Tyler Eifert

[*Nately120*]

I'll draw a parallel here. I think smoking is stupid. I think anyone who smokes should be 100% aware that he's going to be sick and/or dead from it. I think people should have the right to smoke. I think people who thought smoking was "ok for you" back before packages were forced to have health warnings on them were also stupid.

You shouldn't need a warning label to tell you that breathing in smoke is unhealthy any more than you need a neurologist to tell you banging your head against a wall is bad for your brain. However, I do find something inherently sleazy in tobacco companies hiding scientific findings about the dangers of their product, having doctors recommend their cigarettes, and saying they can calm nerves and/or help an upset stomach, etc.

Yes, people can make their own decisions but we are also talking about areas where no small amount of effort has been made to hide the dangers before people "knew" what they were getting into. If concussions aren't a big deal and players "know what they are getting into" why did the NFL try to hide their impact?

It's like me letting you borrow my car. I didn't tell you the brakes were out before you put your family in and started off, but hey, cars crash so you knew what you were getting into.

[StLucieBengal]

(12-25-2015, 12:40 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Tyler Eifert isn't a neurologist and decisions he makes now that impact his future may have as much logic behind them as a 19 year old deciding a daily dose of heroin is something he can "totally handle."  I'm all for people making their own decisions, but I can understand why there may be some people trying to make playing in the NFL less of a high risk occupation by minimizing the amount of hits a man takes when he's recovering from a concussion.

Missing 2 games now could potentially save years of his career in the long run, so even if you don't give a toss about the guy wandering the streets like a mindless vagrant after he retires there are Bengals-related reasons to stop a guy in his 20's from running back out on the field post-concussion.  Your argument just seems like a non-argument and cop out even if we agree on the basis of "people can make their own decisions."

Where do we stop making decisions for people that we think is in their best interests?

Maybe anyone with a history of heart problems shouldn't be allowed to play sports or any physical jobs. What about the guys who work on oil rigs? They work there for the high pay and accept the high risk. No different than any football player. Where is the policy to stop those people from working the job they chose? There isn't because people know the risks and make the decision.

None of this has anything to do with my fandom. I just see the league overreaching because they got an unfavorable ruling in a lawsuit. A lawsuit launched by retired players who mishandled their money or were jealous at how salaries have gone up since they retired.

This policy would be valid if players still worked an offseason job like they used to back in the day. But they don't and are compensated for their risk .

[StLucieBengal]

(12-25-2015, 01:38 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Knew what?  About the long term effects of concussions?  We still don't know everything about the long-term effects of them, not the least of which being due to the NFL's attempts to minimize research and hide the impact.  For some reason everyone who even looked at a football in his life is a neurologist now.

It's not brain surgery here folks, it's football!  BOOM, football!

At what point does personal responsibility Come into play? This policy takes away personal responsibility and choice. This is just an alleged one size fits all solution to keep from getting sued. How anyone believes this has any players best interests in Mind is beyond me.

[StLucieBengal]

(12-25-2015, 01:41 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Heard an idea I really like the other day. If a player like Mitchell delivers an intentional dirty hit and injures a player, then the offending player is suspended the same number of games it takes the victimized player to return. If it's one game, it's one game. If he goes on IR, the suspension is for the season. If it retires him, the offending player is kicked out of the league. That should just about stop all of it.

No problem with this but who decides if it's intentional or not?   Some people would say Tez took out Bell... Even though he didn't.    How do you decide between accidental and intentional.   Obviously Mitchell and OBJ were intentional.   But what about the less obvious cases?


Besides Tomlin doesn't care if he loses Mitchell. He is terrible, and a below avg safety at best. His only value is internally taking elite players out.

[StLucieBengal]

(12-25-2015, 01:45 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I'll draw a parallel here.  I think smoking is stupid.  I think anyone who smokes should be 100% aware that he's going to be sick and/or dead from it.  I think people should have the right to smoke.  I think people who thought smoking was "ok for you" back before packages were forced to have health warnings on them were also stupid.  

You shouldn't need a warning label to tell you that breathing in smoke is unhealthy any more than you need a neurologist to tell you banging your head against a wall is bad for your brain.  However, I do find something inherently sleazy in tobacco companies hiding scientific findings about the dangers of their product, having doctors recommend their cigarettes, and saying they can calm nerves and/or help an upset stomach, etc.

Yes, people can make their own decisions but we are also talking about areas where no small amount of effort has been made to hide the dangers before people "knew" what they were getting into.  If concussions aren't a big deal and players "know what they are getting into" why did the NFL try to hide their impact?

It's like me letting you borrow my car.  I didn't tell you the brakes were out before you put your family in and started off, but hey, cars crash so you knew what you were getting into.

If I borrowed your car would it not be on me to ask you of there were any or ever have been any mechanical issues? Heck I ask enterprise that question when we rent a car. It's always the same answer but I always ask.

As far as smoking .... Which is the same as the concussion stuff. For a long time people did t know the risks and did what they thought was best. Times change as well as attitudes towards smoking. Now a days if someone wants to smoke and kill themselves then so be it .... Their choice.

[*Nately120*]

(12-25-2015, 06:37 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: At what point does personal responsibility Come into play? This policy takes away personal responsibility and choice.   This is just an alleged one size fits all solution to keep from getting sued.   How anyone believes this has any players best interests in Mind is beyond me.

So the NFL lies about the damage concussions can cause and you determine this caution they are now taking far after the fact is merely to protect a bazillion dollar business from frivolous litigation by people who "shoulda known football would lead to suicide because, duh obviously!"

I keep saying this, personal responsibility only works when you actually inform employees of the dangers they face.  If you intentionally lie and cover up risks then the players are NOT entering into the situation with the information they need to make a decision I would deem informed.  Today we actually have an idea what concussions do to people long-term and you just want to sit here and pretend it's still 1955 and that a guy should just get his "bell rung" and run back out on the field.

I don't hear anyone complaining that we take guys with damaged ACL's out of the game and keep them from running themselves into the ground and ruining their careers ala Gayle Sayers or something. Careers are longer now because we know more about treating injuries, as well as identifying and preventing further damage.

(12-25-2015, 06:49 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: If I borrowed your car would it not be on me to ask you of there were any or ever have been any mechanical issues?    Heck I ask enterprise that question when we rent a car.   It's always the same answer but I always ask.    

As far as smoking .... Which is the same as the concussion stuff.   For a long time people did t know the risks and did what they thought was best.    Times change as well as attitudes towards smoking.   Now a days if someone wants to smoke and kill themselves then so be it ....   Their choice.

The point I'm making about the car would involve Enterprise knowing the car was dangerous and had issues (as the NFL knew of concussions years ago) and then lying and saying it had a clean bill and was in perfect order.  I assume you'd be annoyed of someone took that risk for your family's health and safety for the sake of money, right?  

And my example about smoking is that you shouldn't need a doctor to tell you it's bad for you any more than I need a neurologist to tell me getting head injures for a living is a bad idea...point is, in both cases tobacco companies and the NFL lied and/or hired medical personnel to lie and minimize the risks.  

You and I both want to let people make informed decisions, but the NFL denied information to those making the decisions for years.  I wonder why that was...maybe concussions are a big deal and what you are seeing now is long overdue.

[Earendil]

(12-25-2015, 06:40 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: No problem with this but who decides if it's intentional or not?   Some people would say Tez took out Bell... Even though he didn't.    How do you decide between accidental and intentional.   Obviously Mitchell and OBJ were intentional.   But what about the less obvious cases?


Besides Tomlin doesn't care if he loses Mitchell.  He is terrible, and a below avg safety at best.    His only value is internally taking elite players out.

Right, there's no way to prove something was intentional, all the player has to say is "I didn't mean to hurt him".  Rather than base it on some assumed level of intent, there should be a 1st offense, 2nd offense sort of thing.  If a player has hit someone in the head x number of times, then they automatically get a 2 game suspension.  And for each time after that, the suspension increases by 2 games.

If they did something like this, Mitchell would be banned for life in no time.

[StLucieBengal]

(12-25-2015, 08:19 PM)Nately120 Wrote: So the NFL lies about the damage concussions can cause and you determine this caution they are now taking far after the fact is merely to protect a bazillion dollar business from frivolous litigation by people who "shoulda known football would lead to suicide because, duh obviously!"

I keep saying this, personal responsibility only works when you actually inform employees of the dangers they face.  If you intentionally lie and cover up risks then the players are NOT entering into the situation with the information they need to make a decision I would deem informed.  Today we actually have an idea what concussions do to people long-term and you just want to sit here and pretend it's still 1955 and that a guy should just get his "bell rung" and run back out on the field.

I don't hear anyone complaining that we take guys with damaged ACL's out of the game and keep them from running themselves into the ground and ruining their careers ala Gayle Sayers or something.  Careers are longer now because we know more about treating injuries, as well as identifying and preventing further damage.


The point I'm making about the car would involve Enterprise knowing the car was dangerous and had issues (as the NFL knew of concussions years ago) and then lying and saying it had a clean bill and was in perfect order.  I assume you'd be annoyed of someone took that risk for your family's health and safety for the sake of money, right?  

And my example about smoking is that you shouldn't need a doctor to tell you it's bad for you any more than I need a neurologist to tell me getting head injures for a living is a bad idea...point is, in both cases tobacco companies and the NFL lied and/or hired medical personnel to lie and minimize the risks.  

You and I both want to let people make informed decisions, but the NFL denied information to those making the decisions for years.  I wonder why that was...maybe concussions are a big deal and what you are seeing now is long overdue.

You keep saying the NFL hid details.   Ok.  I have conceded that.....  Well the facts are out there now.  So there is no need for an arbitrary protocol when we all know there is no 1 fits all remedy.  

Anyone who has ever taken a job ( a voluntary job btw)  knows the risks.   Sometimes the money outweighs the risk.   Would you take the chance on a maybe head injury later in life to make a generational change in your families wealth?    Just depends on what you prioritize.    We all get to choose our priorities.   Sometimes people choose to change their family tree.

As far as the NFL's crime of hiding evidence. They paid for that with a lawsuit. So that debt has been paid. Now we all know the risks

[Sled21]

(12-25-2015, 06:40 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: No problem with this but who decides if it's intentional or not?   Some people would say Tez took out Bell... Even though he didn't.    How do you decide between accidental and intentional.   Obviously Mitchell and OBJ were intentional.   But what about the less obvious cases?


Tomlin doesn't care if he loses Mitchell.  He is terrible, and a below avg safety at best.    His only value is internally taking elite players out.

Obviously the call of intentional would have to come later in the week with an extensive review of tape. I'm not talking about incidental contact, I'm talking about intentional. Look at the tape of the Giants/Panthers game and look at the head to head hit by the ******* on the Giants team. There can be no doubt that was intentional. That's the kind of play I'm talking about....

[*Nately120*]

(12-25-2015, 10:14 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: So there is no need for an arbitrary protocol when we all know there is no 1 fits all remedy.

Who is concluding the system is arbitrary?  You, the guy who trusts the biased opinion of someone who just suffered brain damage over an independent neurologist?  The world is still full of dangerous jobs where people risk life and limb and know the risks, but in the NFL if someone like Eifert sits out 2 games and it means he plays an additional 3 hypothetical seasons I would say the system may be helpful for players, teams, and fans.

I guess the real question is now that you KNOW the NFL is going to enforce this BS concussion protocol are you willing to accept it and keep watching, or are you going to find something less regulated to watch?

[StLucieBengal]

(12-26-2015, 02:19 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Who is concluding the system is arbitrary?  You, the guy who trusts the biased opinion of someone who just suffered brain damage over an independent neurologist?  The world is still full of dangerous jobs where people risk life and limb and know the risks, but in the NFL if someone like Eifert sits out 2 games and it means he plays an additional 3 hypothetical seasons I would say the system may be helpful for players, teams, and fans.

I guess the real question is now that you KNOW the NFL is going to enforce this BS concussion protocol are you willing to accept it and keep watching, or are you going to find something less regulated to watch?

There is no way to know whether sitting out 1 week, 2 weeks, etc is the right amount of time. It depends on the person. These protocol situations just leave people sitting out a set amount of time .... Could be too much .... Could be not enough. Only ones who know is the person and their doctors.

I don't mind if Eifert says hey I'm gonna take 2 weeks to make sure. It's his call:

Heck we have a RB in Atlanta in the concussion. Protocol for slipping is his shower. This is insane.

[Luvnit2]

(12-25-2015, 10:14 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: You keep saying the NFL hid details.   Ok.  I have conceded that.....  Well the facts are out there now.  So there is no need for an arbitrary protocol when we all know there is no 1 fits all remedy.  

Anyone who has ever taken a job ( a voluntary job btw)  knows the risks.   Sometimes the money outweighs the risk.   Would you take the chance on a maybe head injury later in life to make a generational change in your families wealth?    Just depends on what you prioritize.    We all get to choose our priorities.   Sometimes people choose to change their family tree.

As far as the NFL's crime of hiding evidence.  They paid for that with a lawsuit.   So that debt has been paid.   Now we all know the risks

It is 2015 and almost 2016. There is no longer a debate on who knows what. The players now know the risks may be long term, so any future injury to their brains or anything is 100% on them. Their choice is a simple one, either take the risk and play (and get paid a ton of money to take the risk) or go do something else that likely pays them a lot less money due to the lower risk. 

[StLucieBengal]

(12-26-2015, 03:43 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: It is 2015 and almost 2016. There is no longer a debate on who knows what. The players now know the risks may be long term, so any future injury to their brains or anything is 100% on them. Their choice is a simple one, either take the risk and play (and get paid a ton of money to take the risk) or go do something else that likely pays them a lot less money due to the lower risk. 

Yes they can always sell insurance or be a teacher.

[*Nately120*]

(12-26-2015, 06:43 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Yes they can always sell insurance or be a teacher.

Yes, the guys who have enough brain damage to be irrationally violent should be teachers.  Great compromise.

[*rfaulk34*]

(12-26-2015, 03:34 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: There is no way to know whether sitting out 1 week, 2 weeks, etc is the right amount of time.   It depends on the person.   These protocol situations just leave people sitting out a set amount of time .... Could be too much .... Could be not enough.     Only ones who know is the person and their doctors.  

I don't mind if Eifert says hey I'm gonna take 2 weeks to make sure.   It's his call:  

Heck we have a RB in Atlanta in the concussion. Protocol for slipping is his shower.     This is insane.

It's not arbitrary. True, people respond to head trauma differently, that's why there are a battery of tests--which include the appearance of concussion symptoms--before a player is allowed to do any physical activity.    

Signs and symptoms of a concussion may include:

• Headache or a feeling of pressure in the head
• Temporary loss of consciousness
• Confusion or feeling as if in a fog
• Amnesia surrounding the traumatic event
• Dizziness or "seeing stars"
• Ringing in the ears
• Nausea
• Vomiting
• Slurred speech
• Delayed response to questions
• Appearing dazed
• Fatigue
  

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/concussion/basics/symptoms/con-20019272

[StLucieBengal]

(12-26-2015, 10:08 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Yes, the guys who have enough brain damage to be irrationally violent should be teachers.  Great compromise.

There was an or in there lol

Based on how many people are on goofball pills for mood disorders I am quite sure there are plenty of teachers who fall into the violence category.

[*Nately120*]

(12-26-2015, 10:14 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: There was an or in there lol

Based on how many people are on goofball pills for mood disorders I am quite sure there are plenty of teachers who fall into the violence category.

Have you had a history of head trauma, by chance?  Just curious.

[StLucieBengal]

(12-26-2015, 10:19 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Have you had a history of head trauma, by chance?  Just curious.

Played football grades 2 to college grad. So 13 years. I'm sure I have had an undocumented concussion before. I do forget things on occasion sometimes mod convo. So I am sure there is something there, but I'm ok with it .... The life expierence changed my outlook on life and how I face problems .

[*Nately120*]

(12-26-2015, 10:29 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Played football grades 2 to college grad.   So 13 years.    I'm sure I have had an undocumented concussion before.   I do forget things on occasion sometimes mod convo.   So I am sure there is something there, but I'm ok with it ....    The life expierence changed my outlook on life and how I face problems .

That's inspirational.  I'm going to get Lifetime on the horn and see if we can get you a TV movie.

[StLucieBengal]

(12-26-2015, 11:52 PM)Nately120 Wrote: That's inspirational.  I'm going to get Lifetime on the horn and see if we can get you a TV movie.

Do you expect me to feel sorry for myself because I risked my quality of life playing football? I don't and I would do the exact same thing again. My fingers are in pain and my right shoulder it tricky .

I don't get upset at these things because I used football to get me ahead. Just a like these professionals are using it...