I'm still sour about Jamaal Charles, then flowers getting knocked out of the Colts playoff game a few years ago. Regular season... Sure. But ending a season on a doctors fuzzy opinion? Yeah, not a fan of that at all.
I'd argue that concussion protocol can make playoff games even more dangerous. We saw with bountygate what lengths a team will go to to knock a player out. What incentive does a DC have to not coach dirty football they can get away with? It's easy to play super dirty without risk of targeting.
Maybe Wentz didn't want to go back in. We know that Jamaal Charles was super pissed years ago that he couldn't. What say you... Is this an nfl rule that needs to be re-thought? [Reply]
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
I'm still sour about Jamaal Charles, then flowers getting knocked out of the Colts playoff game a few years ago. Regular season... Sure. But ending a season on a doctors fuzzy opinion? Yeah, not a fan of that at all.
I'd argue that concussion protocol can make playoff games even more dangerous. We saw with bountygate what lengths a team will go to to knock a player out. What incentive does a DC have to not coach dirty football they can get away with? It's easy to play super dirty without risk of targeting.
Maybe Wentz didn't want to go back in. We know that Jamaal Charles was super pissed years ago that he couldn't. What say you... Is this an nfl rule that needs to be re-thought?
Jamaal Charles was knocked the fuck out. Go look at a video of it. It's a dumb example. [Reply]
Originally Posted by -King-:
So to change that, if Mahomes gets a concussion, he should get to play and possibly hurt his head again?
How would that stop DCs who are telling their players to "add some extra dirty" from telling their players to keep adding the "extra dirty" until a player is all the way ****ed up?
The incentive to keep racking up penalties and fines isn't big if you're just trying to rough a qb up. The incentive is HUGE if theres a good chance you can knock him out of the game. Especially since a qb is arguably the most important in all sports. [Reply]
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
The incentive to keep racking up penalties and fines isn't big if you're just trying to rough a qb up. The incentive is HUGE if theres a good chance you can knock him out of the game. Especially since a qb is arguably the most important in all sports.
You still aren't addressing the whole dirty hits concern. Why would removing the protocol make players not hit dirty? The only thing that would change if they removed the protocol is that they'd be able to hit the QB even more after the initial concussion. I don't see how that's a solution. [Reply]
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
The incentive to keep racking up penalties and fines isn't big if you're just trying to rough a qb up. The incentive is HUGE if theres a good chance you can knock him out of the game. Especially since a qb is arguably the most important in all sports.
I don't like where this is going... Bad karma... [Reply]
Originally Posted by -King-:
How does removing the concussion protocol stop players from playing dirty?
I didn't say remove it. I said reconsider how it's enforced.
Should the criteria be looser provided the player fully understands the risk. A lot of people here have been barking for years about waivers
Or here's another idea... Why shouldn't clowney be automatically ejected for as long as Wentz was out? Doesn't that remove some incentive and force Seattle to lose something too? [Reply]
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
The incentive to keep racking up penalties and fines isn't big if you're just trying to rough a qb up. The incentive is HUGE if theres a good chance you can knock him out of the game. Especially since a qb is arguably the most important in all sports.
Yeah the best way to stop this would be the player of same position is also removed from the game. In other words take out my starting QB yours is also out of the game. [Reply]
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
I'm still sour about Jamaal Charles, then flowers getting knocked out of the Colts playoff game a few years ago. Regular season... Sure. But ending a season on a doctors fuzzy opinion? Yeah, not a fan of that at all.
I'd argue that concussion protocol can make playoff games even more dangerous. We saw with bountygate what lengths a team will go to to knock a player out. What incentive does a DC have to not coach dirty football they can get away with? It's easy to play super dirty without risk of targeting.
Maybe Wentz didn't want to go back in. We know that Jamaal Charles was super pissed years ago that he couldn't. What say you... Is this an nfl rule that needs to be re-thought?
The NFL is not going to change much about their concussion protocol. Billions are at stake.
Part of the problem is that there's no definitive way to assess the degree of injury to a brain and what level of risk is involved at the stadium, or the hospital for that matter. They don't have a piece of equipment that they can put your head in, look at a screen and say,"oh yeah, he can go back in; he's fine."
Concussions don't work like that.
And Wentz's wife was called down to the locker room after he left the field, so I'm thinking he had a fairly serious concussion and wasn't going to be allowed back on the field anyway. [Reply]
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
I didn't say remove it. I said reconsider how it's enforced.
Should the criteria be looser provided the player fully understands the risk. A lot of people here have been barking for years about waivers
Or here's another idea... Why shouldn't clowney be automatically ejected for as long as Wentz was out? Doesn't that remove some incentive and force Seattle to lose something too?
Originally Posted by -King-:
You still aren't addressing the whole dirty hits concern. Why would removing the protocol make players not hit dirty? The only thing that would change if they removed the protocol is that they'd be able to hit the QB even more after the initial concussion. I don't see how that's a solution.
Because there's a huge difference between knocking a player out of the game and forcing a 40 year old backup to play vs. Chipping away at the starter hoping he plays less effectively. Everyone knows the eagles game ended as soon as McCown went in. That is a monumentally huge "ejection." [Reply]
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
Because there's a huge difference between knocking a player out of the game and forcing a 40 year old backup to play vs. Chipping away at the starter hoping he plays less effectively. Everyone knows the eagles game ended as soon as McCown went in. That is a monumentally huge "ejection."
So if Mahomes looks like he has a concussion, you'd rather him go back out there and get fucked up some more? [Reply]
Originally Posted by -King-:
So if Mahomes looks like he has a concussion, you'd rather him go back out there and get ****ed up some more?
That is his decision to make. Based on good, thorough, impartial medical advice. Up to a certain limit of course. Do you really think Brett Favre didn't play through a million hits that by today's standards would be considered concussions? [Reply]
It is all dependent on what the player reports is going on that determines whether they are in concussion protocol or not. Some will lie to stay on the field and some will lie to get off the field. I've said all along that some players will take advantage of this to get a couple of weeks off in order to rest and still get paid while avoiding particular upcoming opposition they would rather not face.
It really is on the player whether they play or not in what they report is going on and you know all the players know what symptoms to report IF they want off the field. Some will call in sick when they are not. [Reply]