Washington Post: Former Hoosier Antwaan Randle El regrets ever playing football

Donate To GopherHole

Three radical but simple changes:

1. The helmets need to be less rather than more. It is too easy to hit with your head now. Go to a helmet where you will break your own nose if you lay into a guy face first and make it more about form tackling. Rugby doesn't have near the concussion problem and that is because you will hurt your own head if you lead with it.
2. End the strength arms race. Institute weight classes by position similar to wrestling and make them reasonable to body types. I.E. Running backs must be 210 or under. O-line 260 or under (just guesses). Miss weight and you don't play.
3. End hitting in practice or mandate a severe reduction for all teams (say three practices in spring and three in fall). Yes, this will lead to sloppier play but so be it. It is a better alternative than flag football.

I somewhat agree that there is an over reaction going on but it is also clear this is a problem that is not going away.
 

To prevent concussions two thinks need to be done:

1. Helmets can get safer. How much? Hard to say. Yes then cannot stop your brain from bouncing around your skull, but they can be designed to give you head more cushion, allowing it to slow more before coming to a sudden stop. This can help, but it by no means will eliminate the issue.

2. More awareness and practice about tackling properly should be instituted at ALL levels of play. Teach a player how to tackle properly when they are young, and by the time they are in college they will have the form down to minimize helmet to helmet contact.

Accidents will still happen, its a contact sport, but if these two things happen I think the amount of injury will go down. Other than that there are things players can do themselves to help as well, such as neck strengthening exercises, etc. that can help reduce the severity of concussions. With all the awareness now I also think there is less of a notion to "just tough it out" than there was even 8-10 years ago. Players and Coaches are seeing the aftermath of that and know its bad. Part of the problem was also players not healing fully before taking another hit, which is changing too. It'd be interesting to see, in 10ish years, what the injury rate of former players is compared to now.
 

MNfootballfan said:
Instead of 250lb fullbacks running 5 yards and hitting a 245lb LB we have 200 pound WR's running 4.5 40s for 20 yards getting hit by a 220 pound safety who is also running a 4.5 and we have defensive ends who run as fast as running backs but they weigh 270 pounds. In my opinion that is the reason why football is dangerous, the players like Clowney, Everson Griffin, Harrison Smith, etc. They are just too fast, strong, etc. There is no equipment that can protect you when a player like Everson Griffin is on your kick coverage team.
Click to expand...

Yea but those safeties are no longer allowed to take the kill shots they used to. If they lower they're head they're fined and penalized. If the WR doesn't have a chance to defend himself they're fined and penalized. There are far fewer big hits today than there were even 5 years ago.
 

Maroon&GoldLivesMatter said:
They can only remove the intentional ones. Many hits to/with the helmet are unintentional - aka that's how o-lineman get concussed. And tackles made by the DBs will sometimes involve accidental helmet contact.

There is no way to make the game safer and have it still resemble itself. It'll be gone in 20 years. Watch, the first step is non-football states (aka, not the south) will start to ban it at the under high school level, etc. and it'll catch on like that.
Click to expand...

??? They're already making the game safer. They're also more aware of head issues. Not sure what you're talking about

Maroon&GoldLivesMatter said:
LESS big boys? How many Calvin Johnson sized WRs do you recall from the '80s and '90s??? I admit the modern day version of "the fridge" is going away at DT, but the RBs, WRs, TEs, and DBs are all enormous compared to yester-year.
Click to expand...

We're not comparing players today to players from 1985. We're comparing players today to players from 2005. There are fewer FBs and TEs on O and LBs are leaner and more mobile. The downhill head thumpers are rare now
 


DLguy said:
For every Calvin Johnson, there are 10 Stephon Diggs. Calvin Johnson is not the rule, but the exception. I can't name another player similar to him.
Click to expand...

And back when there were less violent hits, there were no calvin johnsons. And while not as good, certainly brandon marshall and alshon jeffery fit that size/speed profile, and those are just recent players from our division.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Well, it isn't, so...

Anecdotal stories, biased studies. Unfortunately, the burden of proof is high in the science world. This is not as cut and dried as the media and lawyers would like you to think. Can you tell me the incident rates in youth, college, NFL players? Can the symptoms be explained by other conditions?

There may indeed be a strong link. The question then is how many concussions are too much? One? Is adequate rest between injuries neuroprotective? In the past players kept playing. That no longer happens. Is adequate rest, say 3-4 weeks or months adequate?

Degree of risk is important to establish. Radiation, toxins etc all have adequate risk levels established. Perhaps this is true of mild TBI. Maybe every kid that had a concussion or two will have long term problems.
Click to expand...

Perfectly said.
This couldn't be being brought up in public interviews because Randle El was one of the players that sued the NFL and he's looking for more money either. Never.

In 20 years I think they'll have neuroprotective and possibly neuro restorative treatments for brain injuries of all kinds, maybe as a result of the careful and thorough research that is at work right now on brain injury patients from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the work being done on alzheimers disease, and to a lesser extent the concussion studies of NFL players.
The science is slow because massive amounts of data are required to just pinpoint causes, much less cofactors, genetic markers, or treatments.

That doesn't work in today's headline driven world and science poor world. It's easier to scream about dramatic isolated incidents, wild claims, and fictional but scary stories.
The science will fill in the blanks eventually and we'll be better for it.
I hope the misplaced hysteria hasn't killed competitive sports off by then.
 

Winnipegopher said:
2. End the strength arms race. Institute weight classes by position similar to wrestling and make them reasonable to body types. I.E. Running backs must be 210 or under. O-line 260 or under (just guesses). Miss weight and you don't play.
Click to expand...

I have thought about this as well, but it's football and players can move all over the field. So you can put in limits for the dline, linebackers, and DBs, but you can't stop the DE from dropping into coverage and playing like the LB he currently would be.

The game might be playing itself out. Politics will get involved. Wait until a liberal, east coast, non-football state institutes the first ban....
 

oleboy41 said:
??? They're already making the game safer. They're also more aware of head issues. Not sure what you're talking about
Click to expand...

I'm saying that it can't get much safer going forward. When they started this in 2009 or so, there was a lot of room for improvement. Now there is little room unless you change the game noticeably. That's what I meant.


oleboy41 said:
We're not comparing players today to players from 1985. We're comparing players today to players from 2005. There are fewer FBs and TEs on O and LBs are leaner and more mobile. The downhill head thumpers are rare now
Click to expand...

Exactly. And leaner/more mobile LBs is the PROBLEM, it's not an improvement!!! Speed is waaaaay more important than weight. Even in high school physics they should teach you to want a lighter golf club so you can swing it faster, correct? A slow moving 250 LB from 30 years ago is A LOT safer than a lighting fast, solid muscle 235 LB of today.
 



Ole said:
That doesn't work in today's headline driven world and science poor world. It's easier to scream about dramatic isolated incidents, wild claims, and fictional but scary stories.
The science will fill in the blanks eventually and we'll be better for it.
I hope the misplaced hysteria hasn't killed competitive sports off by then.
Click to expand...

Love the hysteria about hysteria.
 


Here's the thing...many of you are focused on concussions from tackling. They aren't the only problem though. The repeated head jarring that occurs in football, particularly along the OL and DL , is showing to have a greater and greater long term risk. I don't know how you get away from that in the current game without either eliminating those positions or going to the rules in my kid's flag football league (count to 3 Mississippi before defense can cross the LOS). There is a level of repetitive head impacts and jarring in football that exists in no other sport that I'm aware of. Hockey players get concussions from hard checks sometimes but the average player gets checked hard maybe 2-3 times in a game at most and never in practice. For the OL and DL in football, it's every play and also in many practices! The link below has some good information on this issue (subconcussive trauma) and a number of studies are pointing to this.

http://www.momsteam.com/sub-concussive/sub-concussive-hits-growing-concern-in-youth-sports

I love watching football but I'm discouraging my own son from playing tackle football (flag is a lot of fun). Science may solve this in 20 years or maybe it won't...but he's 10 right now and I'm not excited about rolling the dice with what we know today.
 

year of the gopher said:
Here's the thing...many of you are focused on concussions from tackling. They aren't the only problem though. The repeated head jarring that occurs in football, particularly along the OL and DL , is showing to have a greater and greater long term risk. I don't know how you get away from that in the current game without either eliminating those positions or going to the rules in my kid's flag football league (count to 3 Mississippi before defense can cross the LOS). There is a level of repetitive head impacts and jarring in football that exists in no other sport that I'm aware of. Hockey players get concussions from hard checks sometimes but the average player gets checked hard maybe 2-3 times in a game at most and never in practice. For the OL and DL in football, it's every play and also in many practices! The link below has some good information on this issue (subconcussive trauma) and a number of studies are pointing to this.

http://www.momsteam.com/sub-concussive/sub-concussive-hits-growing-concern-in-youth-sports



I love watching football but I'm discouraging my own son from playing tackle football (flag is a lot of fun). Science may solve this in 20 years or maybe it won't...but he's 10 right now and I'm not excited about rolling the dice with what we know today.
Click to expand...

Please be sure to read the actual published studies linked in this article.
Analyze it carefully. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3922228/
It's a really limited study with a very small population of football players. The authors make several really incredible claims without alot of proof.

Preseason IMPACT scores were taken, midseason scores were taken if a concussion occured, or if one was definitely not reported. Postseason scores were taken for only 11 of the 24 players. Some test scores went up! Not reported in the headlines though. Scores were not taken every week, not taken for much time after the season, and not taken for other control groups like non participants.

I dearly hope they are using the money they will get from this widely reported study to fill in the blanks on their research and do so on a larger scale and with better data collection techniques, controls, etc. I also hope if they find their findings less significant with a larger study they will still report it. I doubt it will reach the newspaper headlines though.

I don't have a problem with people keeping their kids from playing sports like football or hockey. That's your right.
I have a problem with journalists selling their headlines at the expense of sound science and parents jumping into the fray pretending to have the facts when even the top researchers don't really know much yet.
 



Ole said:
Please be sure to read the actual published studies linked in this article.
Analyze it carefully. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3922228/
It's a really limited study with a very small population of football players. The authors make several really incredible claims without alot of proof.

Preseason IMPACT scores were taken, midseason scores were taken if a concussion occured, or if one was definitely not reported. Postseason scores were taken for only 11 of the 24 players. Some test scores went up! Not reported in the headlines though. Scores were not taken every week, not taken for much time after the season, and not taken for other control groups like non participants.

I dearly hope they are using the money they will get from this widely reported study to fill in the blanks on their research and do so on a larger scale and with better data collection techniques, controls, etc. I also hope if they find their findings less significant with a larger study they will still report it. I doubt it will reach the newspaper headlines though.

I don't have a problem with people keeping their kids from playing sports like football or hockey. That's your right.
I have a problem with journalists selling their headlines at the expense of sound science and parents jumping into the fray pretending to have the facts when even the top researchers don't really know much yet.
Click to expand...

Just to further this. Not everything that sites a study is accurate. Sometimes they'll use studies that don't have a lot of evidence, or make outrageous claims, and sometimes they'll site only partial evidence to prove they're claim. Some studies conclude with "Yes, our study showed some correlation between these two things, but more research needs to be done to confirm" and people site them as if they confirmed the correlation.
 

Maroon&GoldLivesMatter said:
I'm saying that it can't get much safer going forward. When they started this in 2009 or so, there was a lot of room for improvement. Now there is little room unless you change the game noticeably. That's what I meant.




Exactly. And leaner/more mobile LBs is the PROBLEM, it's not an improvement!!! Speed is waaaaay more important than weight. Even in high school physics they should teach you to want a lighter golf club so you can swing it faster, correct? A slow moving 250 LB from 30 years ago is A LOT safer than a lighting fast, solid muscle 235 LB of today.
Click to expand...

says who? The guys supposedly suffering from the affects of CTE are the ones that were playing against those thumpers from the past 30 years. And you keep skipping over the fact that guys aren't able to hit like they once were. Even if you're right that smaller faster guys are more dangerous, you keep ignoring that they're not hitting like they used to. There is FAR FAR FAR less hitting in practice than ever before. Headhunting isn't allowed so you don't see the Steve Atwater, John Lynch types out there knocking WRs out over the middle. The way the game is played is already completely different and safer. You see more people sitting out for concussions simply because they're actually being diagnosed, not because they're occurring more often. Less hitting on all levels + hits to the head and with the head being illegal + more concussion awareness = far fewer issues moving forward. Guys that used to play concussed and not see the symptoms until years later now get sat and monitored immediately
 

oleboy41 said:
says who? The guys supposedly suffering from the affects of CTE are the ones that were playing against those thumpers from the past 30 years.
Click to expand...

Well, that's only because they didn't have fast, solidly muscular guys training 24/7/365 to play against.

I'll agree on the head hunting being removed, but like I was trying to point out, the NFL is going to run out of ideas. So if all these supposed problems are caused solely from head hunting type hits, the NFL is in luck. If it's also a decent amount from regular lineman contact, the NFL isn't so lucky.

And just because you're monitored and brought out of game, well, you still suffered the concussion. Granted, it's safer than going back in, but the damage has been done.
 

Ole said:
Please be sure to read the actual published studies linked in this article.
Analyze it carefully. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3922228/
It's a really limited study with a very small population of football players. The authors make several really incredible claims without alot of proof.

Preseason IMPACT scores were taken, midseason scores were taken if a concussion occured, or if one was definitely not reported. Postseason scores were taken for only 11 of the 24 players. Some test scores went up! Not reported in the headlines though. Scores were not taken every week, not taken for much time after the season, and not taken for other control groups like non participants.

I dearly hope they are using the money they will get from this widely reported study to fill in the blanks on their research and do so on a larger scale and with better data collection techniques, controls, etc. I also hope if they find their findings less significant with a larger study they will still report it. I doubt it will reach the newspaper headlines though.

I don't have a problem with people keeping their kids from playing sports like football or hockey. That's your right.
I have a problem with journalists selling their headlines at the expense of sound science and parents jumping into the fray pretending to have the facts when even the top researchers don't really know much yet.
Click to expand...

Ole, I chose not to belabor my point by providing multiple links but this is far from the only article available on the topic and that is far from the only study (with many more ongoing). This particular article cites 42 different sources, inlcuding several different studies so it is not based solely on the one study you referenced. Every single scientific study has limitations, identifying them and building on the body of research by addressing them is part of the scientific process. What's undeniable from what we know is that there is evidence, perhaps not the type of absolute conclusiveness you apparently seek but very concerning correlative evidence, that repeated subconcussive trauma (no concussion symptoms) has effects on the brain. We are at the nascent stages of really understanding the brain so it will take years and probably decades before we have a great understanding of what happens with repeated, small blows.

I agree that science journalism is very spotty, mostly because it doesnt' sell papers as well as the sports section so newspapers don't invest much in covering science. That's a problem we aren't going to solve in this forum.

By the way, my kid plays hockey so I'm not opposed to all contact in sports by any means. And the jury is still out on tackle football. If he really wants to play, we'll talk about the risks and we may let him. But when I evaluate the potential for injury, frequency and severity of hits is a pretty reasonable consideration. Hockey has also made good strides in player protection from moving the age at which checking is allowed up to bantams (14-15) to a strong emphasis on enforcement of major penalties for hits to the head.
 

Taji34 said:
Just to further this. Not everything that sites a study is accurate. Sometimes they'll use studies that don't have a lot of evidence, or make outrageous claims, and sometimes they'll site only partial evidence to prove they're claim. Some studies conclude with "Yes, our study showed some correlation between these two things, but more research needs to be done to confirm" and people site them as if they confirmed the correlation.
Click to expand...

Cite...it's cite. If you're going to lecture us on reading studies, please use the right terminology. See my point in my last post about scientific studies. Correlations are established and limitations pointed out. Subsequent studies start addressing those limitations and try to replicate the correlations. For decades the only evidence that smoking was bad for your health was a correlation. Then researchers found the physiological evidence. Should the surgeon general have waited for that before issuing warnings? I don't think so.
 

Maroon&GoldLivesMatter said:
Well, that's only because they didn't have fast, solidly muscular guys training 24/7/365 to play against.

I'll agree on the head hunting being removed, but like I was trying to point out, the NFL is going to run out of ideas. So if all these supposed problems are caused solely from head hunting type hits, the NFL is in luck. If it's also a decent amount from regular lineman contact, the NFL isn't so lucky.

And just because you're monitored and brought out of game, well, you still suffered the concussion. Granted, it's safer than going back in, but the damage has been done.
Click to expand...

You keep picking and choosing points. I'll say it sloooowly this time:
On ALL LEVELS of football players are hitting far less in practice
On ALL LEVELS of football there is an emphasis on removing the head from the tackling process (used to be taught to put the head across the chest)
On ALL LEVELS of football ANYONE showing ANY signs of head injury are immediately removed from action and made to go through concussion protocols before they play again. This is FAR safer than previously when players were RARELY checked and regularly played with concussions unchecked. They compounded their injuries
Its not ONLY about head hunting hits. There has been a COMPLETE change in the approach to head trauma and the things causing it in the last 3-5 years. I've been involved in it on the youth and high school level when coaching. ALL of these factors are leading to a safer game down the line
 

year of the gopher said:
Ole, I chose not to belabor my point by providing multiple links but this is far from the only article available on the topic and that is far from the only study (with many more ongoing). This particular article cites 42 different sources, inlcuding several different studies so it is not based solely on the one study you referenced. Every single scientific study has limitations, identifying them and building on the body of research by addressing them is part of the scientific process. What's undeniable from what we know is that there is evidence, perhaps not the type of absolute conclusiveness you apparently seek but very concerning correlative evidence, that repeated subconcussive trauma (no concussion symptoms) has effects on the brain. We are at the nascent stages of really understanding the brain so it will take years and probably decades before we have a great understanding of what happens with repeated, small blows.

I agree that science journalism is very spotty, mostly because it doesnt' sell papers as well as the sports section so newspapers don't invest much in covering science. That's a problem we aren't going to solve in this forum.

By the way, my kid plays hockey so I'm not opposed to all contact in sports by any means. And the jury is still out on tackle football. If he really wants to play, we'll talk about the risks and we may let him. But when I evaluate the potential for injury, frequency and severity of hits is a pretty reasonable consideration. Hockey has also made good strides in player protection from moving the age at which checking is allowed up to bantams (14-15) to a strong emphasis on enforcement of major penalties for hits to the head.
Click to expand...

You're spot on!

I intend to try and read some of those 42 articles. I simply don't have time right now.
Thanks for linking that article, even if it's a little alarmist for my taste.
I have a hard time believing the sub concussive hits theory myself, but it's all worth studying.

Football is the big fish in this country, the media is just using all of this as clickbait. If this was canada it'd be hockey, in other countries, soccer.
If you think the film makers of "Concussion" made that film with altruistic intentions, you'd be wrong. It's all about stoking the fear of unknown and cherry picking science for headlines, views and through that, money.

Parents like us(yes I have a son) just want to protect their kids but there's so much misinformation out there it literally takes a science background to pick through the garbage. We may not be able to solve that problem here, but I have tried to not perpetuate it here either. Maybe I shouldn't even try, but it just bugs me.
 



hungan1 said:
Yeah, we should get back to using leather helmet so players don't use their helmet as weapons.

Maybe we ought to hire this guy doing the helmet test (if he is still alive)!

http://yester.ly/sports/2014/01/03/football-concussions-history/

Football concussions has a violent history. In 1913, 175 players were reported injured and fourteen have died.
Click to expand...

Only 14 of 175 have died since 1913? I am impressed. What a great health system we have!
 

dpodoll68 said:
I would imagine that anyone playing football in 1913 has died.
Click to expand...

Maybe they ought to start recruiting the undead. They'll have no problems with concussions, just keeping the limbs attached.
 

oleboy41 said:
You keep picking and choosing points. I'll say it sloooowly this time:
On ALL LEVELS of football players are hitting far less in practice
On ALL LEVELS of football there is an emphasis on removing the head from the tackling process (used to be taught to put the head across the chest)
On ALL LEVELS of football ANYONE showing ANY signs of head injury are immediately removed from action and made to go through concussion protocols before they play again. This is FAR safer than previously when players were RARELY checked and regularly played with concussions unchecked. They compounded their injuries
Its not ONLY about head hunting hits. There has been a COMPLETE change in the approach to head trauma and the things causing it in the last 3-5 years. I've been involved in it on the youth and high school level when coaching. ALL of these factors are leading to a safer game down the line
Click to expand...

There you go with facts and actual knowledge about what you are talking about.

The changes made today will be seen fully in about 20 years. Football is not going anywhere for two reasons.

1. Too much money is being made.
2. They are actually addressing the perceived problem. Soccer on the other hand.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

I have grown quite cynical over the years. There is a difference between something being statistically true and practically relevant. For example, millions of dollars are made on traded seling exhausted physicians on so and so drug has x less risk of y side effect, or their product has z more efficacy vs placebo (the generic competitor is almost always strangely absent). Not that physicians are generally stupid people or statistically dim-witted (although some certainly are more gullible than others). Most simply are too busy to dig into the methods and results of the junk science.

My point is that the studies need to be reproducible, they need controls, they need long-term monitoring of concussion recipients. What are the incident rates of long-term problems? Should millions of former players expect to be depressed, lose their cognition, develop Alzheimer's disease?

Millions of people (former college students, hmm)would be shocked at this headline, I'm sure. Don't you want to know what the size of the effect is?

One day of binge drinking linked to brain damage, researchers say.

http://newsarchive.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news-214412.html
 

oleboy41 said:
You keep picking and choosing points. I'll say it sloooowly this time:
On ALL LEVELS of football players are hitting far less in practice
On ALL LEVELS of football there is an emphasis on removing the head from the tackling process (used to be taught to put the head across the chest)
On ALL LEVELS of football ANYONE showing ANY signs of head injury are immediately removed from action and made to go through concussion protocols before they play again. This is FAR safer than previously when players were RARELY checked and regularly played with concussions unchecked. They compounded their injuries
Its not ONLY about head hunting hits. There has been a COMPLETE change in the approach to head trauma and the things causing it in the last 3-5 years. I've been involved in it on the youth and high school level when coaching. ALL of these factors are leading to a safer game down the line
Click to expand...

You can call it "picking and choosing" all you want, I refer to it as pointing out some bad symptoms of football. Yes, there will only be a FEW, but there are still there, agreed? I don't need to REFUTE EVERYTHING you say. I'm not trying to say football is ALL bad. Get it????

Yes, everything you say will make the game safer than if they did NOT do those things. And the stuff I say, like stronger and faster players, makes the game more dangerous. It could be a wash, could it not? Less hitting, but more violent hits. See my point????? Or should I say it SLOOOOOOOOOOWLY?
 

Sportsfan24 said:
There you go with facts and actual knowledge about what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

What - my comment about players being stronger and faster isn't a fact?

Sportsfan24 said:
The changes made today will be seen fully in about 20 years. Football is not going anywhere for two reasons.

1. Too much money is being made.
2. They are actually addressing the perceived problem.
Click to expand...

Regarding the money, remember that the people making it aren't the ones with total control over the situation. You think some liberal politician who doesn't know a football from a basketball is going to be bought off by an NFL lobby? All it takes is a few things to get the tide swinging the other direction and you have major change.
 

Maroon&GoldLivesMatter said:
You can call it "picking and choosing" all you want, I refer to it as pointing out some bad symptoms of football. Yes, there will only be a FEW, but there are still there, agreed? I don't need to REFUTE EVERYTHING you say. I'm not trying to say football is ALL bad. Get it????

Yes, everything you say will make the game safer than if they did NOT do those things. And the stuff I say, like stronger and faster players, makes the game more dangerous. It could be a wash, could it not? Less hitting, but more violent hits. See my point????? Or should I say it SLOOOOOOOOOOWLY?
Click to expand...

For the first time you gave a full response. Previously I'd discuss change in all levels and you'd say 'removing big hits alone won't solve the problem' and ignore everything else said. That was the issue. So you actually responding to the overall point actually allows this to be a conversation. But to your point, I don't agree with your point as everything I mentioned is leading towards FEWER violent hits, not more. Sure you could make the argument that having more fast guys leads to more violent hits but that's ignoring the fact that everything we're discussing is removing those types of hits from the game. Most violent hits occur either in the hole or immediately after the catch as its very difficult to lay someone out in the open field anyway and the game is now more about open field tackling than ever before. So now players aren't using their helmets, aren't aiming high, aren't having nearly as many in the box collisions, can't hit guys who are unprotected, and are being forced into more 1 on 1 open field tackles which by nature are usually ankle grab, shoulder to the thigh types of plays. None of that says 'MORE VIOLENT HITS' like you keep saying
 

Maroon&GoldLivesMatter said:
What - my comment about players being stronger and faster isn't a fact?



Regarding the money, remember that the people making it aren't the ones with total control over the situation. You think some liberal politician who doesn't know a football from a basketball is going to be bought off by an NFL lobby? All it takes is a few things to get the tide swinging the other direction and you have major change.
Click to expand...

Your comment is indeed fact but it pales in comparison when examined under a analytical eye.

Rule changes to improve brain damage that supposedly accumulated over 10-20 years of playing football won't be seen until the same 10-20 years go by.

Bought off? Yes, that's why cities pony up hundreds of millions of dollars to get or keep NFL football.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom