Quote: Roger Goodell never played football or any sport beyond HS and he graduated college with a degree in economics. IMO, he is on coarse to be the worst NFL commissioner ever!
I might be mistaken, but doesn't the competition committee come up with the rule changes? And then the owners vote on it. What does that have to do with Goodell?
Quote: You keep harping about the outside padding.
I trust the advances in kinesiology, CAD systems, and improved materials, and companies such as Shutt, Riddell, Adams, Wilson, and a host of other helmet manufacturers who pour in tons of money for research have pretty well determined that duct taping some padding to the outside of the helmet isn't of any benefit.
peen...I don't give a damn how crude you believe it may have been, IT WORKED...
It worked for the next 10 season's for Lanier as he did not suffer another concussion.
It would work again, if the NFL tried it too...this is not rocket science folks...it is this simple.
The idea I believe would be most acceptable today would be to sandwich a layer of padding between an inner hard plastic shell and an outer hard plastic shell. It would act as a shock absorber between the two layers, yet the helmets would continue to have the "look" they do today.
With the improvements in space age materials, I'm sure someone can develop and produce a better helmet than what has been used for the last 40 yrs.
Here is a good video about KC LBs...the Lanier part starts at 1:19...
It worked for the next 10 season's for Lanier as he did not suffer another concussion.
A concussion by the definition of what it was back then?
We now have a whole different understanding of what a concussion is.
Quote: It would work again, if the NFL tried it too...this is not rocket science folks...it is this simple.
Like others have said. The helmets have improved. Just some palyers chose not to wear them. But really, does it matter what kind of helmet you are wearing when there is a 260 pound dude running as fast as he can straight at you from ten yards away, then launching himself at your face? I say no.
Quote: That video had nothing to do with helmet safety. Nothing.
What was your point in posting that video?
Oh Lord, give me the strength...
arch...the video was about KC LBs, with one being Willie Lanier, perhaps the greatest middle LB to play the game, and his story about how he almost lost his NFL career due to a very serious concussion when he was a rookie...specifically, the video showed Lanier doing some pretty nasty hitting, while wearing his "crude" helmet that seems to have worked well for him.
Went right over your head, arch...swwooosssshhhh...swing and miss, your out of there...
Quote: A concussion by the definition of what it was back then?
We now have a whole different understanding of what a concussion is
crf...I think I can say with certainty, just as many if not more players back in Lanier's day, suffered concussion and either did not say anything about them or the trainer held up 3 fingers and asked how many the injured play saw...the player says he sees 5 fingers...close enough, back in the game the player went, concussion and all.
Quote: Like others have said. The helmets have improved. Just some palyers chose not to wear them. But really, does it matter what kind of helmet you are wearing when there is a 260 pound dude running as fast as he can straight at you from ten yards away, then launching himself at your face? I say no.
crf...the inside of helmets have improved but not the outside...they are still the same rock hard plastic helmets I used over 40 yrs ago.
Damn right, the type of helmet matters. If there is one point everyone should "get" from Willie Lanier's story, it is that Lanier's helmet worked.
Over the years and many decades, improvements have been made to the inside of helmets in an attempt to make them safer and we still have an alarming rate of concussions and neck injuries. Obviously, today's helmets are not getting the job done, when it comes to safety.
The industry has done about all they can to improve the inside of helmets and the only place left to look for improvement is so the outside.
I'm dead set against Roger Goodell's approach of trying to change the game, rather than continuing to upgrade the safety of the equipment..pads and helmets.
Obviously, the NFL and the helmet industry have "failed" to do everything they can to make helmets safer. For some reason...probably to do with $$$...they refuse to update and upgrade the outside of helmets.
This is "tackle football" not Roger Goodell's school of dance...a "tutu" will be standard equipment in Goodell's NFL, real soon, if the owners keep him as commissioner of the NFL...the guy is a nutjob...jmho..mac
they have done studies. the 'best' method for fixing the helmet was determined to be either the Riddell Revolution or one of it's competitors (all similar in design)
Robert Jorgensen says: January 25, 2011 at 8:26 am The extra padding on the outside of the helmet is a great idea. For example, boxing gloves are padded on the outside. Also why not have a skin type layer on the outside. Afterall, skin flexes and moves during inpact to transfer force to a greater area and absorb more impact. Helmet are hard on the outside. A flexible skinlike layer would disperse more of the energy. Has that been tried?
Reply Riddell says: January 27, 2011 at 12:10 pm The problem with that is the fact that such surfaces don’t offer deflection. Soft surfaces absorb the impact, which means they don’t deflect the impact and slide it off the helmet. If the outer shell were soft, we’d have a lot more neck and spinal injuries as a result.
I understand exactly what your point was. What you swung at and missed was the fact your video link had nothing to do with what you thought your point was. It's so far over your head I won't even make a "swwoooosh" comment - trust me ma, you didn't even have to duck to miss it.
mac....what is going over your head is if you put everybody in a rubber helmet the friction would cause them to "stick" and people would have broken necks.
Like I said....I trust the engineers and medical folks who actually try to design better protective gear over you.
Really....on one hand I have the R&D department (that's research and development if you were stumped) of a major equipment supplier who doesn't want players of any age getting injured while wearing their equipment...and then I have you telling me how it should be done.
If you are right, maybe you should start your own company, or at minimum write a few letters telling these outfits how it should be done.
You might win some award.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
Quote: they have done studies. the 'best' method for fixing the helmet was determined to be either the Riddell Revolution or one of it's competitors (all similar in design)
Robert Jorgensen says: January 25, 2011 at 8:26 am The extra padding on the outside of the helmet is a great idea. For example, boxing gloves are padded on the outside. Also why not have a skin type layer on the outside. Afterall, skin flexes and moves during inpact to transfer force to a greater area and absorb more impact. Helmet are hard on the outside. A flexible skinlike layer would disperse more of the energy. Has that been tried?
Reply Riddell says: January 27, 2011 at 12:10 pm The problem with that is the fact that such surfaces don’t offer deflection. Soft surfaces absorb the impact, which means they don’t deflect the impact and slide it off the helmet. If the outer shell were soft, we’d have a lot more neck and spinal injuries as a result.
nolog...Interesting stuff...thanks for the links.
This was a study commissioned by and paid for by Riddell. It was limited in scope, just 3 yrs and studied just high school football players.
I don't put a lot of stock in a study that is not completely independent of the companies making the helmets.
Also, I'm not surprised by the comments from Riddell concerning adding padding to the outside of helmets. Did Riddell produce helmets with padding added to the outside and commission a study of concussion results?...NOPE.
I'm sure it's much easier more profitable for helmet companies to stamp out a rock hard plastic shell, glue some padding and/or airbags inside and sell them for $250 each.
One idea I have talked about that would address Riddell concerns (about padding on the outside)...is to sandwich a layer of padding on the outside of an inner shell and add an outer shell over it.
Again, we have hard evidence that adding padding to the outside of a pro helmet helps to reduce (or eliminate) concussions. The least helmet manufacturers and the NFL could do is produce a sample lot and run a physical on field test on them.
Fact is, the only place left for helmet manufacturers to improve upon the helmet is adding padding to the outside....either that, or simply change the game of football, taking the hitting out of the game, which is absolutely nuts!
I stand firm, concerning my ideas of how to improve player safety in football...jmho...mac
Quote: I don't put a lot of stock in a study that is not completely independent of the companies making the helmets.
But your betting the farm on a makeshift helmet worn by one guy for a few years?
flor...and what were the "results" of that one example, which was an individual study that covered 10 yrs and the subject was not just an average NFL football player...he was one of the hardest hitting middle LBers to ever to play the game.
The least the NFL and helmet manufacturers could do is run a physical, on field study to accumulate some findings.
To simply say it won't work without even trying is lazy and crazy, IMO.
Would you rather have Roger Goodell's approach... taking hitting out of NFL football?....OR...an actual honest move toward making football equipment safer.
Quote: The least the NFL and helmet manufacturers could do is run a physical, on field study to accumulate some findings.
Sure, I mean what's a few broken necks or ruptured spinal columns??
Stand firm all you want. It won't happen.
It's been explained. Studies were done and show it causes more harm then good, yet you seem to think Riddell isn't moving forward because they like people getting injured and selling helmets for $250. That is basically what you are saying.
If the outside padding actually worked, they could probably sell the helmets for MORE money.
My guess is they don't want to put a proven inferior product on the market.
After that, I don't know what else to say??
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
Quote: I don't put a lot of stock in a study that is not completely independent of the companies making the helmets.
But your betting the farm on a makeshift helmet worn by one guy for a few years?
flor...and what were the "results" of that one example, which was an individual study that covered 10 yrs and the subject was not just an average NFL football player...he was one of the hardest hitting middle LBers to ever to play the game.
The least the NFL and helmet manufacturers could do is run a physical, on field study to accumulate some findings.
To simply say it won't work without even trying is lazy and crazy, IMO.
Would you rather have Roger Goodell's approach... taking hitting out of NFL football?....OR...an actual honest move toward making football equipment safer.
No I don't prefer rule changes. But 1 example is hardly a study. Can you say for a fact he didn't change the way he attacked? Maybe didn't lead with the head as much? Maybe his body compensated and became less susceptible to concussions?
You choose to disregard a study by a manufacturer, but claim this 1 example works. Is this 1 example worth looking into? sure, but to declare it is the solution which is the way you are coming across is ludicrous.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
Yeah. I didn't realize that they had already done studies on this. If they could completely change the helmets, I'm sure that they would .... because they could sell new helmets to each and every team for each and every player. I'm sure that if they could make the helmets safer in a radically different way that would make the old helmets obsolete, they would be thrilled to do so. That would be a huge new market ....... from pee wee football, to the pros.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Quote: Did Riddell produce helmets with padding added to the outside and commission a study of concussion results?...NOPE.
correct. because their software modeling of the such helmets showed them that it was too dangerous. they would be liable if they were to produce such helmets and then "go prove" they are dangerous.
why does it matter it was just HS players? they did a sample and it drastically reduced concussions. at any level, that is a good thing.
Riddell commissioned the study? yes. who else was going to pay for it? but, they commissioned an independent research committee at the UPitt to do the study for them and give them the results.
as mentioned, if they could come up with a Revolutionary way of a new helmet, then they would jump at it because it would increase at least their short-term sales (and soft-padding wouldn't be as durable and need to be replaced MORE often, so long term sales as well).
finally, "soft" helmets have been attempted in Rugby and studies have NOT shown that they are much help to concussions (they do not have the hard plastic shell though)
you can stomp your feet all you want, but until you show something more than one vague example who wasn't even studied (so all you really have is what he says and no medical proof), then you don't have a leg to stand on here. sorry.
Quote: why is moving the kickoff by a few yards this big a deal?
it might not be. it might only raise the touchbacks a few % points. but, the competition committee that raised it as a safety issue believes it will rise the touchback occurrence quite a bit.
maybe some of those guys who can't get regular touchbacks before try for them now with lower liner kicks rather than the higher shorter kicks they have been doing?
really, we'll have to wait and see what effects it really has on the game.
Quote: I don't put a lot of stock in a study that is not completely independent of the companies making the helmets.
But your betting the farm on a makeshift helmet worn by one guy for a few years?
flor...and what were the "results" of that one example, which was an individual study that covered 10 yrs and the subject was not just an average NFL football player...he was one of the hardest hitting middle LBers to ever to play the game.
The least the NFL and helmet manufacturers could do is run a physical, on field study to accumulate some findings.
To simply say it won't work without even trying is lazy and crazy, IMO.
Would you rather have Roger Goodell's approach... taking hitting out of NFL football?....OR...an actual honest move toward making football equipment safer.
Here's a novel idea: Why don't you volunteer to be the player for the testing of a new helmet? Seems you don't trust the companies that did the testing. You want others to do the testing? No, why don't you do it?
Also, do you think for one minute that every helmet manufacturer out there isn't trying to come up with a better helmet????? Honestly? Come up with a better, safer helmet, patent it - just think of the money they would make.
But no, 1 player is all it takes for you to be convinced. Did you do a detailed, in depth study of that player? How he hit before? How he hit after?
Did you know that the FTC is investigating the safety claims made by Riddell in the study Nologo posted? Story below...
Also, it seems there may be a maze of connections between the NFL, Riddell, the three University of Pittsburgh co-authors of the Riddell study and a concussion-management software company, called "imPACT Applications, Inc"?
Senator calls for FTC investigation of helmet makers CBSSports.com wire reports
Jan. 4, 2011
WASHINGTON -- A U.S. Senator is asking the Federal Trade Commission to investigate "misleading safety claims and deceptive practices" in the selling of new football helmets and reconditioning of used ones.
In a letter dated Tuesday -- a copy of which was obtained by the Associated Press on Monday night -- Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., tells FTC chairman Jon Leibowitz that helmet companies "appear to be using misleading advertising claims" and that "some helmet reconditioning companies may be falsely selling used helmets as meeting an industry safety standard."
In his letter to the FTC's Leibowitz, Udall says he is "troubled by misleading marketing claims by Riddell, a leading helmet maker that supplies the official helmet to the National Football League."
He quotes Riddell's website as saying that "research shows a 31 percent reduction in the risk of concussion in players wearing a Riddell Revolution football helmet when compared to traditional helmets."
Udall adds: "Yet there is actually very little scientific evidence to support the claim."
In the letter -- which was first reported by the New York Times -- Udall also refers to what he terms "misleading safety claims used in online video advertisements for helmets." He specifically cites Riddell and Schutt Sports.
"After reviewing Senator Udall's letter to the Federal Trade Commission, we believe his statements and allegations are unfounded and unfair," Riddell CEO Dan Arment said in a statement e-mailed to the AP.
"Riddell has consistently maintained a policy of transparency with all of our research and products and participated in any helmet test when requested. Riddell has exceeded all of the industry standards and conducts and submits to more rigorous testing than most companies in other industries," Arment's statement added.
Arment continued: "We welcome any scrutiny and review. For the public's benefit, we hope that the FTC will provide greater scrutiny of all helmet manufacturers."
A Schutt Sports spokesman said the company was aware of Udall's letter but declined comment.
In November, Udall asked the Consumer Product Safety Commission to investigate whether safety standards for football helmets are adequate to protect players from concussions. Udall serves on the Senate Commerce Committee, which oversees the CPSC.
His letter to the FTC's Leibowitz says the "voluntary industry standard for football helmets does not specifically address concussion prevention or reduction." That standard is set by the National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment (NOCSAE), a nonprofit corporation.
Helmets used in NFL, NCAA and high school football are supposed to pass a test developed by NOCSAE. The group's website says it establishes "voluntary test standards"; that "manufacturers test their own helmets"; and that "NOCSAE does not possess a surveillance force to ensure compliance with the standards."
Udall also wants the FTC to "look into potential false and deceptive practices related to the reconditioning of used helmets."
He writes: "NOCSAE and the National Athletic Equipment Reconditioning Association (NAERA) do not conduct market surveillance or follow up testing of helmets to ensure compliance with their certifications. Moreover, there is no standard for how often used helmets must be recertified. Such potentially dangerous used helmets are commonly worn by players at all levels of football."
I hear what you're saying about the study coming out of the companies that make the product, but, unfortunately you're going to have to get used to that.
The smartest/best helmet people work for those companies. Whether you like it or not, they are the experts in their field. I would be more skeptical of the NFL doing a study rather than the company.
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
Interesting... When you go to Shutt's website, the following message pops up before you can actually browse their site:
WARNING
Keep your head up. Do not butt, ram, spear or strike an opponent with any part of the helmet or faceguard. This is a violation of football rules and may cause you to suffer severe brain or neck injury, including paralysis or death and possible injury to your opponent. Contact in football may result in Concussion/Brain Injury which no helmet can prevent. Symptons include loss of consciousness or memory, dizziness, headache, nausea or confusion. If you have symptoms, immediately stop and report them to your coach, trainer and parents. Do not return to a game or contact until all symptoms are gone and you receive medial clearance. Ignoring this warning may lead to another and more serious or fatal brain injury.
NO HELMET SYSTEM CAN PROTECT YOU FROM SERIOUS BRAIN AND/OR NECK INJURIES INCLUDING PARALYSIS OR DEATH. TO AVOID THESE RISKS, DO NOT ENGAGE IN THE SPORT OF FOOTBALL.
This is the crux of the problem. It's physics vs. physiology and no practical technological solution is going to solve it. To make a helmet that is capable of absorbing and dispersing enough energy to keep the brain from slamming into the cranium upon impact it would have to be so big that you probably couldn't wear it (much less play football in it).
So what IS the solution? Well, as the Schutt warning says, don't play football. Aside from that, the best answer is teach these guys the proper technique for tackling that minimizes the risk as much as possible. Instead of going for the kill shot, go head to one side or the other, wrap up and drag your man down. Even then, accidents are going to happen and player will continue to get concussed. The best we can do, IMO, is minimize the risk.
Last edited by Browns Lifer; 03/24/1105:04 PM.
[color:"white"]"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."
And why I have said I honestly think head injuries would decrease if they actually made helmets that players thought they could get hurt wearing if they started sticking their head in .
You look at old footage and you see arm tackling and tackling with the shoulder. The reason isn't because they were wimps or anything like that....you protect your head.
Players today don't feel they need to protect their head.
The problem isn't the equipment, it's the way players play today.
Good for Shutt...they are a big maker of helmets., thought I think they are the dominate baseball helmet manufacturer.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
I'm watching Mike and Mike and Golic says that the NFL provided "zero" evidence that NFL kickoffs are more dangerous and result in more serious head injuries.
I'm wondering if this move is more about those teams without good special teams and unwilling to pay to get good special teams players, outnumbering teams like Cleveland and Chicago when it came down to a vote?
In other words, this move had nothing to do with player safety and more to do with most teams not wanting to allocate a higher percentage of their cap to pay for good special teams players.
[vegas conspiracy theory] I'd venture a guess that this is more about the league not wanting games (and the spread) to be so easily decided or influenced by a single play that is really all about individual efforts and not so much play call or scheme. Think about it... of all the things that could stand to have rules adjusted, this is now a couple years in a row that they have intentionally struck out to make the kick-off less effective.
In fact, I'd say that they've now nearly rendered it moot, and I would expect that in a few years we may even see it go away and be replaced instead by the "receiving" team simply getting the ball at their own 30. [/vegas conspiracy theory]
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
I don't think the NFL will ever get rid of the possibility of an on-side kick. It would result in games being over sooner (and people changing the channels with 5 minutes left in the game... too much ad revenue loss.)
All TV revenue for the league is already paid to them regardless of how long a game runs... they get their money well ahead of time when they negotiate TV broadcast rights with each network. Only the TV stations could stand to gain any extra ad time from a prolonged contest, and they've already sold the commercial time based on the alloted time slot for each game of 3 hours.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
Quote: All TV revenue for the league is already paid to them regardless of how long a game runs... they get their money well ahead of time when they negotiate TV broadcast rights with each network. Only the TV stations could stand to gain any extra ad time from a prolonged contest, and they've already sold the commercial time based on the alloted time slot for each game of 3 hours.
I think what he was saying is that for future contracts/bidding. Sure, the current contracts are set in relative stone, but going into the future, if TV stations see their viewership dwindle at what was peak times, they will bring this up in future negotations.
Also, the extra commercial slot of "commercial-kickoff-commercial-start play" would be difficult to replace.
Quote: Sure, the current contracts are set in relative stone, but going into the future, if TV stations see their viewership dwindle at what was peak times, they will bring this up in future negotations.
Not relative stone... stone. And the networks barely have a leg to stand on in negotiations, especially now that the league has its own network and has begun to air games. Viewership isn't going to budge, and even if all games begin to end 5 minutes earlier than they do now, that will get padded elsewhere. At worst, each TV timeout will become 30 seconds longer, and wham... we're right back to standard length game and full revenues for the slot.
Quote: Also, the extra commercial slot of "commercial-kickoff-commercial-start play" would be difficult to replace.
Not really... the break for that possession change would just be longer.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
decisions like that are what make viewership slip. you are assuming viewership won't budge, but there is no guarantee that the NFL remains the #1 sport in viewership. this decision alone likely wouldn't affect their status, but this decision, with a lengthy lockout and a few more mis-steps could start to turn the generic sports fan away from the NFL.
likely all of us that post on a board like this would still be there though.
Quote: So I just heard that over the past 5 years 16% of kickoffs resulted in touchbacks. Kicking 5 yards closer and the gunners being 5 yards closer, I bet that number to be near 50%.
The average NFL kickoff lands at the 6 yard line.
So If I'm getting this right, years ago it was at the 35 yd line, then for years they moved it further away, which brought more returns, Now they will move it back to where it used to be.
The big uproar is there won't be as many returns for return specialists,
It is 5 measley yards, why didn't they just split the difference and kickoff from the 32 and a half yard line.
The nascar reference was right. There are too many rule changes.
It seems there is a whole generation that can't understand the real problems for the determination to solve what doesn't even matter.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/Punchsmack/punch.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
