eball Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Just answering your questions: 1 -- No, I don't think there are. 2 -- Yes I do. 3 -- A gladiator sport as it was intended. Please explain a response that indicates you don't think there are enough injuries in the NFL. Also, gladiators killed each other. Is that what you're hoping for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogma+ Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Also, gladiators killed each other. Is that what you're hoping for? Metaphorically, sure. Watch some tape from the 70's. You may not recognize what you're watching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Metaphorically, sure. Watch some tape from the 70's. You may not recognize what you're watching. You missed the first question. Still waiting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malazan Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Actually, eliminating helmets would be single best step they could take to reduce head injuries. There have been safer helmets offered to players. Why is the nflpa AGAINST this? It's nflpa players who were targetted. They need to star being harsh. We're told that players can't practice, can't do this, can't do that because of the wear and tear on their bodies. Ok, I get it. Then you think the nflpa wants to protect their bodies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogma+ Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 You missed the first question. Still waiting. The first question is loaded. That would have to be a discussion taken place in person to accurately convey what I'm attempting to explain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 I've actually wondered if switching to a wrestling/gladiator shape helmet wouldn't be a bad idea. Keep the facemask and side protection. Just eliminate the top. I have no idea if this would be safer, but I guarantee at the very least, "launching" style helmet tackles would stop dead in their tracks... Yup. And I suspect linemen would very quickly learn to move upright before they impact with the guy across from them. Right now the helmets are the first point of contact every single play for half the guys on the field. 1 -- I'm basing my claim off the fact that I have read every research study that I could find on the matter and all of them put together wouldn't equal more than 1% of total NFL players. So you assume that if a player wasn't named in a specific study than they must not have been impacted? You don't really understand the issue at all do you? btw....how many of the studies you read mentioned Junior Seau? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 There have been safer helmets offered to players. Why is the nflpa AGAINST this? It's nflpa players who were targetted. They need to star being harsh. We're told that players can't practice, can't do this, can't do that because of the wear and tear on their bodies. Ok, I get it. Then you think the nflpa wants to protect their bodies. The NFLPA is hypocritical on many fronts. That said, there is not a helmet now, nor will there be a helmet ever invented, that can prevent concussions. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogma+ Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 So you assume that if a player wasn't named in a specific study than they must not have been impacted? You don't really understand the issue at all do you? btw....how many of the studies you read mentioned Junior Seau? What proof do you have that Seau's death was in any way correlated to the NFL? Logical fallacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 The NFLPA is hypocritical on many fronts. That said, there is not a helmet now, nor will there be a helmet ever invented, that can prevent concussions. GO BILLS!!! eliminate, no. reduce, very much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 What proof do you have that Seau's death was in any way correlated to the NFL? Logical fallacy. What proof do you have that you're not an idiot? A presumption based on anecdotal evidence is not a logical fallacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 The first question is loaded. That would have to be a discussion taken place in person to accurately convey what I'm attempting to explain. For what it's worth, I think you're confusing an archaic "warrior" mentality with the realities of a multi-billion dollar industry that relies upon its stars being able to actually, you know, play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogma+ Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 What proof do you have that you're not an idiot? Insults are not productive. If that's where you want to go with this conversation, then i'll bow out now. A presumption based on anecdotal evidence is not a logical fallacy. Anecdotal evidence implies that there is some evidence that there is a link between two facts or items. There is no link what so ever between Seau's death and his NFL career at this point. None. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todzilla Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 So even if it's less than 1% of the players, does that make it okay? No worries, it's only .5% of our employees that have mush for brains and are dying young, carry on. I wrote my post then went to lunch to find out Seau killed himself. Obviously we don't know if there was any correlation to concussions, but it makes you wonder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogma+ Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 So even if it's less than 1% of the players, does that make it okay? Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted May 2, 2012 Author Share Posted May 2, 2012 So even if it's less than 1% of the players, does that make it okay? No worries, it's only .5% of our employees that have mush for brains and are dying young, carry on. I wrote my post then went to lunch to find out Seau killed himself. Obviously we don't know if there was any correlation to concussions, but it makes you wonder. Indeed it does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogma+ Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 (edited) For what it's worth, I think you're confusing an archaic "warrior" mentality with the realities of a multi-billion dollar industry that relies upon its stars being able to actually, you know, play. And THAT is what it's really about. The all mighty DOLLAR. Edited May 2, 2012 by dogma+ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Insults are not productive. If that's where you want to go with this conversation, then i'll bow out now. But using the "Prove it!" argument is highly productive while you continue to refuse to provide any type of support for your ridiculous 1% claim and willfully ignore the significant volume of evidence published about the issue. Anecdotal evidence implies that there is some evidence that there is a link between two facts or items. There is no link what so ever between Seau's death and his NFL career at this point. None. I suppose there's none for Dave Duerson either. Go back and read those studies again. Or you can go back to crusading about how you want the NFL to produce more injuries and deaths. That lends so much credibility to your "argument". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Wow the bounty vilma thought would cost him $10k at most ends up costing $3.3mm. That's just brutal losing that kind of change when nfl careers tend to be short to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 eliminate, no. reduce, very much. Skull fractures and hematomas, yes. Concussions? Not so much. Unlike fractures and hematomas, concussions can result at much lower impacts and helmets can't do anything to prevent acceleration/deceleration of the brain which is the most important factor. It's just the terrible nature of the beast. I like where new helmet technology is going, certainly. One of the companies (Riddell maybe?) is developing a helmet that will actually measure impact forces which have the potential to alert team medical staff as to whether or not a threshold has been crossed. This may allow them to intervene sooner on behalf of a player who may not even know he's at risk to begin with after a low impact collision. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogma+ Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 (edited) But using the "Prove it!" argument is highly productive while you continue to refuse to provide any type of support for your ridiculous 1% claim and willfully ignore the significant volume of evidence published about the issue. How dare I ask for proof! Let it be known that you have still not been able to provide any... What significant volume? All of that significant volume put together is less than 1%. You may call it ridiculous if want but that is a fact. I suppose there's none for Dave Duerson either. Go back and read those studies again. Or you can go back to crusading about how you want the NFL to produce more injuries and deaths. That lends so much credibility to your "argument". I never said I wanted more death. That is a lie. As far as credibility goes, I lost all I had for you when you resorting to name calling. Edited May 2, 2012 by dogma+ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts