49ers starting LB retires after 1 season

[oxking]

The only remedy for the injuries is to ban the sport. The rest is fuel for discussion only and an exercise in futility.

Obviously, football is much more dangerous now and more players will think more seriously about "life decisions". The players are monstrous compared to when I played the game in the 60's and faster too. Pretty scary arena for sure. I love it, we ALL love it. It is definitely one sport where players deserve all the money they can make. It has always been dangerous and the danger grows every year.

 

[stephenPE]

Smart kid.......he made some good money and now will be able to think clearly as he ages.

 

[Jand3k]

You are not looking through the eyes of an athlete who could make millions. They are thinking different. Get money now, worry about future later.

Yeah, I'm actually acutely aware they think like this.

My point is that perhaps this event, Borland, will cause them to consider it differently and see the benefit of getting their degrees.

 

[NVGator]

bye felicia!

 

[URGatorBait]

I think there's empirical evidence

If there is empirical evidence, you don't have to think, you'd know.

It's probable that there are issues with concussions, and the then resulting effects later on, however, I'm not sure any of it is empirical or it would be evident throughout the entire population of players, not just here and there. The vast majority would have lasting effects, not just a portion of them.

Can, or should, there be changes made to the game to reduce potential concussions? Certainly, but how much of the long term effects were a result of lack of knowledge, or irresponsibility in the game and players with concussions were put back in games without sufficient rest time? How much of it was faulty, or perhaps flawed equipment? How much of it was the result of the player making improper hits? I can't tell you how many times I watch players drop their heads as they go into making a tackle.

I'm not saying do nothing, or that there shouldn't be changes made to improve the situation, however, I'm not sure there is "empirical evidence" at this time, as it's not necessarily inherently the game itself causing any potential lasting effects.

 

[GatorJ]

If there is empirical evidence, you don't have to think, you'd know.

It's probable that there are issues with concussions, and the then resulting effects later on, however, I'm not sure any of it is empirical or it would be evident throughout the entire population of players, not just here and there. The vast majority would have lasting effects, not just a portion of them.

Can, or should, there be changes made to the game to reduce potential concussions? Certainly, but how much of the long term effects were a result of lack of knowledge, or irresponsibility in the game and players with concussions were put back in games without sufficient rest time? How much of it was faulty, or perhaps flawed equipment? How much of it was the result of the player making improper hits? I can't tell you how many times I watch players drop their heads as they go into making a tackle.

I'm not saying do nothing, or that there shouldn't be changes made to improve the situation, however, I'm not sure there is "empirical evidence" at this time, as it's not necessarily inherently the game itself causing any potential lasting effects.

That's why I said, "I think". I don't know. There's definitely am issue with concussions. And the NFL has already copped to masking the problem. I don't read all of the medical journals and/or studies regarding Long or short term disability from head trauma. Obviously this guy did and elected to leave. Good for him. It's not something everybody can do.

 

[URGatorBait]

That's why I said, "I think". I don't know. There's definitely am issue with concussions. And the NFL has already copped to masking the problem. I don't read all of the medical journals and/or studies regarding Long or short term disability from head trauma. Obviously this guy did and elected to leave. Good for him. It's not something everybody can do.

I certainly respect his decision. Every individual has a right to their own decision making. I also agree that there are problems with concussions, It's just that it's not certain that it's inherently the game, or possibly the failure to handle them properly previously, whatever the cause or reasoning.
The reason I said that about "empirical" is because that's specifically what it means. Empirical Evidence is hard proof that it exists with cause or purpose as to why, and the causes and purposes as to why currently is that they weren't necessarily handled correctly, i.e. players were put back into games instead of resting, and equipment may have been inferior.

 

[GatorJ]

I understand the definition of it. I thought that maybe it was. There are a lot of things that have empirical evidence that I have no idea about and I just got off the assumption that there is. That's mainly because I'm a terrible consumer of information.

 

[GatorJ]

I was going to edit the last post to "go off". But I like "got off". Because it sounds naughty.

 

[t-gator]

I was going to edit the last post to "go off". But I like "got off". Because it sounds naughty.

You're such a bad ass

 

[GatorJ]

You're such a bad ass

+1

 

[VulcanAlex]

Well that's always been an option.

However, if they had even one concussion in college and then get only one in the NFL then they'll wish they had their degree to fall back on.

Yes a degree is great but you don't have to do it in four years in a row. I hear folks coming back and finishing up all the time.

 

[TheDouglas78]

Yes a degree is great but you don't have to do it in four years in a row. I hear folks coming back and finishing up all the time.

Emmitt Smith

 

[URGatorBait]

Wow!!

Would he have been otherwise obligated to do so, or is he doing so voluntarily?

 

[TheDouglas78]

Wow!!

Would he have been otherwise obligated to do so, or is he doing so voluntarily?

Only if the team decided to go after it. So far the team hasn't said publicly (to my knowledge) they were.

 

[URGatorBait]

Only if the team decided to go after it. So far the team hasn't said publicly (to my knowledge) they were.

So, technically no obligation, but from a legal standpoint, the team probably could.

I would be doubtful they'd make a big deal about it, however, would it set precedence if a much higher paid player were to do the same thing in the future? You would think that the sign on bonus, or the like, would be basically the "guaranteed" money. If so, perhaps the team doesn't have much of an argument.

 

[GatorJ]

He's already said publicly that he's returning three quarters of the signing bonus.

 

[URGatorBait]

He's already said publicly that he's returning three quarters of the signing bonus.

Well sure, he's saying he's going to do it...I was just curious if he would have otherwise been obligated to do so involuntarily.

 

[rogdochar]

Give him credit. His words were that S.F. gave him that bonus amount on the expectation that he would play
for 4 years. He played 1/4 of that, so he's returning 3/4 back.

 

[WobbleGator]

He's already said publicly that he's returning three quarters of the signing bonus.

Borland seems like a stand up guy.