Greg Lloyd says NFL is 'not PBS... it's a.......

Greg Lloyd says NFL is 'not PBS ... it's a violent freaking game'

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8 ... line_stack

 

I like Lloyd, but this is another case where an athlete, or exathelete, just needs to shut the hell up.

His quote:
"The point of it is that if the NFL and the league would get behind and start taking care of their older players and taking care of guys, they wouldn't have these issues. As opposed to saying, 'Hey, go out there, do it hard, then bang we're done with you.'"

makes absolutely no sense.

What hes completely missing is that if you AVOID certain injuries altogether (or greatly reduce them), then you wont have to take care of your older players later in life. And, like it or not, that is what Goodell is trying to do.

Hes obviously got an axe to grind in regards to the leagues treatment of retired players...and thats fine...but don't mesh it together with how Goodell is currently running the league. If anything, he should be squarely behind Goodell, but he's too stupid to realize it.

 

I understand Lloyd's position and agree with it mostly, but I think he's a little off-base in saying Goodell's moves have "tainted" the game. We need to start being reasonable about head injuries. What's interesting is Lloyd's comment about offense: there is definitely a correlation between points going up and concussions going up. It seems to me that most of the head injuries are being suffered by receivers and DBs. Hmmm...

If Goodell is serious about head injuries, here are some things that he should consider:

1. Bring back the pre-1978 rules. Allow WRs to be chucked downfield. DE-EMPHASIZE the passing game.
2. Disallow RBs or any player running with the ball to duck his head and use it as a battering ram.
3. Get rid of kickoffs. (They're already thinking about this one). You can still make onside kickoffs a part of the game (by giving a team that option rather than providing their opponent a spot at the 20). But there won't be anymore "surprise" onsides.
4. Here's a radical idea if #1 is out of the question: make the game 15 on 15 and reduce the amount of open space on the field.
5. Another radical idea: receivers can't run with the ball after the catch. Where the ball is caught is where it's down. This forces DBs to play the ball more because there is no more concern about running. If a WR is hit after the catch, it's a 15-yd personal foul.
6. One more radical idea that will draw ire from people: Indeed put flags on the QB. If the QB is behind the LOS and a defender gets a flag off him, he's down.
7. A more practical idea: weigh the players down with pads. Silly? Well, part of the problem is how much lighter and tighter today's equipment is. Back in the day, players had on massive, heavy equipment that kept speed down. Notice Nike's recent ad about their new NFL gear being "fast." Technology has helped the speed and ferocity of the game. Not sure that's a good thing.

I'm not saying do ALL of these things, but maybe there are ideas in here that can work. I don't think hitting has to go away, but if the NFl did #2, #3, #5, and #6, the game might be better off in the long run.

 

No, Goodell is absolutely not trying to do that. If he were he wouldn't be trying to extend the seasons. If he doesn't think that will result in more injuries then he is delusional.

 

I think it's true that Goodell has been changing the rules to make the scores go up, and there's an automatic tendency to think "less defense, less inujuries", which may not actually stand up to evidence.

With this in mind, I think the three changes you suggested above are interesting... the second one is probably the most do-able. Treat it as a form of spearing.

 

He has a point, the league should be doing more to support the retired players. And the whole reason most people ever tune into football is to see a QB get knocked out.

Alternatively, everyone knows the risk (and reward) for playing in the NFL. If you want a job that you may not suffer brain damage at, well then use that free college ride to actually get an education and make something of yourself. It's not like anyone is holding a gun to someone's head and making them play football.

Anyway, I wonder if they'll ever vote him in the HoF.

 

Goodell is in the tough position of trying to grow the game while trying to reduce the number of debilitating injuries. And this is why 12 to 88's first two suggestions won't be implemented.

What he's seeking is a bigger, more popular, more revenue generating entity thats safer too. Can it be done? I don't know, but thats certainly what hes trying to do.

And its not about fewer injuries. Its about fewer head injuries which have devastating long term effects on players. Its one thing to have arthritis and walk with a limp. Its another to lose your mind and your ability to function.

 

Yes he does.

That being said, he's not being consistent with his criticisms of Goodell.

How can you be concerned with support for retired players, but not be a fan of the Commissioners efforts to improve safety?

 

What greg said makes perfectly good sense.If you are serious about taking care of the player and player's safety then first you have to start by taking care of the retired players to show that it's sincere and not vengence.Goodell fine current players for old school hits and fight against spending a dime on taking care of the old school players that have laid the foundation and standard for the current NFL.It made me sick to my stomach when I saw these rookie draft picks hugging goodell on the stage.More money and ratings for him and next week this same guy will be your #1 enemy next week.

 

Yep, next year there will be harder hitting in Passion games than NFL games

 

No, you're wrong.

How can Goodell take care of retired players? Its not his call. Its negotiated in the CBA. Goodell is involved with negotiations, but ultimately the CBA is agreed upon by both owners and plaers.

What Goodell can impact though is the health of the next generation of retired players. And he can do that by taking steps to reduce injuries in general, and more specifically those injuries that have the greatest negative impact on retired players, concussions.

Its totally hypocritical to criticize the league for not taking care of retired players while criticizing the league (and Goodell) for the changes aimed at reducing the number of future retirees need for assistance.

What Lloyd is advocating is doing little (or nothing at all) to prevent long term debilitating injuries and just waiting until players are older and retired and deal with the aftermath of injuries then.

How do you not see this as hypocritical?

 

Goodell's push for safety has nothing to do with making the game safer, it has to do with allowing the move to an 18 game regular season.

Head injuries are a part of football. Typically it's not the occasional light up hits that have the long term affects, it's the repeated pounding that the guys on the lines give to each other over the course of an entire game.

Football as we know it is slowly coming to an end as society in general gets softer and more concerned with being PC and making everyone happy. We can transition to hockey while it lasts there, adapt to the new age football or just move on. I don't personally see remaining a fan of football if it continues down the road to high scoring flag football.

 

This is just exaggeration, though. The rule changes have more to do with marketing and increasing markets than being "PC".

The issue is more that these changes are introduced with a vague sense that it's for player safety because it's penalising defense, when that doesn't always actually add up.

 

And you can't do a lot to reduce the pounding taken by the guys on the line.

But you can do tons to reduce the 'light up' injuries.

I understand what Goodell is trying to do and I believe he's sincere about it. We are just really beginning to understand the long term effects of concussions and multiple concussions on the human brain. Its not good. Although these changes are unpopular, I believe its the right thing to do given the information that we are finding out. I don't think its about vengeance. I don't think its about marketing. I don't think its a Cover Your Arz move. I don't think its a facade. You can be cynical and choose to not believe that it is, but I believe that he truly does have the players best interests in mind.

 

How about hiring him to take Coach Butler spot when he takes over Defensive Coordinator.

 

It's not an exaggeration though. I'm not saying it's going to happen over the course of a few years, I'm saying in a couple decades I will be shocked if football looks anything like what we're watching now unless there are some amazing breakthroughs in head protection. I hope I'm wrong about that, but I don't think I am.

 

I think that Rugby players who have no pads get fewer injuries than football players do.

 

I think Greg LLoyd makes alot of sense, unfortunatley the league has not
taken care of the veterans, and they see all this TV money being paid to the owners
and the large compensation to current players and they ask why not me? As I stated in another
thread early last week, I believe we have seen the end of football as we have come to
know it. Both players and owners are to be blamed for this, not just the owners.
Football is a violent sport played by violent men, when you sign on the dotted line
you know that you may have a short life span and or debilitating injuries for most of your life
but hey you are going to be playing the game you love and be highly compensated for it.
If you are afraid of getting hurt, don't sign on the dotted line.

 

It's not just about head injuries though. Where are the rules to prevent the kind of blocks to the back of the leg that Hampton was taking all year starting with the Ravens game? Where are the rules about hits to the heads of RB's or RB's lowering their heads?

Also, the men Lloyd is talking about aren't solely head injury sufferers. They run the gambit from joint, spinal, and cardiovascular issues.

 

I wasn't arguing about the changing of the rules. What I was saying was that going on about people getting softer and PC and whatnot is missing the point.

If you watch games a couple of decades ago (thinking about the 40's, for example), the game was pretty different then as well. All I hope is that the rules are getting changed for benefits other than just the NFLs bank account. So, to go back to 12to88's suggestions, I think penalising a runner for lowering their head into a tackle is a good move, whilst penalising the defender for tackling them when their head is down isn't.

 

an amazing breakthrough?
how about adding a soft shell on the outside of the helmets?
its already out there
already been done - not happening because it doesn't make those great sound effects on TV
in 2010 the NFL announced it was going to start enforcing all players wearing full pads - never happened
in 2011 the NFL announced it was going to start fining players not wearing full pads - never happened
in 2012 the NFL announced it was going to start requiring all players to wear full pads - for the 2013 season
the only record I can find of equipment fines during the last 2 years is for wearing the wrong color shoes?
doesn't sound to me like they are serious

 

Anybody playing football in the nfl knows the risk and is getting paid very good for that risk.

 

I understand where Lloyd is coming from but I also understand Goodell's predicament. The upcoming lawsuits could have a 'Big tobacco lawsuit' kind of effect if plaintiffs start winning and the league is doing everything it can to cover it's legal rear end.