Marshawn's 20 bucks Posted January 11, 2013 Posted January 11, 2013 OJ's murder of Nicole and subsequent erratic behaviour ? CTE? Not to be an apologist or anything. Dude deserve to be convicted.
UConn James Posted January 11, 2013 Posted January 11, 2013 (edited) Can mods fully change the thread title to reflect what doctors are ACTUALLY saying? Leaving that up for people to see as a headline, and if they don't read the thread "Junior Seau's brain was NOT damaged" will be the takeaway when that is 100% inaccurate. Edited January 11, 2013 by UConn James
San Jose Bills Fan Posted January 11, 2013 Posted January 11, 2013 The problem isn't concussions anymore. It's the head hits of any kind. Blocking. Arm blows. Ground contact. The cumulative effect of the blows causes damage, and it can be serious. Parent shouldn't be letting kids play contact football. Way too dangerous long term consequences. Yes. Like the boxer taking head shots without actually getting a "concussion" there's a growing belief that the CTE can and does result from numerous "sub-concussive" blows. The kind that happen numerous times each game and even in practice.
NoSaint Posted January 11, 2013 Posted January 11, 2013 (edited) Yes. Like the boxer taking head shots without actually getting a "concussion" there's a growing belief that the CTE can and does result from numerous "sub-concussive" blows. The kind that happen numerous times each game and even in practice. and it happens to everyone. frequently. some positions essentially every play. its a tough fix. Edited January 11, 2013 by NoSaint
San Jose Bills Fan Posted January 11, 2013 Posted January 11, 2013 and it happens to everyone. Even on this board people are butting heads all the time. Just posting here sometimes decreases cognitive function.
NoSaint Posted January 11, 2013 Posted January 11, 2013 The problem isn't concussions anymore. It's the head hits of any kind. Blocking. Arm blows. Ground contact. The cumulative effect of the blows causes damage, and it can be serious. Parent shouldn't be letting kids play contact football. Way too dangerous long term consequences. i am very curious to see the effect on the talent pool for 10-15 years down the line. id imagine there will be some sort of connection to guys with big arms possibly getting shifted towards baseball instead of qb by their parents at an early age for instance. im not talking a crippling shift but say maybe the sport plateaus a bit instead of the constant growth. Even on this board people are butting heads all the time. Just posting here sometimes decreases cognitive function. imma sue you for makin me dumber.
shrader Posted January 11, 2013 Posted January 11, 2013 i am very curious to see the effect on the talent pool for 10-15 years down the line. id imagine there will be some sort of connection to guys with big arms possibly getting shifted towards baseball instead of qb by their parents at an early age for instance. im not talking a crippling shift but say maybe the sport plateaus a bit instead of the constant growth. If I actually had a choice for which sport my future children will play professionally, it would be golf. Baseball probably is the most cost effective sport though for the parents who are crazy enough to think their child actually has a shot.
San Jose Bills Fan Posted January 11, 2013 Posted January 11, 2013 imma sue you for makin me dumber. "You started it!" Seriously, football and baseball have been on different paths for some time now as far as socioeconomics. This will only increase that chasm. If I actually had a choice for which sport my future children will play professionally, it would be golf. Baseball probably is the most cost effective sport though for the parents who are crazy enough to think their child actually has a shot. I've always felt a child should play at least one individual sport and one team sport.
bowery4 Posted January 11, 2013 Posted January 11, 2013 I think Cookie has this and RW should just get over it and put him on the wall (or if it is up to Russ now, he should).
San Jose Bills Fan Posted January 11, 2013 Posted January 11, 2013 I think Cookie has this and RW should just get over it and put him on the wall (or if it is up to Russ now, he should). Cookie and Saban. However now that they're both gone, it's just a damn shame. Good for the remaining family but so sad that neither man will be there for their big day.
ColdBlueNorth Posted January 11, 2013 Posted January 11, 2013 Yes. Like the boxer taking head shots without actually getting a "concussion" there's a growing belief that the CTE can and does result from numerous "sub-concussive" blows. The kind that happen numerous times each game and even in practice. There is certainly evidence to support that there is a cumulative negative effect to the brain in regards to those lighter impacts, but it is the same thing regardless of where you are hit. It is the sudden acceleration and deceleration that causes the brain to twist or impact the wall of the skull and cause damage. They have the same effect as a concussion just not detectable with the conventional, "hey kid, how are you feeling, what time is it, what was the last play we ran, do you feel nautious, dizzy, light headed, or do the lights seem too bright, etc... They may be even worse because there is generally no time taken off for the athlete to heal. Most coaches follow the protocols and are more careful than ever, unless our name is Shanahan and we coach the Redskins. In my own school district parents were alarmed at the number and frequency of concussions this year. What they failed to understand is that the instances were not going up, rather there was an increase in identification and kids being sidelined from concussion symptoms until they got the all-clear from doctors. I believe that the rates of occurrence are probably pretty close to the average and the scary thing is that just 3-4 years ago most of those kids would have been right back on the field the next practice or game. This development has got to be considered a positive, especially for our youth that play the sport. And for those who would not allow your kid to play football or hockey, I understand the reasons and respect them. It can be a tough call particularly if your kid loves the sport. My compromise is that I make sure that I am actively involved in my kids sports and I don't allow other coaches to override my concerns about my kid's health. If he needs to come out, he comes out. Folks would not believe how many arguments I have with parents who want to keep their kid in the game, or on the mat wrestling. They are often times far worse than coaches. I had a heated argument with one dad/coach who kept his son in a wrestling tournament after I found his kid wandering around the halls of a large Indianapolis school where the tournament was being held complaining about a headache and how bright the lights were. That same dad also had his kid wrestling up against a weight class that was far too heavy for him; to prove what? This year after multiple concussions, and multiple knee injuries his kid who was a promising athlete had to have reconstructive knee surgery and will most likely never be the athlete he could have been. Back to the problem of those sub-concussions. The noticeable effects of those smaller concussions are usually only there for few seconds or so if they happen at all. Enough for a player to get up shake his head a few times (we would all say he was shaking off the cobwebs) and go back to the huddle or come to the sideline and pass all the tests, but they require the same healing process as any other concussion albeit probably less time. At this point there is no clear way of identifying those concussions that do not manafest clear signs of impairment. And even if you did pull a kid out, how long do you keep him out. Without clear tools to measure the healing process, there is no way to truely know. My only reason to advocate better equipment is that there is clear science that better equipment can reduce the stress factors that cause brain trauma. I am careful to say reduce, because I firmly believe that a complete elimination of impact trauma is impossible in impact sports. What I do believe could be possible in the future is better injury detection equipment and recovery protocols for athletes in contact sports. More detailed neurological jargon could be found if folks search on: Histomorphologic Phenotypes of Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy in American Athletes
TheBrownBear Posted January 11, 2013 Posted January 11, 2013 The problem isn't concussions anymore. It's the head hits of any kind. Blocking. Arm blows. Ground contact. The cumulative effect of the blows causes damage, and it can be serious. Parent shouldn't be letting kids play contact football. Way too dangerous long term consequences. Bingo!
NoSaint Posted January 11, 2013 Posted January 11, 2013 My only reason to advocate better equipment is that there is clear science that better equipment can reduce the stress factors that cause brain trauma. I am careful to say reduce, because I firmly believe that a complete elimination of impact trauma is impossible in impact sports. What I do believe could be possible in the future is better injury detection equipment and recovery protocols for athletes in contact sports. More detailed neurological jargon could be found if folks search on: Histomorphologic Phenotypes of Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy in American Athletes Thanks for the share - i enjoy when people take the time to get more in depth. the what to do from here part is sometimes tricky... if you make the player doing the hitting safer, it seems the more violent their hits become and it becomes a bit of a cycle of escalation. theres also a certain sense of people, players included, not wanting the injuries to be detected as they are fairly common and will likely be of large detriment to their earning capacity. at some point the league is going to have to "suck it up" and force some changes that may actually radically change the sport that we have gotten used to.
ColdBlueNorth Posted January 11, 2013 Posted January 11, 2013 Thanks for the share - i enjoy when people take the time to get more in depth. the what to do from here part is sometimes tricky... if you make the player doing the hitting safer, it seems the more violent their hits become and it becomes a bit of a cycle of escalation. theres also a certain sense of people, players included, not wanting the injuries to be detected as they are fairly common and will likely be of large detriment to their earning capacity. at some point the league is going to have to "suck it up" and force some changes that may actually radically change the sport that we have gotten used to. It can be risky business on this board to share too much Yeah, I thought about your comment about athletes hiding injuries or faking baseline testing, also the fact that better equipment may lead to more reckless play, but my post was reaching the epic saga length that is painful on attention spans.
dave mcbride Posted January 11, 2013 Posted January 11, 2013 (edited) I just cannot comprehend how the NFL can preach player safety and enforce all these protective penalties but for some reason they don't enforce proper helmet use and a mandatory mouth guard rule. What's up with that? Things will never change until they suspend players, and this past year they failed to do it. It's embarrassing, actually. Once they start suspending players for deliberate head shots - of which there are still many - the incidence will go down some. Also, I know that this is from a college game, but Alabama/Georgia is effectively a pro game. Many of these guys will be playing in the NFL. There was no penalty on this play and of course no fine. The fact that this happens and there's no punishment speaks to big-time football's larger problem of ineffectiveness regarding the issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Llpcg7iLohM Edited January 11, 2013 by dave mcbride
NoSaint Posted January 11, 2013 Posted January 11, 2013 It can be risky business on this board to share too much Yeah, I thought about your comment about athletes hiding injuries or faking baseline testing, also the fact that better equipment may lead to more reckless play, but my post was reaching the epic saga length that is painful on attention spans. could go even further than just hiding or faking baselines (which would no doubt be an issue) to generally resisting the very protections even being put in preemptively. they have recently fought increased leg padding for an example, resist steroid testing options, etc.... though they stand to be safer from the protocols you discuss - they may decide that it should be their own call not some doctor and they get to take the risk if they want (considering what the pay can do for them, their families - some may prefer to risk the injury then risk the injury getting caught). its an interesting dynamic all around
Mr. WEO Posted January 12, 2013 Posted January 12, 2013 I think we can stipulate that all NFL players will show evidence of CTE on autopsy. Now what? Does this alone explain the rash of NFL suicides the past 2 years? Impossible to say. Given the likely widespread incidence of the disease and the contention now that just about any magnitude and/or frequency of impact can cause this disease, intuitively I would expect far more such violent outbursts from former or current NFL players. Hasn't happened though. As NoSaint says--tough to figure out what it all means for football. The players, except those suing the NFL, have show little or no concern with these developments--even mocking discussions of changing rules or equipment to improve safety. I don't think there will be any quantum leap in practical helmet safety that will reduce risk of brain injury significantly. Also, society isn't very concerned with player safety (still in existence: boxing, MMA). What are we left with? As for the NFL, it will always be popluar--this info will do nothing to change that. The league will sponsor endless incremental equipment redesigns which will have no significant impact on reducing CTE. They will beef up their waivers and disclaimers in the contracts they offer players and players will very gladly sign them.
San Jose Bills Fan Posted January 12, 2013 Posted January 12, 2013 could go even further than just hiding or faking baselines (which would no doubt be an issue) to generally resisting the very protections even being put in preemptively. they have recently fought increased leg padding for an example, resist steroid testing options, etc.... though they stand to be safer from the protocols you discuss - they may decide that it should be their own call not some doctor and they get to take the risk if they want (considering what the pay can do for them, their families - some may prefer to risk the injury then risk the injury getting caught). its an interesting dynamic all around And to go yet one step further, some of the players positions on protections for their own good are being resisted by the players for pragmatic reasons: Rather than press for greater safety they can put that honus on the league and force the the league to press for these improvements in the CBA. The league is forced to press for these changes in anticipation of future litigation. The players are taking that bargaining chip and throwing it in the league's lap forcing the league to fight for the proposed changes in exchange for other issues at the bargaining table of the players choosing.
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 12, 2013 Posted January 12, 2013 My kids won't be playing football or hockey.
Tcali Posted January 12, 2013 Posted January 12, 2013 Great question. There was some suppression of facts by the NFL's former concussion czar, Elliott Pellman. That played a role. Also denial by players entered into it a bit also. Then there are different classes of concussed players (and plaintiffs). Guys in the 50's and 60's probably had no idea what the long term effects were when they "got their bell rung." Today's player knowingly takes these risks. Between these two classes are a wide range of people somewhere in the middle. Finally, NFL football is much more violent than ever before. So that's a factor too. I just dont remember ..up until the 90s really....the prevalence of the 'leading with the helmet' tackles. this purposeful form of tackling -imho-is what has caused the violence level to go up so precipitously.In fact it is the main violence .-Of course in the old days head to head collisions would occur--but it seemed more by accident. More good tough tackles were made leading with the shoulder and wrapping the guy up. We still have to be careful with the conclusions drawn from the brain tests. the american public seems to like neat packaged explanations and solutions to complex problems without the rigor of proper,non-pharmaceutical co. influenced studies. Would 'safer' helmets really help the situation?--otr would they encourage more recklessness,more spearing because of the false sense of security? Perhaps less of a helmet would discourage spearing. i dont see any of the old leatherheads-in the old clips-tackling head first.They werent That stupid.
Recommended Posts