Never hear ex-hockey players whining!
In their parlance, the NFL really doesn't look after their former players very well.
Gee, I thought hurtling your body full speed against another oversized body traveling in the oposite direction was good for you. I mean, you destroy a lot of cells that way and the body rebuilds new, healthy ones, kinda like exfoliating your skin, right?
Owl_Eagle
If what I just wrote made you sad or angry,
it was probably just a joke.
You know, it's counterintuitive, but I think that many of the injuries we now see in football, especially concussions, are a result of "better" equipment. We have faster and bigger player using more force (mass x acceleration) against each other and causing more injuries.
For anecdotal evidence, look at rugby players. They are just as "rough and tough" as footballers but their injuries are actually reduced because of less padding and equipment.
For instance, you protect your head with a stronger helmet and you feel that you can't be hurt thus taking chances. Do it once w/out a helmet and you've leaned.
Just a thought.
This is what Tiki Barber was saying all this year. Enough of the pounding, it's time to get out. No one forces these guys to play ball. It's a job. If you don't like the risks, get out.
So these crybabies think we now owe them something? They were well paid. If they have medical issues, they should be able to afford the treatment.
I don't see anybody crying for the waitress who has knee or hip problems from years of being on her feet. Or the burned-out lawyer or doctor or business executive who drinks too much because of the day-in, day-out stress he or she endures. Or the construction worker whose joints ache with arthritis after years of heavy use and abuse. Come on, get real!
I thought this was why they were paid the "big bucks".
Guess not.
But, it does explain why the NFL has no rocket scientists and brain surgeons on their teams.
Boxing is bad for the head and body too. Ask Cassius Clay a/k/a Mohammed Ali.
I wish in a few cases the NFL would change the rules to make the game a little safer for its players. Some of the rules could be changed without making the game less enjoyable.
For example:
1. Ban all chop blocks. Right now, it's legal between the tackles.
2. Enforce a ban on leading with the helmet when tackling.
3. The college rule is that the snapper has to be given that half-second to position himself before he can be hit. Adopt that rule for the pros.
They could also Look into improving the helmets. A few players, such as the 49ers Steve Wallace, put styrofoam padding over their helmets. It's unclear whether that helped, but some kind of mandatory padding on all helmets might make the game safer. It's worth checking out.
So if guys now are getting a hundred times what they got, the next batch will get a hundred times what the current guys get. They made the mistake of being born to early.
Why don't they just put on skirts and go play soccer with Beckham.
Conrad Dobler was a dirty offensive lineman, not a dirty defensive lineman, as the article states.
Never hear ex-hockey players whining!
Going a different route and doing an end-run around any actual, particular claims ;), I wonder about something that maybe someone else out there wondered, from the title.*
What do you think about the idea of automatic, capital-V Victimhood status anyway?
How easily do you reward it--hey, do you "personally" think this way about much of anyone? (By "personally" I mean just in your own minds, without making any legal or social-policy implications out of your thoughts.) And do you actually like, on some level, thinking of any class of people that way?
I've noticed that I don't do so easily at all, even for poor, non-famous people who Arguably Deserve It More.
In other words, if the title lacked Scare Quotes and got applied to some Poor, Not-Famous, More Deserving people, would it bother you?
For example, if "America's Newest Victims" were the title of a 2005 piece on Hurricane Katrina survivors, I'd wince at it. (And I'm not bothered because of specifics--I'd wince at that headline even if every small-v victim were a hard-working, non-criminal conservative who actively evacuated and didn't live below sea level. ;))
* Who knows, maybe the person who devised the title meant something like this too, though it's not the most obvious thing. After all, in a vacuum, these Sarcasm Quotes don't necessarily cast doubt on the idea of Capital-V Victimhood--they can imply that only some people are or deserve to be considered Capital-V Victims.