NFL outlaws RBs lowering their heads (1 Viewer)

[Raider Nation]

Case in point is the famous Bo vs. Boz hit

Just because we'll keep watching doesn't mean it's not diminishing the product. Why can you not make that distinction?

 

[Hang 10]

Case in point is the famous Bo vs. Boz hit

That's what you'll be saying when your team gets flagged. THAT WASN'T THE CROWN

 

[Bigboy10182000]

Case in point is the famous Bo vs. Boz hit

Because we love football....thats probably why we care enough to complain about it?

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Are we watching the same videos?!? Bo is bent almost in a 90 degree angle...has NO visioon of what's in front of him and IS LEADING with the crown of his helmet! If the ref is in the middle of the field there is a great chance this is called.

I know I said I was done but...But not head on into the defender. He knew Boz wasn't going to be over that one foot more, as you posited, and if he had been then he should have been penalized. But he wasn't and...he wouldn't have been.Again, not difficult.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

That's what you'll be saying when your team gets flagged. THAT WASN'T THE CROWN

I will if it wasn't. But I'm not saying that will make me like the game less or that it will change the game as I know it.It'll be no different than a missed PI call or a phantom hold. It's just part of the game.Hyperbole, thy name is Shark Pool.

 

[B-Deep]

Case in point is the famous Bo vs. Boz hit

if it is diminished but continues to grow, who the hell caresi'll tell you who doesn't care, 32 owners, the league, and the NFLPA

if they are ruining the game speak with your wallet and your eyes

 

[sho nuff]

Someone explain to me how a team is suppose to run a Halfback Sweep from inside the 3 yard line? Once outside the tackle box, the RB has two choices. 1-make it to the goal line cone before the defender can push him out of bounds. 2-change direction towards the goal line and dive for the goal line. (you have to get lower than the defender, head down)

Considering how those plays flow I don't see how a back can't prevent himself from leading with the helmet. The defender will be running with him more than toward him.Case in point is the famous Bo vs. Boz hit

There was not forceful contact leading with the crown of his helmet.Pretty cut and dry that this easily would not have been flagged.

And nobody assumes refs make 100% of the calls correctly...that whine is total strawman...just like we don't take away other penalties simply because refs are human do make errors.

 

[sho nuff]

BTW...since when is Mayock some end all be all of opinions.

Are you the same guys that will rip him when he is doing his draft stuff?

 

[Andy Dufresne]

BTW...since when is Mayock some end all be all of opinions.Are you the same guys that will rip him when he is doing his draft stuff?

But...he PLAYED in the NFL!

 

[sho nuff]

Are we watching the same videos?!? Bo is bent almost in a 90 degree angle...has NO visioon of what's in front of him and IS LEADING with the crown of his helmet! If the ref is in the middle of the field there is a great chance this is called.

Think you are watching something different.In no way does he lead with the crown of his helmet and leads more with his shoulder with his helmet dropped than anything else.

 

[Hang 10]

BTW...since when is Mayock some end all be all of opinions.Are you the same guys that will rip him when he is doing his draft stuff?

But...he PLAYED in the NFL!

Yeah, who is he compared to sho nuff??

 

[meyerj31]

I'm glad for this rule ...

... because it doesn't affect the Packers at all. We don't have any running backs to worry about.

 

[sho nuff]

BTW...since when is Mayock some end all be all of opinions.Are you the same guys that will rip him when he is doing his draft stuff?

But...he PLAYED in the NFL!

Yeah, who is he compared to sho nuff??

Yeah...Im the only person out there who supports the rule right?Mayock's comment is foolish in that he claims a player can't drop his pad level...which is complete and total crap...just like the title of this thread obviously had no clue what the rule actually is.But who are other guys who have played...like Jeff Fisher, Eddie George (who after a 15 minute discussion with Fisher agreed with the rule).Bug oh no...bigboy thinks its going to ruin the league.

 

[sho nuff]

I'm glad for this rule ...... because it doesn't affect the Packers at all. We don't have any running backs to worry about.

Or at least none playing physically.

 

[Hang 10]

If this rule is so obvious, like spearing, why the #### did it take so long to institute? Because it's stupid, that's why.

 

[sho nuff]

"Which is exactly why I made the comment I did earlier...who is Mayock to Sho nuff? Unf'ing believable that God still makes people like this... "

Thats ok bigboy...you can post it.

My point about Mayock was there are people that will rip him and rip him and rip him (not sure if you are one of them) for his draft analysis.

Then turn around when he posts this which you agree with from him and its the end all be all of this conversation.

Same as I said earlier in this thread...some of the more vocal people against this...are probably the same ones who complained the last few years when a defender gets flagged for a hit like this...and whine that offensive players can do it...why are they not flagged.

Its laughable. Some of you seem to just want to complain.

 

[GregR]

Brandon Lloyd should be safe. As long as he's not flagged for spearing the turf.

Don't be so sure. They also were considering bylaws regarding the condition of the playing surface.

Ref: "Penalty on the offense, #88. Clipping. Of the grass."

 

[KCitons]

I came in here breathing fire, but a lot of you have made some pretty good points to get me off the ledge. The fact is that this game is no longer the game that most of us grew up loving. We can either deal with it, or stop watching. I just hope this won't impact the game TOO much.

I can already a see a huge 4th quarter run in a huge game for a huge first down by the home team. WOOOPS! Called back because the RB used the crown of his helmet. That stadium is going to burn to the ground. Matt Forte already loves the rule:

Matt Forte ‏@MattForte22

The proposed rule change for running backs might be the most absurd suggestion of a rule change I've ever heard of.

In order to lower ur shoulder u obviously have to lower ur head. It's a way of protecting ur self from a tackler and a way to break tackles

U can't change the instinctive nature of running the football.

againnot to be rude to you

but before you lament the great game we are losing perhaps you should reach out to the Seau or Duerson familes and get their perspective. Ask them if the big hits we all lvoe were worth the price they paid.

these are people, not video games, not machines.

With all do respect to the dead and their families, it was a risk they were willing to take. Do you have the same sympathy for commercial crab fisherman that die every year, just so you can stuff your face at Golden Corral?

If an NFL player makes a decision to play football, he takes responsibility for any and all risks involved. If he doesn't want to play in the NFL, he can certainly find employment elsewhere. After all, 95% of them should have received a college degree.

As others have said, this has nothing to do with taking care of players. This has to do with the NFL (owners) taking steps to limit their liability going forward. If the NFL could make more money by taping chainsaws to players arms without lawsuit, they would do it.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

If this rule is so obvious, like spearing, why the #### did it take so long to institute? Because it's stupid, that's why.

Really? You hadn't noticed that circumstances have changed in the last couple years?

 

[Hang 10]

I came in here breathing fire, but a lot of you have made some pretty good points to get me off the ledge. The fact is that this game is no longer the game that most of us grew up loving. We can either deal with it, or stop watching. I just hope this won't impact the game TOO much.

I can already a see a huge 4th quarter run in a huge game for a huge first down by the home team. WOOOPS! Called back because the RB used the crown of his helmet. That stadium is going to burn to the ground. Matt Forte already loves the rule:

Matt Forte ‏@MattForte22

The proposed rule change for running backs might be the most absurd suggestion of a rule change I've ever heard of.

In order to lower ur shoulder u obviously have to lower ur head. It's a way of protecting ur self from a tackler and a way to break tackles

U can't change the instinctive nature of running the football.

againnot to be rude to you

but before you lament the great game we are losing perhaps you should reach out to the Seau or Duerson familes and get their perspective. Ask them if the big hits we all lvoe were worth the price they paid.

these are people, not video games, not machines.

With all do respect to the dead and their families, it was a risk they were willing to take. Do you have the same sympathy for commercial crab fisherman that die every year, just so you can stuff your face at Golden Corral?

If an NFL player makes a decision to play football, he takes responsibility for any and all risks involved. If he doesn't want to play in the NFL, he can certainly find employment elsewhere. After all, 95% of them should have received a college degree.

As others have said, this has nothing to do with taking care of players. This has to do with the NFL (owners) taking steps to limit their liability going forward. If the NFL could make more money by taping chainsaws to players arms without lawsuit, they would do it.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

Are we watching the same videos?!? Bo is bent almost in a 90 degree angle...has NO visioon of what's in front of him and IS LEADING with the crown of his helmet! If the ref is in the middle of the field there is a great chance this is called.

I know I said I was done but...But not head on into the defender. He knew Boz wasn't going to be over that one foot more, as you posited, and if he had been then he should have been penalized. But he wasn't and...he wasn't.Again, not difficult.

You're shifting gears here a bit...First Bo didnt lead with the crown...the video clearerly shows that he did.You said it more then likely wouldnt be called but given the video you posted it's pretty clear, depending on where the ref is...that it could be called.He "knew Boz wasn't going to be over there in time" was never mentioned by me, ever. From what I see...Bo knew there would be contact, lowered his head, and was ready to plow into anyone in front of, or to the side him. Had there been a guy in front of him it would have been the crown of his helmet hitting them. Take the T-Rich and Coleman plays again...if Colemen comes in and just goes right at his ankles...is this a penalty? Why or why not?

 

[sho nuff]

With all do respect to the dead and their families, it was a risk they were willing to take. Do you have the same sympathy for commercial crab fisherman that die every year, just so you can stuff your face at Golden Corral? If an NFL player makes a decision to play football, he takes responsibility for any and all risks involved. If he doesn't want to play in the NFL, he can certainly find employment elsewhere. After all, 95% of them should have received a college degree. As others have said, this has nothing to do with taking care of players. This has to do with the NFL (owners) taking steps to limit their liability going forward. If the NFL could make more money by taping chainsaws to players arms without lawsuit, they would do it.

That sounds great and all...but of course its about limiting their liability by protecting the players as much as they can.Because its the owners who are getting sued by some former players who assumed all these risks and yet are wanting money for it...because the NFL turned a blind eye to concussions and their effects for so long.The more we keep learning about them...the more they need to do something to limit them as much as they can.

 

[Concept Coop]

As others have said, this has nothing to do with taking care of players. This has to do with the NFL (owners) taking steps to limit their liability going forward. If the NFL could make more money by taping chainsaws to players arms without lawsuit, they would do it.

If it makes the game safer, why do we care? What does our biased assumption of their intentions do to lessen the effect?

 

[sho nuff]

You're shifting gears here a bit...

First Bo didnt lead with the crown...the video clearerly shows that he did.

You said it more then likely wouldnt be called but given the video you posted it's pretty clear, depending on where the ref is...that it could be called.

He "knew Boz wasn't going to be over there in time" was never mentioned by me, ever. From what I see...Bo knew there would be contact, lowered his head, and was ready to plow into anyone in front of, or to the side him. Had there been a guy in front of him it would have been the crown of his helmet hitting them.

Take the T-Rich and Coleman plays again...if Colemen comes in and just goes right at his ankles...is this a penalty? Why or why not?

The video shows nothing of what you are claiming.He does not lead toward any defender with the crown of his helmet.

You really need to get your eyes checked.

He lowered his pads and head comes down with it...makes contact with shoulder and part of helmet (not the crown) as he goes forwards.

You can keep trying to paint this as something else happening, but you don't seem to be actually watching the same video as any reasonable person would view it.

 

[sho nuff]

As others have said, this has nothing to do with taking care of players. This has to do with the NFL (owners) taking steps to limit their liability going forward. If the NFL could make more money by taping chainsaws to players arms without lawsuit, they would do it.

If it makes the game safer, why do we care? What does our biased assumption of their intentions do to lessen the effect?

Because its "RUINING THE GAME!"

 

[Bigboy10182000]

"Which is exactly why I made the comment I did earlier...who is Mayock to Sho nuff? Unf'ing believable that God still makes people like this... "Thats ok bigboy...you can post it.My point about Mayock was there are people that will rip him and rip him and rip him (not sure if you are one of them) for his draft analysis.Then turn around when he posts this which you agree with from him and its the end all be all of this conversation.Same as I said earlier in this thread...some of the more vocal people against this...are probably the same ones who complained the last few years when a defender gets flagged for a hit like this...and whine that offensive players can do it...why are they not flagged.Its laughable. Some of you seem to just want to complain.

As hard as it is at times I try not to be a D...Ripping him for draft knowledge versus ripping his opinion on a game he has epxeriance with and has played are different to me. I suppose anyone could "scout" players but having been there I trust his judgment over yours.

 

[Sabertooth]

At what point do we need to start a new record book for achieve during this new NFL? Not exactly apples to apples anymore.

 

[KCitons]

Not sure if the rules allow for it, but maybe Running Backs should start implementing the drop kick, ala Bobby Boucher. This would be the exact opposite of leading with the crown and no one could complain.

 

[sho nuff]

"Which is exactly why I made the comment I did earlier...who is Mayock to Sho nuff? Unf'ing believable that God still makes people like this... "Thats ok bigboy...you can post it.My point about Mayock was there are people that will rip him and rip him and rip him (not sure if you are one of them) for his draft analysis.Then turn around when he posts this which you agree with from him and its the end all be all of this conversation.Same as I said earlier in this thread...some of the more vocal people against this...are probably the same ones who complained the last few years when a defender gets flagged for a hit like this...and whine that offensive players can do it...why are they not flagged.Its laughable. Some of you seem to just want to complain.

As hard as it is at times I try not to be a D...Ripping him for draft knowledge versus ripping his opinion on a game he has epxeriance with and has played are different to me. I suppose anyone could "scout" players but having been there I trust his judgment over yours.

Sure...his judgement has more credibility to mine...just wish he would read the rule...because there are plenty of instances of RBs lowering their pads without forcibly using the crown of their helmet.And there are plenty of guys with just as much credibility as Mayock...and some much more so...that agree with the rules...including the guy on the competition committee in Jeff Fisher.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

You're shifting gears here a bit...First Bo didnt lead with the crown...the video clearerly shows that he did.

No I didn't. I just expected you to follow what I was saying within the context of this discussion which is how it applies to the rule.Specifically, Bo didn't lead with the crown into the defender. So, no foul. Pretty clear.

You said it more then likely wouldnt be called but given the video you posted it's pretty clear, depending on where the ref is...that it could be called.

No it's not. If the ref didn't see it, he wouldn't call it. Bo's crown never touches Boz's body. And the ref wouldn't make a call on the speculation that it did.

He "knew Boz wasn't going to be over there in time" was never mentioned by me, ever. From what I see...Bo knew there would be contact, lowered his head, and was ready to plow into anyone in front of, or to the side him. Had there been a guy in front of him it would have been the crown of his helmet hitting them.

No, it was mentioned by me in response to your hypothetical "what if Boz was a foot over?". Well then given this rule Bo either a) doesn't lower his head into Boz's body or b) he does and gets a penalty.

Take the T-Rich and Coleman plays again...if Colemen comes in and just goes right at his ankles...is this a penalty? Why or why not?

Probably not because then he'd have gotten TR's cleats in his back. What does that have to do with anything?

 

[sho nuff]

At what point do we need to start a new record book for achieve during this new NFL? Not exactly apples to apples anymore.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

You're shifting gears here a bit...

First Bo didnt lead with the crown...the video clearerly shows that he did.

You said it more then likely wouldnt be called but given the video you posted it's pretty clear, depending on where the ref is...that it could be called.

He "knew Boz wasn't going to be over there in time" was never mentioned by me, ever. From what I see...Bo knew there would be contact, lowered his head, and was ready to plow into anyone in front of, or to the side him. Had there been a guy in front of him it would have been the crown of his helmet hitting them.

Take the T-Rich and Coleman plays again...if Colemen comes in and just goes right at his ankles...is this a penalty? Why or why not?

The video shows nothing of what you are claiming.He does not lead toward any defender with the crown of his helmet.

You really need to get your eyes checked.

He lowered his pads and head comes down with it...makes contact with shoulder and part of helmet (not the crown) as he goes forwards.

You can keep trying to paint this as something else happening, but you don't seem to be actually watching the same video as any reasonable person would view it.

Please read what I said again.I never said he leaned TOWARD A DEFENDER. He has NO CLUE where they even are! He is at a 90 degree angle...if someone is ahead of him it IS THE CROWN that hits them..he is leading with the helmet but hit by the defender in the shoulder.

Take the T-Rich example I mentioned earlier..

 

[Concept Coop]

At what point do we need to start a new record book for achieve during this new NFL? Not exactly apples to apples anymore.

Right. They play with facemasks now.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Okay. We're being fished at this point. Right?

 

[sho nuff]

Take the T-Rich and Coleman plays again...if Colemen comes in and just goes right at his ankles...is this a penalty? Why or why not?

Probably not because then he'd have gotten TR's cleats in his back. What does that have to do with anything?

Bigboy asking that question shows he has not read the actual rule or what anyone has actually said about what the rule really says.it requires forcible contact...if Coleman comes in and hits Richardson's ankles...there would be no forcible contact by Richardson with the crown of his helmet...thus no penalty.

“It is a foul if a runner or tackler initiates forcible contact by delivering a blow with the top crown of his helmet against an opponent when both players are clearly outside of the tackle box. Incidental contact by the helmet of a runner or tackler against an opponent shall not be a foul.”

 

[Sabertooth]

At what point do we need to start a new record book for achieve during this new NFL? Not exactly apples to apples anymore.

 

[sho nuff]

Please read what I said again.I never said he leaned TOWARD A DEFENDER. He has NO CLUE where they even are! He is at a 90 degree angle...if someone is ahead of him it IS THE CROWN that hits them..he is leading with the helmet but hit by the defender in the shoulder.Take the T-Rich example I mentioned earlier..

But nobody is ahead of him...nobody...he does not lead with his crown into anyone...he does not make contact with the crown of his helmet to anyone.Read the freaking rule.And I read your Trich example...it shows you have a clear lack of understanding of the rule and have not even read what it says....as I commented on and quoted the rule as I read it earlier.

 

[KCitons]

With all do respect to the dead and their families, it was a risk they were willing to take. Do you have the same sympathy for commercial crab fisherman that die every year, just so you can stuff your face at Golden Corral? If an NFL player makes a decision to play football, he takes responsibility for any and all risks involved. If he doesn't want to play in the NFL, he can certainly find employment elsewhere. After all, 95% of them should have received a college degree. As others have said, this has nothing to do with taking care of players. This has to do with the NFL (owners) taking steps to limit their liability going forward. If the NFL could make more money by taping chainsaws to players arms without lawsuit, they would do it.

That sounds great and all...but of course its about limiting their liability by protecting the players as much as they can.Because its the owners who are getting sued by some former players who assumed all these risks and yet are wanting money for it...because the NFL turned a blind eye to concussions and their effects for so long.The more we keep learning about them...the more they need to do something to limit them as much as they can.

Great, if the NFL is so dangerous, shut it down. I can compare it to smoking cigarettes. Everyone knows that smoking is bad for your health, it can cause cancer, it can cause death, blah, blah, blah. Put giant warning labels on the packages, flood the TV with commercials. Do you think people know that smoking is bad for you? Hell yes. Why do people smoke still? Will tobacco companies stop producing them? NO. But, the will try to limit their liability. NFL players know the risks. As a fan, I could care less about the long term effects. If you don't want to play in the NFL, then step aside. There are 1000 guys behind you ready to step up.

 

[sho nuff]

At what point do we need to start a new record book for achieve during this new NFL? Not exactly apples to apples anymore.

Continued whining about the changes in the game...thought it appropriate given how much complaining is going on.

 

[GregR]

Okay. We're being fished at this point. Right?

Quite possibly.There isn't much to say about the Bo-Boz play in regards to this rule other than, "if a flag were thrown on this type of play, the other refs should huddle and overrule it and pick the flag up".It clearly doesn't meet this rule's criteria of the contact necessary for it to be a penalty.That's apart from whether they word it so all short yardage/goal line play is also exempted which would also make it moot.

 

[Concept Coop]

NFL players know the risks. As a fan, I could care less about the long term effects....

I think that's the issue, then. Or, at the very least, a major difference between the two sides.

 

[sho nuff]

With all do respect to the dead and their families, it was a risk they were willing to take. Do you have the same sympathy for commercial crab fisherman that die every year, just so you can stuff your face at Golden Corral? If an NFL player makes a decision to play football, he takes responsibility for any and all risks involved. If he doesn't want to play in the NFL, he can certainly find employment elsewhere. After all, 95% of them should have received a college degree. As others have said, this has nothing to do with taking care of players. This has to do with the NFL (owners) taking steps to limit their liability going forward. If the NFL could make more money by taping chainsaws to players arms without lawsuit, they would do it.

That sounds great and all...but of course its about limiting their liability by protecting the players as much as they can.Because its the owners who are getting sued by some former players who assumed all these risks and yet are wanting money for it...because the NFL turned a blind eye to concussions and their effects for so long.The more we keep learning about them...the more they need to do something to limit them as much as they can.

Great, if the NFL is so dangerous, shut it down. I can compare it to smoking cigarettes. Everyone knows that smoking is bad for your health, it can cause cancer, it can cause death, blah, blah, blah. Put giant warning labels on the packages, flood the TV with commercials. Do you think people know that smoking is bad for you? Hell yes. Why do people smoke still? Will tobacco companies stop producing them? NO. But, the will try to limit their liability. NFL players know the risks. As a fan, I could care less about the long term effects. If you don't want to play in the NFL, then step aside. There are 1000 guys behind you ready to step up.

More drama queen overreaction...shocking.And do you know that the companies were sued and forced to limit things in their products to make thme less terrible for you?Yes, the NFL players know the risks...as did the older players...and as said, so many times...they are still suing.Should they be forced to sign a waiver that they will not sue the league? The the NFL is not liable for their brain damage and so on?There are already players and former players saying they won't let their kids play the sport the more and more we learn about concussions.But keep up the over the top drama crap...rather than try to have any sort of rational and reasonable discussion.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

Take the T-Rich and Coleman plays again...if Colemen comes in and just goes right at his ankles...is this a penalty? Why or why not?

Probably not because then he'd have gotten TR's cleats in his back. What does that have to do with anything?

Bigboy asking that question shows he has not read the actual rule or what anyone has actually said about what the rule really says.it requires forcible contact...if Coleman comes in and hits Richardson's ankles...there would be no forcible contact by Richardson with the crown of his helmet...thus no penalty.

“It is a foul if a runner or tackler initiates forcible contact by delivering a blow with the top crown of his helmet against an opponent when both players are clearly outside of the tackle box. Incidental contact by the helmet of a runner or tackler against an opponent shall not be a foul.”

I should have never deleted my post that time.

I understand the rule.

I dont like it.

Why?

Because it's going to cause more flags for no good reason other then someone trying to cover their ### for a lawsuit.

There are other measures.

The Bo play COULD have been flagged...I dont like that it COULD have happened.

T-Rich and Coleman example= Had Coleman adjusted to the player and not just stood there it was a non-issue...he also wasnt hurt...so again, it was a non-issue.

I changed the format in an effort to help you since you're too busy with yuor thousands of posts to go back a couple pages and refresh. If this format does not help, I can possible do something in crayon.

 

[KCitons]

With all do respect to the dead and their families, it was a risk they were willing to take. Do you have the same sympathy for commercial crab fisherman that die every year, just so you can stuff your face at Golden Corral? If an NFL player makes a decision to play football, he takes responsibility for any and all risks involved. If he doesn't want to play in the NFL, he can certainly find employment elsewhere. After all, 95% of them should have received a college degree. As others have said, this has nothing to do with taking care of players. This has to do with the NFL (owners) taking steps to limit their liability going forward. If the NFL could make more money by taping chainsaws to players arms without lawsuit, they would do it.

That sounds great and all...but of course its about limiting their liability by protecting the players as much as they can.Because its the owners who are getting sued by some former players who assumed all these risks and yet are wanting money for it...because the NFL turned a blind eye to concussions and their effects for so long.The more we keep learning about them...the more they need to do something to limit them as much as they can.

Great, if the NFL is so dangerous, shut it down. I can compare it to smoking cigarettes. Everyone knows that smoking is bad for your health, it can cause cancer, it can cause death, blah, blah, blah. Put giant warning labels on the packages, flood the TV with commercials. Do you think people know that smoking is bad for you? Hell yes. Why do people smoke still? Will tobacco companies stop producing them? NO. But, the will try to limit their liability. NFL players know the risks. As a fan, I could care less about the long term effects. If you don't want to play in the NFL, then step aside. There are 1000 guys behind you ready to step up.

More drama queen overreaction...shocking.And do you know that the companies were sued and forced to limit things in their products to make thme less terrible for you?Yes, the NFL players know the risks...as did the older players...and as said, so many times...they are still suing.Should they be forced to sign a waiver that they will not sue the league? The the NFL is not liable for their brain damage and so on?There are already players and former players saying they won't let their kids play the sport the more and more we learn about concussions.But keep up the over the top drama crap...rather than try to have any sort of rational and reasonable discussion.

And did the changes that the tobacco companies make correct the problem? do people no longer get cancer from cigarettes? Still dangerous, just like the NFL. If it's bad, stop producing the product or accept the risks.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

If it's bad, stop producing the product or accept the risks.

Or you could, you know, adjust the product.

 

[KCitons]

If it's bad, stop producing the product or accept the risks.

Or you could, you know, adjust the product.

Sure, but I don't think smokers will enjoy the candy cigarettes.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

If it's bad, stop producing the product or accept the risks.

Or you could, you know, adjust the product.

Sure, but I don't think smokers will enjoy the candy cigarettes.

That's the only option?

 

[Bigboy10182000]

If it's bad, stop producing the product or accept the risks.

Or you could, you know, adjust the product.

Correct me if I'm wrong...I got the impression a couple of pages ago that you were on the same page as others with this rule change being politically motivated, was I incorrect?

 

[Andy Dufresne]

If it's bad, stop producing the product or accept the risks.

Or you could, you know, adjust the product.

Correct me if I'm wrong...I got the impression a couple of pages ago that you were on the same page as others with this rule change being politically motivated, was I incorrect?

Sure. So?

 

[KCitons]

If it's bad, stop producing the product or accept the risks.

Or you could, you know, adjust the product.

Sure, but I don't think smokers will enjoy the candy cigarettes.

That's the only option?

No, but it feels like it's the option the NFL is moving towards. Ultimately, this comes down to choices. The NFL has a choice to run their league any way they want. The Players have choice to play football or use their free degree to find other employment. And, I as s fan, have the choice to accept it, or spend my time and money on another sport. Until enough people do the latter, the NFL will do as it pleases.