Re: The end of the three point stance?
 

[quote=Mattyk;661783]I think the title of this article is a tad misleading and seems to have people in a tizzy. If you read the article it says he's [I]not ruling out the idea of banning the 3 point stance[/I]... not that anything is in the works to do so like the title suggests. Relax folks,[B] he's just keeping his options [/B]open. This would be a pretty drastic change and I don't see it happening.[/quote]

Options like this need to be closed ASAP.

Re: The end of the three point stance?
 

[quote=Angry;661751]How many offensive and defensive lineman in history have ever either gotten a concussion or left the game because of one? I cannot think of any. It seems to me that this is just lip service from the commissioner to keep congress from breathing down the NFL's neck.[/quote]

There was that play when Warren Sapp got a blind side hit on Chad Clifton and if I remember right that was far away from the play on an INT. However that was long after the initial contact that came from firing out of a three point stance and the rule was addressed that off-season.

[quote]On November 24, 2002, at Raymond James Stadium, Sapp drew criticism for blocking the Green Bay Packers' Chad Clifton during an interception return by the Buccaneers. Clifton was jogging down field, away from the main action, and was blindsided by Sapp.[7] The hit sent Clifton to the hospital. He was hospitalized for almost a week and could not walk unaided for five more weeks. In 2005, the NFL Competition Committee agreed on new guidelines for "unnecessary roughness", making hits such as that suffered by Clifton illegal.[/quote]

[IMG]http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/news/2002/11/25/sapp_sherman/t1_sapphit_tv.jpg[/IMG]

Re: The end of the three point stance?
 

Do people really believe that linemen have never gotten concussions during their playing days nor suffered long-term affects after their careers are over? Football is a brutal, violent sport any players at all positions (save for maybe punter and kicker) have felt damaging affects long after their careers are over. And in the cases of some, their lives haven't lasted long past their careers. Football is a tough sport and should be, but that doesn't mean it needs to be deadly and dangerous.

Re: The end of the three point stance?
 

^^ Apparently, according to the clips Matty linked, the doctors hired by the NFL do.

Re: The end of the three point stance?
 

[quote=SmootSmack;661936]Do people really believe that linemen have never gotten concussions during their playing days nor suffered long-term affects after their careers are over? Football is a brutal, violent sport any players at all positions (save for maybe punter and kicker) have felt damaging affects long after their careers are over. And in the cases of some, their lives haven't lasted long past their careers. Football is a tough sport and should be, but that doesn't mean it needs to be deadly and dangerous.[/quote]

Most of the problems I hear with lineman post-football are related to their backs and hands. I agree we need to make the game safer, but I honestly don't believe making it illegal to get in a three point stance is a way to do that.

Re: The end of the three point stance?
 

[quote=Dirtbag359;661942]Most of the problems I hear with lineman post-football are related to their backs and hands. I agree we need to make the game safer, but I honestly don't believe making it illegal to get in a three point stance is a way to do that.[/quote]

Here are two examples for you

[url=http://espn.go.com/classic/obit/s/2002/0924/1435977.html]ESPN Classic - Former Steeler Webster dies at age 50[/url]

"Webster was the last of the 22 Steelers who played on all four Super Bowl championship teams to leave the team, and the first to die. He refused to leave the lineup even for serious injuries, once playing six straight seasons without missing a snap.

However, that tough-guy insistence on playing hurt may have led to the brain damage. Webster's doctors said the concussions during his career damaged his frontal lobe, causing cognitive dysfunction."

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/15/sports/football/15brain.html[/url]

Re: The end of the three point stance?
 

C'mon folks, you don't think there's any serious head trauma going on along the lines during games? Guys crash into each other full force on the snap, helmets collide, guys are falling to the ground getting kicked, kneed, and elbowed.

As I said earlier, research is coming out that says all the small collisions during games add up and are perhaps more damaging over time than the big ones. At least with the big ones guys are held out to heal. With the smaller collisions guys don't even know they could be hurt and keep playing.

Re: The end of the three point stance?
 

[quote=Mattyk;661959]C'mon folks, you don't think there's any serious head trauma going on along the lines during games? Guys crash into each other full force on the snap, helmets collide, guys are falling to the ground getting kicked, kneed, and elbowed.

As I said earlier, research is coming out that says all the small collisions during games add up and are perhaps more damaging over time than the big ones. At least with the big ones guys are held out to heal. With the smaller collisions guys don't even know they could be hurt and keep playing.[/quote]

Without a doubt those mini collisions cause damage over time. The problem is that those mini collisions along the line are inherant to football and the only way to remove them completely is to ban blocking and line play. That will remove those kind of injuries but the game wont be football anymore.

While I've never seen any studies about the pads & helmets I have wondered if the hard plastic shells used cause the players to hit harder (in any collision) because they feel so protected thereby magnifying the collision's result.

Re: The end of the three point stance?
 

Some day football will be played by easily-repaired robots. I can't wait for the 2125 Super Bowl!

Re: The end of the three point stance?
 

[quote=duetsch215;661443]Roger Goodell is the worst commissioner the NFL has ever seen. He has already trying to change the league's toughness by fining every hard hit and now this? This is football. these men choose to take the risk of getting injured for the large sums of money and because the sport is so fun to play[/quote]
seriously.. I get some of the stuff.. but work for better helmets primarily, I know that there are pilot programs and new helmet designs coming out and whatnot.. but yeah..

I mean good step considering that a lot of people are having issues after football, but not every hit deserves a fine, sometimes you have head to head incidentally.. is he going to put a cap on how fast you can run?

between this type of stuff and the let's make every dollar possible by shipping things overseas I'm really not fond of him

Re: The end of the three point stance?
 

[quote=Mattyk;661487]Studies on concussions have shown that it's just not the big hits that cause damage, but all the little ones that add up over time[/quote]
No doubt, but like boxing it's a violent sport. It sucks when someone becomes disabled but it's also the path chosen and nowadays, a very lucrative one. I'm all for reducing injuries, but you've got to let the players play. I think that newer helmets, as mentioned earlier, would be a great step. If you have to replace them more often (like say a motorcycle helmet) then so be it. The designs have to take all of the small abuse and the big hits throughout the season or so. I'd think that there would be a better design by now that's more widely implemented. I know that they have the pilot program with that one helmet but I remember reading a couple of years ago about some newer ones in development. Equipment hasn't changed a whole lot in the past several years. I know that helmets alone can't prevent concussions, but there's gotta be something that will help improve protection at a measurable rate.

Re: The end of the three point stance?
 

[quote=mlmdub130;661532]the caps, here in dc it's hockey mania right now, no one is talking about the skins at all the caps are taking over 14 straight wins right now[/quote]
Yeah but hockey isn't huge everywhere in the U.S.

Re: The end of the three point stance?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;661628]If it can actually curb concussions...more lineman are using the two point stance than ever before.

But there would have to be some actual evidence that this could accomplish that goal before they just got rid of a staple of football for the sake of doing it.[/quote]
4th and goal.. game on the line, power back snarling waiting for the ball.. linemen in the two-point

something just doesn't sound right

Re: The end of the three point stance?
 

[quote=Mattyk;661783]I think the title of this article is a tad misleading and seems to have people in a tizzy. If you read the article it says he's [I]not ruling out the idea of banning the 3 point stance[/I]... not that anything is in the works to do so like the title suggests. Relax folks, he's just keeping his options open. This would be a pretty drastic change and I don't see it happening.[/quote]
Yeah and he basically can't (shouldn't) say something like "No way we'd ever do that." But it's easy to hate on the man.

Re: The end of the three point stance?
 

[quote=tryfuhl;662127]No doubt, but like boxing it's a violent sport. It sucks when someone becomes disabled but [B]it's also the path chosen and nowadays, a very lucrative one. [/B]I'm all for reducing injuries, but you've got to let the players play. I think that newer helmets, as mentioned earlier, would be a great step. If you have to replace them more often (like say a motorcycle helmet) then so be it. The designs have to take all of the small abuse and the big hits throughout the season or so. I'd think that there would be a better design by now that's more widely implemented. I know that they have the pilot program with that one helmet but I remember reading a couple of years ago about some newer ones in development. Equipment hasn't changed a whole lot in the past several years. I know that helmets alone can't prevent concussions, but there's gotta be something that will help improve protection at a measurable rate.[/quote]

Well that's not entirely true. Not every player gets Dockery's Bills contract. Contracts aren't guaranteed and the benefits for retired players are a constant source of debate.

Re: The end of the three point stance?
 

[quote=tryfuhl;662130]Yeah and he basically can't (shouldn't) say something like "No way we'd ever do that." But it's easy to hate on the man.[/quote]

Honestly I don't get the haters when it comes to Goodell. He's made a pretty smooth transition over from Tagliabue and done some good things in his short time as commish. I like that he's taken a firm stance with a lot of issues including player conduct.

Re: The end of the three point stance?
 

[quote=Mattyk;662148]Honestly I don't get the haters when it comes to Goodell. He's made a pretty smooth transition over from Tagliabue and done some good things in his short time as commish. I like that he's taken a firm stance with a lot of issues including player conduct.[/quote]

my biggest beef with him is his obbsession with trying to take the nfl to other countries. i really can't stand that and think it is absolutly retarded, there is no way in hell manchester united would ever play a meaningful game in the united states.

i really don't mind what he is doing with the player conduct because that has been long overdue

Re: The end of the three point stance?
 

The NFL has played games in other countries for years, it wasn't a Goodell initiative.

Re: The end of the three point stance?
 

he didn't start it but he is moving forward with it, the bills are playing a bunch of their home gmes in canada over the next few years, and he is pushing forward with trying to have atleast two games played outside the us each year, imo that is bs

Re: The end of the three point stance?
 

[quote=TheGuyFromOverThere;661436][url=http://www.nesn.com/2010/02/roger-goodell-says-nfl-is-considering-banning-the-threepoint-stance.html]Roger Goodell Says NFL Is Considering Banning the Three-Point Stance - NFL - NESN.com[/url]

Does anyone know how accurate this page is or has seen it on CBS?

I personally think... this idea sucks. Period.[/quote]

i read the transcript a few days ago. from my reading, goodell basically said two sentences in response to a question regarding 3 point stances:

1) "anything is possible and they will look into it any possible safety improvement"

2) he said something about "if you look at the games (or superbowl im not sure which he was referring to) you already see no 3 point stances"

the article cbs posted seems to exagerate alil bit, they should have just posted goddell's actual comments which were 2 sentences long (if they are basing their article of his address then Q &A).

Re: The end of the three point stance?
 

The Bills playing a couple of games in Toronto has little to nothing to do with Goodell pushing for international expansion.

Re: The end of the three point stance?
 

[quote=mlmdub130;662171]he didn't start it but he is moving forward with it, [B]the bills are playing a bunch of their home gmes in canada over the next few years[/B], and he is pushing forward with trying to have atleast two games played outside the us each year, imo that is bs[/quote]

i thought the bills owner wanted this, he can actually sell tickets and make money in toronto. i thought the bills owner was doing this to get a feel for the bills move to toronto.

as for games outside the US, theres pros and cons imo.

pros are that oversee fans in england and europe get to go to a game. this creates and expands NFL's marketing power and allows them to dip into a new market base. also redskin fans in england to get to see a game.

con is how the travel time and less than nfl-caliber fields effect the conditioning and health of players. while i would prefer the skins to never play a game in europe, it seems every team will have to take their turn flying across the pond.

Re: The end of the three point stance?
 

[quote=mlmdub130;662171]he didn't start it but he is moving forward with it, the bills are playing a bunch of their home gmes in canada over the next few years, and he is pushing forward with trying to have atleast two games played outside the us each year, imo that is bs[/quote]

Still... seems odd to be holding this against him since he's just continuing on with what was started years and years ago, but to each his own I guess.

Re: The end of the three point stance?
 

[quote=Mattyk;662148]Honestly I don't get the haters when it comes to Goodell. He's made a pretty smooth transition over from Tagliabue and done some good things in his short time as commish. I like that he's taken a firm stance with a lot of issues including player conduct.[/quote]
Wanting to take more games overseas, maybe a team, the SUPER FREAKING BOWL, etc.. too much for me. The fines for criticizing officiating, etc

Tag was more about the players and the game itself than the image to the outsiders

Re: The end of the three point stance?
 

[quote=Mattyk;661959]C'mon folks, you don't think there's any serious head trauma going on along the lines during games? Guys crash into each other full force on the snap, helmets collide, guys are falling to the ground getting kicked, kneed, and elbowed.

[B]As I said earlier, research is coming out that says all the small collisions during games add up and are perhaps more damaging over time than the big ones.[/B] At least with the big ones guys are held out to heal. With the smaller collisions guys don't even know they could be hurt and keep playing.[/quote]

to me it's insane to even thihnk about having this discussion with my loved ones, but it's very couragous imo

[url=http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/02/10/don-hasselbeck-pledges-his-brain-for-concussion-research/]Don Hasselbeck pledges his brain for concussion research | ProFootballTalk.com[/url]

Re: The end of the three point stance?
 

[quote=over the mountain;662177]i thought the bills owner wanted this, he can actually sell tickets and make money in toronto. [B]i thought the bills owner was doing this to get a feel for the bills move to toronto[/B].

as for games outside the US, theres pros and cons imo.

pros are that oversee fans in england and europe get to go to a game. this creates and expands NFL's marketing power and allows them to dip into a new market base. also redskin fans in england to get to see a game.

con is how the travel time and less than nfl-caliber fields effect the conditioning and health of players. while i would prefer the skins to never play a game in europe, it seems every team will have to take their turn flying across the pond.[/quote]

the owner might want to move there but ask all the die hard bills season ticket holders how they feel about it

as a season ticket holder and a die hard fan the last thing i wanna see is one of my 8 home games be played some where else, i'm just not a fan of the nfl expanding anything overseas. if a fan in germany wants to see a skins game welll thats fine planes fly both ways

Re: The end of the three point stance?
 

Sense a bit of xenophobia here.

International expansion was huge for Tags. He pushed for games in Mexico during the regular season, kept NFL Europe going even though it was losing money, pushed for games in China and Japan (which I can't recall if that happened)

Re: The end of the three point stance?
 

[quote=SmootSmack;662357]Sense a bit of xenophobia here.

International expansion was huge for Tags. He pushed for games in Mexico during the regular season, kept NFL Europe going even though it was losing money,[B] pushed for games in China and Japan[/B] (which I can't recall if that happened)[/quote]

You don't remember the Spurrier regime going to Japan and decimating the 49ers in the preseason? Man that was awesome. Then came the regular season....

Re: The end of the three point stance?
 

[quote=SmootSmack;662357]Sense a bit of xenophobia here.

International expansion was huge for Tags. He pushed for games in Mexico during the regular season, kept NFL Europe going even though it was losing money, pushed for games in China and Japan (which I can't recall if that happened)[/quote]

[YT]tQlzaujE5Ys[/YT]

Re: The end of the three point stance?
 

[quote=GMScud;662363]You don't remember the Spurrier regime going to Japan and decimating the 49ers in the preseason? Man that was awesome. Then came the regular season....[/quote]

LOL. Yeah...though I was thinking more about regular season

Re: The end of the three point stance?
 

I understand the money aspect but why should a home team lose their home game? Are season tickets going to be less? You want a game in China, Japan, etc? Pro Bowl would be perfect. They get to see the best players all at once as well as having a week's worth or so of introduction to American Football via the exhibits, clinics, etc that go on Pro Bowl week, perfect exposure imo

Re: The end of the three point stance?
 

[quote=tryfuhl;662416]I understand the money aspect but why should a home team lose their home game? Are season tickets going to be less? You want a game in China, Japan, etc? Pro Bowl would be perfect. They get to see the best players all at once as well as having a week's worth or so of introduction to American Football via the exhibits, clinics, etc that go on Pro Bowl week, perfect exposure imo[/quote]

The long term plan isnt to have teams play a few games in China, England, wherever, its to put franchises there. Ultimately I think the Super Bowl would be between the North American Conference and the International Conference.

IMO, the NFL has pretty muched tapped out the US market for making $ but there's an awful lot of $ to be made in the rest of the world.

Re: The end of the three point stance?
 

[quote=irish;662514]The long term plan isnt to have teams play a few games in China, England, wherever, its to put franchises there. Ultimately I think the Super Bowl would be between the North American Conference and the International Conference.

IMO, the NFL has pretty muched tapped out the US market for making $ but there's an awful lot of $ to be made in the rest of the world.[/quote]
Yeah I mentioned overseas expansion as well, that's freaking crazy. NAC vs IC would be the stupidest freaking thing ever. You'd basically be exporting US players to these other countries, lower the level of talent needed because of diluting the league with even more teams, etc. Can you imagine the nightmare of Team England going to Team China to play.. or vice versa?

Shipping US guys over to play in an asian league would be one thing, kind of like in hockey, some guys stay in Russia, some come over, blah blah.. but they still play within a central league. If the NFL wants NFL Europe v.2 then by all means, try it somewhere else, but don't mix it in with what we already have.

Re: The end of the three point stance?
 

[quote=tryfuhl;662516]Yeah I mentioned overseas expansion as well, that's freaking crazy. NAC vs IC would be the stupidest freaking thing ever. You'd basically be exporting US players to these other countries, lower the level of talent needed because of diluting the league with even more teams, etc. Can you imagine the nightmare of Team England going to Team China to play.. or vice versa?

Shipping US guys over to play in an asian league would be one thing, kind of like in hockey, some guys stay in Russia, some come over, blah blah.. but they still play within a central league. If the NFL wants NFL Europe v.2 then by all means, try it somewhere else, but don't mix it in with what we already have.[/quote]

I dont think the idea is stupid but I do think logistically it would be difficult. Expansion has nothing to do with the quality of the game, it has to do with making $. The only reason the NFL ever expands is to make more $. The NFL is pretty much out of ways to squeeze $ out of its American fans so by expanding overseas it can tap a whole new set of wallets. The overseas fans will never really fullembrace the game until they have a team of their own to follow. Once they have that team they will start buying the hats shirts and other junk the NFL sells. In addition to the TV contract and expansion fees. Its a lot of $ that cant be ignored.

Re: The end of the three point stance?
 

Why is the end of a three point stance post talkin about nfl's expansion n location?

Re: The end of the three point stance?
 

Well Goodell just signed a contract extension that keeps him commissioner into the 2016 season so he's not going anywhere any time soon

Re: The end of the three point stance?
 

[quote=SmootSmack;662756]Well Goodell just signed a contract extension that keeps him commissioner into the 2016 season so he's not going anywhere any time soon[/quote]
He's not the devil by any means and I can see why the owners would like that. Nice that he signed at same base pay.

Re: The end of the three point stance?
 

[quote=irish;662545]I dont think the idea is stupid but I do think logistically it would be difficult. Expansion has nothing to do with the quality of the game, it has to do with making [B]$[/B]. The only reason the NFL ever expands is to make more[B] $[/B]. The NFL is pretty much out of ways to squeeze[B] $[/B] out of its American fans so by expanding overseas it can tap a whole new set of [B]wallets[/B]. The overseas fans will never really fullembrace the game until they have a team of their own to follow. Once they have that team they will start [B]buying[/B] the hats shirts and other junk the NFL sells. In addition to the TV contract and expansion [B]fees[/B]. Its a lot of [B]$[/B] that cant be ignored.[/quote]

this whole post is why trying to expand overseas is a bad idea, you get lost in the dollar signs and churn out a shitty product

to say expansion does nothing to the quality of the game is a bit of a reach, you make more and more teams and you let in more and more players who otherwiese would be cut from a roster which in turn brings the quality of the game down

Re: The end of the three point stance?
 

[quote=mlmdub130;662844]this whole post is why trying to expand overseas is a bad idea, you get lost in the dollar signs and churn out a shitty product

to say expansion does nothing to the quality of the game is a bit of a reach, you make more and more teams and you let in more and more players who otherwiese would be cut from a roster which in turn brings the quality of the game down[/quote]

Where did I say expansion does nothing to the quality of the game? I think in the short term the expansion teams arent very good but they catch up pretty quickly. Of course if the league went by your logic there would be maybe 4 or 6 teams. Only the very best players would be on the teams and the quality (whatever that means) would be sky high, but I doubt there'd be very much interest nationwide. Bringing in the AFL didnt hurt the NFL. Adding TB, Seatt & Jax didnt hurt.

I'm not sure what you mean by shitty product since that's pretty subjective. As long as the games are close and exciting the NFL and 90% of fans would say the product is fine.

Re: The end of the three point stance?
 

[quote=SmootSmack;662756]Well Goodell just signed a contract extension that keeps him commissioner into the 2016 season so he's not going anywhere any time soon[/quote]

Roger Godell fixing ze NFL "Oh Snap":
[YT]LMCOAzI8QqE[/YT]