Pollard: NFL will be gone in 30 years

**Cj34** · 01-28-2013, 06:55 AM

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/B...0-years-012713

Bernard brings up some interesting points. I agree with him in a sense. While i don't think the NFL will be gone in 30 years, I do think football will be nothing close to what we watch now.

**ActualSpamBot** · 01-28-2013, 07:00 AM

Try to watch a game from 30 years ago (a game, not highlights.) THAT is nothing close to what we watch now either. The players are smaller, slower. The offenses are incredibly bland and boring. The "hits" that people love going on about are there, but more often they simply hugged the ball carrier to the ground because the speed of the game was slow enough that players could take soft angles and simply drag runners down.

Frankly, outside of the occasional gem, most 70's and 80's football would be derided as total crap by today's standards. It was a slower, less strategic, far more boring game.

**Ravenswintitle** · 01-28-2013, 07:18 AM

after people start to die? http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl...5116--nfl.html

**Captain Silver** · 01-28-2013, 07:21 AM

Originally Posted by ActualSpamBot

Frankly, outside of the occasional gem, most 70's and 80's football would be derided as total crap by today's standards. It was a slower, less strategic, far more boring game.

Guess you never watched any 49ers vs. Giants games, or Super Bowl 23. Hell, I don't even like Dan Marino or the Dolphins and I saw prolific passing. The Bears 86 defense was a thing of beauty. Not sure what the hell you are talking about, but 80's football was the turning point in the modern NFL, so pack up that noise and sell it somewhere else.

**ActualSpamBot** · 01-28-2013, 07:22 AM

Originally Posted by Ravenswintitle

after people start to die? http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl...5116--nfl.html

Hughes died of a heart condition unrelated to football. Not really germane to Pollard's point.

**ActualSpamBot** · 01-28-2013, 07:28 AM

Originally Posted by Captain Silver

Guess you never watched any 49ers vs. Giants games, or Super Bowl 23. Hell, I don't even like Dan Marino or the Dolphins and I saw prolific passing. The Bears 86 defense was a thing of beauty. Not sure what the hell you are talking about, but 80's football was the turning point in the modern NFL, so pack up that noise and sell it somewhere else.

You're talking about mid-80's stuff. I'm talking about the 70's to 1980, before the chuck rule and other offensive procedure rules in 1978 were instituted. Go back and rewatch that era. Also, the existence of good games or even consistently exciting players or teams in no way invalidates my point that a great many games of the pre-offense rule change era would be derided as boring or unwatchable by most people today.

Odd how those rule changes I'm talking about coincide with the "turning point" you are huh?

**Captain Silver** · 01-28-2013, 07:35 AM

Originally Posted by ActualSpamBot

You're talking about mid-80's stuff. I'm talking about the 70's to 1980, before the chuck rule and other offensive procedure rules in 1978 were instituted. Go back and rewatch that era. Also, the existence of good games or even consistently exciting players or teams in no way invalidates my point that a great many games of the pre-offense rule change era would be derided as boring or unwatchable by most people today.

Odd how those rule changes I'm talking about coincide with the "turning point" you are huh?

No, you said 70's and 80's, NOT 70's to 1980. Odd how, you backtrack and double talk your way into saying you weren't wrong about something.

How about this ASB, "My bad, you are right."?

**Paintballguy** · 01-28-2013, 07:47 AM

I think as more info comes out on head injuries, it's going to force the NFL to change. They will get hammered with lawsuits.

**ActualSpamBot** · 01-28-2013, 07:51 AM

Originally Posted by Captain Silver

No, you said 70's and 80's, NOT 70's to 1980. Odd how, you backtrack and double talk your way into saying you weren't wrong about something.

How about this ASB, "My bad, you are right."?

I thought it was clear that my point was about the pre-offense era, clearly I forgot to include the reference to the 78 rule change. MY BAD. That said, I maintain, that era (even well into the mid 80's) were inferior compared to today's NFL. The game is bigger, faster, and more complex than ever, and we may be nearing a point of unsustainability with regards to continuing in that direction. Pollard's point spoke to that as well. Football will probably have to radically change how players can hit each other, because coaches aren't going to agree to simply not draft the biggest and fastest guys.

**Captain Silver** · 01-28-2013, 07:57 AM

Originally Posted by ActualSpamBot

I thought it was clear that my point was about the pre-offense era, clearly I forgot to include the reference to the 78 rule change. MY BAD. That said, I maintain, that era (even well into the mid 80's) were inferior compared to today's NFL. The game is bigger, faster, and more complex than ever, and we may be nearing a point of unsustainability with regards to continuing in that direction. Pollard's point spoke to that as well. Football will probably have to radically change how players can hit each other, because coaches aren't going to agree to simply not draft the biggest and fastest guys.

Appreciated.

And I fully agree with the game evolving, but everything is like that, from food, cars, to war, everything gets better, faster, and in many cases BIGGER.

I also agree that there is going to come a day, where the big hit is gone. The trying to dislodge the ball by force will be considered illegal. Tackles will be just that, grab and drag down, no "pops".

But I disagree that there wasn't prolific offense in the 80's. Dan Fouts threw for almost 5,000 yards and 30 touchdowns in 1980.

**GOTA** · 01-28-2013, 08:17 AM

70's offenses weren't that bad. The innovation that came with the merger created some interesting teams in Oakland and Cincinnati. The Oilers and Dolphins were also fun with their different takes on how to run the ball. The 60's NFL offenses weren't that exciting. Everyone tried to do exactly what the Packers were doing. The game was different and will continue to be different but I don't see it going away in my lifetime.

**Tucking** · 01-28-2013, 08:22 AM

Alot of things won't survive the next 30 years. Hell our country is one of them.

**lobachevsky** · 01-28-2013, 08:32 AM

The NFL has just banged up hard against the laws of physics & the anatomy of the human head.

The "big hits" that the aboriginal NFL fan treasures are in fact attempts to inflict, not necessarily injury (though at times that's true), but specifically pain (Nature's way of telling you, Don't let that happen again) as a way to compel opponents to, shall we say, moderate their efforts.

There are probably ways to minimize the chance of most injury while retaining the infliction of pain. The problem there is that, in the same way that providing more & better protective gear has enabled & encouraged reckless abandon in the speed & fury of action, players would quickly learn to decouple their perceptions of pain from the fear of injury--& that could get really dangerous, since pain is the only gut-level warning you get that you're going into dangerous territory.

But there really is no way to reduce brain trauma to any level approaching acceptable, other than to flag & fine any & all collisions with the helmet. You'd still get some, as the brain smacks up against the inner irregularities of the skull during rapid acceleration or deceleration, but you could probably implement some sort of shock-absorbing collar to augment the damping capabilities of spinal column & neck muscles.

It's either that or flags, folks.

**lobachevsky** · 01-28-2013, 08:43 AM

There is one other thing you could do to reduce the actual damage of hard hitting while retaining the appearance: Limit the mass of each player.

If the NFL stays on the track of continually tightening restrictions on the violence of play, I could imagine someone forming an Unconstrained Football League where players would be limited by weight to no more than (say) 100 kg using equipment designed for maximum safety but all hits allowed. It would be a different game from the former NFL (& certainly from the NFL as it's evolving) but in some ways might be even more interesting. For one thing, most teams would consist of players near or at the size limit, & the notion of player versatility could be pushed to the limit--e.g., you could never really be at all sure who would be coming on a blitz & who dropping into coverage.

It would be interesting to see how well a league like that might do vs the future NFL.

**alienrace** · 01-28-2013, 08:47 AM

There's a simple way to avoid the lawsuits - make them sign waivers when they join the league saying that they won't sue them for injuries.

**Ravenswintitle** · 01-28-2013, 08:53 AM

Originally Posted by alienrace

There's a simple way to avoid the lawsuits - make them sign waivers when they join the league saying that they won't sue them for injuries.

even if they started that today there's a lot of players that are and will continue to sue...

**blah3** · 01-28-2013, 08:54 AM

Originally Posted by lobachevsky

The NFL has just banged up hard against the laws of physics & the anatomy of the human head.

The "big hits" that the aboriginal NFL fan treasures are in fact attempts to inflict, not necessarily injury (though at times that's true), but specifically pain (Nature's way of telling you, Don't let that happen again) as a way to compel opponents to, shall we say, moderate their efforts.

It's either that or flags, folks.

I think the 'hard hits' have come about by making the rules tilt towards the offenses favor. You want to reduce the 'big hits', especially to the head? Eliminate the 5 yard chuck rule.

**ActualSpamBot** · 01-28-2013, 09:09 AM

Originally Posted by alienrace

There's a simple way to avoid the lawsuits - make them sign waivers when they join the league saying that they won't sue them for injuries.

Very few waivers like that are actually enforceable. It's basically not a viable legal defense to claim that you can't be sued for damages if the damages in question are found to have been preventable.

To quote a legal article I'm currently reading:

"Most, if not all states prohibit waivers of liability based on willful or wanton misconduct, gross negligence or intentional acts."

All players have to do is convince a jury that the NFL's inability to remove those violet, brain damaging hits from the game constitutes gross misconduct or negligence on the NFL's part. I don't think it will be very hard to do that unless the league continues to penalize and fine those hits. Simply forcing the players to sign a waiver won't be enough without continued enforcement of the safety efforts.

Also, what makes you think the players would be willing to do that? Sign away their right to sue preemptively? No chance.

**NCRAVEN** · 01-28-2013, 09:12 AM

Originally Posted by ActualSpamBot

Very few waivers like that are actually enforceable. It's basically not a viable legal defense to claim that you can't be sued for damages if the damages in question are found to have been preventable.

To quote a legal article I'm currently reading:

All players have to do is convince a jury that the NFL's inability to remove those violet, brain damaging hits from the game constitutes gross misconduct or negligence on the NFL's part. I don't think it will be very hard to do that unless the league continues to penalize and fine those hits. Simply forcing the players to sign a waiver won't be enough without continued enforcement of the safety efforts.

Also, what makes you think the players would be willing to do that? Sign away their right to sue preemptively? No chance.

I don't think it would be that hard to do. Whether it's enforceable or not, is another story. But at any given time you're basically talking about, what, max 2,000 guys getting paid to play pro-football? I don't think it would be that hard to find 2,000 guys to sign that waiver in exchange for a few million.

**ActualSpamBot** · 01-28-2013, 09:17 AM

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

I don't think it would be that hard to do. Whether it's enforceable or not, is another story. But at any given time you're basically talking about, what, max 2,000 guys getting paid to play pro-football? I don't think it would be that hard to find 2,000 guys to sign that waiver in exchange for a few million.

Any random group of 2000 guys? Maybe. But millions of people don't pay BILLIONS of dollars a year to watch any random crowd of 22 guys hit each other. They watch for the Tom Bradys, Ray Lewises, Calvin Johnsons, and Russel Wilsons. If replacement football was watchable you'd have a point, but look at what happened to every league that ever tried it. Nothing close to the amount of fans, money, or ratings as the NFL.

People might say they cheer for the jerseys, but we tune in because of the men wearing them.