Home
News Post

Sound Off: Is Roger Goodell Going Too Far?

  12:12 PM - May 23, 2012 by MMChrisS


It's an age old debate of safety vs. sanctity. With rumors swirling that the NFL might go as far as eliminating kickoffs, and with knee/thigh pads being required to be worn by players (among many other cases) starting in 2013 the question is simple: is Roger Goodell ruining a once great game by overreaching/dumbing down the game or is he doing the right thing protecting the players?

Sound off!

Member Comments
# 41 Baughn3 @ 05/24/12 12:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ABR173rd
I also listened to some guy try to explain the other day how wearing mouth guards will significantly decrease concussions which I find to be a little far fetched.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bkrich83
Mouthpieces do decrease concussions.
Yep. There have been a number of studies showing that a good mouthpiece can help align the jaw and can reduce concussions on certain types of impacts.
 
# 42 Broncos86 @ 05/24/12 08:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bkrich83
Mouthpieces do decrease concussions.
This is correct.

Anyways, I have no issues with what Goodell has done. The way I see it: The Saints were caught, warned to stop doing it, and they agreed. Then they didn't stop, get caught again, and are punished. Now people are upset about it? The last thing the NFL needs is the image that the league is run by goons. Regardless of whether that's true or not.

I like what the Commissioner has done. Some of the players, and the NFLPA, are lunatics for being upset. I'm so sick of the NFLPA at this point.
 
# 43 Chrisksaint @ 05/24/12 02:54 PM
The one time I've got a concussion playing was without using my mouthpiece in spring practice once as it was the 1st day of pads and I completely forgot it at home(luckily it was minor).

I'm not seriously upset with Goodell over the Saints stuff, all I want to is see this evidence before I make the judgement on that.
 
# 44 ProfessaPackMan @ 05/24/12 03:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bkrich83
I will say watching Saints fans with an obvious axe to grind is funny though.
Thought it was just me that was noticing that. To every Saints Fan, Roger Goodell is the Devil and just wants to screw them over LOL.
 
# 45 JerseySuave4 @ 05/24/12 05:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bkrich83
I will say this, they do slow you down, and they are not comfortable. In college I basically cut them down to almost nothing. Not even sure how I was allowed to play with them under NCAA rules.

In my brief foray in to football post college, I did not wear thigh or knee pads, and much preferred it that way. Much less restrictive, much more comfortable and yes you feel quicker. To be honest, I find thigh and knee pads to be almost useless. I can't ever remember a time from pop warner to HS to College to beyond where I ever felt my knee or thigh pads saved me from an injury.
they don't slow you down. I wore them when i played. Especially these days with them built in the girdle. And Nike will certainly develop newer pads that are probably smaller and more comfortable.
 
# 46 rpelas1 @ 05/24/12 08:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProfessaPackMan
Thought it was just me that was noticing that. To every Saints Fan, Roger Goodell is the Devil and just wants to screw them over LOL.
I imagine you would be upset too. Rooting for a terrible team your entire life, finally see them become one of the best franchises in the league. Then out of nowhere have your team's best coach ever suspended for an entire season as well as your leader on your already subpar defense. It sucks.

Most other Saints fans i know really just want the proof. It's not that we think we should have no penalty for these things. It's more about how little we really know about what went down. We just want the proof.
 
# 47 bkrich83 @ 05/24/12 08:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseySuave4
they don't slow you down. I wore them when i played. Especially these days with them built in the girdle. And Nike will certainly develop newer pads that are probably smaller and more comfortable.
I absolutely disagree. There's a noticeable difference when you don't wear them. It's no accident the guys in the NFL don't wear them.
 
# 48 Chrisksaint @ 05/24/12 08:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bkrich83
I absolutely disagree. There's a noticeable difference when you don't wear them. It's no accident the guys in the NFL don't wear them.
Yeah, for me it wasn't necessarily the weight that slowed me down as much as seemingly limiting my range of motion or whatever you want to call it.
 
# 49 TDenverFan @ 05/24/12 08:42 PM
Seeing as Denver's kickoff coverage has been awful for the past 5 years, I can't complain.

Kidding. Awful idea.
 
# 50 bkrich83 @ 05/24/12 08:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProfessaPackMan
Thought it was just me that was noticing that. To every Saints Fan, Roger Goodell is the Devil and just wants to screw them over LOL.
Yeah it's apparent right away. LOL. Although lets face it they haven't been the most rational fan base to begin with over the last couple of years.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TDenverFan
Seeing as Denver's kickoff coverage has been awful for the past 5 years, I can't complain.

Kidding. Awful idea.
Yeah if they eliminated all Special Teams in 2010, the Chargers might have been good. lol

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrisksaint
Yeah, for me it wasn't necessarily the weight that slowed me down as much as seemingly limiting my range of motion or whatever you want to call it.
Exactly..

If you play a game without them, it's instantly noticeable. Like I said I didn't wear them in my brief but unspectacular post college football career, but after playing that way, I would't want to go back to wearing them.

I know I am repeating myself, but there's a reason the NFL guys don't wear them when not forced to. Plus the notion that this is somehow going to have some significant impact on cutting down injuries is laughable to me.
 
# 51 simgamer0005 @ 05/24/12 09:24 PM
i just go back to 2007, when college football decided to move the kickoffs from the 35 to the 30 to "showcase the most exciting play in football". this, following the NFL's lead of having their kickoffs at the 30 for many years prior. now there's talk of removing kickoffs altogether? what a complete 180. now in 2012, a year after the NFL moves its kickoffs back to the 35, college football follows the NFL again and does it, only with a twist, touchbacks are now at the 25. (still can't get over that one)

where was the consideration for player safety in 2007 when CFB moved kickoffs back to the 30? nowhere to be found, i think they just were trying to shake things up to try to make people forget about those ridiculous clock rules of 2006. all i know is that it's hard to fake football. all these rules trying to outlaw certain blocks or wedges or whatever, it won't guarantee there won't be a concussion. i think the 35 yard line is fine, even if there's less returns and more touchbacks. but as an NFL fan, people got used to the 30 yard line. and when i was growing up, i thought there was a logical reason that CFB had it at the 35 yard line and the NFL had it at the 30. but then when they switched it around, it just really felt weird, it felt like nothing that was being done made any sense and they were just trying random stuff for random reasons. (first showcasing the most exciting play in football, now player safety - opposites)
 
# 52 mestevo @ 05/24/12 09:36 PM
FWIW I don't think kickoffs will ever go away and were just an example by Mara during a case of verbal diarrhea in April of how much the NFL is considering to make the game safer.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
# 53 Kaiser Wilhelm @ 05/24/12 09:44 PM
I don't think he wields too much power but I do think the owners should probably look into a new way to govern their game. It seems the owners have no clue what the league rules are.

As for removing the kickoffs, if the trend of people not being responsible for themselves continues, it may come to that. If you sign up to play professional football then you should know the inherent risks. It just perplexes that people choose to blame others for not thinking things through.

Maybe I'm just outdated in my belief that individuals are the ultimate sovereign over themselves and thus ultimately responsible for themselves and the consequences of their own actions.
 
# 54 KBLover @ 05/24/12 10:21 PM
No kickoffs - that's ridiculous. That's right up there with no 3-point stance. What's next? No punts because someone might not call fair catch in time? Just move the ball back 40 yards and change possession?

Sure, player safety is important - but there will ALWAYS be hard hits in the game and not all of them are illegal or malicious. A good form tackle delivered by a powerful man with momentum is just as forceful, and not a thing illegal about it. Same for a good, classic "pancake" that a charging OT might lay on a DB looking to make said form tackle.

It seems like he's trying to take the contact out of a contact sport. The pads - well, why didn't he do this last year? That's what I don't get. He's about player safety, but is just now mandating full pads? Huh?

He should ban turf too - That stuff can tear up feet, knees, and ankles. Cleats can catch on it, not allowing the momentum to cause the feet to come off the ground. Instead, the torque stays in the leg/joint and...ouch.

I suppose the next thing he'll try is shorter quarters. Fewer plays = fewer hits after all...
 
# 55 simgamer0005 @ 05/24/12 10:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KBLover
No kickoffs - that's ridiculous. That's right up there with no 3-point stance. What's next? No punts because someone might not call fair catch in time? Just move the ball back 40 yards and change possession?
It's honestly amazing that the idea of eliminating kickoffs would even be suggested. it's hard to even think about football without kickoffs, or punts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KBLover
Sure, player safety is important - but there will ALWAYS be hard hits in the game and not all of them are illegal or malicious. A good form tackle delivered by a powerful man with momentum is just as forceful, and not a thing illegal about it. Same for a good, classic "pancake" that a charging OT might lay on a DB looking to make said form tackle.

It seems like he's trying to take the contact out of a contact sport. The pads - well, why didn't he do this last year? That's what I don't get. He's about player safety, but is just now mandating full pads? Huh?
Good point. All these rule changes yet only now is he mandating full pads? see player safety is a tough one, it's like if you don't fully support all these rule changes, it's like you are seen as insensitive and want to see players injured, which is not true at all. what puts a wrench in that logic is the fact that they moved the kickoffs back to the 30 to encourage more returns, like in college football in 2007. it's like they do things to make the game more dangerous then a few years later revert the rule back to what it was in the name of player safety. i actually think that all the rule changes year to year affect strategy and make the game more dangerous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KBLover
He should ban turf too - That stuff can tear up feet, knees, and ankles. Cleats can catch on it, not allowing the momentum to cause the feet to come off the ground. Instead, the torque stays in the leg/joint and...ouch.
And yeah really, grass is softer than turf. in the old days turf used to be like concrete, but now they have field turf which is a bit softer but yeah.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KBLover
I suppose the next thing he'll try is shorter quarters. Fewer plays = fewer hits after all...
ha, no that's too obvious. they actually have much fewer plays then they used to. you know there was a time when you ran out of bounds and the clock would actually stop...and would stay stopped until the next snap! now when you run out of bounds, the ref spots it and clock is restarted, making the game shorter.
 
# 56 iAM-IncReDiBLe- @ 05/25/12 09:24 AM
When I wore knee pads they slowed me down. I hated them an it was an annoyance.
 
# 57 N51_rob @ 05/26/12 07:34 PM
My earlier post I said I don't think he (Goodell) has gone to far. But if the NFL sues to block New Jersey from opening up sports betting then yes, he will have gone way to far.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...over-gambling/

Stay out of State Legislature, period. The NFL has no business suing the state of New Jersey over this IMHO.
 
# 58 TheMatrix31 @ 05/26/12 07:40 PM
Pads are fine, I guess, bit kickoffs are going nowhere. And if they one day say "we're not having kickoffs anymore", I'm done with the league.
 
# 59 mestevo @ 05/26/12 08:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by N51_rob
My earlier post I said I don't think he (Goodell) has gone to far. But if the NFL sues to block New Jersey from opening up sports betting then yes, he will have gone way to far.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...over-gambling/

Stay out of State Legislature, period. The NFL has no business suing the state of New Jersey over this IMHO.
I'm hoping this is one fight that paves the way for one of my pipe dreams... at some point in the future they're playing 17-18+ games, with the 16 home/away supplemented by neutral/international site games by all teams every season. NFL has to get over the gambling thing for Vegas to ever have an opportunity to be one of those regularly played at neutral sites. Vegas also still needs a venue.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
 
# 60 Brandon13 @ 05/28/12 11:29 AM
I am a Saints fan so I do carry a certain level of bias, but to be clear, I do not deny that under Gregg Williams the Saints appear to have run a pay-for-performance system. There also may have been a $10,000 bounty placed upon Favre in the '09 NFCC (though it is interesting that Vilma has so vehemently denied this, up to the point of personally suing Goodell for defamation). If the latter occurred, it should be punished rather severely. But I am not convinced that Goodell possesses the mountain of evidence within his 50,000 documents that backs up his claim that Saints' players systematically participated in a bounty system throughout Williams tenure in New Orleans. And slowly, more and more people in the media are asking questions about the lack of evidence.

It makes little sense to me for Goodell to ask for NFLPA input on the severity of player suspensions if his evidence is strong and backs up all of his Bountygate claims. With NFLPA support, I suspect that the players' penalties may have been less severe, and it would have allowed Goodell to close the book on Bountygate without further inquiries into the evidence. As it is, the union did not accept a plea deal with the league without any evidence of the offenses and Goodell came down harshly on Vilma and co.

In addition, the league clearly misrepresented the content of Anthony Hargrove's sworn statement. Why? Why misrepresent his statement if the mountain of evidence exists, and instead choose to battle the union through the media?

Those things, coupled with the lack of actual evidence that has been publicly released does give me pause, and makes me believe that Goodell may have gone too far.
 


Post A Comment
Only OS members can post comments
Please login or register to post a comment.