PDA

View Full Version : Harry Carson on SIRIUS this morning with Bob Papa and Ross Tucker



RoanokeFan
05-07-2012, 01:59 PM
I didn't catch the whole interview but when I tuned in Harry was talking about the concussion issue. He agreed with Warner, and not with Toomer, explaining how his life has been affected by "Post Concussive Syndrome (PCS)."

I was first struck by how articulate Harry is. He explained how he was/is affected by depression. He used a post game scenario from when he played as an example. The team had won a game and everyone was "up" in the locker room. Everyone, that is, except Harry. He went to Ronnie Barnes, the trainer, and told him her was suffering from depression and Barnes asked Harry what he wanted him to do about it. Harry just wanted him to know, he said.

He went on to explain that he has learned how to live with PCS. He also said he was not one of the former players suing the NFL as he doesn't believe they knew then what they are learning now.

I don't know if you can get an audio clip from SIRIUS but it would be great listening for anyone wanting to know more about concussions. Harry, said he has told his daughter that he doesn't want his grandson to play football.

GOBIGBLUE52
05-07-2012, 02:08 PM
Everyone on here 5 days ago was ripping Warner a new one, yet I agree with exactly what he said. And yes, Carson is a very well spoken guy.

Kruunch
05-07-2012, 02:11 PM
I didn't catch the whole interview but when I tuned in Harry was talking about the concussion issue.* He agreed with Warner, and not with Toomer, explaining how his life has been affected by "Post Concussive Syndrome (PCS)."

Big difference between Harry and Kurt .... Harry didn't say he wouldn't want this children to play football ... and then let them play football.

And the hypocrisy of this is astounding (both from people on these boards and the NFL personalities).

Simple way to end the drama ... ban the sport.

Otherwise you're just creating more hot air.

RoanokeFan
05-07-2012, 02:15 PM
Everyone is entitled to their opinion but we have to realize this is a serious issue. I read posts suggesting that finding ways to make the "game" less violent/life altering somehow isn't as important as we, the fans, getting our pound of flesh every week.

Kruunch
05-07-2012, 02:27 PM
Everyone is entitled to their opinion but we have to realize this is a serious issue.* I read posts suggesting that finding ways to make the "game" less violent/life altering somehow isn't as important as we, the fans, getting our pound of flesh every week.


Again ... you can choose to stop supporting it by not watching or buying football related media and paraphernalia. But if you don't, then you're just a hypocrite on this topic.

That's not an opinion ... that's the text book definition of hypocrite.

I applaud those people who strive to make the game safer via better equipment and rule changes. But the bottom line is that you have X amount of brain cells in your head. When you kill one, it doesn't grow back. Concussions cause brain cells to die. Full contact sports cause concussions.

If we (meaning us as a people) were really concerned about this issue past paying lip service to it, the sport (and sports like it) would be dead.

Tough truth ... but we're not all as evolved as we like to think.

GMENAGAIN
05-07-2012, 02:43 PM
I didn't catch the whole interview but when I tuned in Harry was talking about the concussion issue. He agreed with Warner, and not with Toomer, explaining how his life has been affected by "Post Concussive Syndrome (PCS)." Big difference between Harry and Kurt .... Harry didn't say he wouldn't want this children to play football ... and then let them play football. And <FONT size=4>the hypocrisy of this is astounding</FONT> (both from people on these boards and the NFL personalities). Simple way to end the drama ... ban the sport. Otherwise you're just creating more hot air.</P>


I don't see how it's hyprocrytical at all.</P>


If it was his choice, he probably wouldn'twant his kids to play football.He is obviously allowing his kids to participate in whatever activities they choose . . . . hence, it is nothis choice.</P>


I caught some of Carson's interview on Sirius too . . . . he always does a great job on the air. </P>

RoanokeFan
05-07-2012, 02:46 PM
Everyone is entitled to their opinion but we have to realize this is a serious issue. I read posts suggesting that finding ways to make the "game" less violent/life altering somehow isn't as important as we, the fans, getting our pound of flesh every week.


Again ... you can choose to stop supporting it by not watching or buying football related media and paraphernalia. But if you don't, then you're just a hypocrite on this topic.

That's not an opinion ... that's the text book definition of hypocrite.

I applaud those people who strive to make the game safer via better equipment and rule changes. But the bottom line is that you have X amount of brain cells in your head. When you kill one, it doesn't grow back. Concussions cause brain cells to die. Full contact sports cause concussions.

If we (meaning us as a people) were really concerned about this issue past paying lip service to it, the sport (and sports like it) would be dead.

Tough truth ... but we're not all as evolved as we like to think.

I'm not sure how my hoping they find a way to make the game lees life altering is hypocritical, but we all have opinions.

RoanokeFan
05-07-2012, 02:47 PM
I didn't catch the whole interview but when I tuned in Harry was talking about the concussion issue. He agreed with Warner, and not with Toomer, explaining how his life has been affected by "Post Concussive Syndrome (PCS)." Big difference between Harry and Kurt .... Harry didn't say he wouldn't want this children to play football ... and then let them play football. And <font size="4">the hypocrisy of this is astounding</font> (both from people on these boards and the NFL personalities). Simple way to end the drama ... ban the sport. Otherwise you're just creating more hot air.</p>


I don't see how it's hyprocrytical at all.</p>


If it was his choice, he probably wouldn'twant his kids to play football.He is obviously allowing his kids to participate in whatever activities they choose . . . . hence, it is nothis choice.</p>


I caught some of Carson's interview on Sirius too . . . . he always does a great job on the air. </p>

I would love to have a chance to talk with harry about anything

Kruunch
05-07-2012, 02:49 PM
I didn't catch the whole interview but when I tuned in Harry was talking about the concussion issue.* He agreed with Warner, and not with Toomer, explaining how his life has been affected by "Post Concussive Syndrome (PCS)." Big difference between Harry and Kurt .... Harry didn't say he wouldn't want this children to play football ... and then let them play football. And <FONT size=4>the hypocrisy of this is astounding</FONT> (both from people on these boards and the NFL personalities). Simple way to end the drama ... ban the sport. Otherwise you're just creating more hot air.</P>


I don't see how it's hyprocrytical at all.</P>


If it was his choice, he probably wouldn't*want his kids to play football.**He is obviously allowing his kids to participate in whatever activities they choose* . . . .* hence, it is not*his choice.****</P>


I caught some of Carson's interview on Sirius too . . . . he always does a great job on the air.* </P>

Of course it's his choice ... their oldest kid is 15 (not including the two adopted ones from a previous marriage). You need parental consent to play football at that age.

Somehow I don't get the sense that he's all against it and his wife overrode his decision.

And yeah i totally agree about Harry's interview .... always a pleasure listening to him talk.

Kruunch
05-07-2012, 02:57 PM
I'm not sure how my hoping they find a way to make the game lees life altering is hypocritical, but we all have opinions.


Because that's like trying to find a way to get your girlfriend only a "little" pregnant after declaring how bad pregnancy is.

I'm not trying to pick on you specifically RF ... it's just that the whole issue about player safety revolving around a sport known, watched and loved for its brutality strikes me as a bit disengenuous.

Sort of like when the NFL fined and suspended James Harrison for his vicious hits while at the same time selling the video of his most vicious hits on the NFL store.

GMENAGAIN
05-07-2012, 03:07 PM
I didn't catch the whole interview but when I tuned in Harry was talking about the concussion issue. He agreed with Warner, and not with Toomer, explaining how his life has been affected by "Post Concussive Syndrome (PCS)." Big difference between Harry and Kurt .... Harry didn't say he wouldn't want this children to play football ... and then let them play football. And <FONT size=4>the hypocrisy of this is astounding</FONT> (both from people on these boards and the NFL personalities). Simple way to end the drama ... ban the sport. Otherwise you're just creating more hot air.</P>


I don't see how it's hyprocrytical at all.</P>


If it was his choice, he probably wouldn'twant his kids to play football.He is obviously allowing his kids to participate in whatever activities they choose . . . . hence, it is nothis choice.</P>


I caught some of Carson's interview on Sirius too . . . . he always does a great job on the air. </P>


Of course it's his choice ... their oldest kid is 15 (not including the two adopted ones from a previous marriage). You need parental consent to play football at that age. Somehow I don't get the sense that he's all against it and his wife overrode his decision. And yeah i totally agree about Harry's interview .... always a pleasure listening to him talk.</P>


Eh . . . . can't say that I agree about that.</P>


If it were completely up to me, I wouldn't want my son to be a ballerina. But if that's what he wanted to do, I would supporthim . . . .I understand that it presents a different situation when you have a safety issue involved, but a lot of parents allow their children toparticipate in activities that the parentsthemselves have reservations about for one reason or another . . . . </P>


</P>

RoanokeFan
05-07-2012, 03:12 PM
I'm not sure how my hoping they find a way to make the game lees life altering is hypocritical, but we all have opinions.


Because that's like trying to find a way to get your girlfriend only a "little" pregnant after declaring how bad pregnancy is.

I'm not trying to pick on you specifically RF ... it's just that the whole issue about player safety revolving around a sport known, watched and loved for its brutality strikes me as a bit disengenuous.

Sort of like when the NFL fined and suspended James Harrison for his vicious hits while at the same time selling the video of his most vicious hits on the NFL store.

And yet they have taken steps to lessen the violence including a very limited number of "pads on" practices, no full contact practices, no wedge on kick off returns, etc.

I get the point you are trying to make, but I also think what we know now about the lasting effects of concussions has to be seriously dealt with. These 1,200+ lawsuits could be the beginning of the end of football as we know it if the plaintiffs win their cases.

GMENAGAIN
05-07-2012, 03:12 PM
I didn't catch the whole interview but when I tuned in Harry was talking about the concussion issue. He agreed with Warner, and not with Toomer, explaining how his life has been affected by "Post Concussive Syndrome (PCS)." Big difference between Harry and Kurt .... Harry didn't say he wouldn't want this children to play football ... and then let them play football. And <FONT size=4>the hypocrisy of this is astounding</FONT> (both from people on these boards and the NFL personalities). Simple way to end the drama ... ban the sport. Otherwise you're just creating more hot air.</P>


I don't see how it's hyprocrytical at all.</P>


If it was his choice, he probably wouldn'twant his kids to play football.He is obviously allowing his kids to participate in whatever activities they choose . . . . hence, it is nothis choice.</P>


I caught some of Carson's interview on Sirius too . . . . he always does a great job on the air. </P>




I would love to have a chance to talk with harry about anything
</P>


Me too. </P>


For me, players like him sort of change the picture of guys suffering fromCTE, since on the outside, he is sointelligent and well-spoken, you can't imagine that he is suffering from any brain "issues".. . . .Just goes to show thatevena lot of the guys who seem to have it all together (Seau??), are really struggling with these issues.</P>


</P>

Kruunch
05-07-2012, 03:16 PM
I didn't catch the whole interview but when I tuned in Harry was talking about the concussion issue.* He agreed with Warner, and not with Toomer, explaining how his life has been affected by "Post Concussive Syndrome (PCS)." Big difference between Harry and Kurt .... Harry didn't say he wouldn't want this children to play football ... and then let them play football. And <FONT size=4>the hypocrisy of this is astounding</FONT> (both from people on these boards and the NFL personalities). Simple way to end the drama ... ban the sport. Otherwise you're just creating more hot air.</P>


I don't see how it's hyprocrytical at all.</P>


If it was his choice, he probably wouldn't*want his kids to play football.**He is obviously allowing his kids to participate in whatever activities they choose* . . . .* hence, it is not*his choice.****</P>


I caught some of Carson's interview on Sirius too . . . . he always does a great job on the air.* </P>


Of course it's his choice ... their oldest kid is 15 (not including the two adopted ones from a previous marriage). You need parental consent to play football at that age. Somehow I don't get the sense that he's all against it and his wife overrode his decision. And yeah i totally agree about Harry's interview .... always a pleasure listening to him talk.</P>


Eh . . . . can't say that I agree about that.</P>


If it were completely up to me, I wouldn't want my son to be a ballerina.* But if that's what he wanted to do, I would support*him . . . .*I understand that it presents a different situation when you have a safety issue involved, but a lot of parents allow their children to*participate in activities that the parents*themselves have reservations about for one reason or another . . . . *</P>


*</P>

Well your son becoming a ballerina (as opposed to a ballet dancer) would entail a costly surgical operation.

As for Kurt Warners proclaimations ... the reason I had issues with them as opposed to say Harry's interview was that Harry made a point of saying that he talked with this daughter and they had agreed that her son would not be playing football (her son is two).

That's a conviction of purpose.

Kurt Warner's spiel just seems self agrandizing to me since it lacks action (and hence conviction).

Kruunch
05-07-2012, 03:26 PM
I'm not sure how my hoping they find a way to make the game lees life altering is hypocritical, but we all have opinions.


Because that's like trying to find a way to get your girlfriend only a "little" pregnant after declaring how bad pregnancy is.

I'm not trying to pick on you specifically RF ... it's just that the whole issue about player safety revolving around a sport known, watched and loved for its brutality strikes me as a bit disengenuous.

Sort of like when the NFL fined and suspended James Harrison for his vicious hits while at the same time selling the video of his most vicious hits on the NFL store.

And yet they have taken steps to lessen the violence including a very limited number of "pads on" practices, no full contact practices, no wedge on kick off returns, etc.

I get the point you are trying to make, but I also think what we know now about the lasting effects of concussions has to be seriously dealt with.* These 1,200+ lawsuits could be the beginning of the end of football as we know it if the plaintiffs win their cases.


I think the effects of repeated concussions and head traumas (keep in mind that even without a registered concussion, you have repeated head trauma by playing football) have been made more apparent to the average layman and that we know some finer details about it but this seems sort of like someone piping up now and saying "Smoking is bad for me?!".

The fact that the boxing industry went through this ages ago is the kicker.

We've known for quite awhile how bad repeated concussions and head traumas were. We chose to ignore it. And by "we" I mean me and you as the spectator, and people like Harry Carson as a player.

And we all ignore it because we get a visceral thrill from the game. Both playing and spectating.

I would think somewhere in the far future, sports like football will have no place in society. Or more appropriately, football (and UFC, boxing, hockey, etc ...) will eventually become entirely virtual.

Until that point however, and as I said, I do applaud those who are trying to make the game safer. And I will always cringe when I hear people jumping on the band wagon who aren't.

That's not directed at you .... but it is at people like Kurt Warner.

RoanokeFan
05-07-2012, 03:40 PM
I'm not sure how my hoping they find a way to make the game lees life altering is hypocritical, but we all have opinions.


Because that's like trying to find a way to get your girlfriend only a "little" pregnant after declaring how bad pregnancy is.

I'm not trying to pick on you specifically RF ... it's just that the whole issue about player safety revolving around a sport known, watched and loved for its brutality strikes me as a bit disengenuous.

Sort of like when the NFL fined and suspended James Harrison for his vicious hits while at the same time selling the video of his most vicious hits on the NFL store.

And yet they have taken steps to lessen the violence including a very limited number of "pads on" practices, no full contact practices, no wedge on kick off returns, etc.

I get the point you are trying to make, but I also think what we know now about the lasting effects of concussions has to be seriously dealt with. These 1,200+ lawsuits could be the beginning of the end of football as we know it if the plaintiffs win their cases.


I think the effects of repeated concussions and head traumas (keep in mind that even without a registered concussion, you have repeated head trauma by playing football) have been made more apparent to the average layman and that we know some finer details about it but this seems sort of like someone piping up now and saying "Smoking is bad for me?!".

The fact that the boxing industry went through this ages ago is the kicker.

We've known for quite awhile how bad repeated concussions and head traumas were. We chose to ignore it. And by "we" I mean me and you as the spectator, and people like Harry Carson as a player.

And we all ignore it because we get a visceral thrill from the game. Both playing and spectating.

I would think somewhere in the far future, sports like football will have no place in society. Or more appropriately, football (and UFC, boxing, hockey, etc ...) will eventually become entirely virtual.

Until that point however, and as I said, I do applaud those who are trying to make the game safer. And I will always cringe when I hear people jumping on the band wagon who aren't.

That's not directed at you .... but it is at people like Kurt Warner.

Perhaps because we have "protective equipment" we were lulled into a false sense of security. To be clear, I absolutely agree they have to find a fix or fixes.

GMENAGAIN
05-07-2012, 03:48 PM
I didn't catch the whole interview but when I tuned in Harry was talking about the concussion issue. He agreed with Warner, and not with Toomer, explaining how his life has been affected by "Post Concussive Syndrome (PCS)." Big difference between Harry and Kurt .... Harry didn't say he wouldn't want this children to play football ... and then let them play football. And <FONT size=4>the hypocrisy of this is astounding</FONT> (both from people on these boards and the NFL personalities). Simple way to end the drama ... ban the sport. Otherwise you're just creating more hot air.</P>


I don't see how it's hyprocrytical at all.</P>


If it was his choice, he probably wouldn'twant his kids to play football.He is obviously allowing his kids to participate in whatever activities they choose . . . . hence, it is nothis choice.</P>


I caught some of Carson's interview on Sirius too . . . . he always does a great job on the air. </P>


Of course it's his choice ... their oldest kid is 15 (not including the two adopted ones from a previous marriage). You need parental consent to play football at that age. Somehow I don't get the sense that he's all against it and his wife overrode his decision. And yeah i totally agree about Harry's interview .... always a pleasure listening to him talk.</P>


Eh . . . . can't say that I agree about that.</P>


If it were completely up to me, I wouldn't want my son to be a ballerina. But if that's what he wanted to do, I would supporthim . . . .I understand that it presents a different situation when you have a safety issue involved, but a lot of parents allow their children toparticipate in activities that the parentsthemselves have reservations about for one reason or another . . . . </P>


</P>


Well your son becoming a ballerina (as opposed to a ballet dancer) would entail a costly surgical operation. As for Kurt Warners proclaimations ... the reason I had issues with them as opposed to say Harry's interview was that Harry made a point of saying that he talked with this daughter and they had agreed that her son would not be playing football (her son is two). That's a conviction of purpose. Kurt Warner's spiel just seems self agrandizing to me since it lacks action (and hence conviction).</P>


I get that . . . . I understand Warner's point of view, but I agree that there was no need for him to make a public announcement about it . . . . </P>

Kruunch
05-07-2012, 04:19 PM
Perhaps because we have "protective equipment" we were lulled into a* false sense of security.* To be clear, I absolutely agree they have to find a fix or fixes.


One easy "fix" ... ban the game. But nobody wants that, including those who espouse player safety.

Of the current logistics, that's the only *real* fix. Everything else is just lip service and bandaids.

Maybe one day we'll have players that come with air bags or insta-foam. You can tell who was in on the play because they look like a cannoli.

The other part no one talks about is that a majority of the allure for many players (and spectators) IS the danger of the game. If it was easy, everyone would do it.

RoanokeFan
05-07-2012, 04:29 PM
Perhaps because we have "protective equipment" we were lulled into a false sense of security. To be clear, I absolutely agree they have to find a fix or fixes.


One easy "fix" ... ban the game. But nobody wants that, including those who espouse player safety.

Of the current logistics, that's the only *real* fix. Everything else is just lip service and bandaids.

Maybe one day we'll have players that come with air bags or insta-foam. You can tell who was in on the play because they look like a cannoli.

The other part no one talks about is that a majority of the allure for many players (and spectators) IS the danger of the game. If it was easy, everyone would do it.

And we come full circle to the underlying problem; economics rules

RoanokeFan
05-07-2012, 04:32 PM
I didn't catch the whole interview but when I tuned in Harry was talking about the concussion issue. He agreed with Warner, and not with Toomer, explaining how his life has been affected by "Post Concussive Syndrome (PCS)."

<font color="#0000FF">Big difference between Harry and Kurt .... Harry didn't say he wouldn't want this children to play football ..</font>. and then let them play football.

And the hypocrisy of this is astounding (both from people on these boards and the NFL personalities).

Simple way to end the drama ... ban the sport.

Otherwise you're just creating more hot air.

On this we disagree. Harry specifically said his sons played basketball and he was glad they did. He didn't have to persuade them not to play football. He then said he told his daughter he didn't want his grandson, now 2 years old, to ever play football.

Kruunch
05-07-2012, 04:59 PM
I didn't catch the whole interview but when I tuned in Harry was talking about the concussion issue.* He agreed with Warner, and not with Toomer, explaining how his life has been affected by "Post Concussive Syndrome (PCS)."

<font color="#0000FF">Big difference between Harry and Kurt .... Harry didn't say he wouldn't want this children to play football ..</font>. and then let them play football.

And the hypocrisy of this is astounding (both from people on these boards and the NFL personalities).

Simple way to end the drama ... ban the sport.

Otherwise you're just creating more hot air.

On this we disagree.* Harry specifically said his sons played basketball and he was glad they did.* He didn't have to persuade them not to play football.* He then said he told his daughter he didn't want his grandson, now 2 years old,* to ever play football.




That's what I meant by that passage.

Harry actually talked to his daughter and between the both of them came to the concensus that they did not want her son (his grandson) to play football.

Kurt Warner just gave it lip service, since his kids play football currently.

RoanokeFan
05-07-2012, 07:08 PM
I didn't catch the whole interview but when I tuned in Harry was talking about the concussion issue. He agreed with Warner, and not with Toomer, explaining how his life has been affected by "Post Concussive Syndrome (PCS)."

<font color="#0000FF">Big difference between Harry and Kurt .... Harry didn't say he wouldn't want this children to play football ..</font>. and then let them play football.

And the hypocrisy of this is astounding (both from people on these boards and the NFL personalities).

Simple way to end the drama ... ban the sport.

Otherwise you're just creating more hot air.

On this we disagree. Harry specifically said his sons played basketball and he was glad they did. He didn't have to persuade them not to play football. He then said he told his daughter he didn't want his grandson, now 2 years old, to ever play football.




That's what I meant by that passage.

Harry actually talked to his daughter and between the both of them came to the concensus that they did not want her son (his grandson) to play football.

Kurt Warner just gave it lip service, since his kids play football currently.

I remember how well I didn't take my parents' advice as I was growing up. We successfully steered our kids to soccer and/or scouting. I don't think we ever had a conversation about sports, per se.

JMFP2
05-07-2012, 07:39 PM
Everyone on here 5 days ago was ripping Warner a new one, yet I agree with exactly what he said. And yes, Carson is a very well spoken guy.
</P>


For what it's worth, I was defending Kurt Warner's right to speak his mind on the issue, and also brought up Harry Carson as well.</P>


Bottom line is they either need to improve the equipment, change the rules, or both.</P>


The NFL is a multi-billion industry....the equipment needs to catch up to the 21st century, and reflect the physics involved. Cops and soldiers wear stuff that can stop bullets.....the players should have stuff that protects their knees and brains better.</P>


I don't care if I come off macho or not.....I don't get my kicks watching people get brain damage, or become crippled at 60.</P>

Kruunch
05-07-2012, 08:48 PM
I didn't catch the whole interview but when I tuned in Harry was talking about the concussion issue.* He agreed with Warner, and not with Toomer, explaining how his life has been affected by "Post Concussive Syndrome (PCS)."

<font color="#0000FF">Big difference between Harry and Kurt .... Harry didn't say he wouldn't want this children to play football ..</font>. and then let them play football.

And the hypocrisy of this is astounding (both from people on these boards and the NFL personalities).

Simple way to end the drama ... ban the sport.

Otherwise you're just creating more hot air.

On this we disagree.* Harry specifically said his sons played basketball and he was glad they did.* He didn't have to persuade them not to play football.* He then said he told his daughter he didn't want his grandson, now 2 years old,* to ever play football.




That's what I meant by that passage.

Harry actually talked to his daughter and between the both of them came to the concensus that they did not want her son (his grandson) to play football.

Kurt Warner just gave it lip service, since his kids play football currently.

I remember how well I didn't take my parents' advice as I was growing up.* We successfully steered our kids to soccer and/or scouting.* I don't think we ever had a conversation about sports, per se.


I know tons of parents who don't allow their kids to play football, boxing, hockey and wrestling specifically because of the debilitating physical effects they can impart.

As a parent I don't agree with that philosophy but I'm also not on TV saying one thing and condoning another.

In the end, Kurt Warner didn't come off as sincere to me; just another talking head of the Skip Bayless variety.

Harry Carson on the other hand sounded very sincere (and intelligent) on the matter.

YMMV.

giantsfan420
05-07-2012, 09:05 PM
i agree with a lot of stuff being said on the topic.

but to play topic moderator and introduce different aspects, why were concussions not a serious issue back in the days helmets consisted of leather and had no face masks? maybe it was kept completely quiet, but maybe people were just generally tougher back in the day...all this new age "post concussive syndrome" and all the other terms, while certainly are accurate and representing, wasn't even considered back in the old days...it was simply; if you don't want to bang ur head up against others or didnt want to deal with the pain and issues, you didn't play football....

i just dislike how every single facet of life has to be politically correct now, and how people try and sue all the time when it was their decision in the first place that brought on the consequences...

RoanokeFan
05-07-2012, 09:11 PM
i agree with a lot of stuff being said on the topic.

but to play topic moderator and introduce different aspects, why were concussions not a serious issue back in the days helmets consisted of leather and had no face masks? maybe it was kept completely quiet, but maybe people were just generally tougher back in the day...all this new age "post concussive syndrome" and all the other terms, while certainly are accurate and representing, wasn't even considered back in the old days...it was simply; if you don't want to bang ur head up against others or didnt want to deal with the pain and issues, you didn't play football....

i just dislike how every single facet of life has to be politically correct now, and how people try and sue all the time when it was their decision in the first place that brought on the consequences...

My guess is that the size of players and the speed at which they fly around the field is the major difference. The cumulative effect of head trauma(s) has been a "relatively recent" medical find in terms of the existence of the NFL.

RoanokeFan
05-07-2012, 09:19 PM
i agree with a lot of stuff being said on the topic.

but to play topic moderator and introduce different aspects, why were concussions not a serious issue back in the days helmets consisted of leather and had no face masks? maybe it was kept completely quiet, but maybe people were just generally tougher back in the day...all this new age "post concussive syndrome" and all the other terms, while certainly are accurate and representing, wasn't even considered back in the old days...it was simply; if you don't want to bang ur head up against others or didnt want to deal with the pain and issues, you didn't play football....

i just dislike how every single facet of life has to be politically correct now, and how people try and sue all the time when it was their decision in the first place that brought on the consequences...

While I share your contempt for the litigious society we have become, former players suffering long term effects from repeated head trauma and other game related injuries feel they are entitled to their "day in court."

They are going to have to prove the NFL was negligent and that it knew of and ignored the long term effects. It's going to be a long haul.

bELIeve_in_Giants
05-07-2012, 10:47 PM
i agree with a lot of stuff being said on the topic.

but to play topic moderator and introduce different aspects, why were concussions not a serious issue back in the days helmets consisted of leather and had no face masks? maybe it was kept completely quiet, but maybe people were just generally tougher back in the day...all this new age "post concussive syndrome" and all the other terms, while certainly are accurate and representing, wasn't even considered back in the old days...it was simply; if you don't want to bang ur head up against others or didnt want to deal with the pain and issues, you didn't play football....

i just dislike how every single facet of life has to be politically correct now, and how people try and sue all the time when it was their decision in the first place that brought on the consequences...

Part of it is that they are using the helmets as weapons these days. There needs to be a return to good tackling with good technigue too.

Kruunch
05-08-2012, 12:37 PM
i agree with a lot of stuff being said on the topic.

but to play topic moderator and introduce different aspects, why were concussions not a serious issue back in the days helmets consisted of leather and had no face masks? maybe it was kept completely quiet, but maybe people were just generally tougher back in the day...all this new age "post concussive syndrome" and all the other terms, while certainly are accurate and representing, wasn't even considered back in the old days...it was simply; if you don't want to bang ur head up against others or didnt want to deal with the pain and issues, you didn't play football....

i just dislike how every single facet of life has to be politically correct now, and how people try and sue all the time when it was their decision in the first place that brought on the consequences...

1) Football is faster/stronger today.

2) Research and news are more readily available today.

3) Leather helmet football played more like rugby then contemporary football.

4) There was a lot less regulation on the rights of workers and the obligation of employers in general.

5) Many of the things you are seeing today as being attributed to CTE aren't 100% accurate. A person freaks out and beats his wife and used to play football ... must be CTE.

6) Many of the things you see attributed to CTE today (and that are accurate) weren't connected 50 years ago.

7) People back then tended to care less (or rather, live with the consequences more ... either out of mindset or circumstance).

MattMeyerBud
05-08-2012, 01:19 PM
I'm not sure how my hoping they find a way to make the game lees life altering is hypocritical, but we all have opinions.


Because that's like trying to find a way to get your girlfriend only a "little" pregnant after declaring how bad pregnancy is.

I'm not trying to pick on you specifically RF ... it's just that the whole issue about player safety revolving around a sport known, watched and loved for its brutality strikes me as a bit disengenuous.

Sort of like when the NFL fined and suspended James Harrison for his vicious hits while at the same time selling the video of his most vicious hits on the NFL store.

And yet they have taken steps to lessen the violence including a very limited number of "pads on" practices, no full contact practices, no wedge on kick off returns, etc.

I get the point you are trying to make, but I also think what we know now about the lasting effects of concussions has to be seriously dealt with.* These 1,200+ lawsuits could be the beginning of the end of football as we know it if the plaintiffs win their cases.


I think the effects of repeated concussions and head traumas (keep in mind that even without a registered concussion, you have repeated head trauma by playing football) have been made more apparent to the average layman and that we know some finer details about it but this seems sort of like someone piping up now and saying "Smoking is bad for me?!".

The fact that the boxing industry went through this ages ago is the kicker.

We've known for quite awhile how bad repeated concussions and head traumas were. We chose to ignore it. And by "we" I mean me and you as the spectator, and people like Harry Carson as a player.

And we all ignore it because we get a visceral thrill from the game. Both playing and spectating.

I would think somewhere in the far future, sports like football will have no place in society. Or more appropriately, football (and UFC, boxing, hockey, etc ...) will eventually become entirely virtual.

Until that point however, and as I said, I do applaud those who are trying to make the game safer. And I will always cringe when I hear people jumping on the band wagon who aren't.

That's not directed at you .... but it is at people like Kurt Warner.

i am on board with you 110%.

Everything you have said in this thread so far is basically everything I think word for word.

BlueSanta
05-08-2012, 01:27 PM
They are going to have to prove the NFL was negligent and that it knew of and ignored the long term effects. It's going to be a long haul.


That is where these lawsuits have a serious problem. Each player controls his body. They can see a doctor of their choosing whenever they want and have whatever studies done that they want. The NFL cant stop them. Yet they are suggesting the League somehow had better knowledge of the players bodies than they themeselves did? That a pretty tough mountain to climb and virtually impossible to prove. Look how hard it was for smokers to prove tobacco companies knew smoking was bad for you. It took leaked internal documents and whistleblowers coming forward before the companies began having to pay the piper.

Furthermore, there is a culpability issue that the players are going to face. Look at whats in the news right now:the Bounty Scandal. The league came down on some players for, among other things, targetting the heads of previously concussed players and the players association is fighting them tooth and nail. As soon as the bounty scandal broke I posted saying this was going to be a serious problem issue for the players association and was very interested in how they handle it. In my opinion, they have handled it 100% wrong. Remember, this is an association that has spent the better of the last decade holding the league accountable for the long term health problems associated with playing football, in particular concussion issues. And yet, here we have the league coming down equally hard on players and coaches for ignoring the safety of other players and the NFLPA is fighting them.

In light of this, how can a judge or jury find that the league is culpable when the players themselves are not?

RoanokeFan
05-08-2012, 01:27 PM
I'm not sure how my hoping they find a way to make the game lees life altering is hypocritical, but we all have opinions.


Because that's like trying to find a way to get your girlfriend only a "little" pregnant after declaring how bad pregnancy is.

I'm not trying to pick on you specifically RF ... it's just that the whole issue about player safety revolving around a sport known, watched and loved for its brutality strikes me as a bit disengenuous.

Sort of like when the NFL fined and suspended James Harrison for his vicious hits while at the same time selling the video of his most vicious hits on the NFL store.

And yet they have taken steps to lessen the violence including a very limited number of "pads on" practices, no full contact practices, no wedge on kick off returns, etc.

I get the point you are trying to make, but I also think what we know now about the lasting effects of concussions has to be seriously dealt with. These 1,200+ lawsuits could be the beginning of the end of football as we know it if the plaintiffs win their cases.


I think the effects of repeated concussions and head traumas (keep in mind that even without a registered concussion, you have repeated head trauma by playing football) have been made more apparent to the average layman and that we know some finer details about it but this seems sort of like someone piping up now and saying "Smoking is bad for me?!".

The fact that the boxing industry went through this ages ago is the kicker.

We've known for quite awhile how bad repeated concussions and head traumas were. We chose to ignore it. And by "we" I mean me and you as the spectator, and people like Harry Carson as a player.

And we all ignore it because we get a visceral thrill from the game. Both playing and spectating.

I would think somewhere in the far future, sports like football will have no place in society. Or more appropriately, football (and UFC, boxing, hockey, etc ...) will eventually become entirely virtual.

Until that point however, and as I said, I do applaud those who are trying to make the game safer. And I will always cringe when I hear people jumping on the band wagon who aren't.

That's not directed at you .... but it is at people like Kurt Warner.

i am on board with you 110%.

Everything you have said in this thread so far is basically everything I think word for word.

SO, you get a real job and you disappear?

RoanokeFan
05-08-2012, 01:48 PM
They are going to have to prove the NFL was negligent and that it knew of and ignored the long term effects. It's going to be a long haul.


That is where these lawsuits have a serious problem. Each player controls his body. They can see a doctor of their choosing whenever they want and have whatever studies done that they want. The NFL cant stop them. Yet they are suggesting the League somehow had better knowledge of the players bodies than they themeselves did? That a pretty tough mountain to climb and virtually impossible to prove. Look how hard it was for smokers to prove tobacco companies knew smoking was bad for you. It took leaked internal documents and whistleblowers coming forward before the companies began having to pay the piper.

Furthermore, there is a culpability issue that the players are going to face. Look at whats in the news right now:the Bounty Scandal. The league came down on some players for, among other things, targetting the heads of previously concussed players and the players association is fighting them tooth and nail. As soon as the bounty scandal broke I posted saying this was going to be a serious problem issue for the players association and was very interested in how they handle it. In my opinion, they have handled it 100% wrong. Remember, this is an association that has spent the better of the last decade holding the league accountable for the long term health problems associated with playing football, in particular concussion issues. And yet, here we have the league coming down equally hard on players and coaches for ignoring the safety of other players and the NFLPA is fighting them.

In light of this, how can a <font color="#0000FF">judge or jury </font>find that the league is culpable when the players themselves are not?






At this stage of the process, a lot has to be "discovered" as to who knew what, when. What did they do about whatever they learned, etc. The plaintiffs are all going to paint the NFL as the uncaring, unfeeling, unconcerned, money grabbing Grim Reaper.

It's going to be David v. Goliath in the hopes of convincing jurors that, even if the plaintiffs haven't really proven their points, the NFL is "deep pockets" and can afford to pay these poor individuals who are genuinely suffering.

Yes, players entered the game at every level "aware" of the risks in terms of broken bones, torn cartilage, musculo-skeletal injuries, head trauma, etc. But until relatively recently the long term effects were unknown.

The other day I posted an article about Junior Seau's suicide and in that story we learned that 8 or 9 players from one particular team have died untimely deaths. Those kinds of facts/details are going to help juries come to decisions.

Oddly enough, one of the things I think the NFL has going for it is the NFLPA. If the plaintiffs are gong to suggest the NFL KNEW "X" it's not hard to imagine the NFLPA also knew "X." If the NFLPA knew, what did they do in terms of the CBA to make changes?

A lot has been said about what's going to happen to football as we know it. I have no idea but the NFL is right to take the stands it has taken in Bountygate. The NFLPA would be wise to tread lightly as they represent their players. Whatever else the NFL is, it's the goose that lays the golden eggs for everyone involved.

BlueSanta
05-08-2012, 02:10 PM
The other day I posted an article about Junior Seau's suicide and in that story we learned that 8 or 9 players from one particular team have died untimely deaths. Those kinds of facts/details are going to help juries come to decisions.




I certainly agree with what your saying. However it is this tidbit that I think you are wrong.

You have to keep in mind where these players come from. They do not come from affluent areas. Most NFL players come from very poor and depressed neighborhoods and lifestyles. Many of these neighborhoods have mortality rates of 40% among adult males and a 30% incarceration rate. After football, many NFL players return to these neighborhoods because it is what they know. It is very fair to argue that the NFL rescues many players from these exact circumstances.

I think when you look at everything, all the facts, including where these players come from, where they return to after football, how financially stable they are at retirement, and lastly how negatively they are affected by retiring from football its is not hard to believe there are very high mortality rates among ex players.

However, its not really the case:In 1994 a study was done (http://blogs.cdc.gov/niosh-science-blog/2012/01/nfl/), which showed that NFL players actually lived longer than the average American male and has a lower mortality rate. The study has been ongoing too, though little new findings have been published.

galaxy10
05-08-2012, 02:10 PM
For what it is worth, I think that everybody has a right to his own opinion. I think that all of the rants against Kurt Warner are unfounded. If he does not want his son to play, that is his opinion, whether his son listens to him or not. Perhaps Warner's opinion is based upon the impact that the game had on his body. I played HS and college ball and I can feel what it did to my body now that I am older. I would like the game to be more safe. With the new technology, we can make the game safer. I don't watch the game for big hits, I like it because of the strategy of the game. That is why I like chess. I, as a receiver, like athletic catches as well and a good QB for throwing. I don't think that the current rule changes will make the game any less interesting. I am concerned that guys are killing themselves and that there are organic changes occurring in their brains. I am all for making the game safer and that guys can retire and live productive and pain free lives.

RoanokeFan
05-08-2012, 02:31 PM
The other day I posted an article about Junior Seau's suicide and in that story we learned that 8 or 9 players from one particular team have died untimely deaths. Those kinds of facts/details are going to help juries come to decisions.




I certainly agree with what your saying. However it is this tidbit that I think you are wrong.

You have to keep in mind where these players come from. They do not come from affluent areas. Most NFL players come from very poor and depressed neighborhoods and lifestyles. Many of these neighborhoods have mortality rates of 40% among adult males and a 30% incarceration rate. After football, many NFL players return to these neighborhoods because it is what they know. It is very fair to argue that the NFL rescues many players from these exact circumstances.

I think when you look at everything, all the facts, including where these players come from, where they return to after football, how financially stable they are at retirement, and lastly how negatively they are affected by retiring from football its is not hard to believe there are very high mortality rates among ex players.

However, its not really the case:In 1994 a study was done (http://blogs.cdc.gov/niosh-science-blog/2012/01/nfl/), which showed that NFL players actually lived longer than the average American male and has a lower mortality rate. The study has been ongoing too, though little new findings have been published.






I'm not saying their claims will have merit, but as far as where they were raised, that information will never be heard by a jury as it's irrelevant. That they died an untimely death may well have no bearing on their employment in the NFL. Those are details that will have to be proven. Still, on its face, it seems more than coincidental in theh context of the suits.

MattMeyerBud
05-08-2012, 03:55 PM
I'm not sure how my hoping they find a way to make the game lees life altering is hypocritical, but we all have opinions.


Because that's like trying to find a way to get your girlfriend only a "little" pregnant after declaring how bad pregnancy is.

I'm not trying to pick on you specifically RF ... it's just that the whole issue about player safety revolving around a sport known, watched and loved for its brutality strikes me as a bit disengenuous.

Sort of like when the NFL fined and suspended James Harrison for his vicious hits while at the same time selling the video of his most vicious hits on the NFL store.

And yet they have taken steps to lessen the violence including a very limited number of "pads on" practices, no full contact practices, no wedge on kick off returns, etc.

I get the point you are trying to make, but I also think what we know now about the lasting effects of concussions has to be seriously dealt with.* These 1,200+ lawsuits could be the beginning of the end of football as we know it if the plaintiffs win their cases.


I think the effects of repeated concussions and head traumas (keep in mind that even without a registered concussion, you have repeated head trauma by playing football) have been made more apparent to the average layman and that we know some finer details about it but this seems sort of like someone piping up now and saying "Smoking is bad for me?!".

The fact that the boxing industry went through this ages ago is the kicker.

We've known for quite awhile how bad repeated concussions and head traumas were. We chose to ignore it. And by "we" I mean me and you as the spectator, and people like Harry Carson as a player.

And we all ignore it because we get a visceral thrill from the game. Both playing and spectating.

I would think somewhere in the far future, sports like football will have no place in society. Or more appropriately, football (and UFC, boxing, hockey, etc ...) will eventually become entirely virtual.

Until that point however, and as I said, I do applaud those who are trying to make the game safer. And I will always cringe when I hear people jumping on the band wagon who aren't.

That's not directed at you .... but it is at people like Kurt Warner.

i am on board with you 110%.

Everything you have said in this thread so far is basically everything I think word for word.

SO, you get a real job and you disappear?*


hahaha, computer at home is busted and i NEVER have a second at the new job to get on the computer.

plus i convinced my old job to hire me part time, so i'm working alot more with alot less internet access

:(

im going to be miserable in season

nygsb42champs
05-08-2012, 04:05 PM
Harry has been outspoken about the effects of concussions.

BlueSanta
05-08-2012, 04:20 PM
The other day I posted an article about Junior Seau's suicide and in that story we learned that 8 or 9 players from one particular team have died untimely deaths. Those kinds of facts/details are going to help juries come to decisions.




I certainly agree with what your saying. However it is this tidbit that I think you are wrong.

You have to keep in mind where these players come from. They do not come from affluent areas. Most NFL players come from very poor and depressed neighborhoods and lifestyles. Many of these neighborhoods have mortality rates of 40% among adult males and a 30% incarceration rate. After football, many NFL players return to these neighborhoods because it is what they know. It is very fair to argue that the NFL rescues many players from these exact circumstances.

I think when you look at everything, all the facts, including where these players come from, where they return to after football, how financially stable they are at retirement, and lastly how negatively they are affected by retiring from football its is not hard to believe there are very high mortality rates among ex players.

However, its not really the case:In 1994 a study was done (http://blogs.cdc.gov/niosh-science-blog/2012/01/nfl/), which showed that NFL players actually lived longer than the average American male and has a lower mortality rate. The study has been ongoing too, though little new findings have been published.





Still, on its face, it seems more than coincidental in theh context of the suits.


I agree. But your talking about a sample of what ? 53 people? It is also just a glance at simple numbers , not even a study of those 53 players.

The scientific study I liked above is a sample of thousands and directly contradicts the assertions of that article.

My point is that proving negligence on behalf of the NFL, which is what it would take for them to lose this lawsuit, requires a lot more than a statistical anomaly of a 53 person pool. Much like smoking is bad for you, it is obvious that football is too. But, unlike smoking, its hard to argue NFL players are physically addicted to the NFL and cant stop of their own free will. They can stop anytime. Furthermore, smokers weren't paid millions of dollars to smoke and they werent made national celebrities. It is going to be a tough fight for these ex players.

RoanokeFan
05-08-2012, 04:26 PM
The other day I posted an article about Junior Seau's suicide and in that story we learned that 8 or 9 players from one particular team have died untimely deaths. Those kinds of facts/details are going to help juries come to decisions.




I certainly agree with what your saying. However it is this tidbit that I think you are wrong.

You have to keep in mind where these players come from. They do not come from affluent areas. Most NFL players come from very poor and depressed neighborhoods and lifestyles. Many of these neighborhoods have mortality rates of 40% among adult males and a 30% incarceration rate. After football, many NFL players return to these neighborhoods because it is what they know. It is very fair to argue that the NFL rescues many players from these exact circumstances.

I think when you look at everything, all the facts, including where these players come from, where they return to after football, how financially stable they are at retirement, and lastly how negatively they are affected by retiring from football its is not hard to believe there are very high mortality rates among ex players.

However, its not really the case:In 1994 a study was done (http://blogs.cdc.gov/niosh-science-blog/2012/01/nfl/), which showed that NFL players actually lived longer than the average American male and has a lower mortality rate. The study has been ongoing too, though little new findings have been published.





Still, on its face, it seems more than coincidental in theh context of the suits.


I agree. But your talking about a sample of what ? 53 people? It is also just a glance at simple numbers , not even a study of those 53 players.

The scientific study I liked above is a sample of thousands and directly contradicts the assertions of that article.

My point is that proving negligence on behalf of the NFL, which is what it would take for them to lose this lawsuit, requires a lot more than a statistical anomaly of a 53 person pool. Much like smoking is bad for you, it is obvious that football is too. But, unlike smoking, its hard to argue NFL players are physically addicted to the NFL and cant stop of their own free will. They can stop anytime. Furthermore, smokers weren't paid millions of dollars to smoke and they werent made national celebrities. It is going to be a tough fight for these ex players.






Of course proving anything is not as easy suggesting wrongdoing. I suspect they will keep it out of court and settle. They really should have addressed the former's players concerns in the last CBA.

JMFP2
05-08-2012, 04:30 PM
For what it is worth, I think that everybody has a right to his own opinion. I think that all of the rants against Kurt Warner are unfounded. If he does not want his son to play, that is his opinion, whether his son listens to him or not. Perhaps Warner's opinion is based upon the impact that the game had on his body. I played HS and college ball and I can feel what it did to my body now that I am older. I would like the game to be more safe. With the new technology, we can make the game safer. I don't watch the game for big hits, I like it because of the strategy of the game. That is why I like chess. I, as a receiver, like athletic catches as well and a good QB for throwing. I don't think that the current rule changes will make the game any less interesting. I am concerned that guys are killing themselves and that there are organic changes occurring in their brains. I am all for making the game safer and that guys can retire and live productive and pain free lives.
</P>


</P>


I agree 100%. Very well-said.</P>


</P>


I think the technology is there to develop a uniform that is supportiveat the knees, ankles, and elbows....something that is going to lock before a player can blow out their knee....or at least, something that will absorb enough of the shock to reduce the severity of an injury.</P>


As fas as helmets are concerned, if they can develop something that can stop a bullet from killing a cop, they should be able to come up with a helmet that absorbs more of the jolt from a helmet.</P>


And maybe they should consider padding both the outside and the inside of the helmets, or reinforcing certain impact points. Right now, it's like getting hit over the head with a bowling bowl.</P>