User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.7011 seconds
51 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
that was kind of spot on.
if i had to make a call for tomorrow, i'd say that they'll trade up in the 4th round and target a WR/RB/CB that will have an impact in the return game.
Kendricks sounds like he will/should be an immediate starter and upgrade. They've added a former Pro Bowler in Ryans and 3 blue chip talents in Cox, Kendricks and Curry (many had him with a late first-round grade) so the front 7 should be much improved. For the first time in ages, the Eagles have some linebackers with pedigree.
Needs to be addressed (in general order): Nickel CB, backup RB, kick returner, O-line depth, big receiver. Safety is the weakest link on the Eagles now, but it seems unlikely they will get an impact player in rounds 4-7.
just to say a few words about why i like foles, i think a lot of the people who are already writing him off are making a significant mistake. the eagles' offense relies heavily upon the deep passing game, and the threat of the deep passing game, and foles is a guy who can reach out and hit a guy in stride 60 yards downfield.
people want to ding him for being immobile, but there are 2 things that i want to point out about that. 1, he's 6'5, 245, and it's really not that easy to actually bring him to the ground. and 2, foles is very willing to get the ball out of his hands, and into the hands of his checkdown receiver. he's the kind of guy who understands that his job is to get the ball into the hands of his playmakers.
and also, for people who want to say that they should have waited until the 5th or 6th round to get a QB, i'll point out that there were already 6 QBs off the board (luck, griffin, tannehill, weeden, osweiler, and wilson), foles was the 7th, and an 8th was taken in the first 10 picks of the 4th round. the window for the eagles to take a QB was open basically exactly where they took one.
Have no issue with the Foles pick, it was slightly head-scratching but barring an unthinkable 4-12 type season, the Eagles will be left scraping the bottom of the barrel for QB options if they decide to go in a different direction in a year or two. Not only can they escape the Vick contract cheaply, but Kafka is a free agent soon. In general, there are still viable starters in the third/fourth rounds and any QB you take there is going to be a project. Obviously, Reid's track record of developing QBs is impressive.
Boykin was a solid pick, too. Can't go wrong with SEC players and he was projected as a second-rounder. Also an impressive returner.
love the boykin pick, though i would have liked to see them land a second guy who could have been a return threat.
mcnutt seems like a really good get, especially for the 6th round.
they've got one pick left in the 7th round, and i'd really like to see them use it to bring in a RB who excels at running between the tackles.
and just to say a word about the curry pick in the 2nd round, i'm not sold on it. i know it was good "value" (the guy was literally the 2nd best player left on the board according to NFL.com's draft tracker), but i'm a bit skeptical about how much his value on draft day will translate to value on the football field. getting him devalues brandon graham and darryl tapp and phillip hunt, and i'm not sure that he's a better player than any of them, let alone convinced that the surplus value he will provide on top of them was worth passing on some of the other talents left on the board.
i know that depth is a good thing to have, but coming into training camp, the eagles have 6 NFL caliber DTs (jenkins, patterson, cox, dixon, landri, and thornton), 6 NFL caliber DEs (cole, babin, graham, tapp, hunt, and curry), but just 1 NFL caliber RB. that just seems like they're begging to get bitten by the same flaw that's hurt them the last 2 years--a lack of quality depth at a key position. it was OL in 2010, and LB/S in 2011, and if there's any issue with mccoy next year, they just have nothing else at the position.
that's just greedy. Boykin's punt return for TD in the Outback Bowl was the most impressive clip I saw among the highlights of Eagles picks.
I love the McNutt pick and I agree with you on the OLs.
To me the key to the draft and the team is Kendricks. If Kendricks can come in and be an immediate upgrade over Chaney, the team is quite a bit better and a legitimate contender IMO.
As for Curry:
The Eagles' defensive scheme is entirely based upon the front four's ability to get to the QB. They and the Giants share the philosophy that you can never have enough pass rushers, and that pass-rushing DEs can become pass-rushing DTs on third down. Perhaps the biggest difference between the teams is that the Giants ended up with JPP and the Eagles have Graham.
I realize that Babin and Cole are top-shelf pass rushers, but DL was definitely an area where they needed to get younger. Babin is going to be 32 and is highly likely to decline. Graham is still a question mark. Tapp is fine as a rotational guy but his $2.8M salary is pretty high. I like Hunt's potential but Hunt/Graham are not reasons to pass over a high-grade talent.
Curry is a terrific value and doesn't need to produce immediately. The biggest problem I've had with the Reid-era drafts has always been that they reach for guys too early and try to be too clever in their picks instead of saying, "Who's the best player on the board here?" They finally did that with this pick.
The kid also grew up a HUGE Eagles fan, which I love. He was clearly emotional in describing how it felt to be around for Dawkins' retirement.
I forgot he existed until the Eagles took him.
he's only 20 years old, and he only had 4 touches (not touchdowns) in the last 2 years, so he looks like he's a guy who has very little wear and tear on him.
thinking about what they've done, i think i'd grade the individual picks:
cox: A
kendricks: B+
curry: B
foles: B
boykin: A
kelly: C
mcnutt: B
washington: A
brown: B
cox, kendricks, and boykin look like they have a chance to be immediate contributors. foles is my guy, and hopefully he can develop into a really good passer. mcnutt and curry are really good depth guys. washington and brown look like they have great potential. i don't know a lot about kelly yet, but if mudd likes him, who the hell am i to second guess him.
on the whole, i'd say the draft is a B+. looking at the entirety of it, i have a hard time seeing how they could have done anything better. i'd have been happier with lavonte david or mike adams instead of curry in the 2nd round, but both of them went off the board just ahead of the eagles' pick, so i can't really fault the team all that much for not getting them. every single pick they made looks like it was the right one, and i can't find a major fault with anything they've done.
yeah, this. I'm frankly stunned. The 2011 Draft annoyed the crap out of me because every pick felt like a reach. Every other Reid draft has included all kinds of cutesy, smug picks like Matt McCoy over more-heralded teammate Kirk Morrison, or Chris Gocong in the third round, reaching for Kolb. Taking Kafka instead of viable talents in the fourth after dickering around endlessly in the third round when Claussen and Colt McCoy were available. Moving up to take Graham instead of Earl Thomas.
Kiper gave Eagles an A, Ted Bruschi said they had the best draft. That's encouraging. I wasn't watching but apparently NFLN was less enthusiastic.
I'd give the Brown pick a C/D grade. The only thing I would have really liked was another safety prospect, but it was a bad draft for safeties.
Absolutely. What a groaner.
Interesting note on McNutt: Juan Castillo's Iowa connection played a factor in this pick. I saw a report somewhere that said he is good at coming off routes and coming back for the ball when plays break down and he consistently goes over the middle. This could make him a really great fit with Vick.
7th round is almost like calling dibs on UDFA. For a bunch of players it is actually better if they weren't drafted, they could sign somewhere with less competition and a better system for them.
Some thoughts on NFC East drafts:
Giants -- They win Super Bowls for a reason; they get good value out of all of their picks. Lose Brandon Jacobs and Mario Manningham? No problem, they draft David Wilson and Reuben Randle. Nicks, Cruz and Randle are potentially terrifying as a WR trio. Adrien Robinson is a raw but athletic tight end and the Giants seem adept at developing this position.
Jacbos is a scary big guy who gave the Eagles fits and that dimension wasn't replaced, but Wilson is a quality runner. I'm not sure they're improved, but they did a great job at filling their needs.
Cowboys -- After getting obliterated by the Eagles and Giants, the Cowboys made it a priority to move up and grab CB Morris Claiborne. They paid a steep price, giving up a second-rounder. They continued to address the pass defense by drafting 2 pass rushers and a safety in the third/fourth rounds. Problem for the Cowboys is their offensive line has a lot of question marks and they didn't address this at all.
Redskins -- Given Shanahan's resume in working with athletic QBs, RG3 is outright scary. The rest of their draft is sort of WTF. The second player they took was a guard who has had serious issues off the field and their third pick was another QB.
i'm a little concerned with what wilson could bring to the giants, but i think the eagles front 7 is built to specifically stop guys like him. i'm not really at all worried about randle.
looking at the depth chart the eagles have now, i think these are the guys from last season's team who are in the most danger of getting cut by the team sometime before the season starts:
mike patterson
antonio dixon
derrick landri
darryl tapp
phillip hunt
brandon graham
moise fokou (is he even still here)?
casey matthews
keenan clayton
akeem jordan (i don't even know if he's still here, either)
joselio hanson
trevard lindley
curtis marsh
brandon hughes
dion lewis
chad hall
riley cooper
mike kafka
just looking at that has gotta make you excited to see what the defense looks like in training camp. with so much uncertainty about the roster, it really looks like they'll get some great competition on that side of the ball.
the competition on offense doesn't look like it'll be nearly as intense, but aside from michael vick turning the ball over, there really wasn't much issue with the unit as a whole. they could have used an extra red-zone threat, but maybe harbor will develop into more of a pass catching threat, or maybe celek will get more of a chance now that the offensive line is more competent.
i am just really, really surprised at how well they seem to have made out this weekend.
Harris should change his name. Nobody should share Captain Crash's name.
I disagree on some of these. I think Patterson played well enough last year that he's a lock to make it. Dixon or Landri maybe, though I'd hate to lose either one. I don't think they'll give up on Graham so easily, the Eagles can be very patient when it comes to pass rushers, remember them keeping Burgess around through multiple injury years? Tapp is going to be the odd man out.
Linebackers: Jordan/Fokou are like the same player, they're functional NFL linebackers who are ideally suited for ST/backup duty, they don't necessarily screw up but they don't make plays either. I thought Clayton had promise two years ago but he was clearly passed over in a year where the Eagles had serious LB problems. As usual, Philadelphia has the bad brother in Matthews. Wouldn't shock me if any/all of these 4 go.
Lindley was cut but brought back. Marsh has to show something or be gone. Most likely scenario is Joselio Hanson is cut again and they dump either Hughes or Lindley.
Don't think they will give up on Kafka. It'll be interesting to see how RB plays out. I really think that Polk wins the backup RB job because he can block really well. Only one of Brown/Graig Cooper/Lewis make the roster as a third back, good chance that Brown gets stashed on IR.
Chad Hall is all but gone IMO, Cooper is going to have his work cut out for him to make the team.
I think Kafka stays or gets traded.
I wouldn't say I like his footwork because he seems to bounce around a lot. That's probably correctable. But he seems to have good feel for the pocket and and can step away from the rush and throw on the move. He also seems to have low-level functional scrambling ability. Obviously it's a highlight vid and guess what, he can hit wide-open receivers when he has lots of time. But his arm looks to be NFL caliber.
that was one of those decisions that you knew was terrible at the time, and that has only gotten worse the further away we get from it.
But, you see, safety is not an impact position. Left end, on the other hand, boy, there's impact left ends all over the league ...
Isn't RDE/LDE basically the same as SS/2B? If you had any chance to be a productive LDE in the NFL, you should've been good enough to play RDE in college.
(One of my two least favorite Reid draft day moves ... the other being L.J. Smith over Jason Witten, presumably because Smith looked more like a West Coast tight end, presumably because he couldn't actually block a lick. The fact that he was far inferior at one aspect of the position helped him look more attractive. Go figure.)
Footwork is a knock on Foles, but improving footwork is also a strong point for Reid and Mornhinweg. The improvement Vick has made in that department is tremendous.
re: 2822, Patterson, Dixon, Graham (especially Graham), Matthews, and Lewis aren't going anywhere. The rest is open competition.
The best cornerback doesn't shadow the best receiver all game, he plays LCB or RCB. Now with this Wide 9 line, the DTs are distinctly different positions as well: you have a nose tackle who lines up between center and guard and tries to occupy two blockers and an under tackle who rushes the passer.
Traditionally, RDE/LDE are actually positions that often require somewhat different skills, like weakside linebacker or strongside linebacker. The RDE is generally a faster, pure pass rusher while the LDE is often a bigger, sturdier guy because he has to deal with the tight end and more teams line up the TE on the right.
Sure, but I know I don't have to make the point that he's probably not. The top of the draft was weird this year. Early in the process, the consensus seemed to be that none of Kalil, Richardson, Blackmon or Claiborne were truly elite prospects for their position. It seems like Richardson was upgraded to elite in the weeks before the draft and Claiborne was elevated to elite after the Cowboys drafted him. I don't buy it. Claiborne may very well turn out to be elite (Revis was drafted 14th after all), but the notion that Claiborne is a prospect considered to have that level of ability is being perpetrated mostly by Cowboys nation. If that was the consensus, Claiborne would have been picked 3rd, not 6th.
More than anything though, I think the Cowboys trade was a transaction borne out of an infatuation with an idea. In the past couple of years, certain teams have become enamored with the prospect of having 2 shutdown CBs (the Eagles and the Jets specifically). With the signing of Brandon Carr and the trade for Claiborne, the Cowboys have seemingly joined this club. Considering that the NFL is more of a passing league than ever, this sounds like a great idea, but in reality, it's just overkill. Teams don't need 2 shutdown CBs because most teams don't have a second receiver who can consistently beat a merely good CB (accepting that most teams don't match up their CBs with WRs like the Jets). A team that pays the price for 2 shutdown corners while neglecting other positions is misallocating resources - they're better than they need to be at CB while not as good as they need to be at other positions. It would be better to shift those resources from CB to a position where the marginal utility of resources would be higher given the talent distribution of the team. But "OMG, our CBs are the bestest ever" sounds more compelling than "Our DL, LBs and DBs are all above average". Problem is, it's not.
I agree with this, but also the current teams with the best passing attacks don't rely on any elite receivers. Shutting down Fitzgerald or Megatron might cripple the Cardinals or the Lions, but taking away two receivers is going to do nothing against the Packers, Patriots or Saints.
I read a lot of stuff pre-draft that suggested Claiborne was elite, so I am not sure you are correct there. I do agree that he is very unlikely to be a Deion/Champ/Revis level CB, but that's not saying much.
I pretty much totally disagree with this. If you have 2 shutdown CB's, that can make up for a lot of below average players at other positions. Frees up the safeties to help the LB's in pass and run coverage for example. The Giants have pretty much used that same idea to win 2 SB's, except they did it with DE's instead of CB's.
Right - exactly. Most of the best passing attacks are scheme/QB driven.
Claiborne and Richardson were considered elite talents in this draft well before April. Luck, Griffin, Claiborne, Blackmon and Richardson were considered the best players in the draft, Kalil the top OL who would go high because Minnesota needs OL and they wouldn't be able to trade far enough back to still draft him. Tannehill, Barron, Gilmore, Poe and Irvin were the guys that rose in March. The Cowboys are going to tell you that Claiborne's the next Revis because they're the Cowboys and can't help themselves.
Sure, but 90% of the time, you can do most of these things with 1 elite CB and 1 average CB. If you already have 1 elite CB (as I'm sure the Cowboys thought they did with Carr), paying the price for the second is a waste.
It's actually the opposite idea. A pass-rushing DE is an "offensive" defensive position - the offense has to defend itself from the assault of the defensive line. By accumulating talent on the DL so that each guy is better than his OL counterpart, the Giants increase the probability that any one DL can pressure/sack the QB and blow up the whole play. On the contrary, CB is predominantly a purely defensive position. For the most part, a CB can only neutralize 1 opposing player. It doesn't much matter if a CB is 50% better than his counterpart or 10% better - there's just not much accumulated benefit.
Yup. Remember when people thought Jimmy Clausen was the most pro-ready QB in his class? Good times both.
Speaking of Boise, Dan Wetzel: "Boise State had 6 players drafted. Only Bama, Oklahoma, Georgia had more. I'm sure it was just the easy schedule though."
Maybe my memory is selecting too much that I've read from KC Joyner, who was particularly down on Claiborne.
In fact, the Eagles really want 3 good corners. They had Al Harris as their nickel during the Vincent/Taylor era. They had Rod Hood as a nickel for a while, and kept Joselio Hanson around for years until he developed into the role. They kept Lito around even though he was miserable after they got Asante Samuel. Last year, DRC didn't really work out in the role, so they drafted a guy with experience playing in the slot (Boykin). The Eagles play 3 CBs generally 50% of the snaps, so they are willing to pay three CBs more than any linebacker.
KC Joyner is a total clown. It's pretty safe to just ignore anything he says.
That, and slot receivers seem more important than they've ever been. What you really need is depth, not two studs. Like Billy says in 2835, corners are "defensive" and one great corner can only neutralize one receiver. The problem is many great teams have schemes that utilize everyone.
As I said, if you have 2 CB's who can each single cover any WR, then your safeties can double up on the third WR and TE or two TE's.
Maybe, but even the best corners get burned, an you leave yourself pretty vulnerable to the deep ball.
I know, there are no perfect defenses. I've long been a huge proponent of having great corners - but I think with the way the game is changing I have changed my tune and I think its probably more important to try and be above average at all cover positions - corner, safety, nickelback, cover linebacker, than worry about having 1-2 studs at corner.
I like good CBs, but it's the overkill of a team like the Jets trying to break the bank for Asomugha when they already had Revis, or the Cowboys giving up a 2nd round pick after they already signed Carr for $50 mil, that bothers me. The Jets thought they could load up on CB, ignore talent on the DL and create pressure with scheme, but that failed pretty miserably this year. Obviously there were other factors in that, but I still think they would have been better off with an actual pass rusher rather than Kyle Wilson at nickel corner.
Well there's your problem--KC Joyner. Coke to Randy.
They also have HOF QBs. (Even if you don't think Drew Brees is a HOFer, you have to at least admit he's played at a HOF level the past few years.) That's the most important part of it.
You're assuming that under normal circumstances you would need to double cover the offense's second receiver. That's not the case.
It's not a terrible idea - it's just suboptimal. If a team has limited resources (as do all NFL teams) and multiple needs, I don't think getting a second great CB is the way to go. Having a great second CB will provide a defense with enhanced flexibility that will be valuable in certain situations. I just think that aggregate value will be offset if that team still lacks a LB that can cover decent TEs or has a DE that can't get reasonable pressure.
Really?
didn't he attempt suicide before?
Awful.
(Though I know nothing about Seau as a person. Hell, the poor soul might've been suicidal before he ever strapped a helmet on.)
Yeah I don't think this is going out on a limb, but this is going to be a turning point. This cannot continue. People can easily forget about guys they've barely heard of, but this guy is a legend.
EDIT: Just noting for posterity that I'm jumping the gun and assuming this is related to brain injury issues.
Was that a suicide attempt? The reporting never elaborated whether he was drunk or suicidal or what.
Shocking, though.
Yes, any player who suffers a concussion will be fined and suspended by Goodell for bringing bad publicity to the league.
Here are some thoughts:
1. Cut back to 14 games. (*)
2. Impose weight limits on players.
3. Eliminate kickoffs.
4. No playing after, say, age 31.
(*) Is there anything more macabre than this league seriously contemplating an 18-game schedule?
Yes, I'm serious.
I know guys who play rugby get injured. But I'll never forget a trip to Australia that I took about 25 years ago when I was in high school (man, it hurts to write that). Growing up, with little exposure to it, we all thought rugby players were nuts because they were playing football without pads. When we talked to kids in Australia, they all thought American football players were nuts, because you would have two guys weighing 300 lbs. line up a couple yards away and just ram into one another. Can Phil or someone elaborate on whether there's a similar issue with concussions in Rugby?
That's probably what it'll take for even substantive lip service to be paid to the situation.
Not that there needs to be any such intent; the normal non-intentional havoc wreaked on heads and bodies is sufficient.
The problem is that it is not just concussions or other major blows to the head. All the evidence currently points to repeated lighter hits to the head also causing CTE.
2. Impose weight limits on players.
3. Eliminate kickoffs.
4. No playing after, say, age 31.
5. Go back to thinner pads and leather helmets.
All good ideas, but I don't think the age limit could ever hold up. Also, I think thicker pads make guys slower, and thus reduce impact.
Weight limits would be huge, since they'd reduce physical strain, and heart disease, plus reduce the incentives to use PEDs, but they'd have to be position specific. Have no idea if that's legal.
How about a limit on the number of plays per game a player can participate in?
I actually thought this had been decided on (positively) already, but I don't really follow football, so I'm probably wrong.
How about a limit on the number of plays per game a player can participate in?
You could also (maybe) set something up where players could only play 12 or 14 of the 16 games in the season? Spitballing here.
Probably need to limit practices in pads, e.g. only workout in pads 3 days per week in training camp, 1 day per week in season. Plus cut back pre-season games to 2, regular season is going to be hard to cut.
But, maybe a limit on plays per game, or plays per year, and a bigger roster. Spreads the hits across a larger pop, and you may mitigate some damage.
You could do that, or cut down on the number of plays in a game by stopping the clock less.
If the sub-concussive hits cause CTE, you'd expect rugby players to start showing signs of brain damage like football players, right?
The "rugby/leather helmet" model's a good idea, but I don't know if it adequately accounts for the forward pass. Rugby doesn't really have blind-side and blind hits and I shudder to think of tackles over the middle on a balls-out forward pass. Rugby runners do motor pretty fast, but they can always get ready for a hit and I don't think they move as fast as an NFL WR on a crossing pattern.
I think we'll see weight limits in some state's high schools in the next 10 years.
How about a limit on plays per season? Like a DMB stats league limits playing time to actual PAs.
Your first string gets to take 500 snaps per season (out of ~1000 offensive plays), let the coaches figure out how to use it best.
I think step one is to impose draconian penalties on anything close to a "blow-up" hit.
You tackle with your shoulder and arms, aimed at the opponents midsection and lower, or we run you out of the game. Any tackle hitting, targeting or using the the head, or impact above the shoulders is an immediate expulsion and 15 yd. penalty. If the league suspects intent to harm, 5 game suspension w/o pay. 2nd offense on intent to harm, season suspension, no pay. 3rd offensive, lifetime ban.
Nah, penalizing the players won't help much. Might lead to change a long ways down the road, but nothing in the near term. There is simply too high a reward. So even if you banned on the first offense, there would be someone to take that player's place. Fine the owners personally(not the teams), and fine them a lot. 500k each time a player on their team commits one of the offenses you mentioned. If you want this to change quickly, start at the top. Besides, they are the ones making the real profit off of players killing each other, why should they get off totally free on this?
I'm cool with that. Fine the team, fine the coaches. Hell, make a free 7 points to the opponent for any hit to the head.
(*) Yes, subject to bribery and chicanery; yes, I can see some Alabama or Penn State booster bribing a doctor to give the ok on a player. That can be worked around.
totally agree
Concur.
Everything that limits the number of hits to the head helps.
WRT frequent sub-concussive hits, rugby contact often leans more towards pushing and shoving rather than two guys slamming into each other at high speed, over and over. It happens, but it's not like the sort of contact a middle linebacker can expect virtually every single play.
Finally, pro rugby players are smaller than NFL players. Rugby is too fast paced and doesn't have enough play stoppages for a 350lb man to be successful at a high level. NFL players are so big AND fast now that even routine collisions are significant from a physics perspective. You can armor your body with slabs of muscle, but no amount of time in the gym can do anything to protect your brain rattling around in your skull.
Makes me glad I lost interest in the NFL a decade or so ago... football as we know it is probably on the way out.
Not a pretty boy, but ESPN has done a story on Steelers center Mike Webster that is heartbreaking. His brain has pretty much been goo since he retired.
That will definitely help for some players. But the evidence about sub-concussive hits makes it seem more and more likely that is impossible to be a regular OL or DL player and stay healthy. These guys are banging heads on the vast majority of snaps. The playing time limtis others have sggested above might help; I certainly can't think of any other way to address it.
They've already done that. The CBA limits the number of padded practices to 12 all season, there are no more two a days and other changes as well.
Well, there's a reason the life expectency of former NFL-players is under 60.
Agreed.
Puck, Seau claimed that he had fallen asleep at the wheel after being arrested on a domestic abuse charge, but in retrospect...
I think Jim was like that before he started playing football.
Why? Boxing, and now MMA, are sports built around inducing concussions, and they continue on.
Boxing seems to have fallen quite a bit in general popularity over the past, I don't know, 20 - 50 years. Off the top of my head, I'm drawing a blank on who the heavyweight champ might be (I can't think of one since Evander Holyfield, although that could just mean I'm old (I'm Seau's age)). Granted, the MMA has replaced some of that audience, but even combined they seem like much more of a niche sport.
Isn't MMA banned in quite a few states?
I guess the answer is, no one cares if Joe Schmoe has a concussion in MMA, only a small segment of the population even knows who Joe Schmo is, and they don't care about concussions.
Whereas NFL is by far the most widespread, mainstream sport, and lots of even non-sports fans know who Junior Seau is.
Troy Aikman said this three months ago and was ridiculed by the NFL intelligensia.
They will have to drastically reform the sport in the next 10-15 years, though. Odds are very high it won't continue to be the perpetually growing money machine business it's become.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main