Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

This is crazy! (Jason Taylor on NFL player injuries)


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#31 SCP

SCP

    Crop Dusting Son of a Bitch

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,883 posts
  • LocationOn a Sales Call

Posted 15 January 2013 - 09:24 AM

I had a big debate with my friend and friends dad about this. I agree with you 100%, but they were saying some do not really have a "choice." A lot are born into poverty, didn't finish their degrees, or really didnt earn there degrees. Football is the only way they can help there families get out of the ghetto or make something of themselves. While I don't agree with this completely, just some food for thought.


They were born into poverty but 99.9% were given a free ride to the best universities in the country. The choice to leave early and not finish school is a decision each player has to make. They all have a choice. They might get bad advice or be mislead by relatives crying poor, but they could easily go to school in the summers to finish their degree. 85% of pro athletes are bankrupt 3 years after their careers are over. The average pro career is about 3 years. If a player chooses to run for the money it's free will. If he eds up playing in the league for 20 years and suffers body altering injuries, it's free will.

#32 raleigh-panther

raleigh-panther

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,165 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 09:31 AM

While I certainly respect the 'free will' discussion, there is also the ethical need to provide employees with reasonable safety.

By 'free will', many went into the coal mines.

by 'free will' many work in slaughter houses.

By 'free will' many opt to be teachers.

by 'free will' some of us work for companies that change our retirements and such.

Now, of course, we are talking about people who make a lot of money to play a pro sport and the comparison of someone having to work in a coal mine to a pro football player are vastly different jobs; but, by course of law, what is reasonable and what is not for that envrionment.

Expecting a player to endure a catheter or take an injection that would threaten or atrophy his muscles or to play after multple head trauma is not reasonable.

Again, there are things that can be done to extremes, either say 'there is no risk or you chose the risk' or to say make it touch football or eliminate the sport all together.

I would like to think that the NFL really does want to make the game safer and they can do this by doing some simple things but like most companies and corporations, they are not altruistic and will not show any compunction to make things safer until forced.

It seems reasonable to me, that if more games are being played 16 vs what used to be 12, and the recovery times are shorter, sunday to Thursday nights now, that having more players a) on the roster and b. more players available to be active on game day does nothing but help this situation, along with a longer look at weight limits that would help long term health of these players when they leave the game.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.