A NASCAR view of the NFL

[San Jose Bills Fan]

FWIW, the guys running in the Nextel Series and the NHRA have some words of advice for NFL players.

 

"Embrace Safety"

 

There's the fans perspective which we talk about every day here but this is from players to players.

 

It's a longer read but quite good. One item which is pretty clear is that the death of Dale Earnhardt in the 2001 Daytona 500 was a silver lining.

 

"Old-school guys, purists, traditionalists" all scoff at increased safety requirements… just as they did when "The Flying Wedge" was outlawed in 1894.

 

Let's move civilization forward, away from the senselessness of the Roman Coliseum.

 

"In 2007, drag racing up-and-comer Eric Medlen was killed during a practice session in Gainesville, Fla. His head was rocked side-to-side with such violence that his brain was literally shaken to death. Medlen was driving for John Force Racing, and Force used that tragedy to start the Eric Medlen Project, a safety initiative that studied and eventually overhauled the way that dragsters are constructed. The body, head and legs were now surrounded by more iron railings.

 

Many of Force's rivals reacted not with appreciation, but with anger. More rails meant having to build all new race cars. And that meant spending more money. So most refused to listen.

 

"Later I was in the most god awful crash anyone had ever seen," Force recalls, talking about a Sept. 23, 2007, accident in Dallas. The ultraviolent, 315 mph collision ripped his car in half and ripped his then 58-year-old body apart, breaking his right knee, left wrist, left ankle and burning off the ends of his fingers and toes. "But I suffered no brain damage. Not even a headache. Eric Medlen saved my life. And damn if other drag racers didn't start calling and saying, so, um, tell me about this new car."

 

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7915908/nfl-learn-racing?fb_action_ids=3420748871001%2C10151109894395558%2C10151109871620558%2C10151109838565558&fb_action_types=news.reads&fb_ref=type%3Aread%2Cuser%3AJnhbWvv6aZIRrXKWS1JXEDpN2t0%2Cfb_opengraph&fb_source=other_multiline

[cfbillsfan]

Good article thanks for sharing. Im not sure if the nfl can avoid catostrophic injuries with equipment and technology alone. It may also require rule changes. But it does make me wonder what technology might bring.....

 

Go Bills!

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Good article thanks for sharing. Im not sure if the nfl can avoid catostrophic injuries with equipment and technology alone. It may also require rule changes. But it does make me wonder what technology might bring.....

 

Go Bills!

Thanks.

 

The takeaway for me was that no one in any profession should have an "old school" "traditionalist" bias against changes that make their job safer.

 

That's why James Harrison is such a moron, IMO… because the rule changes make the game safer for him too but all he wants to do is bellyache about how he can't drill defenseless people smaller than himself.

 

 

[The Poojer]

i'll never forget Dale Sr. dying the way he did. With all the violent crashes that have occurred in NASCAR races, that one seemed so damned minor, one that drivers had endured hundreds of times...all of a sudden he was dead...all because of his head not being restrained more...NASCAR acted swiftly and seemingly immediately. When they go to the in-car camera's its amazing to see how steady the drivers are as they drive at those high speeds. hopefully NFL can find an effective solution.

 

Thanks.

 

The takeaway for me was that no one in any profession should have an "old school" "traditionalist" bias against changes that make their job safer.

 

That's why James Harrison is such a moron, IMO… because the rule changes make the game safer for him too but all he wants to do is bellyache about how he can't drill defenseless people smaller than himself.

[Williams+Williams+Williams]

Thanks.

 

The takeaway for me was that no one in any profession should have an "old school" "traditionalist" bias against changes that make their job safer.

 

That's why James Harrison is such a moron, IMO… because the rule changes make the game safer for him too but all he wants to do is bellyache about how he can't drill defenseless people smaller than himself.

I saw the hit on Colt, I didn't see the other hits. If he didn't lead with the crown if his helmet and used his shoulder, would you feel the same way? Again, I'm just referencing that one hit.

 

Because I haven't seen video of his hits, I cant really comment on Harrison in particular. But i would like to comment on the game as a whole. I played football from the time I was 7 until I had a career ending tare my sophomore year of college. And the biggest part of the game was the physical part. Let's say your toughest linebacker takes on a star runninback in the hole and got plowed. It affects the team mentally. Oh ****, this team is tough roles through the back of your head. Conversely, if your linebacker crushes the guy, or crushes their fullback, it can get you pumped and ready to play.

 

The physical part of football separates the game from any other. And the physical part of football has a huge impact on the mental part. I am ok with equipment changes, even not allowing DBS to launch themselves and leave there feet. But I wouldn't consider any of these guys defenseless. They chose to play the game and know there could be a price to pay. All of these guys suing the league over concussions, implications that football had something to do with jr Seaus death, it's all BS. People need to be responsible for the decisions and choices they make.

 

I had 3 shoulder surgeries, and two surgeries on a flexor tendon in my hand. I am not supposed to put more than ten pounds of pressure on the replaced tendon. I've never been paid to play football, and I wouldnt trade that experience for the world. Limited mobility and all. These guys are living out a lot of people's dreams and getting paid for it. If they can't handle it, they should choose to be accountants or teachers.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

I am ok with equipment changes, even not allowing DBS to launch themselves and leave there feet. But I wouldn't consider any of these guys defenseless. They chose to play the game and know there could be a price to pay. All of these guys suing the league over concussions, implications that football had something to do with jr Seaus death, it's all BS. People need to be responsible for the decisions and choices they make.

This is exactly where you lose me.

 

Just because a person assumes the risk doesn't suddenly make them defenseless.

 

I get no thrill from a 250 pound linebacker launching himself into a 190 pound receiver who is concentrating only on catching the ball. To me that's gratuitous violence.

 

It's savagery, IMO.

 

If you eliminate this type of play from the game FOR BOTH TEAMS, you'll still have numerous plays in a game where the play or game is decided by a monumental hit like the one you described. All things being equal the more physical team will still win.

 

Even without gratuitous violence there will still be smashmouth football… a linebacker and a fullback meeting in the hole… the nutcracker, the Oklahoma Drill, all these things will STILL EXIST IN FOOTBALL.

 

Teams will still impose their will.

 

Teams will still be making "statement drives."

 

It'll still "be about attitude" in goal line situations.

 

But you won't have bigger men trying to maim smaller men who are trying to catch the ball.

 

You won't have defensive linemen with full running starts smashing into defenseless, yes, defenseless smaller men.

 

I love a good, hard sack. But when the attacker is going full speed and hitting a stationary target who he outweighs substantially, I see no reason to spear the quarterback for good measure.

 

Violent football? Always.

 

Intimidation? Always.

 

Gratuitous savagery? Never.

 

 

[cfbillsfan]

Thanks.

 

The takeaway for me was that no one in any profession should have an "old school" "traditionalist" bias against changes that make their job safer.

 

That's why James Harrison is such a moron, IMO… because the rule changes make the game safer for him too but all he wants to do is bellyache about how he can't drill defenseless people smaller than himself.

 

 

I do agree that is the main point of the article. But as I read it I could not help but compare Dale Sr's injury, 'basilar skull fracture, an injury that occurs when the head tries to separate itself from the body' to former Bill, Kevin Everett's injury, 'a fracture and dislocation of the cervical spine'. Now it seems NASCAR has the answer with their head restraint. It made me wonder what the NFL can come up with equipment wise that could have prevented Kevin's injury. Otherwise it is the speed of the return game that was the issue with Kevin's injury.

 

With regards to multiple concussions and the effects on NFL players. I do agree it is a problem. If there is a better helmet that prevents concusions and players refuse to wear them out of some sort of pride or old school traditions, that is just down right silly.

 

If anyone is in the football equipment design industry, message me I think I have a great idea for a equipment improvement!...DISREGARD, I just googled it and it seems there is already a patent filed in 1997:

 

http://www.google.com/patents/USRE36691

 

 

A football helmet and shoulder pad combination are designed to prevent head and neck injuries. An outer helmet is connected to a neck assembly which permits but limits head turning mobility as well as up-down and left and right head tilt. The neck mechanism which is mounted about the neck comprises substantially circular inner and -outer spherical guides and a concentric movable inner element therebetween with an upwardly extending member on each side of the neck. The guides contain stops to limit the motion permitted by the helmet and the lower portion of the mechanism is mounted on the shoulder pads to distribute the load during impact. The helmet portion with a resilient coupling joining the portions. The upwardly extending members on the inner element are mounted to respective sides of the outer helmet. The helmet may also be retrofitted to existing equipment.

[Fan in San Diego]

This is exactly where you lose me.

 

Just because a person assumes the risk doesn't suddenly make them defenseless.

 

I get no thrill from a 250 pound linebacker launching himself into a 190 pound receiver who is concentrating only on catching the ball. To me that's gratuitous violence.

 

It's savagery, IMO.

 

If you eliminate this type of play from the game FOR BOTH TEAMS, you'll still have numerous plays in a game where the play or game is decided by a monumental hit like the one you described. All things being equal the more physical team will still win.

 

Even without gratuitous violence there will still be smashmouth football… a linebacker and a fullback meeting in the hole… the nutcracker, the Oklahoma Drill, all these things will STILL EXIST IN FOOTBALL.

 

Teams will still impose their will.

 

Teams will still be making "statement drives."

 

It'll still "be about attitude" in goal line situations.

 

But you won't have bigger men trying to maim smaller men who are trying to catch the ball.

 

You won't have defensive linemen with full running starts smashing into defenseless, yes, defenseless smaller men.

 

I love a good, hard sack. But when the attacker is going full speed and hitting a stationary target who he outweighs substantially, I see no reason to spear the quarterback for good measure.

 

Violent football? Always.

 

Intimidation? Always.

 

Gratuitous savagery? Never.

 

What is your solution for this scenerio? The defender can only go for the ball? Blame the route then, why design a route where the WR is standing there waiting for the ball and as a result waiting to get drilled by the defender. Blame the coach who drew up the route, blame the QB who throws it to the WR when a defender is about to level the WR. Maybe the solution is to ban dangerous routes that hang the WR out to dry.

 

I would think that the helmet companies could design a helmet that absorbs way more of the impact that what is on the market now. That would help alot with injuries.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

What is your solution for this scenerio? The defender can only go for the ball? Blame the route then, why design a route where the WR is standing there waiting for the ball and as a result waiting to get drilled by the defender. Blame the coach who drew up the route, blame the QB who throws it to the WR when a defender is about to level the WR. Maybe the solution is to ban dangerous routes that hang the WR out to dry.

 

I would think that the helmet companies could design a helmet that absorbs way more of the impact that what is on the market now. That would help alot with injuries.

I like the new rule changes.

 

I think they should continue to be enforced until defenders understand the parameters… the same parameters which existed before crimes on wide receivers got too violent. The same parameters which exist for BOTH TEAMS.

 

I understand the game moves quickly and that sometimes players duck into each others helmets.

 

But that doesn't mean that the officials and players can't define appropriate play in the vast majority of situations. To argue otherwise is a copout, IMO.

 

 

[Williams+Williams+Williams]

This is exactly where you lose me.

 

Just because a person assumes the risk doesn't suddenly make them defenseless.

 

I get no thrill from a 250 pound linebacker launching himself into a 190 pound receiver who is concentrating only on catching the ball. To me that's gratuitous violence.

 

It's savagery, IMO.

 

If you eliminate this type of play from the game FOR BOTH TEAMS, you'll still have numerous plays in a game where the play or game is decided by a monumental hit like the one you described. All things being equal the more physical team will still win.

 

Even without gratuitous violence there will still be smashmouth football… a linebacker and a fullback meeting in the hole… the nutcracker, the Oklahoma Drill, all these things will STILL EXIST IN FOOTBALL.

 

Teams will still impose their will.

 

Teams will still be making "statement drives."

 

It'll still "be about attitude" in goal line situations.

 

But you won't have bigger men trying to maim smaller men who are trying to catch the ball.

 

You won't have defensive linemen with full running starts smashing into defenseless, yes, defenseless smaller men.

 

I love a good, hard sack. But when the attacker is going full speed and hitting a stationary target who he outweighs substantially, I see no reason to spear the quarterback for good measure.

 

Violent football? Always.

 

Intimidation? Always.

 

Gratuitous savagery? Never.

 

I dont think I'm in too much of a disagreement with you. I dont think a guy spearing a qb should be legal, I dont think guys should go after knees, and I even agree with the no launch rule in th secondary. But I think if a receiver comes across the middle and concentrating on the football, he should be lit up within the rules of the game. Like the Nigel Bradam hit that was floating around here for a while.

 

The hit I saw on colt ny James Harrison was dirty in my opinion. He stuck his crown right into colts helmet. The Nigel Bradam hit was clean in my option. Full force, used his shoulder, didn't leave the ground. How do you feel about the Bradham hit?

[San Jose Bills Fan]

I dont think I'm in too much of a disagreement with you. I dont think a guy spearing a qb should be legal, I dont think guys should go after knees, and I even agree with the no launch rule in th secondary. But I think if a receiver comes across the middle and concentrating on the football, he should be lit up within the rules of the game. Like the Nigel Bradam hit that was floating around here for a while.

 

The hit I saw on colt ny James Harrison was dirty in my opinion. He stuck his crown right into colts helmet. The Nigel Bradam hit was clean in my option. Full force, used his shoulder, didn't leave the ground. How do you feel about the Bradham hit?

Agree, the Bradham hit was perfectly textbook. I loved his reaction too… he didn't gloat, taunt, or any of that.

[Mr. WEO]

I don't see much, or any, evidence that players are interested in a softening of the game for their safety. I've seen the opposite---many have publicly come out against the "pussification", etc, of the game and for a bounty system. I believe there are helmets available that are rated safer than the ones they now use. They don't want them.

 

Where is the players' outrage for their own safety? It doesn't exist.