"I'm concerned that if you wait 'til you have symptoms, it's too late."
March 17, 2015 7:04 AM Subscribe
ESPN's Outside the Lines has reported that promising 24-year-old football player Chris Borland, who was drafted last year by the San Francisco 49ers as a linebacker, will retire as a "proactive" move to avoid the long-term effects of repetitive head trauma.
Borland has retired within the same week as other young NFL players, including 26-year-old Jake Locker, 27-year-old Jason Worilds, 29-year-old Maurice Jones-Drew, and turned-30-in-January Patrick Willis.
This somewhat unusual spate of particularly young retirees has triggered some soul-searching and reflection on the state and future of professional football.
Urban Daily: Twentysomething NFL Players Are Retiring Early… Here’s Why More Will Follow
Forbes: Why Chris Borland's Retirement Should Terrify the NFL
Grantland: Hanging it Up: Retirement is the Latest NFL Trend
From the Grantland piece, Bill Barnwell:
And then there’s the elephant in the room. Players are more aware of the physical damage that comes with playing football than ever before. They still make shortsighted, self-endangering decisions like Julian Edelman did in the Super Bowl, but it would be impossible to imagine that players aren’t at least thinking about retiring earlier than they have in the past, or that their logic might be shifting from getting as much as possible for as long as possible to getting enough before getting out.
[long-term brain injuries and football, previously on Metafilter: 1, 2, 3]
Borland has retired within the same week as other young NFL players, including 26-year-old Jake Locker, 27-year-old Jason Worilds, 29-year-old Maurice Jones-Drew, and turned-30-in-January Patrick Willis.
This somewhat unusual spate of particularly young retirees has triggered some soul-searching and reflection on the state and future of professional football.
Urban Daily: Twentysomething NFL Players Are Retiring Early… Here’s Why More Will Follow
Forbes: Why Chris Borland's Retirement Should Terrify the NFL
Grantland: Hanging it Up: Retirement is the Latest NFL Trend
From the Grantland piece, Bill Barnwell:
And then there’s the elephant in the room. Players are more aware of the physical damage that comes with playing football than ever before. They still make shortsighted, self-endangering decisions like Julian Edelman did in the Super Bowl, but it would be impossible to imagine that players aren’t at least thinking about retiring earlier than they have in the past, or that their logic might be shifting from getting as much as possible for as long as possible to getting enough before getting out.
[long-term brain injuries and football, previously on Metafilter: 1, 2, 3]
Jason Worilds, not James.
posted by GrapeApiary at 7:14 AM on March 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by GrapeApiary at 7:14 AM on March 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Fewer boys playing high school football too: "Football, the Newest Partisan Divide".
posted by grouse at 7:15 AM on March 17, 2015
posted by grouse at 7:15 AM on March 17, 2015
Brave decision. Good luck to him in future endeavors.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:17 AM on March 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:17 AM on March 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
It's weird... not only has the injury thing become something it's okay to talk about now for players, teams have become really risk-averse in terms of signing older players, particularly for short half-life positions like running back. It does sort of feel like it's trending towards being like the NCAA unless you're a quarterback. In some ways that would be OK, and it some ways it almost seems worse, since you are still at risk for brain trauma and other serious injury but your earnings window is even smaller.
People talk about the well drying up, also, for new players(since parents will hold their kids out of Pop Warner, etc), but again I feel kind of pessimistic about this. I feel like the people left in Pop Warner etc up through "college" are going to be kids from poverty that feel like they have nothing to lose.
In my LEAST pessimistic moments, I hope people will just transition to watching less crappy sports.
(Should also be noted that Willis and Borland both play(ed) for the 49ers, a franchise that is in a amazing state of disarray right now, mainly because the owners don't feel it's worth it to pay for a coach or really anything).
posted by selfnoise at 7:18 AM on March 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
People talk about the well drying up, also, for new players(since parents will hold their kids out of Pop Warner, etc), but again I feel kind of pessimistic about this. I feel like the people left in Pop Warner etc up through "college" are going to be kids from poverty that feel like they have nothing to lose.
In my LEAST pessimistic moments, I hope people will just transition to watching less crappy sports.
(Should also be noted that Willis and Borland both play(ed) for the 49ers, a franchise that is in a amazing state of disarray right now, mainly because the owners don't feel it's worth it to pay for a coach or really anything).
posted by selfnoise at 7:18 AM on March 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Borland has retired within the same week as other young NFL players, including 26-year-old Jake Locker, 27-year-old James Worilds, 29-year-old Maurice Jones-Drew, and turned-30-in-January Patrick Willis.
Chris Borland retiring at 24 *explicitly* to avoid future head injury is new. It may well be a sea change. But those four up top there? Not one of them is surprising. One is a 29 year old RB -- which is damn near ancient in that position -- two are linebackers with chronic physical injury, and the other is just a failed player. 30 is not young for a football player in the NFL. Other than very specific positions*, 30 is *old*. 34 is *ancient*. Remember, the average career in the NFL is six seasons.
Conflating the four is wrong, and it actually hides the significance of Borland's decision. Here's a very promising player in the early years of his career saying "The risk isn't worth the millions of dollars I can make."
That becomes common? The NFL will change or die, because you need 106 players on the sidelines of each game, and if they players won't play, there is no game.
* Placekickers, Punters and Long Snappers last longer than anybody. They play very few plays per game, the rules protect kickers more than anybody except quarterbacks, and all three have skills that aren't common in the player pool. So, 10-15 year long carrers aren't unusual in these three slots, and the record for most games played and most games played for one team are held by kickers (Morten Anderson and Jason Hanson, respectivly)
posted by eriko at 7:19 AM on March 17, 2015 [13 favorites]
Chris Borland retiring at 24 *explicitly* to avoid future head injury is new. It may well be a sea change. But those four up top there? Not one of them is surprising. One is a 29 year old RB -- which is damn near ancient in that position -- two are linebackers with chronic physical injury, and the other is just a failed player. 30 is not young for a football player in the NFL. Other than very specific positions*, 30 is *old*. 34 is *ancient*. Remember, the average career in the NFL is six seasons.
Conflating the four is wrong, and it actually hides the significance of Borland's decision. Here's a very promising player in the early years of his career saying "The risk isn't worth the millions of dollars I can make."
That becomes common? The NFL will change or die, because you need 106 players on the sidelines of each game, and if they players won't play, there is no game.
* Placekickers, Punters and Long Snappers last longer than anybody. They play very few plays per game, the rules protect kickers more than anybody except quarterbacks, and all three have skills that aren't common in the player pool. So, 10-15 year long carrers aren't unusual in these three slots, and the record for most games played and most games played for one team are held by kickers (Morten Anderson and Jason Hanson, respectivly)
posted by eriko at 7:19 AM on March 17, 2015 [13 favorites]
I was amazed and heartened to see this news and I wonder what it portends about this younger generation, who have been hearing about CTE since they were in high school.
posted by LobsterMitten at 7:25 AM on March 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by LobsterMitten at 7:25 AM on March 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Every time this comes up I think of the Lindros family and the complete utter asshole Bobby Clarke.
posted by srboisvert at 7:30 AM on March 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by srboisvert at 7:30 AM on March 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
He'll lose millions, possibly, but; no amount of money will repair a busted brain. He's a smart young man, and I'm happy for him.
posted by emjaybee at 7:31 AM on March 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by emjaybee at 7:31 AM on March 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
Conflating the four is wrong, and it actually hides the significance of Borland's decision. Here's a very promising player in the early years of his career saying "The risk isn't worth the millions of dollars I can make."
I don't disagree, but I do think it's interesting that the conflation is happening anyway in these pieces, since it signals its own sort of sea change in the way the media thinks and talks about what the NFL (and violent sport in general) does to those who play it. In some ways, it's a logical step down a path from when they stopped doing the "Jacked Up!" segment on ESPN a few years ago -- a recognition that serious, permanent harm can be and is done in all sorts of ways during the regular performance of the game.
There are still plenty of "suck it up, rub some dirt on it" types, and there might even be some merit in that position at times (toughness, as much as it's a buzzword, is also a semi-real thing), but sports journalism seems (slightly, to me) increasingly aware of the seriousness of the balancing act involved between present and future.
posted by Kybard at 7:32 AM on March 17, 2015
I don't disagree, but I do think it's interesting that the conflation is happening anyway in these pieces, since it signals its own sort of sea change in the way the media thinks and talks about what the NFL (and violent sport in general) does to those who play it. In some ways, it's a logical step down a path from when they stopped doing the "Jacked Up!" segment on ESPN a few years ago -- a recognition that serious, permanent harm can be and is done in all sorts of ways during the regular performance of the game.
There are still plenty of "suck it up, rub some dirt on it" types, and there might even be some merit in that position at times (toughness, as much as it's a buzzword, is also a semi-real thing), but sports journalism seems (slightly, to me) increasingly aware of the seriousness of the balancing act involved between present and future.
posted by Kybard at 7:32 AM on March 17, 2015
teams have become really risk-averse in terms of signing older players, particularly for short half-life positions like running back.
That, esp. for RBs, has been true for a long time. The standard "bad" contract is handing a RB his third contract (the first being his rookie contract, after 3 years, the second is the "get paid" contract.) I mentioned the average career in the NFL, overall, is about 6 years, for running backs? It's just over 3.
Peyton Manning signing for Denver generated a huge amount of discussion. Here's possibly the best QB to ever play the game, but he has a significant neck injury that's weakened his arm strength. Is half a Peyton* Manning worth it?
Well, on the good side, two playoffs, one superb owl appearance. On the bad side, everything else about that superb owl appearance.
But seriously, that's an outlier squared. QBs are playing older nowadays because the rules protect QBs much more than they used to, but even then, a 32 year QB is notable, and playing at 37 is very much on the tail end of the distribution -- there's only two, Tom Brady and Peyton Manning.
A big factor is that these kids are amongst the first to be entering the NFL knowing explicitly about CTE. In a couple of years, the first cohort will enter the NCAA knowing about it -- remember, CTE as CTE wasn't first really notice until 2008, and wasn't provisionally defined until 2011. There is, however, dementia pugilistica, aka "Punch Drunk", which may in fact have been CTE. I don't think we've had a boxer pass away and have the same analysis we've had with former football players, so I'm not sure if DP has been conclusively tied to CTE. If so, we've known about CTE since the 1930s.
* Yes, I know you mean well computer, but stop autocorrecting Peyton to Payton. I know, I know. Bear down and do it. Besides, you know the correct spelling is "Sweetness"
posted by eriko at 7:33 AM on March 17, 2015 [8 favorites]
That, esp. for RBs, has been true for a long time. The standard "bad" contract is handing a RB his third contract (the first being his rookie contract, after 3 years, the second is the "get paid" contract.) I mentioned the average career in the NFL, overall, is about 6 years, for running backs? It's just over 3.
Peyton Manning signing for Denver generated a huge amount of discussion. Here's possibly the best QB to ever play the game, but he has a significant neck injury that's weakened his arm strength. Is half a Peyton* Manning worth it?
Well, on the good side, two playoffs, one superb owl appearance. On the bad side, everything else about that superb owl appearance.
But seriously, that's an outlier squared. QBs are playing older nowadays because the rules protect QBs much more than they used to, but even then, a 32 year QB is notable, and playing at 37 is very much on the tail end of the distribution -- there's only two, Tom Brady and Peyton Manning.
A big factor is that these kids are amongst the first to be entering the NFL knowing explicitly about CTE. In a couple of years, the first cohort will enter the NCAA knowing about it -- remember, CTE as CTE wasn't first really notice until 2008, and wasn't provisionally defined until 2011. There is, however, dementia pugilistica, aka "Punch Drunk", which may in fact have been CTE. I don't think we've had a boxer pass away and have the same analysis we've had with former football players, so I'm not sure if DP has been conclusively tied to CTE. If so, we've known about CTE since the 1930s.
* Yes, I know you mean well computer, but stop autocorrecting Peyton to Payton. I know, I know. Bear down and do it. Besides, you know the correct spelling is "Sweetness"
posted by eriko at 7:33 AM on March 17, 2015 [8 favorites]
> In some ways that would be OK, and it some ways it almost seems worse, since you are still at risk for brain trauma and other serious injury but your earnings window is even smaller.
If the earnings window is smaller it will also reduce the "lottery ticket" aspect of an NFL career. Not enough to dissuade everyone who thinks they might have a shot, but it will add to the pile of reasons athletes might not pursue it.
posted by The Card Cheat at 7:34 AM on March 17, 2015
If the earnings window is smaller it will also reduce the "lottery ticket" aspect of an NFL career. Not enough to dissuade everyone who thinks they might have a shot, but it will add to the pile of reasons athletes might not pursue it.
posted by The Card Cheat at 7:34 AM on March 17, 2015
I wonder if there's a point where OSHA would step in and say, this is no longer something we can even allow people to do voluntarily? (Possibly an obvious question that's been addressed before, apologies if so.)
posted by LobsterMitten at 7:36 AM on March 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by LobsterMitten at 7:36 AM on March 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
OSHA doing so would result in a Civil War whose bloodiness would make the previous one seem like Romper Room.
posted by delfin at 7:38 AM on March 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by delfin at 7:38 AM on March 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
I don't disagree, but I do think it's interesting that the conflation is happening anyway in these pieces, since it signals its own sort of sea change in the way the media thinks and talks about what the NFL
That's a good point -- if the media is talking about a "rush to retire" that is a bit of a change. But surely there's better example that Jake Locker?
And, I'll be honest.
As a game? I *love* gridiron football. No other sport is both as tactical and strategic. No other sport demands the level of team play (over individual play) that gridiron does -- *one* person misses an assignment, and the other team gets a big gain. No other sport is as scrutinized as gridiron -- literally every play is filmed*, and that film is gone over repeatedly, looking first at general patterns, then at the specific play of every play on the field. For your own team, you're looking to correct mistakes, for the opponent, you're looking for mistakes you can exploit. Because the game is not free flowing, like Rugby League or Soccer, play flow for each team can be far more complex -- you have various receiver routes and blocking schemes on one side vs. various coverage and rushing schemes on the other.
It is, by far, the *deepest* sport I know of. Nobody spends hours on hours on hours watching all 22 film in soccer or baseball, but even at the high school level, half your "training" time is in the film room, learning what you did wrong, and learning what your opponent might do.
But.
We have to get the injuries, esp. the mental injuries, under control. I'm not as up in arms about the length of NFL careers, because, really, other pro sports are similar. You're either good enough or you are cut. But the brain trauma? Other sports have some -- headers in soccer, the puck and stick and checking in Hockey, taking a baseball to the head -- but EVERY play, it seems, has some head-to-head contact.
I hope, somehow, we can make this game safe, because I will miss it deeply. But if we can't, it *has* to be stopped.
We may have to lose a whole generation of players. Players taught to hit one way throughout their whole high-school and college careers aren't going to be able to adjust to a softer method. It may be that we're going to have to have two NFLs during the transition. Or we take a couple of years off.
Or maybe it's just impossible, and this glorious but flawed sport I love will have to be stopped.
I don't know. But if that's what it takes to stop the epidemic? Then kill the game. Kill it and don't look back.
But I'll be leaving my jersey at its gravesite.
* This is the "all-22" film, so called because it shows all 22 players on the field for the entire play. You almost never see this on a broadcast, and even on the web it's pretty rare. There are a number of people, myself included, who want to see a lot more all-22 film, because there are a lot of plays that with the tight framing of the typical broadcast don't make sense -- it's what happened out of the frame that (say) left that receiver uncovered or let that OLB slide into position to intercept the ball.
posted by eriko at 7:51 AM on March 17, 2015 [17 favorites]
That's a good point -- if the media is talking about a "rush to retire" that is a bit of a change. But surely there's better example that Jake Locker?
And, I'll be honest.
As a game? I *love* gridiron football. No other sport is both as tactical and strategic. No other sport demands the level of team play (over individual play) that gridiron does -- *one* person misses an assignment, and the other team gets a big gain. No other sport is as scrutinized as gridiron -- literally every play is filmed*, and that film is gone over repeatedly, looking first at general patterns, then at the specific play of every play on the field. For your own team, you're looking to correct mistakes, for the opponent, you're looking for mistakes you can exploit. Because the game is not free flowing, like Rugby League or Soccer, play flow for each team can be far more complex -- you have various receiver routes and blocking schemes on one side vs. various coverage and rushing schemes on the other.
It is, by far, the *deepest* sport I know of. Nobody spends hours on hours on hours watching all 22 film in soccer or baseball, but even at the high school level, half your "training" time is in the film room, learning what you did wrong, and learning what your opponent might do.
But.
We have to get the injuries, esp. the mental injuries, under control. I'm not as up in arms about the length of NFL careers, because, really, other pro sports are similar. You're either good enough or you are cut. But the brain trauma? Other sports have some -- headers in soccer, the puck and stick and checking in Hockey, taking a baseball to the head -- but EVERY play, it seems, has some head-to-head contact.
I hope, somehow, we can make this game safe, because I will miss it deeply. But if we can't, it *has* to be stopped.
We may have to lose a whole generation of players. Players taught to hit one way throughout their whole high-school and college careers aren't going to be able to adjust to a softer method. It may be that we're going to have to have two NFLs during the transition. Or we take a couple of years off.
Or maybe it's just impossible, and this glorious but flawed sport I love will have to be stopped.
I don't know. But if that's what it takes to stop the epidemic? Then kill the game. Kill it and don't look back.
But I'll be leaving my jersey at its gravesite.
* This is the "all-22" film, so called because it shows all 22 players on the field for the entire play. You almost never see this on a broadcast, and even on the web it's pretty rare. There are a number of people, myself included, who want to see a lot more all-22 film, because there are a lot of plays that with the tight framing of the typical broadcast don't make sense -- it's what happened out of the frame that (say) left that receiver uncovered or let that OLB slide into position to intercept the ball.
posted by eriko at 7:51 AM on March 17, 2015 [17 favorites]
i can agree that all four players have different situations, but to say that patrick willis wasn't surprising isn't really true. in every place i've been watching, reading, or hearing about football his retirement is a shock. yes, he's had some injuries, but nothing so bad as to end his career at 30. before his announcement people thought he'd play a few more years and then be a first round hall of famer. he's not leaving for the reasons jake locker is - that the money and positions offered are drying up quick - his money and prospects are still very good.
posted by nadawi at 8:08 AM on March 17, 2015
posted by nadawi at 8:08 AM on March 17, 2015
eriko: "There are a number of people, myself included, who want to see a lot more all-22 film"
You can get access to every play of All-22 with a subscription to NFL Game Rewind. I barely have enough time to watch games live, much less replays of them, but it's pretty tempting.
LobsterMitten: "I wonder if there's a point where OSHA would step in and say, this is no longer something we can even allow people to do voluntarily?"
I have to imagine there are dozens, if not hundreds, of professions that subject their practitioners to similar rates of serious repetitive stress injuries.
posted by Rock Steady at 8:15 AM on March 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
You can get access to every play of All-22 with a subscription to NFL Game Rewind. I barely have enough time to watch games live, much less replays of them, but it's pretty tempting.
LobsterMitten: "I wonder if there's a point where OSHA would step in and say, this is no longer something we can even allow people to do voluntarily?"
I have to imagine there are dozens, if not hundreds, of professions that subject their practitioners to similar rates of serious repetitive stress injuries.
posted by Rock Steady at 8:15 AM on March 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
director of player personnel for the packers, eliot wolf, just tweeted : Anyone worried about the future of football should see the amount of calls & emails we get from kids literally begging to get into pro days.
adam schefter (all around jackass and "nfl insider") retweeted this and then said : Chris Borland was scheduled to make $530K this year, plus $10K workout bonus. Not many jobs pay 24-year-olds $540K for 6 months of work.
which to my mind is pretty disgusting considering the conversation...
posted by nadawi at 8:17 AM on March 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
adam schefter (all around jackass and "nfl insider") retweeted this and then said : Chris Borland was scheduled to make $530K this year, plus $10K workout bonus. Not many jobs pay 24-year-olds $540K for 6 months of work.
which to my mind is pretty disgusting considering the conversation...
posted by nadawi at 8:17 AM on March 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
I can't call it disgusting but it's not a great comment either. But realistically there are a lot of situations a good number of people end up in every single day where this is a non-negligible risk of injury and worse.
Take a job where you're driving hours each day, whether commuting or as part of the job, and you've got a not insignificant risk of serious injury over a few years. And the vast majority of those jobs would be making far, far less than 540k.
posted by cashman at 8:29 AM on March 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
Take a job where you're driving hours each day, whether commuting or as part of the job, and you've got a not insignificant risk of serious injury over a few years. And the vast majority of those jobs would be making far, far less than 540k.
posted by cashman at 8:29 AM on March 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
You can get access to every play of All-22 with a subscription to NFL Game Rewind.
Oh, they fixed the "you need a cable subscription" problem! Hmm. Might have to do that next year.
posted by eriko at 8:30 AM on March 17, 2015
Oh, they fixed the "you need a cable subscription" problem! Hmm. Might have to do that next year.
posted by eriko at 8:30 AM on March 17, 2015
I am SO proud of him!
posted by harrietthespy at 8:32 AM on March 17, 2015
posted by harrietthespy at 8:32 AM on March 17, 2015
which to my mind is pretty disgusting considering the conversation...
I disagree. He's pointing out that Borland is walking away from a not trivial amount of money. Half a million dollars is not chump change. That's buy a house free-and-clear level, which means the amount of money you need to live on for the rest of your life is much lower.
So, it just show how dramatic a move Borland has made -- and, of course, if he played well, his next contract would be much, much more.
(The "six months" part is just wrong nowadays -- you have to keep in shape, there are OTAs and such. Football is close to a year round job.)
posted by eriko at 8:33 AM on March 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
I disagree. He's pointing out that Borland is walking away from a not trivial amount of money. Half a million dollars is not chump change. That's buy a house free-and-clear level, which means the amount of money you need to live on for the rest of your life is much lower.
So, it just show how dramatic a move Borland has made -- and, of course, if he played well, his next contract would be much, much more.
(The "six months" part is just wrong nowadays -- you have to keep in shape, there are OTAs and such. Football is close to a year round job.)
posted by eriko at 8:33 AM on March 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'd like the games to be toned down to where it is more about the result of the play than the ridiculous "manliness" factor that permeates the sport and most men's sports. I hate the attitude that everything has to be rough and tumble. I hate it when announcers praise players for staying inbounds at noncritical times when they could just as easily have jumped out of bounds and saved the wear and tear and even energy from going down and having to get back up.
But there are still just too many fools who love to watch their gladiators get killed. Too many people who have some weird excitement over watching other people get hurt, rather than actually watching the artistry that football can be. I've given out my share of hard hits throughout the years but you're not supposed to be trying to hurt anybody, and the whole point is to accomplish an objective, not knock the wind out of somebody. I never played professionally but unfortunately hang around guys long enough and this weird thing is always present where somebody is constantly trying to make everything "super manly".
posted by cashman at 8:35 AM on March 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
But there are still just too many fools who love to watch their gladiators get killed. Too many people who have some weird excitement over watching other people get hurt, rather than actually watching the artistry that football can be. I've given out my share of hard hits throughout the years but you're not supposed to be trying to hurt anybody, and the whole point is to accomplish an objective, not knock the wind out of somebody. I never played professionally but unfortunately hang around guys long enough and this weird thing is always present where somebody is constantly trying to make everything "super manly".
posted by cashman at 8:35 AM on March 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
I wish I could favorite that comment in a more manly way, cashman. You are 1000% correct. Football is an amazing sport, but the NFL and its fans are doing their best to ruin it.
posted by Rock Steady at 8:39 AM on March 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Rock Steady at 8:39 AM on March 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Bill Barnwell has just posted The Definition of Tough: How Chris Borland Walked Away From His Dream Job.
The very first sentence is "This is different."
posted by eriko at 8:40 AM on March 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
The very first sentence is "This is different."
posted by eriko at 8:40 AM on March 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
I hate it when announcers praise players for staying inbounds at noncritical times when they could just as easily have jumped out of bounds and saved the wear and tear and even energy from going down and having to get back up.
Game situation. If you have the ball and are in the lead, you don't want to go out of bounds. Going out of bounds stops the clock. Going to the ground inbounds means the clock runs unless the defense calls a time out. If you're running a hurry-up offense, staying inbounds means the next play happens that much faster and the defense has that much less time to react to you.
And, to be honest, plenty of bad injuries -- to involved players, to involved players on the sidelines, and to bystanders working the game -- have happened when a play runs out of bounds at speed. The moment you cross the full width of the edge line, there are a *lot* of people and things out there that hitting at speed would be problematic.
And, of course, if you're catching the ball, it doesn't count unless you come down inbounds.
posted by eriko at 8:44 AM on March 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Game situation. If you have the ball and are in the lead, you don't want to go out of bounds. Going out of bounds stops the clock. Going to the ground inbounds means the clock runs unless the defense calls a time out. If you're running a hurry-up offense, staying inbounds means the next play happens that much faster and the defense has that much less time to react to you.
And, to be honest, plenty of bad injuries -- to involved players, to involved players on the sidelines, and to bystanders working the game -- have happened when a play runs out of bounds at speed. The moment you cross the full width of the edge line, there are a *lot* of people and things out there that hitting at speed would be problematic.
And, of course, if you're catching the ball, it doesn't count unless you come down inbounds.
posted by eriko at 8:44 AM on March 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Oh we don't have to explain football to each other. I've been playing and watching it since Swann and Stallworth. I've seen you comment on football threads before so I know you are aware of exactly what I'm talking about regarding commentators and others lauding players for having the 'toughness' to stay inbounds when they could just have easily run out for the last few steps. That's why I specified noncritical in the comment you quoted. It's something I loved a lot about the Greatest Show on Turf. So many times those guys would catch passes and go down before defenders could hit them. Of course you never really saw ESPN & company make a big deal of it outside of a few comments, but it just makes so much sense at times.
posted by cashman at 9:02 AM on March 17, 2015
posted by cashman at 9:02 AM on March 17, 2015
I disagree. He's pointing out that Borland is walking away from a not trivial amount of money.
when combined with the thing he retweeted, i think he's doing a lot more than just pointing out that football players make money. it seems pretty clearly like he's pushing the talking point forward that the nfl will keep having bodies to run through its mill and that a 24 year old walking away from that kind of money is being stupid. on a quick search, i'm not the only one who read it that way.
posted by nadawi at 9:03 AM on March 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
when combined with the thing he retweeted, i think he's doing a lot more than just pointing out that football players make money. it seems pretty clearly like he's pushing the talking point forward that the nfl will keep having bodies to run through its mill and that a 24 year old walking away from that kind of money is being stupid. on a quick search, i'm not the only one who read it that way.
posted by nadawi at 9:03 AM on March 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
I know the NFL is far more aware of concussion than it used to be, and introduced rules designed to protect players. Yet every game I watch, I see dozens of (legal) collisions which make me think that if the NFL was serious about the concussion problem, would be made illegal. NFL defenders simply do not know how to tackle, and are still going in head first. Introduce rugby style tackling, make players have to wrap their arms to effect a tackle and make any sort of contact with the head a 15 yard penalty. Any sort of deliberate contact should be an automatic ejection. Yes, it will change the game. But I say, the game has to change.
posted by salmacis at 9:05 AM on March 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by salmacis at 9:05 AM on March 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
From the Grantland piece: We’ll never really know exactly what went through the heads of those three players and the various points and counterpoints that led them to retirement, but at some simple level, you could make the case that they could move on from football knowing they likely had some semblance of financial security. Each earned in excess of $12 million during his time in the NFL.
Instead of forgoing professional careers altogether, I wonder if we'll see more players putting in a year or two and then cashing out early. It will be interesting to see how that affects drafting practices (if at all; I mean, how as a team do you hedge for that?) if it becomes a Real Thing.
posted by echocollate at 9:25 AM on March 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
Instead of forgoing professional careers altogether, I wonder if we'll see more players putting in a year or two and then cashing out early. It will be interesting to see how that affects drafting practices (if at all; I mean, how as a team do you hedge for that?) if it becomes a Real Thing.
posted by echocollate at 9:25 AM on March 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
If they went back to leather helmets defenders would have a huge incentive to keep their head out of the play. RB's wouldn't be lowering their shoulders so much anymore either. I'm half kidding, but part of me wonders if you took the armor off these guys so that they didn't feel so invincible on the field if it wouldn't effect the sort of behavior change that would make the game safer.
posted by COD at 9:46 AM on March 17, 2015
posted by COD at 9:46 AM on March 17, 2015
Blood. Blood everywhere. That helmetless thing has gotten suggested for years now. I kind of like the idea. But the implementation would probably fail massively. Head to head collisions would surely go down, but guys would get their heads stepped on, elbows to the side of the head, cracked jaws, cuts, abrasions, lose teeth, lose eyes, get broken noses, lacerated lips, get knees to the side of the head a la Russell Westbrook, and get heads slammed into the cold ground in the winter months. Blood. Blood everywhere. Even with leather helmets.
posted by cashman at 9:55 AM on March 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by cashman at 9:55 AM on March 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
No, you'd end up with cracked skulls.
posted by Dark Messiah at 9:55 AM on March 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Dark Messiah at 9:55 AM on March 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
That becomes common? The NFL will change or die, because you need 106 players on the sidelines of each game, and if they players won't play, there is no game.
The NFL only drafts 1.6% (pdf) of NCAA football players, there's still going to be a huge pool to pull from.
posted by octothorpe at 10:01 AM on March 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
The NFL only drafts 1.6% (pdf) of NCAA football players, there's still going to be a huge pool to pull from.
posted by octothorpe at 10:01 AM on March 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Longer term, I'd like to see a move to reduced armour, including helmets. I think you have to change the game first, though.
posted by salmacis at 10:01 AM on March 17, 2015
posted by salmacis at 10:01 AM on March 17, 2015
Borland was an amazing player. I'm really glad for him, and I hope it's the first of many. Football can't die quickly enough. And I say this as someone who loves watching football, especially college football. College football is a few lawsuits away from dying. And when it goes, so does the NFL. After that comes heading in soccer, boxing, and MMA.
posted by persona au gratin at 10:04 AM on March 17, 2015
posted by persona au gratin at 10:04 AM on March 17, 2015
"...And I had an uncle who was decapitated in a coal mine. The truth is the truth."
Looks like brain damage can be a side effect of football blogging, too.
posted by The Card Cheat at 10:08 AM on March 17, 2015
Looks like brain damage can be a side effect of football blogging, too.
posted by The Card Cheat at 10:08 AM on March 17, 2015
i don't think football disappears when/if the ncaa has to scuttle it. i think we'll just get an honest to god minor league that football players will enter right out of high school. you also see the nfl adjusting to less people going into pop warner (and thus less up the whole chain) with more focus on other sports the players lettered in and repeated conversations about which positions in other sports lend themselves to football crossover.
posted by nadawi at 10:21 AM on March 17, 2015
posted by nadawi at 10:21 AM on March 17, 2015
superb owl
I'm going to start calling the National Football Championship the 'Best Owl Competition'
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 10:32 AM on March 17, 2015
I'm going to start calling the National Football Championship the 'Best Owl Competition'
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 10:32 AM on March 17, 2015
Their decisions call to mind that brief period of time when Ricky Williams just did not give a shit about football and stopped playing. These guys make so much money, even in a single season, that it makes sense to re-evaluate whether or not you need to wreck yourself to earn more. Cash out. They don't owe the owners or the fans anything.
I love American football in between the whistles, but I hate the organization that runs the sport and no longer care if it goes extinct.
posted by GrapeApiary at 10:37 AM on March 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
I love American football in between the whistles, but I hate the organization that runs the sport and no longer care if it goes extinct.
posted by GrapeApiary at 10:37 AM on March 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
ProFootballTalk just put up an interesting piece: “Borland’s family knew all year his first season could be his last”. It colors this decision in a way that makes it even more remarkable, that Borland played at a high level with the possibility of just walking away after a year. Being able to play well takes a total devotion to the sport that I wouldn't think you could have with one foot out the door.
I would hope that the concussion issue gets fixed in our lifetime. I want to see football survive, but I don't think we can keep letting players play in a way that destroys their lives afterward. (And I do mean "letting"; these are guys who you couldn't stop from playing the game if you tried.)
posted by graymouser at 11:05 AM on March 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
I would hope that the concussion issue gets fixed in our lifetime. I want to see football survive, but I don't think we can keep letting players play in a way that destroys their lives afterward. (And I do mean "letting"; these are guys who you couldn't stop from playing the game if you tried.)
posted by graymouser at 11:05 AM on March 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Upstream, and a few other outlets have talked about what this means for players coming up through the ranks. I do not know or care about football, but I live in Texas where in my school district there are 50 year old books in the elementary schools, but we have an ESPN level football stadium. My little neighborhood has about 20 boys ranging from peewee to high school. Not a single parent this year signed permission slips for football. Soccer and baseball are the two big team sports this year. This is down from probably 90% involvement five years ago. We were the only family then that didn't have our kid in football.
posted by dejah420 at 11:32 AM on March 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by dejah420 at 11:32 AM on March 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
Take a job where you're driving hours each day, whether commuting or as part of the job, and you've got a not insignificant risk of serious injury over a few years. And the vast majority of those jobs would be making far, far less than 540k.
Except the odds of someone playing American football suffering brain damage as a result are many times higher. Around 11 million traffic accidents per year, out of 200 million licensed drivers. So odds of, say, one in 20 per year. The odds of an American football player suffering brain injury and chronic traumatic encephalopathy? Of 128 deceased professional, semi-pro, high-school and college football players' brains examined, 101 showed signs of CTE. That's over 80%. A current or former professional American football player aged 50 to 59 is fourteen to twenty-three times more likely to develop Alzheiemer's or another form of dementia than the general population at the same age; between 60 and 65, they're 35 times more likely. The estimated lifetime risk of developing Alzheimer's or another dementia in the general population of men aged 65 and older is 9.1%; aged 75 and older it's 10.2%; 85 and older, 12.1% (data here[PDF]). For professional players of American football? That lifetime risk of dementia is 30%.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 11:53 AM on March 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
Except the odds of someone playing American football suffering brain damage as a result are many times higher. Around 11 million traffic accidents per year, out of 200 million licensed drivers. So odds of, say, one in 20 per year. The odds of an American football player suffering brain injury and chronic traumatic encephalopathy? Of 128 deceased professional, semi-pro, high-school and college football players' brains examined, 101 showed signs of CTE. That's over 80%. A current or former professional American football player aged 50 to 59 is fourteen to twenty-three times more likely to develop Alzheiemer's or another form of dementia than the general population at the same age; between 60 and 65, they're 35 times more likely. The estimated lifetime risk of developing Alzheimer's or another dementia in the general population of men aged 65 and older is 9.1%; aged 75 and older it's 10.2%; 85 and older, 12.1% (data here[PDF]). For professional players of American football? That lifetime risk of dementia is 30%.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 11:53 AM on March 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
Instead of forgoing professional careers altogether, I wonder if we'll see more players putting in a year or two and then cashing out early. It will be interesting to see how that affects drafting practices (if at all; I mean, how as a team do you hedge for that?) if it becomes a Real Thing.
There were some recent changes to contracts for rookies coming out of the draft, they aren't nearly as lucrative as they used to be. If you really want to cash in, most players are going to have to play at least one year of a second contract.
As for leather helmets or less armor...The reason football players wear so much safety equipment is that in the early days people literally died on the field playing the game. The entire history of the sport is full of rule changes to make the game less deadly. The way to handle the issue with head injuries is either to find better safety equipment, change the rules, or stop playing. Backsliding on safety changes already made is not the answer. When players had less protection they didn't stop hitting each other, they died.
I thought Worild's reason for retirement was interesting:
He gave up football for faith.
Worilds, 27, abruptly announced his retirement early Wednesday morning on Twitter, and Steelers sources say they were told it is to devote his time to working for his religion, the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
He definitely was in line to earn a big contract this year, but he felt the calling of his faith too much. A lot of NFL players are very faithful, but it's remarkable to me to see someone who cares about it so deeply he would give up the game and the money.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:11 PM on March 17, 2015
There were some recent changes to contracts for rookies coming out of the draft, they aren't nearly as lucrative as they used to be. If you really want to cash in, most players are going to have to play at least one year of a second contract.
As for leather helmets or less armor...The reason football players wear so much safety equipment is that in the early days people literally died on the field playing the game. The entire history of the sport is full of rule changes to make the game less deadly. The way to handle the issue with head injuries is either to find better safety equipment, change the rules, or stop playing. Backsliding on safety changes already made is not the answer. When players had less protection they didn't stop hitting each other, they died.
I thought Worild's reason for retirement was interesting:
He gave up football for faith.
Worilds, 27, abruptly announced his retirement early Wednesday morning on Twitter, and Steelers sources say they were told it is to devote his time to working for his religion, the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
He definitely was in line to earn a big contract this year, but he felt the calling of his faith too much. A lot of NFL players are very faithful, but it's remarkable to me to see someone who cares about it so deeply he would give up the game and the money.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:11 PM on March 17, 2015
sources also say that patrick willis left for reasons of faith. it brings to mind jason brown, who quit the nfl to start a farm with his church.
posted by nadawi at 12:28 PM on March 17, 2015
posted by nadawi at 12:28 PM on March 17, 2015
I appreciate the attempt, Pseudonymous Cognomen. For the amount of pay the NFL offers, compared to the offers and available opportunity structures a lot of these young men have available, if you've got a green light to earn that salary for a few years there's no way I can fault that choice. To me that is a completely legitimate choice to make, especially given that for some of these guys not only will those substantive amounts change their lives, but change lives of their immediate family members, and affect future generations. Contrast that with the backgrounds and environments a good number of these guys come from, and the risk of bodily harm and something tragic happening that they have to navigate away from daily is not even a consideration, it's already a fact of their lives.
Schefter should let it go because obviously he has a vested interest in the NFL continuing to prosper, but at the same time, he's not wrong here in many cases.
posted by cashman at 12:31 PM on March 17, 2015
Schefter should let it go because obviously he has a vested interest in the NFL continuing to prosper, but at the same time, he's not wrong here in many cases.
posted by cashman at 12:31 PM on March 17, 2015
More from ProFootballTalk, Borland situation highlights delicate balance NFL must strike:
posted by graymouser at 12:40 PM on March 17, 2015
If the NFL goes too far to make the game as safe as it can be, someone inevitably will form a football league that plays old-school, big-hitting football, employing players who know the risks and gladly embrace them. In our society, plenty of risks are taken for much less money, or for no money at all. If enough people are willing to play a violent brand of football and enough people are willing to patronize it, the most intense forms of football will thrive, possibly as competition to the NFL.Mike Florio is usually pretty thoughtful, and I think he makes really strong points here. The NFL's monopoly is not guaranteed forever, and the success of anti-concussion measures basically requires the NFL to be able to hold on to that monopoly. It's not as simple as it should be.
The NFL needs to constantly ask where it sees itself in the spectrum that has no-contact at one end and full-contact at the other. Over the past six years, the game has evolved to something with less contact. Whether the NFL can afford to remove more contact — and whether it can afford not to — becomes one of the most important questions for a league that has been far more reactive than proactive on matters that directly affect its long-term success.
posted by graymouser at 12:40 PM on March 17, 2015
I think he's underestimating team loyalty there. I will stick with the Eagles even if the NFL becomes flag football.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:41 PM on March 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Drinky Die at 12:41 PM on March 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's an interesting question, Drinky Die, because what if a Violent Football League (or whatever) team brought a championship to Philadelphia as the Eagles continued the streak with no rings? You know how hungry the city is for championships.
posted by graymouser at 12:44 PM on March 17, 2015
posted by graymouser at 12:44 PM on March 17, 2015
It would mean about as much to me as the Soul winning a championship.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:46 PM on March 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 12:46 PM on March 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
Yeah, the NFL is entrenched as shit. In my opinion it would take some really bad actions on the part of multiple levels of NFL people, over an extended period of time to even begin to unseat the league. The NFL has all the history, all the hall of fame guys, all the stories and guys football players look up to. All the gear. The stadiums. It's nothing short of an empire.
posted by cashman at 12:54 PM on March 17, 2015
posted by cashman at 12:54 PM on March 17, 2015
That's fair, Drinky Die. I simply found Florio's point interesting. The thing about an empire is that an empire that isn't growing is one that is moribund, and I don't think it's impossible to fatally wound a sports empire. Look at the relative positions of MMA and boxing today.
posted by graymouser at 1:10 PM on March 17, 2015
posted by graymouser at 1:10 PM on March 17, 2015
I don't think the concussion issue will do much to dent football's popularity. The increased awareness of the fanbase and players is good, but people aren't going to give up their preferred form of structured combat (either as fans or players). I mean, boxing still exists. UFC is more popular than ever. Despite it's brutal, man-vs-nature, blood-soaked history, golf isn't going anywhere either.
It is tempting to sit around thinking "what if they did X to make helmets better" (I've certainly done it). Then I came across this article about why NFL helmets will never be concussion proof.
I think the best long-term approach is probably what's evolving now: incremental equipment improvements, rule changes to protect players, and players opting for shorter careers. If football as a sport can add to that an emphasis in play mechanics that decrease concussion risk, maybe they can bring the severity of injuries down from hurling levels to lacrosse levels.
posted by ghostiger at 1:16 PM on March 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
It is tempting to sit around thinking "what if they did X to make helmets better" (I've certainly done it). Then I came across this article about why NFL helmets will never be concussion proof.
I think the best long-term approach is probably what's evolving now: incremental equipment improvements, rule changes to protect players, and players opting for shorter careers. If football as a sport can add to that an emphasis in play mechanics that decrease concussion risk, maybe they can bring the severity of injuries down from hurling levels to lacrosse levels.
posted by ghostiger at 1:16 PM on March 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
The funny thing to me is, with all the tech improvements, with the rule changes, with the "see what you hit" ads - if instead they just changed the culture that demands you destroy on every tackle, that you cannot run out of bounds consistently without being called a coward, that tackling a qb from behind can be a play and not an invitation to try to commit murder, then all of this could change in a heartbeat. And it doesn't have to be some kind of super soft game either. It just needs to be dialed back, not stopped. And the problem is the continued stressing of aggression and force and the back slapping of 'warriors' who fight through injury and mangled digits to carry on. I mean I probably love listening to John Facenda more than anybody on this website but that veneration needs to be situational, not something that gets taught as something to do every single game, every single practice.
posted by cashman at 1:23 PM on March 17, 2015
posted by cashman at 1:23 PM on March 17, 2015
OSHA doing so would result in a Civil War whose bloodiness would make the previous one seem like Romper Room.
no denying. but consider the vast inconsistency: a 22 year old working at Walmart can't stand on a chair to change a light bulb, but if you're playing hs/college/pro ball, bashing your head into a brick wall (lineman) 50+ times a week is totally cool.
isn't the whole point to make sure someone doesn't 'voluntarily' endanger themselves in order to enrich theirowners employers? if you follow this line of thinking to it's conclusion, don't you just end up with voluntary fatal bumfights gladiatorial combat? let's call a spade a spade: football is just gladiatorial combat with comparatively slower death (aka CTE).
posted by j_curiouser at 1:28 PM on March 17, 2015
no denying. but consider the vast inconsistency: a 22 year old working at Walmart can't stand on a chair to change a light bulb, but if you're playing hs/college/pro ball, bashing your head into a brick wall (lineman) 50+ times a week is totally cool.
isn't the whole point to make sure someone doesn't 'voluntarily' endanger themselves in order to enrich their
posted by j_curiouser at 1:28 PM on March 17, 2015
It'll be product liability lawsuits against the helmet companies that craters football at every level.
Can't happen soon enough, in my opinion. The bulk of male scholarships get consumed by football players at the expense of all the other sports.
posted by surplus at 1:32 PM on March 17, 2015
Can't happen soon enough, in my opinion. The bulk of male scholarships get consumed by football players at the expense of all the other sports.
posted by surplus at 1:32 PM on March 17, 2015
if instead they just changed the culture that demands you destroy on every tackle
that's pretty much what I meant by "an emphasis in play mechanics that decrease concussion risk", though I put it in a much more ass-backwards way.
But I think some of that destruction is internally generated. Having played some (albeit, not-organized) tackle football there's just something... joyful about unleashing your entire physicality in one moment against someone else's solid self. Thus the helmets.
posted by ghostiger at 1:36 PM on March 17, 2015
that's pretty much what I meant by "an emphasis in play mechanics that decrease concussion risk", though I put it in a much more ass-backwards way.
But I think some of that destruction is internally generated. Having played some (albeit, not-organized) tackle football there's just something... joyful about unleashing your entire physicality in one moment against someone else's solid self. Thus the helmets.
posted by ghostiger at 1:36 PM on March 17, 2015
I remember reading somewhere that the move to huge linemen and power hitting started to take hold when players no longer had to play both ways.
Offensive linemen, especially as they are today, are simply unable to play well at any defensive position. So, they'd have to slim down, which would mean other positions could get smaller, too. Teams would start employing more skilled and athletic players that could do a lot of different things. So, linebackers that are basically only good at "blowing up" running backs would fall by the wayside. You'd also need lighter pads as it would be way more tiring to play in the heavy armor-like materials they play in now. This would make big hits even less appealing to the person delivering the blow.
Essentially switching back to two-way play would instigate a domino-effect that would fix a lot of the problem's with today's game.
posted by oddman at 1:38 PM on March 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
Offensive linemen, especially as they are today, are simply unable to play well at any defensive position. So, they'd have to slim down, which would mean other positions could get smaller, too. Teams would start employing more skilled and athletic players that could do a lot of different things. So, linebackers that are basically only good at "blowing up" running backs would fall by the wayside. You'd also need lighter pads as it would be way more tiring to play in the heavy armor-like materials they play in now. This would make big hits even less appealing to the person delivering the blow.
Essentially switching back to two-way play would instigate a domino-effect that would fix a lot of the problem's with today's game.
posted by oddman at 1:38 PM on March 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
Essentially switching back to two-way play would instigate a domino-effect that would fix a lot of the problem's with today's game.
I don't know. A big part of this is athletes are just so much bigger, stronger and faster than they were. Training is better, nutrition is better, the environment is better -- pretty much *any* 2010 major league baseball player would be a big star in 1920s baseball, just because the game has advanced that much, training has advanced that much, the player was much healthier throughout his entire life, and heck, is almost certainly taller and stronger.
Same applies to Football. Indeed, the speed of the game is the single biggest factor in the energy being imparted -- kinetic energy, after all, is one half the mass times the velocity *squared*. You double the speed of the hit, you quadruple the energy at impact.
And it's not lineman who really suffer from this -- it's backs. Linemen tend not to be moving very fast when they hit because there's no room. It's that CB going after a WR, or a LB sacking a QB where the really big hits happen.
posted by eriko at 2:32 PM on March 17, 2015
I don't know. A big part of this is athletes are just so much bigger, stronger and faster than they were. Training is better, nutrition is better, the environment is better -- pretty much *any* 2010 major league baseball player would be a big star in 1920s baseball, just because the game has advanced that much, training has advanced that much, the player was much healthier throughout his entire life, and heck, is almost certainly taller and stronger.
Same applies to Football. Indeed, the speed of the game is the single biggest factor in the energy being imparted -- kinetic energy, after all, is one half the mass times the velocity *squared*. You double the speed of the hit, you quadruple the energy at impact.
And it's not lineman who really suffer from this -- it's backs. Linemen tend not to be moving very fast when they hit because there's no room. It's that CB going after a WR, or a LB sacking a QB where the really big hits happen.
posted by eriko at 2:32 PM on March 17, 2015
Discussion of the history of NFL roster limits.
posted by cashman at 3:06 PM on March 17, 2015
The roster limit's growth has been a relatively gradual thing, beginning with the first such limit, 16, in 1925. That number, by the way, increased to 18 players in 1926, remaining static for three years. For further example, the limit was increased to 40 in 1964 and remained at 40 for nine years, through 1973.Do you (general) think that decreasing roster sizes could make players have to be 2-way, and reduce the violence? Players may be bigger and faster, but you can't go all out and waste all your energy in the first quarter if you have to play all game. Today's players (in sports other than football) do get tired. They're used to short bursts of play. Look at what happened to Lebron. Also if you watch the NBA, if there aren't timeouts and there is too much running often the players just give up and foul a guy rather than keep playing. (for the record I am under no delusion that all of this hasn't been suggested in some form previously, you know it must have been).
More recently, the limit has held firm at 45 active players annually for the past 16 years (1991-2007). Each team also has a list of eight inactive players for each regular season and postseason game. Also, provided that a club has two quarterbacks on its 45-player Active List, a third quarterback from its Active List is permitted to dress for the game, but if he enters the game during the first three quarters, the other quarterbacks are thereafter prohibited from playing. Teams also are permitted to establish practice squads of up to eight players who are eligible to participate in practice, but these players must remain free agents and are eligible to sign with any other team in the league.
posted by cashman at 3:06 PM on March 17, 2015
and I don't think it's impossible to fatally wound a sports empire. Look at the relative positions of MMA and boxing today.
I don't follow this statement. MMA is still growing, it's likely going to be legalised in New York this year. The UFC has gone from being broke and sold for a couple million, then buying time on Spike TV, to being worth several billion dollars. Their expansion continues apace.
Boxing, likewise, has not experienced any sort of downfall. Look at the interest in Mayweather / Pacquiao — the combined purses for that bout are over 100 million, according to reports I've read. And even if you write that off as an oddity, a once-in-a-lifetime Big Show, the fact remains that boxing is still incredibly popular worldwide. (Look at the attendance figures for recent big UK boxing events.)
Kickboxing is also alive and well (GLORY especially, after K-1 essentially dissolved), as is muay thai. Combat sports are by no means losing any ground — even to each other. (I assume your comment was a reference to MMA starting to eat boxing's lunch, a premise I don't really agree with.)
posted by Dark Messiah at 3:17 PM on March 17, 2015
I don't follow this statement. MMA is still growing, it's likely going to be legalised in New York this year. The UFC has gone from being broke and sold for a couple million, then buying time on Spike TV, to being worth several billion dollars. Their expansion continues apace.
Boxing, likewise, has not experienced any sort of downfall. Look at the interest in Mayweather / Pacquiao — the combined purses for that bout are over 100 million, according to reports I've read. And even if you write that off as an oddity, a once-in-a-lifetime Big Show, the fact remains that boxing is still incredibly popular worldwide. (Look at the attendance figures for recent big UK boxing events.)
Kickboxing is also alive and well (GLORY especially, after K-1 essentially dissolved), as is muay thai. Combat sports are by no means losing any ground — even to each other. (I assume your comment was a reference to MMA starting to eat boxing's lunch, a premise I don't really agree with.)
posted by Dark Messiah at 3:17 PM on March 17, 2015
F1 driver Fernando Alonso didn't compete in last weekends Australian GP due to a pre-season testing accident in February where he suffered from concussion. I am pretty sure he is the first driver to sit out a race weekend due to second impact syndrome concerns on his doctors advice.
posted by ajh_ at 4:02 PM on March 17, 2015
posted by ajh_ at 4:02 PM on March 17, 2015
No other sport is both as tactical and strategic. No other sport demands the level of team play (over individual play) that gridiron does...
Because the game is not free flowing, like Rugby League or Soccer, play flow for each team can be far more complex -- you have various receiver routes and blocking schemes on one side vs. various coverage and rushing schemes on the other...
It is, by far, the *deepest* sport I know of.
This is an excellent encapsulation of why American football is the single sport where, when it's on, I won't turn to the other people in the room and say, "hey, anybody wanna go outside and play this instead of just sitting here watching it?" Other sports - soccer and hockey are particular standouts - have incredibly deep moment-to-moment tactics. Football has both the complexity and punctuated pacing necessary to support tactics AND more abstract strategic play.
The other reason of course is that playing without full gear is a great way to get seriously hurt, but this is a solvable problem:
1) Better equipment-based protection for players. If that involves sticking 15 inches of foam padding in a shell around the helmet and looking ridiculous, as ghostiger's link states, then so be it. Let the players and teams have fun with the shaping of the outermost three inches - I'm sure a bunch of fun and distinctive plumages would result. A whole new channel for hometown heraldry.
2) Better rule-based protection for players. Which basically equates to: ditch the NFL. It's decades past time for this corrupt and exploitative organization to die, and it will take nothing less than multiple further decades to actually pull it off, but in the end it's the only way we're going to change the contact rules at the line of scrimmage to make football a viable longterm proposition for the players.
3) By the time the NFL is ditched, technology should be ready for a Telepresence Robots Ultraviolence League. Electromagnet ball-catchers on one hand, 50-cal machineguns and grenade launchers on the other. Leg-installed jump jets. Servos capable of ripping other players in half if they get the leverage right. The ball is filled with C-4, which under certain conditions will detonate - ie fumble starts a 15-second countdown so that if the situation isn't resolved by the time the pile-on begins in earnest, a neat little mass-casualty poker-betting mechanic emerges.
I'm being completely serious: build an ultraviolent robot league. The Fox Network will nearly bankrupt itself securing exclusive broadcast rights - this could be what single-handedly saves the political dialogue in this country from going full-blown Idiocracy.
posted by Ryvar at 10:32 PM on March 17, 2015
Because the game is not free flowing, like Rugby League or Soccer, play flow for each team can be far more complex -- you have various receiver routes and blocking schemes on one side vs. various coverage and rushing schemes on the other...
It is, by far, the *deepest* sport I know of.
This is an excellent encapsulation of why American football is the single sport where, when it's on, I won't turn to the other people in the room and say, "hey, anybody wanna go outside and play this instead of just sitting here watching it?" Other sports - soccer and hockey are particular standouts - have incredibly deep moment-to-moment tactics. Football has both the complexity and punctuated pacing necessary to support tactics AND more abstract strategic play.
The other reason of course is that playing without full gear is a great way to get seriously hurt, but this is a solvable problem:
1) Better equipment-based protection for players. If that involves sticking 15 inches of foam padding in a shell around the helmet and looking ridiculous, as ghostiger's link states, then so be it. Let the players and teams have fun with the shaping of the outermost three inches - I'm sure a bunch of fun and distinctive plumages would result. A whole new channel for hometown heraldry.
2) Better rule-based protection for players. Which basically equates to: ditch the NFL. It's decades past time for this corrupt and exploitative organization to die, and it will take nothing less than multiple further decades to actually pull it off, but in the end it's the only way we're going to change the contact rules at the line of scrimmage to make football a viable longterm proposition for the players.
3) By the time the NFL is ditched, technology should be ready for a Telepresence Robots Ultraviolence League. Electromagnet ball-catchers on one hand, 50-cal machineguns and grenade launchers on the other. Leg-installed jump jets. Servos capable of ripping other players in half if they get the leverage right. The ball is filled with C-4, which under certain conditions will detonate - ie fumble starts a 15-second countdown so that if the situation isn't resolved by the time the pile-on begins in earnest, a neat little mass-casualty poker-betting mechanic emerges.
I'm being completely serious: build an ultraviolent robot league. The Fox Network will nearly bankrupt itself securing exclusive broadcast rights - this could be what single-handedly saves the political dialogue in this country from going full-blown Idiocracy.
posted by Ryvar at 10:32 PM on March 17, 2015
Sorry, make that the Telepresence Robots UltraViolence League. I can already hear Madden's spiritual heirs shouting "OH HE'S IN TRUVL NOW!!" over the muted roar of explosions and shrieking metal.
posted by Ryvar at 10:37 PM on March 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Ryvar at 10:37 PM on March 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Essentially switching back to two-way play would instigate a domino-effect that would fix a lot of the problem's with today's game.
Don't think so. They have had issues with head trauma even at the high school level and you aren't going to make the pros hit less than high schoolers no matter what you do. And then you will make them take twice the hits if they have to play both ways.
And safety aside, the specialization is part of what makes it such a fun sport to watch.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:50 AM on March 18, 2015
Don't think so. They have had issues with head trauma even at the high school level and you aren't going to make the pros hit less than high schoolers no matter what you do. And then you will make them take twice the hits if they have to play both ways.
And safety aside, the specialization is part of what makes it such a fun sport to watch.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:50 AM on March 18, 2015
dave zirin, as always, is knocking it out of the park - his twitter is also great for some other links and discussion.
Unsourced statistics and Frank Luntz massaged PR offensives about "a growing culture of safety" don't make the game seem safer. They just make the minders of the sport sound like tobacco execs braying about the safety of the new low-tar Virginia Slim with the extra-large filter.posted by nadawi at 9:10 AM on March 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
Telepresence Robots Ultraviolence League. Electromagnet ball-catchers on one hand, 50-cal machineguns and grenade launchers on the other. Leg-installed jump jets. Servos capable of ripping other players in half if they get the leverage right. The ball is filled with C-4, which under certain conditions will detonate - ie fumble starts a 15-second countdown so that if the situation isn't resolved by the time the pile-on begins in earnest, a neat little mass-casualty poker-betting mechanic emerges.
This has existed since the 80's. I'm sure it could be done with human sized robots quite easily. And it will be just as well known to you as Cyberball.
posted by cashman at 11:06 AM on March 18, 2015
This has existed since the 80's. I'm sure it could be done with human sized robots quite easily. And it will be just as well known to you as Cyberball.
posted by cashman at 11:06 AM on March 18, 2015
Dark Messiah: "Kickboxing is also alive and well"
Well, it *is* the sport of the future.
posted by Chrysostom at 11:43 AM on March 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
Well, it *is* the sport of the future.
posted by Chrysostom at 11:43 AM on March 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
"They have had issues with head trauma even at the high school level and you aren't going to make the pros hit less than high schoolers no matter what you do. And then you will make them take twice the hits if they have to play both ways. "
IDK, I've played plenty of playground football and not once did I see anyone tackle someone via the head-on collision style of the NFL (and college, etc.). What you get is a lot of arm tackles and people basically getting dragged to the ground (which is a fairly gentle way to tackle, comparatively speaking). The reason is that if you aren't wearing a massive helmet and shoulders pads, you'd be an idiot to tackle NFL style.
The instinct for self-preservation would reduce the violence all by itself.
posted by oddman at 2:09 PM on March 19, 2015
IDK, I've played plenty of playground football and not once did I see anyone tackle someone via the head-on collision style of the NFL (and college, etc.). What you get is a lot of arm tackles and people basically getting dragged to the ground (which is a fairly gentle way to tackle, comparatively speaking). The reason is that if you aren't wearing a massive helmet and shoulders pads, you'd be an idiot to tackle NFL style.
The instinct for self-preservation would reduce the violence all by itself.
posted by oddman at 2:09 PM on March 19, 2015
that makes exactly as much sense as "remove the seat belts and less people would die in car wrecks!"
posted by nadawi at 2:18 PM on March 19, 2015
posted by nadawi at 2:18 PM on March 19, 2015
That comment was about playing both ways, not the helmets and stuff, but yeah the reason they have helmets is people were actually dying on the field. The history is that in serious competition football players will be as violent as the rules allow them to be. And it killed people on the field until they started changing the rules, though as this article points out some of the 1905 numbers might be exaggerated.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:23 PM on March 19, 2015
posted by Drinky Die at 2:23 PM on March 19, 2015
And I mean, the impulse for unnecessary levels of violence remains in 2015. Look at Nick Foles, an un-athletic by NFL standards QB, getting absolutely pancaked by a defender after an interception even though a simple block was all that was necessary. This was a legal hit by the rules and he was right to be upset about the ejection.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:30 PM on March 19, 2015
posted by Drinky Die at 2:30 PM on March 19, 2015
Damn you Celek. Another thing they can do is drastically change the unnecessary roughness penalties. Like 15 yards? No, 15 games. It can be called and reviewed during the game and the player can be ineligible for the rest of that game (similar to what they have for spearing in college) and then it's reviewed again by the league during the week, and if upheld, it's 15 games. Take guys off the field and watch how quick behavior starts changing. The players will complain majorly and come up with all kinds of doomsday predictions and such, but it is entirely possible to actually play the game without destroying people. Suh and Dunta Robinson would probably announce their retirements the same day the rule was approved, but hey.
posted by cashman at 4:07 PM on March 19, 2015
posted by cashman at 4:07 PM on March 19, 2015
i fuckin' wish penalties on that sort of thing would get harder - but, alas, nfl is all about money and you don't make money by taking fantasy players out of the game. hell many sites, when discussing free agent stuff, listed suh has having no behavioral issues.
posted by nadawi at 6:40 PM on March 19, 2015
posted by nadawi at 6:40 PM on March 19, 2015
Since we were talking about playing both ways potentially reducing the severity of the hits...
One of the last of the great two way players, Chuck Bednarik (also known as "Concrete Charlie") just passed away at 89. He was one of the greatest Eagles players of all time, being a member of both the '49 and '60 NFL Championship teams.
He might best be known for a crushing hit on Frank Gifford in 1960 that concussed Gifford so severely that even with a 1960 level of understanding of brain injury he was out of football for 18 months after the hit. There is a legendary picture of Bednarik celebrating right after the hit. He did not know Gifford was so severely injured.
So, just saying, going back to playing two ways is not necessarily gonna solve head injury issues.
.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:06 PM on March 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
One of the last of the great two way players, Chuck Bednarik (also known as "Concrete Charlie") just passed away at 89. He was one of the greatest Eagles players of all time, being a member of both the '49 and '60 NFL Championship teams.
He might best be known for a crushing hit on Frank Gifford in 1960 that concussed Gifford so severely that even with a 1960 level of understanding of brain injury he was out of football for 18 months after the hit. There is a legendary picture of Bednarik celebrating right after the hit. He did not know Gifford was so severely injured.
So, just saying, going back to playing two ways is not necessarily gonna solve head injury issues.
.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:06 PM on March 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
Oh, and also:
Chuck Bednarik's daughter: Football-related injuries led to dementia and death
posted by Drinky Die at 3:13 PM on March 22, 2015
Chuck Bednarik's daughter: Football-related injuries led to dementia and death
posted by Drinky Die at 3:13 PM on March 22, 2015
Chuck Bednarik's daughter: Football-related injuries led to dementia and death
... at the age of 89. And also also:
... at the age of 89. And also also:
At halftime, when Bednarik took a break from tackling, snapping, and punting, he smoked several cigarettes.posted by Etrigan at 4:09 PM on March 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
“I guess our bodies were in such good shape that the smoking itself didn’t bother us,” the 235-pound bruiser noted of his pack-a-game-day habit in Bednarik: The Last of the Sixty Minute Men. “I’ve since given it up.”
In addition to smoking during halftime, Bednarik naturally drank straight whiskey to rejuvenate his depleted, 35-year-old body after playing sixty minutes in the 1960 NFL championship game that ended favorably for Philadelphia with #60 tackling, and holding down, Packer Jimmy Taylor as the 4th quarter ticked away. Mr. Eagle copped to popping Benzedrine pills for night games and putting a bounty on a player he disliked.
he smoked several cigarettes.
He was an...advanced smoker.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:18 PM on March 22, 2015
He was an...advanced smoker.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:18 PM on March 22, 2015
« Older The Mid Century Menu, as seen in cookbooks and... | Rethinking the solar system Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
While I don’t pretend to believe for a second that the NFL truly cares about player safety, the idea of a league in which players are retiring younger would also appeal to the shield. It would replace veterans with younger players, driving down salaries under the league’s CBA. It would also replace experienced players with years of injuries from playing at the highest level with rookies who haven’t had the same wear and tear, reducing medical costs. I doubt the league will actually incentivize early retirements, but it could be best for all parties involved.
posted by Kybard at 7:07 AM on March 17, 2015