@ballpeen said:

I am 100% convinced of that.

I think you may see a bit more discussion of soft-shell helmets rather than no helmet at all. You still have to protect the head from being hit, but moving to a soft, impact-deadening helmet may eliminate the benefit of using one's head as a weapon. Or even if you did, it would be like two nerf balls crashing into each other. If you're still wearing semi-rigid shoulder pads, it would make more sense to use those.

-jj

I am 100% convinced of that.

@dawgtracker said:

Maybe they should have each team's line count one mississippi, two mississippi before moving. That would allow the QB time to throw the ball so he doesn't get hurt and the running back could already be past the line at that point.

Make the players play without cleats so that they cannot brace themselves as well.

Actually exactly the opposite is true. Linemen tend to accumulate concussions (and the resultant symptoms) at a far greater rate. The reason is the repetitive helmet to helmet contact without giving the body an opportunity to heal. A wide receiver might get blasted once, but may not take another hit for an hour if at all. Running backs tend to be able to protect themselves a little better because they never have to take their eye off the defense, and can mitigate hits by slipping hits and sliding out of bounds. Linemen have no choice.

-jj

@dawgtracker said:

When do most concussions occur? Please add something I might have missed...

1) Helmet hits the ground (MORE LIKELY TO BE A PROBLEM ON ARTIFICIAL TURF)

2) Helmet to Helmet

3) Shoulder pad or forearm to helmet

4) Helmet hits knee during tackling, tough one to prevent without playing touch football

arguably #1 cause of concussion>>>previous concussion(s). some sports science experts claim once you get one they occur much easier after that, leaving you more vulnerable to permanent injury down the road.

the functional lives of football players cannot be planned obsolescence. realistically there needs to at least be attempts made.

When do most concussions occur? Please add something I might have missed...

1) Helmet hits the ground (MORE LIKELY TO BE A PROBLEM ON ARTIFICIAL TURF)

2) Helmet to Helmet

3) Shoulder pad or forearm to helmet

4) Helmet hits knee during tackling, tough one to prevent without playing touch football

@daydawg19 said:

WOW!!! Waterboy's wore helmet's!!!! hmmm

LOL.....I was a little more than that, but no, I never claim to have been all that good at football. I saw my fair share of the action and started my fair share of games, but no...the SEC wasn't calling me up every couple of days.

Maybe they should have each team's line count one mississippi, two mississippi before moving. That would allow the QB time to throw the ball so he doesn't get hurt and the running back could already be past the line at that point.

Make the players play without cleats so that they cannot brace themselves as well.

@ballpeen said:

I also think padding outside the helmet....leather or foam is something that should be explored.

We basically have the same hard plastic used when I played HS football back in the early, mid 60's.

Seems like padding outside the helmet would be similar to crush zones on cars.

We basically have the same hard plastic used when I played HS football back in the early, mid 60's.

WOW!!! Waterboy's wore helmet's!!!! hmmm

I also think padding outside the helmet....leather or foam is something that should be explored.

We basically have the same hard plastic used when I played HS football back in the early, mid 60's.

Seems like padding outside the helmet would be similar to crush zones on cars.

@earl34 said:

I agree with ballpeen that smaller armor might help. Hell, I had a dream that they went back to leather helmets.

If you think that linemen don't get massive head injuries because they're "six inches apart" you're sorely mistaken. There are plenty of studies that show organic brain injury in them too.

Actually, the Time magazine article reports that John Madden, who is working with the NFL to help resolve the concussion problem, advocates increasing the amount of padding players wear on their bodies; the theory being that modern players have reduced the amount of padding they wear to increase speed and and for "fashion appeal." Madden says, "So the helmet becomes the only protected part of your body ... if players were required to wear more padding, they'd be less likely to consider their helmet a safe weapon."

There's significant research being done to develop improved helmets but one of the folks working to develop better equipment "warns against putting too much faith in helmet technology."

The article is quite interesting. Apparently it's even been suggested that football employ a penalty box to sideline players guilty of the most egregious head hits.

If your head isn't as protected by equipment, you are going to take measures to see that it is protected in the way you approach the game.

You can still make tackles without slamming your head in to someone.

I agree with ballpeen that smaller armor might help. Hell, I had a dream that they went back to leather helmets.

If you think that linemen don't get massive head injuries because they're "six inches apart" you're sorely mistaken. There are plenty of studies that show organic brain injury in them too.

@tim-couch-pulls-out said:

Yes, a two point stance rule would help the defense on run plays. However, the league is becoming a pass first league. Teams like the Saints and Colts throw the ball more often and more effectively than they run the ball. If the league continues to evolve in that direction, I think it helps the offenses more.

Who is going to lead with their head if they weren't wearing a helmet??

I am not suggesting we go without helmets or shoulder pads, but by reducing them to say the size and type used in the 60's, the problem would be fixed.

It might lead to more broken noses or bridge of the nose cuts.

It would also lead to better tackling, using the arms to wrap up rather than simply hitting a player to the ground.

Football is a contact sport. People tend to run into eachother and guess what? The players know that. They also know that they will make six figure paychecks for a week's worth of "work" doing something they love. We could list a thousand occupations in which people are at risk of injury or long-term negative effects. Are they concerned about making our jobs easier or safer? Not so much.

Players understand the risk involved in playing football and they are willing to take that risk. And the concerns don't stop at concussions. They also have bad knees, backs, shoulders, and thousands of dollars worth of nuts and bolts keeping them together. But so do A LOT of other people in their 50's who have worked their entire lives. I don't see anybody calling for less lifting at UPS, less typing at Progressive Insurance, less walking for Postal workers, less heat for chefs, less weight and lower temperatures for steel workers, or less time staring at computer screens for any of us. If you're going to ruin change football because of possible injuries that may occur, than you do it across the board. Its a contact sport in which employees understand the risks and are paid accordingly and then some for their work. The NFL has taken major steps in addressing this problem and are set to introduce new equipment that shoud help. That's should be enough. Changing the way the sport is played is just a joke. What happens when a baseball player gets hit with a ball? Why aren't they calling for automated pitching machines, outfilders standing 100 ft away from the plate, catchers standing up, and tennis balls? What about basketball players and their knee and ankle injuries that linger for a lifetime? Are they going to call for a no running or jumping clause in that sport?

nmills said:

According to the recent TIME magazine article on the topic, the amount of brain damage from every blow is significant. It's not just the massive hits that elicit groans from the crowd that are of concern. According to the quoted experts, the elimination of the three point stance is only one of several steps necessary to reduce head injuries for ALL football players not just the high profile ones. Other strategies include reducing the number of contact drills at all levels down to PeeWee leagues and, if I remember correctly, a requirement that coaches be trained and certified in how to prevent brain injuries. Improvements in equipment are also a part of the solution to a very serious problem.

@k-townbrown said:

With this rule, d-lineman will be playing higher giving an advantage to the bigger offensive lineman who usually dont have leverage at the point of attack.

It will be interesting to see what the league will do.

I think it will be about the same, actually. On running plays, it could benefit the defensive linemen tremendously. It's much harder to fire out of a two-point stance than a three-point stance and get your hat lower than the opposing lineman's. If the three point stance is taken away from the offensive lineman, it will take a full second longer for them to get on their blocks, giving the defensive line an extra second to get into their stunts/shifts.

With this rule, d-lineman will be playing higher giving an advantage to the bigger offensive lineman who usually dont have leverage at the point of attack.

It will be interesting to see what the league will do.