08-09-2017, 12:10 PM
(08-09-2017, 02:11 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Awesome. That's from 2013. Or half the data. Where's the rest of it? You made the claim, prove it.
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81990bdf/article/new-nfl-rules-designed-to-limit-head-injuries
The NFL made hits to the head and neck a point of emphasis in 2010. So are the increased injuries because of less practice time or because players aim for the knees instead of the head as a result of the rule changes which preceded the CBA by a year?
Let's check what the peanut gallery has to say. Here's one guy who claims players are targeting knees because of the rule changes . . .
And here's another guy claiming the rules to reduce concussions will increase other injuries . . .
How would more practice have prevented Mike Williams' herniated disc? How would more practice have prevented Forest Lamp's torn ACL? More practice wouldn't have prevented either of those injuries because they are the result of trauma. More practice won't make discs herniated less or ACLs rupture less.
What do the Chargers medical staff have a history of? Not having anything to do with preventing Williams' herniated disc or Lamp's torn ACL? Or not having anything to do with the CBA practice rules? Or nothing to do with your original comment? They have a history of a lot of things. You need to be more specific.
You asked for data. I provided data to support my claim and prove yours incorrect.
Personally I think CTE scare is nonsense and that players know the risks and are paid accordingly. This is why there should be practice limits or concussion protocols. If a player wants to go to the facility everyday they should be able to go to work.
