The Atlantic - Latest Comments in The dilemma of the modern football fan

Re: The dilemma of the modern football fan

BG — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 01:13:47 -0000

As the parent of two former high school FB players, this article was scary, but my feelings were that it mainly is about NFL guys who seem to have shortened lives, compared with the rest of the population.

My older son was a RB and he did sustain one concussion, and he was definitely not crazy aboutthe hits. The other son is a WR, still, and he's never had a concussion or even a bad hit. DBs do the hitting so whoever suggested they have it the worst is wrong.

Re: The dilemma of the modern football fan

Destro Villain — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 12:42:27 -0000

@Marshall

I respectfully disagree. The biggest difference between rugby and football isn't the collision versus contact analogy. The biggest difference is the forward pass as well as some other rules like not being able to block a defender in rugby (it's called obstruction...I could go on).

Forward momentum is a huge deal in rugby (how do you think the teams score), but so is the retention of the ball. There have been plenty of instances of a rugby player running with a head of steam being tackled and there are plenty of hard hits. But the rules and the lack of padding forces players to play smart and not come flying across the field through air at an opposing player.

Re: The dilemma of the modern football fan

Blue Moon — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 12:31:23 -0000

While not a silver bullet, some rule changes I'd like to see come from rugby -- in rugby, it is illegal to hit someone who is in the air, and it is illegal to tackle without wrapping up. This would eliminate leading with shoulders and forarms as well as diving at people's feet and getting kneed in the head. Of course, Brandon Jacobs will have a field day when Terrence Newman has to do more than hope Jacobs trips over him...

Re: The dilemma of the modern football fan

Blue Moon — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 12:30:32 -0000

While not a silver bullet, some rule changes I'd like to see come from rugby -- in rugby, it is illegal to hit someone who is in the air, and it is illegal to tackle without wrapping up. This would illiminate leading with shoulders and forarms as well as diving at people's feet and getting kneed in the head. Of course, Brandon Jacobs will have a field day when Terrence Newman has to do more than hope Jacobs trips over him...

Re: The dilemma of the modern football fan

cd — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 09:21:29 -0000

Nothing worse than when egghead academic types try to talk about football (don't mean you TNC). Removal of padding? No facemask? Players play both sides? Are you guys serious? That will never happen. Ever. No, seriously. Ever. ugh...

More roster spots is a good idea, especially in the preseason.

Re: The dilemma of the modern football fan

Rich in PA — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 23:45:23 -0000

The NFL's response is indeed comical, but it's true that we don't know what percentage of former players suffer this kind of damage, and to my knowledge nobody has gone back into the careers of the known cases to determine if there were certain catastrophic events, or if it was just a steady drip of hard contact. That's something we ought to do before coming to any conclusions.

Re: The dilemma of the modern football fan

Just Karl — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 23:44:01 -0000

In fact there are probably as many concussions that come from a players head whipping back into the turf after the initial hit as there are from the hit itself. Especially when a lot of teams used to have astro turf instead of field turf.

I agree completely. Astro turf was basically carpet over concrete.

I would suggest that the NFL institute a lifetime ban on anyone testing positive for steroids along with mandatory testing of every player during every week of the year. Shawn Merriman should never be allowed to play football again. Not only would this reduce the size and speed of the players and therefore the force they are able to generate, but it would also increase recovery time when injuries are sustained.

I don't think Americans are liable to take up the most popular sports in the world, like rugby

LOL. Since when has rugby become one of the most popular sports in the world?

Re: The dilemma of the modern football fan

Marshall — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 23:14:36 -0000

Anyone comparing rugby to football are working with obvious similarities while ignoring the much much larger difference. I believe the best way I have heard it said is that Rugby is a contact support while football is a collision sport.

The reason is fundamental to the game. One yard can be important. Thus, one of the main features of a football tackle is stop forward momentum. If you take away the pads and helmets people will just be killing each other again because it is inherently dangerous to try and stop someones forward momentum when they've built up a head a steam. You can aim your head away, lead with you shoulders but one mistake and you've got a broken neck.

In rugby there is no need to stop someone's forward momentum because yardage doesn't mean much most of the time. The point is to get them to the ground with out them throwing the ball away.

Re: The dilemma of the modern football fan

Tony Comstock — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 18:39:17 -0000

Agreed. The average football play lasts about three seconds. During those three seconds, the entire offense, every single person on the team, knows exactly what they have to do. After the first half-second, though, everything changes in fractions of seconds as the two teams collide and react to each other.

I played street football almost everyday growing up, looking forward to the day I could "suit up" and play full contact HS ball. As luck would have it, in only got to play one season; and due to an injury, only a part of that season.

But this paragraph takes me back to a a moment or two, in practice or on game day that are still with me 25 years later.

And the plowing through people at full speed!

Re: The dilemma of the modern football fan

Scott — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:53:41 -0000

"American football is life-sized chess.

That to me is its fundamental beauty, the concept of grace and violence co-existing is the cherry on top."

Agreed. The average football play lasts about three seconds. During those three seconds, the entire offense, every single person on the team, knows exactly what they have to do. After the first half-second, though, everything changes in fractions of seconds as the two teams collide and react to each other.

Unlike most team sports, where the action focuses on sequenced one-on-one battles, football requires every single player doing a specific action at the same time or it doesn't work. The fact that this regimentation exists right alongside the potential for creativity and finesse is what kept me in the game.

Well...that and the fact that I simply loved plowing through people at full speed.

Re: The dilemma of the modern football fan

Destro Villain — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:37:33 -0000

@DaveinHackensack

Yeah, we never got that point about putting your facemask on the ball (probably cost us more than a few games, haha), but the other stuff is spot on. Move from the ball carrier's inside to his outside to contain him.

Re: The dilemma of the modern football fan

SeanH — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:19:33 -0000

LT wasn't as good this year because his body wore down.

LT had some injury issues, but he also wasn't as good this year because his team let the best runblocking fullback currently in the league go in free agency. The last four teams that released Lorenzo Neal all had a significant drop (like 150-300+ yard range) in their leading rusher's run production the following year. The first two didn't, but that's because the 90s Saints couldn't possibly get any worse and the Jets signed Curtis Martin.

Re: The dilemma of the modern football fan

Juba — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:17:20 -0000

"I don't mean to sound too... well, I don't know what. At the risk of offending.. .but is american football a real sports?"

American football is life-sized chess.

That to me is its fundamental beauty, the concept of grace and violence co-existing is the cherry on top.

Re: The dilemma of the modern football fan

DaveinHackensack — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:15:46 -0000

Destro,

One of the points of form tackling, as I remember it, was to force some fumbles by hitting the ball with your face mask. Also, since ball carriers usually carried the ball in their outside arms, the point was to get your head to the ball carrier's outside to contain him.

Re: The dilemma of the modern football fan

Destro Villain — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:07:18 -0000

@DaveinHackensack

Funny you should mention form tackling, I remember having to be taught how to tackle properly once I got to high school (although I would 'move from low to high, inside out' to your #1), which makes me shudder at the thought of 1) kid's coaches who are teaching this hit 'em as hard as possible and 2) pros who seem to use this to score a highlight hit but don't actually tackle the ball carrier.

Re: The dilemma of the modern football fan

CitizenE — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:03:43 -0000

It's a violent sport. Taking off the body armor strikes me as so counter intuitive that I can't get it. Heaver penalities for particular kinds of hits might have some prohibitive value, but guys running around without helmets strikes me as silly. Nobody measured the numbers of concussions in earlier days, and I believe the most vicious hit I ever saw was when L.T. broke Joe Theisman's leg. Let's face it, part of the game is who can hit the hardest. How can you take that out of the game?

Re: The dilemma of the modern football fan

DaveinHackensack — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:02:01 -0000

"In football(HS), I was taught to tackle in order to injure."

Really? In high school football (and at a private football camp) we were taught to form tackle with three guidelines in mind: 1) get low; 2) hit & wrap; 3) aim your face at the ball.

"Popular Science ran a piece about five years ago where they described a new helmet being tested in the semi-pro football leagues. It extended down to the shoulders, meaning that the shock of blows wasn't being absorbed by the head, but evenly distributed down the body."

I patented a similar concept years ago. So did a bunch of other folks. Never got my idea past the concept stage though. Mine had the advantages of allowing, but limiting, full mobility of the head, and of not being a "bird cage"-style contraption.

Re: The dilemma of the modern football fan

jeff — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:50:42 -0000

Speaking for myself, I think NFL players are clearly some of the best and fiercest athletes in the world, and the combination of their freakish size with the strength and speed that is required is amazing--and I've only watched them on tv.

But I'm not a big fan of the game because so much of this athleticism, for most of the players on the field, is restricted to a few, very specific skills: blocking, tackling, etc. One reason, I think, why people don't appreciate football athleticism is that it seems like most of the players out there are just pushing each other. It's easy to appreciate a wide-receiver, or a running back, or a quarterback; what they do more clearly registers with our ideas of grace and beauty--plus they are more directly, heroically, involved in scoring. But it's hard to appreciate the roles that most of the people on the field are performing. (And I know it's not easy memorizing all those plays--I was astonished in college to see the amount of homework the football players were doing during preseason when all the athletes were carbo-loading between sessions in the cafeteria.)

Now I know there is a tremendous amount of technique and skill required to block and tackle well, but the regimentation of football, and the narrow displays of athleticism by most of its players are all just part of a larger aesthetic difference between a sport that asks a lot of players to each play very specific roles, with little room for creativity on the field, and the sports that ask all the players on considerably smaller squads to have mastered all the basic skills (dribbling, passing, catching, shooting, defense, decision making, etc.). When the ball is in the possession of any individual basketball player or soccer player, etc. they're the quarterback. Everyone can score. Everyone must play defense. Everyone can "receive" the ball. Everyone has to learn to pass. But that's just one conditioned preference--those are the types of sports I played.

But I wouldn't for a second question people's love for football, or its excellence as a sport. It's just not my thing. I readily admit I can't follow the arcane strategies that are so much of the satisfaction of the game.

Re: The dilemma of the modern football fan

Destro Villain — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:47:02 -0000

@Scott

Actually, I know a couple, but that's neither here nor there.

My concern with those 300+ pound behemoths is actually more in regard to the overall topic of player health, especially once they've retired. If I've offended any 300+ pound behemoth that can actually run more than 10 yards without getting winded, I do apologize.

That being said, I would love to see those same behemoths play a full game with minimum subs or timeouts playing both ways. Again, this is merely my opinion, I think that when comparing the NFL lineman to say, a rugby front rower, the most apt comparison, sure, there are plenty of 300 pound guys who can move, but I doubt they'd do so well with fewer substitions, tv timeouts, regular timeouts, etc. And I also think they'd be a lot better off once they're playing days are over.

Re: The dilemma of the modern football fan

Pesto — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:42:27 -0000

Scott, I was referring specifically to the long-term effects of repeated head trauma. I'm not talking about whether players realize that their bodies can break down like Jim Otto's, or whether they can suffer traumatic leg injuries like William Floyd or Joe Theisman or Tim Krumrie or Bo Jackson, or whether they can end up as a quadriplegic like Darryl Stingley.

That's why I asked, "Did anyone ever tell Andre Waters about the dangers of repeated head trauma?" And every article I've read about this over the last 10 years mentions that, for a long time, players who "had their bell rung" went right back in after their head cleared. Research into the long-term, post-retirement effects of multiple concussions is relatively recent.

But, I can tell you, even before I was aware that there WERE studies, I was completely and utterly aware of the types of injuries I could sustain because I suffered/caused/saw them happen.

Again, Ta-Nehisi's post and my comments were focused on long-term, post-retirement neurological damage resulting from repeated head trauma. Were you really aware of that when you played? And was that more than about 15 years ago?

Re: The dilemma of the modern football fan

Destro Villain — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:39:37 -0000

@Stacy

Yes, it effectively ended the game, but I didn't think it was necessary to try to end someone's career at the same time. Not to mention the danger to the tackler. Remember Chucky Mullins? But that's just my opinion.

@Hill Rat

You're right about the rugby subs, I was just trying to keep it as brief and as on topic as possible.

Re: The dilemma of the modern football fan

The Sophist — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:38:29 -0000

Greens response to me proves my point. LT wasn't as good this year because his body wore down. We both agree on this. My argument is that the game that Green wants, one with the "best possible players" is a game that includes an un-worn down LT. This would be a game in which he hasn't had to absorb 300+ brutal hits a season for the past n seasons.

Re: The dilemma of the modern football fan

Hill Rat — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:25:54 -0000

@Scott

I think a lot of the commenters that are talking about the NFL's 300+ club don't realize that the majority of those guys are pretty damn fast and most are freakishly good athletes that excelled in numerous other sports.

Re: The dilemma of the modern football fan

Scott — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:14:11 -0000

Oh, I wasn't I actually had typed something like, "and even he was much faster and more agile than he looks", but didn't want to belabor the point.

Re: The dilemma of the modern football fan

Hill Rat — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:00:33 -0000

@Scott

Don't sleep on the Fridge, he was huge but he was also an athlete. Did you know that he could dunk a basketball?

http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/hunting/news/story?page=h_ath_perry_william