• Welcome to BGO! We know you will have questions as you become familiar with the software. Please take a moment to read our New BGO User Guide which will give you a great start. If you have questions, post them in the Feedback and Tech Support Forum, or feel free to message any available Staff Member.

CTE

Ken Stabler who died recently, was just diagnosed with CTE.

This is obviously a huge problem that they need to solve very quickly. The current safety precautions aren't enough. Reported concussions nearly doubled this season in the NFL.

It seems there are some common sense solutions which would help immediately.

1. Use that helmet that Solitary Man just posted.
2. Combine that with the other helmet that has the light that goes off on the back of the helmet whenever a hit is deemed hard enough to possibly cause a concussion.
3. If that light goes off, you go to the sideline to be checked. If it goes off two or three times in a game, you're out the rest of the game. That keeps incompetent teams or coaches honest.
4. Increase the active roster size by 12-15 players a game to replace the players leaving the field.

That won't fix everything, but it can be put in place immediately before the first game next season while further advancements are studied.

The concussion light you reference is an interesting idea. But I think it would have to be coupled with penalties for an opposing team. There has to be a major incentive for the other team not to knock another team's star players out of the game. Another idea would be to go to Draconian measures in terms of anti-concussion rules. If the opponent loses a player to concussion, your equivalent player is out of the game too. We knock their #1 WR out of the game with a concussion, our #1 WR sits. I actually think this is a pretty great idea because it employs the maximum penalty possible for the opponent, is not subjective, and would create the highest possible incentive to avoid severe hits, no matter on who the hits are occurring. I wonder how I could get this idea to an NFL executive?

Maybe we should turn this thread into a 'How to eliminate concussions and save the NFL' brainstorming thread and submit our recommendations to the league?
 
You are a leader. Problem solving type. The NFL not only needs leaders with brains and sensibility like you, they need to show it is not always about making a profit in the fiscal year we are in. I love your idea about the increased roster size. Brilliant idea. The owners can afford it. Why not??

I think there are three issues here. They are the same three issues with almost any type of problem in life.

1. It's always easier to see someone else's problems than your own.

We can all sit back and see how Johnny Manziel's actions are self-destructive and how he's wasting a huge opportunity. And after we're done typing about them, 20% of us will go light a cigarette. It's the primary reason why psychologists and counselors exist. Self-evaluation and then taking the corrective actions for even the most obvious problems is so difficult.

2. No one likes to think they are doing the wrong thing.

Change is hard. It's even harder for the NFL when ratings are bigger than ever, and profits are huge. It's not that they don't value the health of their players, it's just that they've done it this way for so long, and it's so successful. Imagine owning a wildly successful business and then someone coming in Monday morning and telling you that major changes need to be made immediately. I don't care if you own Johnson and Johnson or a plumbing business. You built it. It's doing very well. Who the hell is this person, and what do they know? You're the expert, and you like to think that you're a good person on top of it. You want the players to be safer, but you just may not know how to do it.

3. Money.

12 extra players per roster x 32 teams = 384 players. 384 players is four full rosters for three teams in Europe, and one in SA. Global expansion. Again, its not like all they care about is money. But just as we all want our incomes to increase, so do they. Global expansion would be incredible. Increased tv ratings, advertising contracts and merchandise sales. Everyone would be more successful. The owners, players, agents and union. It would also be a great legacy for Goodell. Massive growth.

But adding 384 new players to current rosters would dilute the quality of the current product. It's hard enough to find one great RB or Center for your team. Now imagine having to try to find five. Tom Brady or ODB might be forced to leave the game in the second quarter if their helmet light goes off repeatedly. Their replacements won't be as great. The overall quality of players on the field might drop down to something that more closely resembles a college or Arena game.

Their problems aren't really that difficult to fix. I just hope they make the right decisions or we will be watching flag football ten years from now.

They could also handle the helmet issue in a much better manner than they are currently doing.
 
The concussion light you reference is an interesting idea. But I think it would have to be coupled with penalties for an opposing team. There has to be a major incentive for the other team not to knock another team's star players out of the game. Another idea would be to go to Draconian measures in terms of anti-concussion rules. If the opponent loses a player to concussion, your equivalent player is out of the game too. We knock their #1 WR out of the game with a concussion, our #1 WR sits. I actually think this is a pretty great idea because it employs the maximum penalty possible for the opponent, is not subjective, and would create the highest possible incentive to avoid severe hits, no matter on who the hits are occurring. I wonder how I could get this idea to an NFL executive?

Maybe we should turn this thread into a 'How to eliminate concussions and save the NFL' brainstorming thread and submit our recommendations to the league?

I like that idea of a player-for-player measure a lot. It would definitely be a step forward. But I do see one potentially big problem with it.

Faking. Or diving.

If my QB is Jason Campbell and their QB is Tom Brady, well guess what? Jason might be feeling a little woozy in the third quarter of our playoff game.

Now if Brady has to leave the game because the sensor on the back of his helmet went off two times, that might be a much more fair and less subjective solution. Defenders would definitely adjust their hitting technique and would avoid any hit that might possibly set that sensor off.

I like your idea. I also like the idea of the thread.
 
I don't think it's 'about the money'. If the NFL could get rid of concussions by spending a ton of money, they'd do it tomorrow. They've changed a ton of rules to try and reduce concussions. But the problem is, no amount of technology or rules tweaking will change the basic fact that football is a violent game played by huge men. You can change rules to penalize defenders for savage hits on WRs, but RBs are going to get hit and hit hard every time they have the ball. Helmet improvements may help a little, but unless some radical new concept comes out, you can't eliminate the risk. And the idea some have pitched about going back to the 40's with no or essentially no helmets not only wouldn't work, it would get players killed. The size, strength, and level of violence of the game today requires head protection.

I've wondered if we won't end up with some version of flag football. Would that be so bad? Taking tackling out of the game is probably the only true solution. It wouldn't eliminate all concussions (accidents happen), but it would eliminate most of the hard hits that occur today.

On a side note - I saw an interview with Tony Dorsett yesterday. The guy looks like he barely knows where he is and had trouble stringing coherent sentences together. It was pretty bad and very, very sad. NFL has got to do more.



Boone, you and I agree on a lot, but we have a little gap in the money thing and the owners thing.
Who is "The NFL"? Ignore the players for a moment, because when it comes decision making, they are on the very bottom of the list. The Owners are the NFL. Sure you have the competition committee, made up of guys like Mike Tomlin and Jeff Fischer(Throw in John Mara and you get my drift).
Do you think the owners have been pushing enough for safety? If they wanted to, they could do a heck of a lot more.

Let me give you 2 questions that should describe my perspective on "the NFL".

1: Do you think the NFL will ever go to a to 17 or 18 game schedule? I will answer that for you. No.
2: Do you think the NFL will ever say that it will never go to a 17 or 18 game schedule. The answer to that is also, No. Why? Because they would be admitting that they were wrong about safety. Instead they will say things like, "we are exploring ways to make the season more enjoyable for the fans, and if going to 17 or 18 games is in the best interest of the fans of this great game, then we will seriously consider it". Bologna. The CTE disaster has blown up and they are up to their assess in law suits now.

Did you see Mara got his panties all twisted, when Christopher Nowinski compared the NFL to big tobacco this past week? If John Mara would like to tell the world why he is mad, then he should get on TV and tell the world. Truth is, Nowinski struck a nerve. There needs to be more people like Christopher Nowinski reminding "the NFL", that they can do more.
 
Last edited:
Boone, you and I agree on a lot, but we have a little gap in the money thing and the owners thing.
Who is "The NFL"? Ignore the players for a moment, because when it comes decision making, they are on the very bottom of the list. The Owners are the NFL. Sure you have the competition committee, made up of guys like Mike Tomlin and Jeff Fischer(Throw in John Mara and you get my drift).
Do you think the owners have been pushing enough for safety? If they wanted to, they could do a heck of a lot more.

Let me give you 2 questions that should describe my perspective on "the NFL".

1: Do you think the NFL will ever go to a to 17 or 18 game schedule? I will answer that for you. No.
2: Do you think the NFL will ever say that it will never go to a 17 or 18 game schedule. The answer to that is also, No. Why? Because they would be admitting that they were wrong about safety. The CTE disaster has blown up and they are up to their assess in law suits now.

Did you see Mara got his panties all twisted, when Christopher Nowinski compared the NFL to big tobacco this past week? If John Mara would like to tell the world why he is mad, then he should get on TV and tell the world. Truth is, Nowinski struck a nerve. There needs to be more people like Christopher Nowinski reminding "the NFL", that they can do more.

I wasn't really referencing the NFL's past responsiveness to the issue, how much they knew, when they knew it, or their culpability. I'm not well-versed in that. Of course you are fundamentally right that the players are largely nothing more than essential ingredients in a product and that's how one of the biggest business franchises in the world has treated them.

I was actually suggesting that the NFL would pay damn near whatever it took to try to resolve this issue once and for all - precisely because it puts the future tenability of their product and livelihoods at risk. It's literally the only thing that could unravel the most successful and profitable sports-related business ever.

The problem is - how do you solve it?
 
I like that idea of a player-for-player measure a lot. It would definitely be a step forward. But I do see one potentially big problem with it.

Faking. Or diving.

If my QB is Jason Campbell and their QB is Tom Brady, well guess what? Jason might be feeling a little woozy in the third quarter of our playoff game.

Now if Brady has to leave the game because the sensor on the back of his helmet went off two times, that might be a much more fair and less subjective solution. Defenders would definitely adjust their hitting technique and would avoid any hit that might possibly set that sensor off.

I like your idea. I also like the idea of the thread.

It's a fair point. But if Jason Campbell is your best QB, he's still your best QB. I think it would largely eliminate the incentive for big hits. And you hit the nail on the head - if there was technology involved that drove 'what's an over the line' hit and what's not, vs. being a subjective call on whether a player intended to deliver a savage hit or not, that would be much fairer and more consistent.
 
What I would love to see is us to refine the idea, put together a 'How to solve the NFL's concussion problem forever' article, and then push it out there everywhere we can in the media world and see if we can get the NFL's attention...
 
It's a fair point. But if Jason Campbell is your best QB, he's still your best QB. I think it would largely eliminate the incentive for big hits. And you hit the nail on the head - if there was technology involved that drove 'what's an over the line' hit and what's not, vs. being a subjective call on whether a player intended to deliver a savage hit or not, that would be much fairer and more consistent.

I think you have to base it around technology and take the call out of the hands of the coaches and training staffs. I could even see a really unscrupulous coach actually plan for such an event. Start Jason Campbell with the intent to claim a concussion, and really be preparing the backup QB all week.

I know that may sound a little cynical, but unfortunately there always seems to be one scumbag that would exercise bad judgement.

 
What I would love to see is us to refine the idea, put together a 'How to solve the NFL's concussion problem forever' article, and then push it out there everywhere we can in the media world and see if we can get the NFL's attention...


I have several helmet improvement posts within this thread already. I try not to be a stuck in neutral guy. However, we can not ignore the tragedies that have happened, and that will continue to happen. If anything, they help to inspire change. When we read things like, "Quarterback Ken Stabler did not know what to do when he got to a green light(he had to ask relatives in the car if he should stop or go) in his latter years", it can't be shoved aside. On top of being tragically sad, it was very scary because he was not in the trenches.
 
Well, doubt you would find anyone in or outside of football that would disagree at this point.

Just as an aside - there are many causes of dementia. It's quite common. Not to say Stabler isn't suffering from CTE - but there are hundreds of thousands of folks over the age of 60 suffering for dementia in the US who didn't play pro football.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
What I would love to see is us to refine the idea, put together a 'How to solve the NFL's concussion problem forever' article, and then push it out there everywhere we can in the media world and see if we can get the NFL's attention...

You're a great writer, so maybe you could come up with the final piece. I'm happy to offer some suggestions. Like the helmet issue. That's literally the easiest fix of all. There are two simple options that will guarantee a great improvement to what we currently have.

1. $300,000,000.

That's the cash reward to the winner of the "come up with the best helmet" contest. That would bring out all of the brightest minds, engineers and scientists around the world to produce the safest helmets possible. That's enough money to get companies to work on it immediately. $300 mill divided by 32 teams is less than $10 million per owner. That's peanuts to them. That's literally one player's salary for one season. Concussions would drop dramatically, and in less than two years--the final date for submission.

2. Go to Elon Musk of Tesla. Consult General Motors and Ford.

Elon Musk literally builds rockets and Tesla cars. He also created Paypal and Solar City. He's now working on electric airplanes. If there's anyone on earth that can come up with a protective helmet, it's Elon Musk. He's one of the smartest inventors in the world.

The league should also contact GM and Ford. Just like in Solitary Man's link, automotive technology should be investigated. I like the bendable plastic. How about airbags inside of the helmets that would deploy on the really bad hits? If it can be done, they're the ones that can do it.
 
I'm just throwing this out there on helmets. Please forgive my analogy if it offends.

I'm not a Nascar guy, but I was watching Daytona when Dale Earnhardt died. One of the commentators after the race said that many of the most dangerous wrecks are when the car looks ok after hitting a wall. The car in these situations has not absorbed the impact, passing all of the blow onto the driver inside. That was the case with Earnhardt, he said.

How do we make a car that absorbs the blow, that does not pass it on to the driver? Like McD5 said, pay the winner a king's ransom.
If no one comes up with anything, then we take away the cars, and give them mopeds.
 
Last edited:
Possible breakthrough that may detect CTE in the living.
Exosomal Tau Blood Test May Detect CTE in the Living

"We are extremely pleased that our initial study data has been published and we appreciate forthcoming opportunities to further advance our TauSome™ biomarker as a non-invasive solution to detect and monitor CTE in living individuals," Jim Joyce, founder of Exosome Sciences and Chairman and CEO of Aethlon Medical, said in a statement.
 
Eh, it's all luck of the draw. Good or bad.

Not everyone gets it. There is no set number of hits that determine it. Some get it with less trauma than others, and vice versa. Many don't get it at all.

It can happen in football, hockey, baseball, bicycling, skateboarding, martial arts, wrestling, etc...

Nothing wrong with trying to prevent your kids from getting seriously injured. The reality, it's beyond anyone's control.

Bad things happen in every walk of life. Always has, and always will.

This is a fascinating discussion. Unfortunately, I'm late to the party. But I would like to add that somehow, some way forward must be found to get the game to "acceptable risk" status. The reality we live with nowadays is that there seems to be an air of hypersensitivity towards inherently risky endeavors. And football is clearly one of them. [The irony of contemporary life is that a kid would rather get a dozen tattoos than play for his high school football team]

What troubles me is all of the parents that are too scared to let their children play football. While it is a personal (and/or family) decision, the danger it poses to the survival of the game is real. I know this is selfish, but my concern is that CTE poses an existential threat to The NFL. Not now, but definitely a generation from now.
 
Then I will leave the judgments and decisions for that generation to iron out.


(One of the greatest benefits of being my age is the privilege of passing the baton to the next generation and liberating myself of its burden. :cool2:)
 
Here is what I think will happen in the next 5-7 years. The NFL at some point will have to cop to knowing about CTE far earlier than they let on, be it through a class action lawsuit or leaked documents or whatever. They're going to have to pay and probably pay big.

At this point though, I suspect players today will be sneered at if they sue the NFL because of all the literature available that is out there. At this point, if you're playing in the league, you know the dangers associated with it, and frankly, I don't want to hear a lot of whining 20 years from now.

The league does need to address safety however. "Jacked Up" segments went away years ago, but watching those devastating hits are a lot harder because of the accompanying knowledge that we all have now. Casual viewers may be turned off because we all know more about CTE, which may be as much responsible for declining viewership as Ray Rice and all the other shit Goodell has ****ed up.
 
Why weren't CTE's detected more in the past then now? Well they didn't realize that it was something to look for. Or they did and just chose to look the other way.

Prior to this years SB I went through some of the older ones on tape. CB's and S's were allowed so much more latitude in hitting receivers that if they could do the same today the NFL would run out of receivers. There were defenders that would drill a guy into the ground head first and it was a tackle - no penalty. Saw a play like that and the WR was carried off the field completely dazed only to come back a few plays latter because it was the SB and they were behind. Steelers and Rams and probably one of the best SB games of all time.

Anyone remember Jack Tatum (The Assassin)? Super Bowl XI when he blew up Sammy White? Along with many other's these were legal hits. But one thing he didn't do was go helmet to helmet. Want to see what a defenseless player really looks like? For those who weren't around for the '70s NfL or those that were and just want to reminisce:



I don't think any doctor could look at some of these guys and not have a clue that they were damaged. When a player gets hit so hard that his eyes roll to the back of his head and he can't stand up there might be a problem. Owners and networks made far more money than the players did and they weren't about to risk it by admitting how hazardous the game had become. It was just cheaper to replace damaged goods. Football grew too fast for people to acknowledge the diminished safety. If you go back to early SBs and watch the hitting then compared to what it became just 6 or 7 years later the difference is huge. Much more running in the 60's - much more passing in the 70's.

And it looks like history is repeating - the game has outpaced the technology of safety but instead of actually eliminating the issue with better equipment the attempt is to do it via legislation and rule changes which is a band-aid - not a cure. It's an attempt to avoid litigation not a solution. Football is a hazardous sport and you take your chances just by walking on the field and you try to mitigate the risks. Walking across the street is hazardous also and has a higher risk of being lethal but the odds are in favor of the pedestrian. And how has that been addressed? Well, crosswalks, traffic signals, audible alarms for the sight impaired - technology. Jaywalking still a 'rule' but increasing the penalty to time in jail isn't going to make crossing a street safer. I'm not trying to over-simplify or belittle the issue just showing a cause and effect relationship.

Making rules about helmet to helmet contact won't stop it from happening because most of the time it doesn't happen on purpose anyway. Everything in life has a degree of risk to it and the higher the degree the more proactive one has to be to mitigate the risk. Proactive as in creating something tangible and not just words.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Help Users
As we enjoy today's conversations, let's remember our dear friends 'Docsandy', Sandy Zier-Teitler, and 'Posse Lover', Michael Huffman, who would dearly love to be here with us today! We love and miss you guys ❤

You haven't joined any rooms.

    You haven't joined any rooms.
    Top