What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Soft shoulder pads/soft helmets (1 Viewer)

Captain Spaulding

Footballguy
Personnally, I've found it odd that as much critisism as the game of football gets about its violence nature and the stress for player protection, that the idea of changing the design of the shoulder pads and helmet with soft, lighter compounds hasn't been tested or thought of. Something new that strictly protects the player and doest have a design flaw that allows defenders to use their forehead/faskmask and shoulder pads as a technique for tackling that additionally inflicts alot of pain and frequent injury. Granted, it would drastically change the way the game is played, but its just so obvious from Pop-Warner all the way up that the current design of the "protection" equipment is truly used as a weapon of inflicting pain and defenders are coached to tackle a certain way that utilizes the equipment they have that aids in bringing down a player more easily (or just punishing them). Wouldn't it be a safer and more "offensive" oriented game if engineers could design "soft" shoulder pads and "soft" helmets. It would be a radical change, probably sounds like a wussy idea, but just something I've been thinking about for a while to see what others think or how you think the game would be different if different equipment were used.

 
Europeans mock the NFL for the armor, so for the sake of making the sport more popular, I could see the NFL reducing or eliminating padding, perhaps in conjunction with some rules adjustments to lessen injuries.

 
Without giving this any real thought. I would agree. It wouldn't take much to redesign the helmet so that the hard shell was inbetween two thick sets of pads. Still giving te hard protection while offering an softer area impact. I know I would hate to get a hand between two helmets. And we see QB slap helmets on a regular basis.

The major collisions though, I am not sure the pads would or currently do dissipate the energy between the two colliding bodies. Yet again, I would agree on a whole that softpads would lessen the impacts.

Maybe a big leap for all the concussion and dain bramage talk.

 
I'd be surprised if it the optimal design (hard vs. soft) hasn't already been studied very carefully.

I'm guessing FB helmets are hard shells for the same reason motorcycle helmets are... so in collisions, the helmet glances/slides off.

If it catches, the risk of neck injury is huge.

The same concept probably applies to shoulder pads etc...

 
Das Boot said:
I'd be surprised if it the optimal design (hard vs. soft) hasn't already been studied very carefully.I'm guessing FB helmets are hard shells for the same reason motorcycle helmets are... so in collisions, the helmet glances/slides off.If it catches, the risk of neck injury is huge.The same concept probably applies to shoulder pads etc...
Fantastic point. I bet that's it - for real. Good call.
 
Das Boot said:
I'd be surprised if it the optimal design (hard vs. soft) hasn't already been studied very carefully.I'm guessing FB helmets are hard shells for the same reason motorcycle helmets are... so in collisions, the helmet glances/slides off.If it catches, the risk of neck injury is huge.The same concept probably applies to shoulder pads etc...
Motorcycle helmets have to protect against pavement and steel, the only "hard" object football helmets protect against are other helmets and rigid pads (now that astroturf is pretty much gone). Also, concussions are generally a result of the brain impacting the inside of the skull, so if soft pads resulted in less violent hits then it would intuitively reduce those type of head injuries.I think rugby players have less frequent and less severe injuries, but maybe someone could verify that. It would really change the sport, so it is hard to imagine drastic changes like soft padding.
 
Boo....how much more will you limit the defense?

All of the rule changes to help out offenses.

Why don't you ask Ray Lewis what he thinks about a WR coming for a crack/stalk block or lineman taking out his knees...while he has to tackle RB's with a nerf helmet.

When do all of those big time collisions happen? Not with a RB in general....b/c the defender should be taking them lower/taking their legs out. QB's can't get hit high or low already.

So that leaves us with WR's going over the middle....yes that happens....the wedge busters.....but they made rule changes to help that....and onside kicks.....they made changes to that.

I thinks its B.S. that Brian Dawkins and other great Safteys/other defenders get paid millions but have to be careful when they hit a WR. B/c when the ball gets to the WR....what is his job? Help out the defense...make that paycheck....win a ring....knock that ball out. But wait I can't go full speed b/c even when I do...It might so happen my helmet hits the WR's helmet and thats a penalty. OK lets hug and I will then take them to the ground.

Its getting ridiculous....and this is coming from an offensive coach.

 
Only need to badly weaken the defensive armor.. Make them injury prone if they lead with the head or shoulder. Soft thin shoulder pads and cushy leather helments. Tackling would greatly improve.

Barring the QB from crossing the line of scrimmage would greatly reduce QB injuries.

Implementing weight limits by position would also help. All linemen under 290 lbs. WRs and 2ndary under 200 lbs. RBs under 200 lbs. LBs max 240. It would greatly cut back on both injuries and steroid use.

 
The Rugby comparison isn't really relevant.

NFL players often have 20+ yard runs at each other and collide at nearly 180 degree angles while moving at full speed. For the most part rugby collisions happen across small spaces, the players aren't at top speed and the tackles are more often made at shallow angles.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Boo....how much more will you limit the defense?

All of the rule changes to help out offenses.

Why don't you ask Ray Lewis what he thinks about a WR coming for a crack/stalk block or lineman taking out his knees...while he has to tackle RB's with a nerf helmet.

When do all of those big time collisions happen? Not with a RB in general....b/c the defender should be taking them lower/taking their legs out. QB's can't get hit high or low already.

So that leaves us with WR's going over the middle....yes that happens....the wedge busters.....but they made rule changes to help that....and onside kicks.....they made changes to that.

I thinks its B.S. that Brian Dawkins and other great Safteys/other defenders get paid millions but have to be careful when they hit a WR. B/c when the ball gets to the WR....what is his job? Help out the defense...make that paycheck....win a ring....knock that ball out. But wait I can't go full speed b/c even when I do...It might so happen my helmet hits the WR's helmet and thats a penalty. OK lets hug and I will then take them to the ground.

Its getting ridiculous....and this is coming from an offensive coach.
You are not supposed to tackle with your head, so I don't see the relevance. Will it change the way the game is played? I would that it is likely, and for the better if it means players know they better not lead with their head and actually tackle with proper form.I agree with the hypothesis that a hard helmet has the advantage of allowing a glancing blow whereas a soft helmet may "stick" and induce a moment to the neck which is a well known factor in neck injury. (I work in human anatomy/injury in the automotive field). Other than that, a soft shell *should* be better at reducing the acceleration based injuries to the head (concussions).

 
The current hard helmets and pads encourage violent collisions. Softer padding would probably lead to 40s style tackling. Players would tackle less aggressively for their own safety. However, watching rugby and Aussie football, you see plenty of big time hits.

 
The Rugby comparison isn't really relevant.NFL players often have 20+ yard runs at each other and collide at nearly 180 degree angles while moving at full speed. For the most part rugby collisions happen across small spaces, the players aren't at top speed and the tackles are more often made at shallow angles.
Correct; there is also a difference in the rules of the game, which makes collisions much less violent. In football, it is imperative to stop the ballcarrier from gaining an extra yard, because of the down system (4 downs to make 10 yards). In rugby, the additional yardage is not as important; what is important is to wrap the player up so he is unable to lateral the ball, and to make sure you do not miss him, which would create an overlap. On top of it, there is no blocking in rugby; you must allow the tackler a clear path to the ballcarrier.
 
Boo....how much more will you limit the defense?

All of the rule changes to help out offenses.

Why don't you ask Ray Lewis what he thinks about a WR coming for a crack/stalk block or lineman taking out his knees...while he has to tackle RB's with a nerf helmet.

When do all of those big time collisions happen? Not with a RB in general....b/c the defender should be taking them lower/taking their legs out. QB's can't get hit high or low already.

So that leaves us with WR's going over the middle....yes that happens....the wedge busters.....but they made rule changes to help that....and onside kicks.....they made changes to that.

I thinks its B.S. that Brian Dawkins and other great Safteys/other defenders get paid millions but have to be careful when they hit a WR. B/c when the ball gets to the WR....what is his job? Help out the defense...make that paycheck....win a ring....knock that ball out. But wait I can't go full speed b/c even when I do...It might so happen my helmet hits the WR's helmet and thats a penalty. OK lets hug and I will then take them to the ground.

Its getting ridiculous....and this is coming from an offensive coach.
You are not supposed to tackle with your head, so I don't see the relevance. Will it change the way the game is played? I would that it is likely, and for the better if it means players know they better not lead with their head and actually tackle with proper form.I agree with the hypothesis that a hard helmet has the advantage of allowing a glancing blow whereas a soft helmet may "stick" and induce a moment to the neck which is a well known factor in neck injury. (I work in human anatomy/injury in the automotive field). Other than that, a soft shell *should* be better at reducing the acceleration based injuries to the head (concussions).
Players are taught to tackle with their helmets though. They put the facemask on the ball, shoulder into the ball carrier, and wrap up.It gives the defensive players an advantage in causing turnovers.

Offense is limited by:

1) Not being able to crack back block at the knee or lower.

2) Not being able to come off the edge(WR's mainly) and cut in the interior.

3) Not being able to have a blocker engaged with a defender and have another blocker cut/go low on a defender.

Defense is limited by:

1) Not being able to touch a Reciever beyond 5 yards.

2) Not being able to seperate the reciever from the ball...if the helmet is involved. Try hitting a moving(very athletic) target running full speed, while you are running full speed and see if on accident the helmet(which is in the middle of where you are trying hit players(your shoulders) ) gets involved.

3) Not being able to tackle a full speed target ball carrier anywhere around the neck or head...even though they will can duck and junk.....which could just so happen to adjust where you were originally trying to tackle.

4) Not being able to hit a QB late, at the head, or below the knee.

Does that seem fair how they are limited to what the offense is limited?

The funny part about the last point...is defenders have to give full out effort trying to get to the QB when they can be grabbed, pushed, cut, blocked in the back(if you don't think this happens then you simply don't watch what OT's do to DE's), double/triple teamed. Which could lead them at lunging/diving at the QB but then all of these rules are in place.

But now defenders will have the only advantage taken away from them, with this helmet deal, which helps them do their job and create turnovers.

 
The Rugby comparison isn't really relevant.NFL players often have 20+ yard runs at each other and collide at nearly 180 degree angles while moving at full speed. For the most part rugby collisions happen across small spaces, the players aren't at top speed and the tackles are more often made at shallow angles.
Correct; there is also a difference in the rules of the game, which makes collisions much less violent. In football, it is imperative to stop the ballcarrier from gaining an extra yard, because of the down system (4 downs to make 10 yards). In rugby, the additional yardage is not as important; what is important is to wrap the player up so he is unable to lateral the ball, and to make sure you do not miss him, which would create an overlap. On top of it, there is no blocking in rugby; you must allow the tackler a clear path to the ballcarrier.
All true. In addition, posession is not as important as field position in rugby. The emphasis on posession in American football encourages violent collisions to dislodge the ball from the carrier.
 
But now defenders will have the only advantage taken away from them, with this helmet deal, which helps them do their job and create turnovers.
Strongly disagree. I don't think it matters at all what material the helmet is made of. It is a large, blunt instrument coming at the ball with (usually) high velocity. We're not talking nerf foam here, to be effective a "soft" helmet would be a pretty dense foam. It would still have to handle the wear and tear of hard collisions to facemasks, shoulder pads, and the ground.It is quite surprising to me that with the money involved at the NFL level that helmet shells are not custom made to each player. Ideally each player's helmet would have a consistent thickness of foam at all points of the head, thereby allowing a closer fitting hard shell. The shell could then be reduced in hardness/thickness and covered with a layer of very dense foam. One major issue with a design like this would be that the outer layer would have to be replaced frequently, probably every game.In addition, better chinstrap and mouthguard design would go a long way in reducing concussions. The NFL is already studying this (sorry no link).
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top