18 replies to this topic

[Buffalo Barbarian]

“I think the [new] helmets aren’t very good.

I wear an old helmet. Lance (Briggs) wears an old helmet. We don’t get concussed. We have some pretty big collisions, we don’t get concussed.

I think a lot of it has to do with the helmets now and the way they’re saying they are better but they must not be because people get more concussions now.”

http://articles.chic...-brian-urlacher

Edited by Beerball, 18 November 2012 - 12:07 PM.
edited title for clarity

[Meathead]

my uncle joe smoked three packs a day a lived until he was eighty that means its safe to smoke

[ExiledInIllinois]

FWIW... They tested helmets... Even leather helmets... Read this:

http://www.reuters.c...E7A376S20111104

"(Reuters) - Modern football helmets are no more effective in protecting high school and college players from injury than the leather helmets used nearly 100 years ago, according to a new study by the Cleveland Clinic.
Researchers conducted impact tests on the latest, high-tech helmets and low-tech old ones that mimicked the hits young players routinely suffer on the field and that lead to thousands of concussions each year.
"What we tested were common, everyday hits," said lead researcher Adam Bartsch. "We didn't test the really severe NFL kill shots."
The researchers discovered that for most impacts and angles, today's polycarbonate helmets are no better at reducing injury than the "leatherheads" of old. And in some cases, the old helmets offered slightly better protection..."

New no better than leather, LEATHER, helmets?  Huh?

Meathead, on 18 November 2012 - 04:26 AM, said:

my uncle joe smoked three packs a day a lived until he was eighty that means its safe to smoke

What did he die from?

[Fezmid]

If everyone wore the leather helmets, I bet defenders would stop leading with their head so much.

[PromoTheRobot]

Buffalo Barbarian, on 18 November 2012 - 01:13 AM, said:

“I think the [new] helmets aren’t very good.

I wear an old helmet. Lance (Briggs) wears an old helmet. We don’t get concussed. We have some pretty big collisions, we don’t get concussed.

I think a lot of it has to do with the helmets now and the way they’re saying they are better but they must not be because people get more concussions now.”

http://articles.chic...-brian-urlacher

That's the concussions talking.

PTR

[Offsides Number 76]

ExiledInIllinois, on 18 November 2012 - 04:40 AM, said:

FWIW... They tested helmets... Even leather helmets... Read this:

http://www.reuters.c...E7A376S20111104

"(Reuters) - Modern football helmets are no more effective in protecting high school and college players from injury than the leather helmets used nearly 100 years ago, according to a new study by the Cleveland Clinic.
Researchers conducted impact tests on the latest, high-tech helmets and low-tech old ones that mimicked the hits young players routinely suffer on the field and that lead to thousands of concussions each year.
"What we tested were common, everyday hits," said lead researcher Adam Bartsch. "We didn't test the really severe NFL kill shots."
The researchers discovered that for most impacts and angles, today's polycarbonate helmets are no better at reducing injury than the "leatherheads" of old. And in some cases, the old helmets offered slightly better protection..."

New no better than leather, LEATHER, helmets?  Huh?

[Quester74]

Not to mention that the old Riddell helmets just plain look cooler..  drives me nuts when players opt to wear the new aerodynamic looking ones. Sure, sure.. some egghead told them it's "safer", but they just look plain stupid.

[DrDareustein]

Fezmid, on 18 November 2012 - 08:57 AM, said:

If everyone wore the leather helmets, I bet defenders would stop leading with their head so much.

This. Uralcher and Briggs dont get concussed because they know how to tackle. They dont lead with their head, or try that human-missile crap. It's pretty simple.

[peterpan]

I had one of the first 'new' helmets when I was in HS.  It wasn't any better than the old ones.

[BillsWatch]

peterpan, on 18 November 2012 - 11:38 AM, said:

I had one of the first 'new' helmets when I was in HS.  It wasn't any better than the old ones.

Look at picture of helmet- it provides no protection at all.

[gobilz]

BillsWatch, on 18 November 2012 - 01:51 PM, said:

Look at picture of helmet- it provides no protection at all.

sissy

[Best Player Available]

Hmmmm, seems like there is some $$$$ to be made in better helmets. Since NASA is just kind of sitting on their hands, maybe the commish can give them a call. But, they got to look cool.

[BillyBaroo]

I wonder if Mark Kelso's old helmet was even safer than leather helmets?

[JohnnyGold]

the problem as it is, is this:

nfl, college, and even high school players have a "false sense," of security due to the helmets they have on.

this has changed the way the game is played, over generations. players lead with their heads in literally, EVERY, situation--a player can be down on the field of play, after a catch, and at least one safety is going to "pile on," head first.

in my PERSONAL opinion, even removing face masks would reduce concussions by 75%.

the game needs to get back the mind/body connection that has been lost. players feel like they are driving around a car, behind a windshield--invincible, for all intents and purposes.

unscrew the facemasks for a weekend next preseason. i GUARANTEE not a single player will leave the field of play because of "cobwebs."

with all this being said--

i want these freaks hopped up on every PED available, and i want to see someone die out there-preferably a patriot. it's a blood sport, and that's why i watch.

but all these doom and gloom articles about the nfl being extinct in 20 years? no. there just won't be any more helmets. boo hoo.

[K-9]

Seems this subject comes up in a thread every few months. It's nice that Urlacher hasn't been concussed, but all a helmet can do is protect you from skull fractures, contusions, and cuts. Period. There's is no helmet now or in the future that will prevent a concussion. Ever.

The best thing coming out of new helmet technology is the sensor-equipped model that will allow real-time analysis of the force of a collision to the head. Baselines can be established and if they're exceeded, medical staff can intervene. It's important to catch the concussions that most players wouldn't even consider being concussions. Once a player gets even a slight "bell ringer" he is exponentially more susceptible to sustaining another, more serious one.

GO BILLS!!!

[johnnychemo]

DrDareustein, on 18 November 2012 - 10:01 AM, said:

This. Uralcher and Briggs dont get concussed because they know how to tackle. They dont lead with their head, or try that human-missile crap. It's pretty simple.

+1

[San Jose Bills Fan]

JohnnyGold, on 18 November 2012 - 04:09 PM, said:

the problem as it is, is this:

nfl, college, and even high school players have a "false sense," of security due to the helmets they have on.

this has changed the way the game is played, over generations. players lead with their heads in literally, EVERY, situation--a player can be down on the field of play, after a catch, and at least one safety is going to "pile on," head first.

in my PERSONAL opinion, even removing face masks would reduce concussions by 75%.

the game needs to get back the mind/body connection that has been lost. players feel like they are driving around a car, behind a windshield--invincible, for all intents and purposes.

unscrew the facemasks for a weekend next preseason. i GUARANTEE not a single player will leave the field of play because of "cobwebs."

Having watched NHL hockey evolve from a helmet-less league to today's game, I also used to believe that the evolution of protective equipment had unintended consequences on player behavior in the form of increased violence.

However I used to always say that the cost of re-learning how to play the game (via removing protective equipment) would never happen because the "learning curve" would be too costly to the sports league in terms of deaths, injuries, lawsuits, etc.

So you and I disagree there.

Anyways NFL Commish Roger Goodell spoke at Harvard recently and made me re-evaluate my position on the effects of improved safety equipment (the point we agree on):

"For those who are suggesting that removing helmets will make the game safer by making players less reckless, keep in mind this fact that Goodell shared in his speech:  In 1904, 18 college football players died, primarily from skull fractures.  While no helmet can prevent a concussion, helmets prevent fractured skulls."

http://profootballta...harvard-speech/

[JohnnyGold]

San Jose Bills Fan, on 19 November 2012 - 07:13 PM, said:

Having watched NHL hockey evolve from a helmet-less league to today's game, I also used to believe that the evolution of protective equipment had unintended consequences on player behavior in the form of increased violence.

However I used to always say that the cost of re-learning how to play the game (via removing protective equipment) would never happen because the "learning curve" would be too costly to the sports league in terms of deaths, injuries, lawsuits, etc.

So you and I disagree there.

Anyways NFL Commish Roger Goodell spoke at Harvard recently and made me re-evaluate my position on the effects of improved safety equipment (the point we agree on):

"For those who are suggesting that removing helmets will make the game safer by making players less reckless, keep in mind this fact that Goodell shared in his speech:  In 1904, 18 college football players died, primarily from skull fractures.  While no helmet can prevent a concussion, helmets prevent fractured skulls."

http://profootballta...harvard-speech/

thats a great counterpoint to my original post, well done.

well let me ask you this, then:

everyone trumpets this doom and gloom scenario -- that the league is evolving into a flag football league.

would non-tackle football be that bad of a thing?

literally every time there is a big hit now, i hold my breath waiting for the yellow flags to fly.

"Hard" hitting is clearly being legislated out of the game.

idk, i've just never watched the game for the "lights out" hits. i always feel bad for the player on the receiving end of them.

to be honest, i watch because

#1) buffalo has a pro team
...and.

well, that's pretty much the only reason i watch professional football.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Good questions.

I think the popularity of the sport is definitely built upon its violence but I think we're similar because I've always said that I don't watch hockey for the fights, auto racing for the crashes, or football for the kill shots.

I didn't like Warren Sapps hit on Chad Clifton, and I'm generally turned off, not turned on by excessive violence.

At the same time I love games like last nights Steelers-Ravens game, the Niners-Seahawks game a few weeks ago, and am looking forward to tonight's Niners-Bears game.

Why?

Because I LOVE a hard-hitting, fiercely fought football game. In other words I can't imagine football ever being a non-tackling sport.

On the other hand I get nothing from Jack Tatum shots to receivers, quarterbacks getting hammered after releasing the ball etc.

I DO believe that the NFL can make the game safer while at the same time retaining the hard-hitting popularity of the sport.

JMO.