Re: Art Monk vs. NFL
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;917354]or i could trust google/wiki and give a simple answer, allowing that the aforementioned sibling may add several substantial inclusions and addendums to the simple one:[/quote]

But how does the court choose? I guess that's really my question

Re: Art Monk vs. NFL
 

[quote=Mattyk;917162]Yeah getting back to the fundamentals of tackling would go a long way, and this mentality of going for the kill shot is what I think Goodell is trying to curb. Either way you'll never completely eliminate concussions, but[B] I do think more can be done to reduce them[/B].[/quote]

LIke what? They've already moved the kickoffs up and pretty much eliminated one of the most exciting plays in football, they've gone overboard with all the head to head contact and constantly throwing the 15 yarders and fining guys, they put in the defensless wr rule, might as well put flags on the QB's... in general they really can't make it any safer than it already is.

Re: Art Monk vs. NFL
 

[quote=Daseal;916403]So should you be able to sue a doctor 20 years after an operation because there's more information about the disease and they have better methods? No, it's part of the medical process. When it comes down to it, most of these guys are looking for a payday after mismanaging their money.

Football is a tough sport. It's tough on both body and mind to play -- and that's why I don't complain that they get paid a kings ransom. It is a violent sport that causes long term damage. We've known that for a long time. You can't possibly think that slamming your body into someone else at full speed hundreds or thousands of times a year isn't going to have lasting effects. We don't need modern medicine to reaffirm that.

It's too bad that so many of the old players are having issues. I have a lot more understanding for the guys that had to work another job while playing football. Who made the league on their back before the big contracts. But Art got paid a lot of money to sacrifice his body. Give them the collectively bargained health care and thank them for their service.[/quote]

Please listen carefully. Your analogy is a bad one. They are not simply filing suing because there is new knowledge that wasn't available 20 years ago, they are suing because the knowledge that WAS available 20 years ago was intentionally kept from them by the NFL. They denied, right up until 2010, that there was any link at all between concussions suffered from NFL play, and the dementia and other various ailments that past veterans had suffered. They denied it because they didn't want to pay for it. The same greedy ****ers that initiated a lockout because 65 percent of the profits were not enough for them; and then played a public relations game that made that lockout look like a strike. It's people like yourself that fell for this trick, because you... you know what? I'm not going to start throwing personal insults. That isn't the direction I want this post to go. I just get frustrated when misinformation is spread by people who don't have all the facts. Not knowing all the facts is forgivable. Being aware of your lack of knowledge, and not doing anything to correct it is a crime against having a brain.

Re: Art Monk vs. NFL
 

[quote=SmootSmack;917372]But how does the court choose? I guess that's really my question[/quote]

I don't know - class actions is one of those areas where a lot of special procedural rules apply that don't apply in standard litigation. I did some basic legal research and can't find the answer. I don't know any attorneys who hand class actions to call and check. I'll keep looking and, if I run across the answer, I will let you know.

Re: Art Monk vs. NFL
 

[quote=skinsfan69;917427]LIke what? They've already moved the kickoffs up and pretty much eliminated one of the most exciting plays in football, they've gone overboard with all the head to head contact and constantly throwing the 15 yarders and fining guys, they put in the defensless wr rule, might as well put flags on the QB's... in general they really can't make it any safer than it already is.[/quote]

They could get rid of kickoffs altogether.

Re: Art Monk vs. NFL
 

[quote=zeesson;917447]Please listen carefully. Your analogy is a bad one. They are not simply filing suing because there is new knowledge that wasn't available 20 years ago, they are suing because the knowledge that WAS available 20 years ago was intentionally kept from them by the NFL. They denied, right up until 2010, that there was any link at all between concussions suffered from NFL play, and the dementia and other various ailments that past veterans had suffered. They denied it because they didn't want to pay for it. The same greedy ****ers that initiated a lockout because 65 percent of the profits were not enough for them; and then played a public relations game that made that lockout look like a strike. It's people like yourself that fell for this trick, because you... you know what? I'm not going to start throwing personal insults. That isn't the direction I want this post to go. I just get frustrated when misinformation is spread by people who don't have all the facts. Not knowing all the facts is forgivable. Being aware of your lack of knowledge, and not doing anything to correct it is a crime against having a brain.[/quote]

It's simplistic to lay this only at the feet of the NFL, certainly players colliding at full force would not think there were no lasting effects. Proof of that is that players today are far more aware, and still choose to play the game. We haven't seen a mass exodus of players as medical facts are released to confirm the common sense facts of yesteryear. Stories of the Raiders taking all sorts of grab bag meds to first hyper strengthen and then dull the pain afterwards have existed since the 70's.

I am not relieving the past NFL of burden for any time where they specifically refused to release proven science, but I doubt that is as far reaching as you claim it is.

As for the lockout diatribe, that's ridiculous but you are welcome to relive that debate [URL="http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-locker-room/42371-8th-circuit-court-grants-stay-lockout.html?highlight=lockout"]here[/URL].

Re: Art Monk vs. NFL
 

I wonder if this guy ever had a head injury??

[url=http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/chompions/201205/john-riggins-next-celebrity-chef]John Riggins, The Next Celebrity Chef | ThePostGame[/url]

Re: Art Monk vs. NFL
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;917471]It's simplistic to lay this only at the feet of the NFL, certainly players colliding at full force would not think there were no lasting effects. Proof of that is that players today are far more aware, and still choose to play the game. We haven't seen a mass exodus of players as medical facts are released to confirm the common sense facts of yesteryear. Stories of the Raiders taking all sorts of grab bag meds to first hyper strengthen and then dull the pain afterwards have existed since the 70's.

I am not relieving the past NFL of burden for any time where they specifically refused to release proven science, but I doubt that is as far reaching as you claim it is.

As for the lockout diatribe, that's ridiculous but you are welcome to relive that debate [URL="http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-locker-room/42371-8th-circuit-court-grants-stay-lockout.html?highlight=lockout"]here[/URL].[/quote]

I don't know how old you are, but you have to remember prior to the 21st century, there was no internet [B]as we know it today[/B]. There was know twitter, google, and facebook. There was no 24 hour a day news. Knowledge was not at your fingertips. Players did could not simply reach out to each other and ask "are you losing your mind?". I agree, certainly that they were aware that they were playing a dangerous game, but they certainly couldn't have known the long term effects of head injuries. However, the NFL had medical records, as well as medical claims by former players. They were, at the very least, aware that there was a correlation between the concussions and the dementia. They denied this right up until a few years ago.

Re: Art Monk vs. NFL
 

I feel sad for all the players that are legitimatley affected by concussion issues today, but sometimes i question the validity of their claims and wonder if they are truly ailing or are they just trying to make a buck now that this lawsuit thing is taking off like hotcakes.

Re: Art Monk vs. NFL
 

[quote=SolidSnake84;917734]I feel sad for all the players that are legitimatley affected by concussion issues today, but sometimes i question the validity of their claims and wonder if they are truly ailing or are they just trying to make a buck now that this lawsuit thing is taking off like hotcakes.[/quote]

I wonder the same thing about some of them. I also laugh when I hear people form their generation try to tell me that everything was better back then. Because they played for the "love of the game". Now they want money.

Re: Art Monk vs. NFL
 

[quote=zeesson;917746]I wonder the same thing about some of them. I also laugh when I hear people form their generation try to tell me that everything was better back then. Because they played for the "love of the game". Now they want money.[/quote]
..........You would disagree that it is better to play for the "love of the game" than strictly for the money?

Re: Art Monk vs. NFL
 

[quote=Hog1;917751]..........You would disagree that it is better to play for the "love of the game" than strictly for the money?[/quote]when did players stop working other jobs just to get by in the off-season? the 70's?

Re: Art Monk vs. NFL
 

[quote=zeesson;917746]I wonder the same thing about some of them. I also laugh when I hear people form their generation try to tell me that everything was better back then. Because they played for the "love of the game". Now they want money.[/quote]


Two things ...

1) I agree ...that "back then they did play for the Love of the game"I'd say it was the 70's but might even had been the early 80's that(yes some) players were working 2 jobs to make ends meet.
2) They aren't asking for money ,they want health care!!!!
This is about the NFL turning it's back on the like of Johnny Unitis and Deacon Jones and hundreds of other players who use to have to work 2 jobs just to make ends meet.
3)Sam Huff use to go back to west Virgina and sell cars when he was with the Giants ,many would find Jobs where their fame could help them with the public in making extra money.

Re: Art Monk vs. NFL
 

[quote=Hog1;917751]..........You would disagree that it is better to play for the "love of the game" than strictly for the money?[/quote]

I don't think that one is better than the other. I just think that it's ridiculous to suggest that just because they didn't make good money that the era was better. The main reason they didn't make millions was because it simply wasn't possible. They went on strike, and everything changed.

A lot of people nowadays act as if these players are supposed to just go out there for nothing, and just be lucky that they have the privilege of playing in the NFL. Meanwhile the owners are making billions off of the players sacrifices, and the best guy at his position is looked at as greedy, and undeserving because he wants to be paid what his services are worth. I just shake my head...that's all I can do.

Re: Art Monk vs. NFL
 

[quote=zeesson;917780]I don't think that one is better than the other. I just think that it's ridiculous to suggest that just because they didn't make good money that the era was better. The main reason they didn't make millions was because it simply wasn't possible. They went on strike, and everything changed.

A lot of people nowadays act as if these players are supposed to just go out there for nothing, and just be lucky that they have the privilege of playing in the NFL. Meanwhile the owners are making billions off of the players sacrifices, and the best guy at his position is looked at as greedy, and undeserving because he wants to be paid what his services are worth. I just shake my head...that's all I can do.[/quote]
I hate the saying "a lot of people", it usually covers up the fact that you can't cite specifics.

Who have you heard, on this board, say players should play for nothing? I, for one, think they should get what they are able to, just like the owners should try and pay the least they can and still get quality players. That's what keeps the balance in the pay. I think how a person, player or owner, handles the negotiations determines the opinion of who is "greedy". I the the McCoy deal was handled well on both sides, both got what they wanted, and nobody was calling McCoy greedy, or the Eagles skinflints. The Forte contract situation is a great example of people supporting a player getting paid, and the owners looking like cheapskates who aren't willing to pay long term for a player who has laid it all out there. And Revis, especially if he holds out at all, would be looking like a class A greedy player.

No one brush covers all the players of any era. We shouldn't try to make it.

Re: Art Monk vs. NFL
 

[quote=zeesson;917780]I don't think that one is better than the other. I just think that it's ridiculous to suggest that just because they didn't make good money that the era was better. The main reason they didn't make millions was because it simply wasn't possible. They went on strike, and everything changed.

A lot of people nowadays act as if these players are supposed to just go out there for nothing, and just be lucky that they have the privilege of playing in the NFL. Meanwhile the owners are making billions off of the players sacrifices, and the best guy at his position is looked at as greedy, and undeserving because he wants to be paid what his services are worth. I just shake my head...that's all I can do.[/quote]

I understand the business side of football alot of fans do,nothing wrong with a person getting what he can for doing his job and doing it well.Fans have a (myself) have a hard time with the numbers and hearing a guy say he's just trying to put food on the table,when he is offered7.5 million to play a game and is insulted becuase he wanted 9 million.(just examples).
These players are lucky, play for nothing ...no...but to play in the NFL is a privilege.Owners aren't making billions the NFL gets that money from TV and other contracts and it's divided up among the 32 owners.

Re: Art Monk vs. NFL
 

i wonder if these helped. that new one for practice is called the guardian but it resembles a water polo cap
[IMG]http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a161/subdubstp/steve-wallace-helmet.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a161/subdubstp/pg2_g_bills_600.jpg[/IMG]