, but in this case, I don't see the motive.

[shaydre1019]

Yeah, this decision only makes sense if we take the league at its word.

Considering the league hired unqualified medical professionals to pollute the media discussion with absolute junk science and suppress findings that are counter to their position, I'd say the league has zero credibility on the subject of head injuries and player welfare.

There's no empirical evidence or data cited that supports such a claim by the league yet people continue to support this nonsense. Breaking in a helmet's padding does nothing to protect players, it's a complete myth. Breaking in is purely about comfort/preference. As a matter of fact I'd say a well broken in helmet is more dangerous than a new one as it's more likely the foam padding has degraded to a small degree, thus losing some of its protective properties and additionally may have changed shape which could cause the fit to change.

Lastly these helmets are engineered to be worn out of the box and are able to be played at full speed the minute the player gets on field.

As we've established, the NFL likes money. They try their hardest to sell more things to get them more money. By not allowing teams to wear throwback helmets, they are undoubtedly costing themselves money, as people won't be as likely to buy a throwback jersey if the team isn't wearing them. So, has there been anything to back-up the NFL's current one helmet stance? Maybe not, but it's clearly them covering their asses and trying to be proactive about this, rather than ducking the issue again. I lament that we won't get to see a few great throwbacks again (most notably Tampa Bay's), but oh well. In the end, the NFL is leaving potentially millions of dollars on the table, us uni-tards are annoyed we get fewer throwbacks, and nobody is ultimately inconvenienced or hurt by this decision. They are forgoing revenue and there's no way this rule would do anything to make players less safe, so whatever. I don't see how this particular decision could be seen as part of their diabolical plan.

Exactly. If you believe the one helmet rule is nonsense, and more to the point, if you believe the one helmet rule is nonsense deliberately created by the NFL, you have to ask yourself why? What do they gain by lying about it? Why wouldn't they just publish a study saying they looked into the issue, found that multiple helmets are safe, and continue using them? Again, they stand to make more money with throwbacks in use than without.

I agree the NFL does some serious bending of the truth when it suits them, but in this case, I don't see the motive.

Perhaps so they could use this as a defense against potential future lawsuits and possibly millions of dollars in the process?

I don't think this is about caring for players safety. It's about looking like they're caring for players safety. Because Thursday night games are more detrimental to player safety than switching helmets would be.

Throwbacks are gonna sell regardless, even if they're worn with an incorrect helmet or not worn at all. I mean stupid fashion jerseys sell and they're often the most ugly things in the world.

[guest23]

Yeah, this decision only makes sense if we take the league at its word.

Considering the league hired unqualified medical professionals to pollute the media discussion with absolute junk science and suppress findings that are counter to their position, I'd say the league has zero credibility on the subject of head injuries and player welfare.

There's no empirical evidence or data cited that supports such a claim by the league yet people continue to support this nonsense. Breaking in a helmet's padding does nothing to protect players, it's a complete myth. Breaking in is purely about comfort/preference. As a matter of fact I'd say a well broken in helmet is more dangerous than a new one as it's more likely the foam padding has degraded to a small degree, thus losing some of its protective properties and additionally may have changed shape which could cause the fit to change.

Lastly these helmets are engineered to be worn out of the box and are able to be played at full speed the minute the player gets on field.

As we've established, the NFL likes money. They try their hardest to sell more things to get them more money. By not allowing teams to wear throwback helmets, they are undoubtedly costing themselves money, as people won't be as likely to buy a throwback jersey if the team isn't wearing them. So, has there been anything to back-up the NFL's current one helmet stance? Maybe not, but it's clearly them covering their asses and trying to be proactive about this, rather than ducking the issue again. I lament that we won't get to see a few great throwbacks again (most notably Tampa Bay's), but oh well. In the end, the NFL is leaving potentially millions of dollars on the table, us uni-tards are annoyed we get fewer throwbacks, and nobody is ultimately inconvenienced or hurt by this decision. They are forgoing revenue and there's no way this rule would do anything to make players less safe, so whatever. I don't see how this particular decision could be seen as part of their diabolical plan.

Exactly. If you believe the one helmet rule is nonsense, and more to the point, if you believe the one helmet rule is nonsense deliberately created by the NFL, you have to ask yourself why? What do they gain by lying about it? Why wouldn't they just publish a study saying they looked into the issue, found that multiple helmets are safe, and continue using them? Again, they stand to make more money with throwbacks in use than without.

I agree the NFL does some serious bending of the truth when it suits them, but in this case, I don't see the motive.

Perhaps so they could use this as a defense against potential future lawsuits and possibly millions of dollars in the process?

I don't think this is about caring for players safety. It's about looking like they're caring for players safety. Because Thursday night games are more detrimental to player safety than switching helmets would be.

Throwbacks are gonna sell regardless, even if they're worn with an incorrect helmet or not worn at all. I mean stupid fashion jerseys sell and they're often the most ugly things in the world.

Exactly it's purely a PR move that they can tout to show that they care or are doing something. A corporate symbolic gesture that can be floated to the media for easy digestion and regurgitation by the masses. Now people think the shield is serious about player safety and head injuries.

If there was any relevant data showing a correlation why on earth haven't major ncaa programs followed suit? This policy has been around for a few years now. To also add,all of the famous CTE cases predate the multiple helmet trend so where is the league getting its research from?

[DCarp1231]

The helmet rule sucks because we don't get to see one of my favorite fauxback helmets.

I wish these were the Redskins primary uniforms... Helmet and all... By far the best throwbacks.

[OnWis97]

I am cynical enough to buy that the "one helmet rule" is low-hanging fruit meant to provide the appearance of caring about safety.

[hbgoo1975]

And the Redskins won with their stripped down helmet and mismatched uniform again! Terrible.

[Gothamite]

Exactly it's purely a PR move that they can tout to show that they care or are doing something. A corporate symbolic gesture that can be floated to the media for easy digestion and regurgitation by the masses. Now people think the shield is serious about player safety and head injuries.

I don't think this gesture is anywhere near large enough to be on most fans' radar. It certainly isn't a compelling legal argument unless they have data to back it up. Which you think they don't have.

If there was any relevant data showing a correlation why on earth haven't major ncaa programs followed suit? This policy has been around for a few years now. To also add,all of the famous CTE cases predate the multiple helmet trend so where is the league getting its research from?

Oh, that's rich. If there's one organization that cares less about the health of its employees, it's the NCAA.

[guest23]

Exactly it's purely a PR move that they can tout to show that they care or are doing something. A corporate symbolic gesture that can be floated to the media for easy digestion and regurgitation by the masses. Now people think the shield is serious about player safety and head injuries.

I don't think this gesture is anywhere near large enough to be on most fans' radar. It certainly isn't a compelling legal argument unless they have data to back it up. Which you think they don't have.

If there was any relevant data showing a correlation why on earth haven't major ncaa programs followed suit? This policy has been around for a few years now. To also add,all of the famous CTE cases predate the multiple helmet trend so where is the league getting its research from?

Oh, that's rich. If there's one organization that cares less about the health of its employees, it's the NCAA.

Do you think there is a logical or rational basis for the league to limit its franchises to using one helmet per season? If so, please explain specifically what the player safety benefit is.

Also to clarify please note that I was referring to "major ncaa programs" not the ncaa as a governing body. Regardless as to how they treat their athletes you can bet that major programs are doing a significant amount of work looking into their financial liabilities as that's where the settlements are going to be paid out of not ncaa coffers.

[BBTV]

NCAA is way different. Players in NCAA may only have been seriously exposed to concussions for 3,4 years? Maybe a couple more if you count HS. Even then, the speed, size, and skill of NFL certainly puts them at higher risk, especially since NFL players could be in their 8th, 9th, or even 15th year of legitimate exposure.

That's not to say there's no risk in NCAA or that it doesn't only take one to scramble your brain, just overall risk.

[QuickQuestion]

Hi, I know this is off topic but I created an account after lurking for the last year and a half just to ask this question:

Hypothetically, let's assume Super Bowl XLIX is between Denver and Dallas. With the NFC being the home team this season, I assume Dallas would elect to wear white. Could Denver, assuming all they play are home games in the post season, elect to wear their mono blues instead of orange, as they are the away team and have not declared an away uniform for the post season? I've tried googling the answer but nothing came up and I figured if anyone would know it would be this forum's collective knowledge. Thanks!

[oldschoolvikings]

I am cynical enough to buy that the "one helmet rule" is low-hanging fruit meant to provide the appearance of caring about safety.

Eh, I have trouble buying that. If you asked a hundred people, even a hundred passionate NFL fans, how many would even have heard of the rule? If I wasn't on this board I wouldn't have known.

Also, it seems hard for me to picture the NFL getting any mileage out of the "We got rid of alternate helmets" defense if they're being sued. Pulling out that card would pretty much result in yawns and eye rolls.

[BBTV]

Hi, I know this is off topic but I created an account after lurking for the last year and a half just to ask this question:

Hypothetically, let's assume Super Bowl XLIX is between Denver and Dallas. With the NFC being the home team this season, I assume Dallas would elect to wear white. Could Denver, assuming all they play are home games in the post season, elect to wear their mono blues instead of orange, as they are the away team and have not declared an away uniform for the post season? I've tried googling the answer but nothing came up and I figured if anyone would know it would be this forum's collective knowledge. Thanks!

There is definitely a rule regarding number of times an alt can be worn in prime time, and I'm fairly certain (not 100%) that they can't be worn in the post season. Either way since they wore them on SNF, that alone probably disqualifies them from being worn in the SB.

[QuickQuestion]

Thanks for the answer! I'll continue to do some digging and see if Alts have been/ are allowed to be worn during the post season/ Super Bowl.

[Gothamite]

Do you think there is a logical or rational basis for the league to limit its franchises to using one helmet per season? If so, please explain specifically what the player safety benefit is.

The NFL has already provided one. They believe there is heightened risk if equipment managers are responsible for fitting and maintaining two complete sets of helmets.

You personally don't think it's a legitimate basis, but have failed to show why they would establish the rule otherwise. It is costing them exposure for their merchandise, is barely a blip on the PR front and won't give them any substantive cover against a future lawsuit. Occam's razor applies.

Also to clarify please note that I was referring to "major ncaa programs" not the ncaa as a governing body. Regardless as to how they treat their athletes you can bet that major programs are doing a significant amount of work looking into their financial liabilities as that's where the settlements are going to be paid out of not ncaa coffers.

Congratulations. You found about the only entity that cares less about the health of its employees than the NFL and NCAA does; the individual athletic departments, locked in mortal combat with other schools to do it all cheaper. So long as the effects are delayed beyond the player's collegiate career (and especially can be blamed on post-collegiate activity), they won't do a damned thing they aren't required to do.

How many schools have offered to extend student medial insurance to players down the road, when they will finally become symptomatic? That's how many actually give a damn about their employees' health.