NFL Discussion Thread - Hall of Fame Game: August 3rd

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dont remind me about that game vs the Chiefs. Over 300 yds rushing by the team. That was hard to watch even though we won.
 
jecca650 said:
That AP gif looks clean to me.


So under the new rule this would be flagged? Or is it legal??

323197
Click to expand...

this is perfectly legal
 
30 years ago you could headslap and clothesline.

They took it out and the NFL went on.

Same thing here with this helmet rule.

Much ado about nothing.
 
LOL, it's true what they say "you can't defend a championship" . Too much money to pass up. Ed reed was by far my favorite player, o well. Bmore doesn't plan on participating in next years NFL games lol
 
I understand the thought process behind penalizing leading with the crown of your helmet especially since no one is ever taught to do this...

But how are they going to quantify that it makes the game safer?

What if it makes the game less safe? (unintended consequences)

Are they going to remove the rule if it has a negative impact?

Problem I have with the rule is not its merit but in gauging its effectiveness.

People who are saying "doing something is better than nothing" are using very faulty logic until they detail some way to gauge how much it improves safety (or decreases it)

This reeks of Goddell doing something with the support of doctors that I am sure are being paid by the league so that they have some documentation that they tried to protect players when the lawsuits come that they know are going to come.

Every little silly rash rule change they make has them looking so guilty to me they are basically pulling this stuff out of their ***.

No one is going to argue what they are doing because it "sounds good" but where is the damn proof....
 
Last edited:
theone2401 said:
I understand the thought process behind penalizing leading with the crown of your helmet especially since no one is ever taught to do this...

But how are they going to quantify that it makes the game safer?

What if it makes the game less safe? (unintended consequences)

Are they going to remove the rule if it has a negative impact?

Problem I have with the rule is not its merit but in gauging its effectiveness.

People who are saying "doing something is better than nothing" are using very faulty logic until they detail some way to gauge how much it improves safety (or decreases it)

This reeks of Goddell doing something with the support of doctors that I am sure are being paid by the league so that they have some documentation that they tried to protect players when the lawsuits come that they know are going to come.

Every little silly rash rule change they make has them looking so guilty to me they are basically pulling this stuff out of their ***.

No one is going to argue what they are doing because it "sounds good" but where is the damn proof....
Click to expand...

so you think that Roger Goodell just made this up?

You dont think there might have been some medical personell involved in the decision?
 
SneakerPro said:
30 years ago you could headslap and clothesline.

They took it out and the NFL went on.

Same thing here with this helmet rule.

Much ado about nothing.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I'm sure this has been refuted over and over again, but bottom line is any player who is idiotic to use the crown of their helmet to bash it into someone else deserves a penalty. It's an extremely dangerous maneuver even more so for the offensive player and I can't see why RBs like Forte and Faulk are upset over it.

As for Urlacher, I'm not shocked but upset he is gone. Reminds me a lot of early nostalgia from my childhood. Regardless, he's a declining player and it was painful to see him move and miss tackles frequently last year. Sure 2 mil is a hilarious lowball but I doubt anyone else would have gave him the money he was looking for. 12 mil for 2 years? Yeah right.
 
Last edited:
Damn I been focused on shoe thread .forgot there was a NFL thread .. Prolly gonna catch some heat but vikes fan right here ! Excited for next year .
 
solarius49 said:
so you think that Roger Goodell just made this up?

You dont think there might have been some medical personell involved in the decision?
Click to expand...

No. I am saying doctors are not all knowing and doctors hired by the league are biased.

I am not saying its a bad idea or that it shouldn't be tried. But dont confuse good intentions and lack of testing for proof.

Doing something just to say you are without testing can actually be negative.
 
Last edited:
I gotta say it. I dont think greg jennings is as good as people portray him to be. 10-15 sure but top 10? Hail nay
 
I dont think greg jennings is as good as people portray him to be. 10-15 sure but top 10? Hail nay
Click to expand...

You don't know football. Point blank....


You just don't know football.
 
In the NFL now .I think Greg Jennings can be top 15 . Glad vikes made a run for him . They need a wr . Since Percy.left .
 
dredizzle87 said:
In the NFL now .I think Greg Jennings can be top 15 . Glad vikes made a run for him . They need a wr . Since Percy.left .
Click to expand...

I definitely agree that dude is nice. He led the best wide out core in the league. But if im a coach im taking percy over him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom