|
|
Post by coacht7 on Jan 18, 2011 12:11:19 GMT -6
This was an interesting article the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette did with Dr. Julian Bailes at West Virginia University, who is a consultant on head injuries and concussions for everyone from Pop Warner to the NFL. www.post-gazette.com/pg/11002/1115033-139.stmThese are his seven points to reducing concussions. I'm intrigued by No. 5. "Take linemen out of the three-point stance." This is a pretty influential doctor saying this, so I'm guessing that at some point in the future there will be serious discussion toward making the three-point stance go the way of the crack-back block below the waist or blocking below the waist on kick returns. He's right that a lot of offenses are run from a two-point stance. Defensively, not as much. But I'm wondering if this doesn't lead to more innovation on defense. You can disguise more if guys' hands aren't on the ground. Any thoughts? |
|
|
|
Post by bluedevil4 on Jan 18, 2011 16:24:08 GMT -6
If you look at who it is that gets concussions, it's almost never linemen!!! It's the "skill" position players moving at 100mph that are getting them all!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by mattyg2787 on Jan 18, 2011 16:35:52 GMT -6
Centers have to be in three point anyway so I'm fine
Putting d line in 2 pt would be awesome for me. At the end of the day though it's a contact sport, people are going to get injured no matter what.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachbdud on Jan 18, 2011 19:19:03 GMT -6
If you look at who it is that gets concussions, it's almost never linemen!!! It's the "skill" position players moving at 100mph that are getting them all!!! exactly, you never see a lineman with a head injury, they just dont see the collisions skill guys see because of their close proximity, they never get the big BANG hit... theres is more of a steady slow grind throughout the game... never that crushing blow simply because they start so close to one another |
|
|
|
Post by coacht7 on Jan 18, 2011 19:36:15 GMT -6
Actually, that was an interesting point on the part of this doctor that came up in the interview (there is video on that site), and it also came up in a Sports Illustrated piece earlier. Linemen don't get the same concussions that skill position players do, but many linemen suffer post-concussion syndrome. There is evidence that they receive many of what's known as "sub-concussive hits," meaning they do damage but aren't full-blown concussions. I remember in the SI story, doctors tested linemen and saw the scores reduce over the course of the season. So that's what they're trying to get at with the three-point stance idea.
I'm neither here nor there with the three-point stance, but if it gain traction I imagine all us coaches need to think about it.
One thought on the center, I can see saying you have to delay a count before hitting him, kind of like they do on kick snaps.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattyg2787 on Jan 18, 2011 19:51:20 GMT -6
What I meant was as a center you'll get some amazing drive
|
|
|
|
Post by gdn56 on Jan 18, 2011 20:15:04 GMT -6
Interesting Article. I had never heard anything about the fish oils...it will be interesting to see the long-term merrit of that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yash on Jan 18, 2011 21:18:03 GMT -6
I understand the sub concussive hits that linemen get, but you don't see lineman on the NFL rules video detaling what is and isn't an illegal hit. I think that most concussions are the result of high speed impact hits, heads impacting the ground in a whiplash type manner, or hits to the jaw. Honestly, you want to reduce a lot of the concussions, require mouth guards to be worn. How many WR's do you see that don't even wear mouthguards.
|
|
|
|
Post by coacht7 on Jan 18, 2011 21:54:32 GMT -6
Insisting on mouthguards for everyone in the NFL needs to be done, yesterday. But the data is starting to show is you don't have to be laid out with a tremendous hit to do damage to the brain. If that's what the data ends up showing, it's worth looking at.
Like I may have mentioned earlier, doing away with the three-point stance may actually help the defense at the higher level. If you have 11 guys, none with a hand on the ground, you can disguise a lot of stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachbrek on Jan 19, 2011 8:11:24 GMT -6
Over the weekend I had my annual icefishing trip with my college football buddies.
The topic of concussions came up as our sons are now at the jr high and high school level. We talked about all the tests and lost playing time over concussions now days. Also the seemingly high rate of concussions that seem to happen vs when we played ball back in the 80's.
One guy brought up an interesting point, he pointed out that almost everyone playing back in our day wore a neck roll linebackers, safety's, fullbacks, most lineman even tight ends.
None of us could remember having a concussion during our playing days.
I think my buddy made a valid point, the neck roll protects the violent snapping of the neck and helps absorb every hit.
it makes sense to me.
anyone else see the validity in this?
|
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jan 19, 2011 8:17:09 GMT -6
Over the weekend I had my annual icefishing trip with my college football buddies. The topic of concussions came up as our sons are now at the jr high and high school level. We talked about all the tests and lost playing time over concussions now days. Also the seemingly high rate of concussions that seem to happen vs when we played ball back in the 80's. One guy brought up an interesting point, he pointed out that almost everyone playing back in our day wore a neck roll linebackers, safety's, fullbacks, most lineman even tight ends. None of us could remember having a concussion during our playing days. I think my buddy made a valid point, the neck roll protects the violent snapping of the neck and helps absorb every hit. it makes sense to me. anyone else see the validity in this? Simply put, no. There's a reason they stopped wearing them. |
|
|
|
Post by casec11 on Jan 19, 2011 8:33:06 GMT -6
Over the weekend I had my annual icefishing trip with my college football buddies. The topic of concussions came up as our sons are now at the jr high and high school level. We talked about all the tests and lost playing time over concussions now days. Also the seemingly high rate of concussions that seem to happen vs when we played ball back in the 80's. One guy brought up an interesting point, he pointed out that almost everyone playing back in our day wore a neck roll linebackers, safety's, fullbacks, most lineman even tight ends. None of us could remember having a concussion during our playing days. I think my buddy made a valid point, the neck roll protects the violent snapping of the neck and helps absorb every hit. it makes sense to me. anyone else see the validity in this? Simply put, no. There's a reason they stopped wearing them. but they did look sweet... |
|
|
|
Post by Coach Bennett on Jan 19, 2011 9:20:00 GMT -6
Do you see the day in football when you won't be able to leave your feet to make a tackle?
That's the way it is in rugby.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Clement on Jan 19, 2011 9:25:49 GMT -6
Especially those Chris Zorich ones, along with the way-too-short jerseys.
|
|
|
|
Post by olcoach53 on Jan 19, 2011 10:14:16 GMT -6
This Dr. is crazy. The three point stance is not one of the causes of concussions. I think that is just nuts for him to think that. Maybe he should concern himself more with the tackling technique some of these kids are being taught. When their eyes and heads are pointed to the ground thats where the problem is at.
Also I agree neck rolls are awesome and that the Zorich half-shirt jersey was even more awesome!
|
|
|
|
Post by coachbrek on Jan 19, 2011 10:18:35 GMT -6
Simply put, no. There's a reason they stopped wearing them. but they did look sweet... I agree, the main reason I wore one was because I thought it looked cool. Phantom, what was the reason everyone quit wearing neck rolls? Is it uncool to wear one now or is there actually a legit reason as to why they went away. |
|
|
|
Post by coacht7 on Jan 19, 2011 10:31:32 GMT -6
I thought it was nuts the first time I read about the idea of doing away with the three-point stance. But I'd have to say the doctor here has a lot of credibility. He's one of the two doctors who get the brains of dead former NFL players, and a lot of those were linemen, and he knows those aren't the guys who are getting the major concussions that are getting headlines. And in the story, he did talk about proper tackling technique and enforcing the head contact rules, so I'm starting to come around to thinking the guy has a point.
It's gotten me thinking, line coaches on both sides spend a lot of time working on hand placement but when the game starts too often the first move is a head butt. That's probably where the sub-concussive blows come from.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoachMikeJudy on Jan 19, 2011 10:36:05 GMT -6
It's a collision sport. If you were in a car-wreck 30 times a day for 4 months of the year, you'd likely have post-concussion symptoms too.
I don't know what the mystery is...any hit to the head, face, neck is going to cause that brain to rattle around a bit. Poor tackling form is more of a concern with neck/spinal injuries IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluedevil4 on Jan 19, 2011 11:14:38 GMT -6
It's a collision sport. If you were in a car-wreck 30 times a day for 4 months of the year, you'd likely have post-concussion symptoms too. I don't know what the mystery is...any hit to the head, face, neck is going to cause that brain to rattle around a bit. Poor tackling form is more of a concern with neck/spinal injuries IMO. These rules are proposed and instated to make the game "safer" in a sport that isn't supposed to be safe! Might as well start telling boxers they can no longer go for the head because it might be dangerous. |
|
|
|
Post by bluedevil4 on Jan 19, 2011 11:15:54 GMT -6
Btw, I don't know why I quoted you white mike. lol
|
|
|
|
Post by NC1974 on Jan 19, 2011 11:16:29 GMT -6
For those who are saying the linemen don't get as many concussions, the latest research is saying the thousands of sub-concussive hits on the line might be more damaging then the big hits. Now whether or not a 3pt stance contributes to that...I don't know.
|
|
coachood
Sophomore Member
Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence. -Vince Lombardi
Posts: 173
|
Post by coachood on Jan 19, 2011 11:27:24 GMT -6
I thought it was nuts the first time I read about the idea of doing away with the three-point stance. But I'd have to say the doctor here has a lot of credibility. He's one of the two doctors who get the brains of dead former NFL players, and a lot of those were linemen, and he knows those aren't the guys who are getting the major concussions that are getting headlines. And in the story, he did talk about proper tackling technique and enforcing the head contact rules, so I'm starting to come around to thinking the guy has a point. It's gotten me thinking, line coaches on both sides spend a lot of time working on hand placement but when the game starts too often the first move is a head butt. That's probably where the sub-concussive blows come from. Then perhaps they should make the o-lineman go back to blocking with their shoulders, but then again that wouldn't make the passing game better and sell more hot dogs, so why would the NFL do that? |
|
|
|
Post by CoachMikeJudy on Jan 19, 2011 13:13:40 GMT -6
Shoulder blocking would probably not help either, as now it would be impossible to get any sort of extension.
I don't think there is a safe alternative except better headgear, and I think that even the best helmet technology is still limited in reducing concussions from repeated blows to the face/head
|
|
|
|
Post by coacht7 on Jan 19, 2011 13:24:27 GMT -6
I remember from a previous life that there's a guy at the University of North Carolina, Dr. Francis Mueller, who has studied he entire history of catastrophic and fatal injuries in football, whether they're from contact, illness or heat-related. The spinal cord injuries actually were at an all-time high before the mid 1970s when the head contact rules came into play. The hands blocking came in after that. As a player, though, I remember that when teams did shoulder blocking, they really taught head blocking. "Butt blocking" and "rake blocking" is what they used to call it. So going back to shoulder blocking, my guess, would increase risk, rather than decrease it, especially since there were far more spinal cord injuries when that was the only way to block according to the rules. This, by the way, is incredible research on the subject. Unfortunately, it doesn't specifically address shoulder blocking. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC385269/ |
|
|
|
Post by coacht7 on Jan 19, 2011 13:28:52 GMT -6
My bad, it's Dr. Frederick Mueller.
|
|
|
|
Post by veerbone on Jan 19, 2011 13:30:54 GMT -6
If they ban the three-point stance, i'm giving up football, because it won't be football anymore.
Hell, let's just wrap them all in mattresses and let them roll around on each other.
Football is a physical game. That's why men play it. There are tons of sports more dangerous than football (MMA, boxing, auto racing, etc), they need to spend their time on them before they try to dictate the rules of the greatest game known to man.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yash on Jan 19, 2011 13:39:23 GMT -6
None of us could remember having a concussion during our playing days. Maybe you couldn't remember having a concussion because you were concussed  I think a few things are responsible to the increase in concussions. 1. Bigger, faster, stronger players now days. Emphasis on SPEED. 2. Science, we are able to detect concussions a lot better now days. We can do brain scans and autophsies on former players. Better research. 3. Liability. CYOA. You are going to diagnose a concussion rather than send a kid back out there with the potential of getting seriously injured (even if this is a small risk) if it is your job which then effects your family on the line. |
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jan 19, 2011 13:40:44 GMT -6
but they did look sweet... I agree, the main reason I wore one was because I thought it looked cool. Phantom, what was the reason everyone quit wearing neck rolls? Is it uncool to wear one now or is there actually a legit reason as to why they went away. The same reason that I sometimes started the season wearing one but soom discarded it- they were uncomfortable and useless. |
|
|
|
Post by coacht7 on Jan 19, 2011 13:49:08 GMT -6
I would hope most of us who want to coach this game and love this game would not trade preventable injuries and deaths for merely preserving tradition. I had a teammate who died of heatstroke at the end of a practice. Since then there has been dramatic change in how coaches looked at hydration. I saw a video during the 1970s where a coach came on and said if you did away with head contact, you might as well eliminate football. There are fewer spinal cord injuries now.
So even though I was skeptical at first when they talked about doing away with the three-point stance, I guess I think we all owe it to ourselves to be open to it. It might not eliminate every injury, but if the information points that way I'm expecting such a change to come down in the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachfurn on Jan 19, 2011 14:07:39 GMT -6
No...the days are not numbered for the 3 point stance. Period. End of story.
I will probably get flamed for this opinion but football is not for everyone. And head injuries suck...and should not nor would I want it to happen to myself...my kids..or any of the players I coach. If you take away 3 pt stance...or hitting .... or running fast and form tackling with your facemask... then it's not football anymore. I am ALL for reducing injuries in football...of all kinds... but it's a sport of collisions...always has been and always will be as far as I am concerned. Again....I'm all for reducing/minimizing the chances for risk/getting hurt. But c'mon... the 3 pt stance is not a major cause of concussions...
|
|
