impreza187

Established Members
  • Content Count

    3,093
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

impreza187 last won the day on March 8 2016

impreza187 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

629 Excellent

About impreza187

  • Rank
    On the Ballot
  • Birthday 06/16/1980

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Denver

Previous Fields

  • Add to Mailing List?
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

967 profile views
  1. Good advice....we'll tune you out from now on then. "In the debate over which quarterback has had the greater career, Tom Brady or Peyton Manning, the postseason stats are remarkably similar. -Passer rating, the NFL’s flawed but still useful formula to put one number on a quarterback’s all-around passing performance, gives Manning a career postseason mark of 88.1. Brady’s career postseason passer rating is 88.0. -Less than one percentage point separates the two quarterbacks’ career postseason completion percentages: Manning has completed 63.35 percent of his postseason passes, while Brady has completed 62.38 percent of his postseason passes. -Brady and Manning are 1-2 in NFL history in postseason attempts, completions and yards. Brady has thrown 1,183 passes in the playoffs while Manning has thrown 1,004. No one else has even thrown 800. - Brady has completed 738 passes in the postseason while Manning has completed 636. No one else has completed even 500. Brady has 7,957 passing yards in the postseason while Manning has 7,198. No one else even has 6,000 postseason passing yards. -Brady has 56 postseason touchdowns and 28 interceptions. Manning has 40 postseason touchdowns and 24 interceptions. Manning has averaged 7.17 yards per passing attempt in the postseason. Brady has averaged 6.73. Which player has played better in the playoffs? Statistically, it’s a wash." http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/01/26/brady-peyton-have-remarkably-similar-postseason-stats/
  2. If you had to choose one Cards wr...Floyd is the best bet. But it could literally be any of the three leading the pack, so the ADPs of 6.01 (Floyd) 6.08 (Fitz) 7.08 (J. Brown) make sense. Floyd's got all the tools and just needs to stay healthy so they can keep him busy.
  3. If you think posting gifs makes someone look cool, you have a very low bar for coolness.
  4. The Pimp Perspective: Set up straw man Make him sound ludicrous Throw out cherry-picked player comparison Rinse, Repeat. BOTH had amazing players on offense and defense which they undoubtedly made better. BOTH redefined the position. Manning with the audibles and shifts. Brady with the short passing game and seams. BOTH won multiple championships. Manning has some edges in head to head, Brady holds others. The list goes on and on..... it really just depends how you want to define "the greatest".
  5. From the article: "Among the possible explanations Miller mentioned were a doubling in the number of players screened for possible concussions" If you increase the screenings by 100%, but concussions only increase by 32% you probably don't have a worsening problem. If that's the case....you can go ahead and throw out all figures that we had prior to 2015. That's like moving a weather station and reporting that snow has increased by 70% that year.
  6. "Concussions down 35% in '15" - Psygolf Not sure if u saw this Psy, but the new data suggests just the opposite. Concussions UP 32% in 2015. A result of lowering the diagnosis threshold, or a worsening problem? http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/14672860/nfl-says-diagnosed-concussions-way-season
  7. Can certainly believe that. I played competitive hockey from age 12 through college. Had more than one concussion. My nephew is 11 and just started playing- it's so different how they treat safety gear now. It was like u said- got your bell rung. Shake it off and get back in there. Different times, my friend.
  8. Agree fully, I had to sign a waiver in order for my son to play high school football...not sure if I had already mention this, maybe too many hits to the helmet myself.Although, he was not asked to sign on with a players union - would the union need to be equally corrupt as the owners side in order for our proposed "Waiver Era" period of the NFL to begin? I'm gonna go with "YES" to the too many hits to the helmet...LOL You have once again destroyed your opposition due to endless patience and an indomitable will Go Broncos
  9. Its not frequent at all...this is the point of the peer-review process. Usually 2-3 doctors review a submitted paper and provide suggestions for change; once those suggestions are met, the paper is accepted. The vast majority of papers submitted (>85%) are not accepted for publication. The issue with Omalu's original publication wasn't the quality of the study -- it passed the peer-review process even though Neurosurgery made him go through 18 (!!) different reviewing doctors (remember that more than 95% of accepted papers are reviewed by fewer than 5 doctors). The issue was that once the paper was accepted, people started to pick up on the implications, and the NFL tried to strong-arm Omalu into recanting the paper. Once Omalu refused to recant -- his original study involved 2 patients with CTE -- he became blacklisted by Neurosurgery (which was at the time a shill for the NFL because its editor-in-chief, Dr. Michael Apuzzo was in the NFL's pocket) and many other journals because the scientific community realized that once you have 3 patients published in the peer-reviewed literature with a particular condition, that condition can no longer be ignored as simply chance; his next publication would have surpassed this threshold which the NFL desperately didn't want to happen. This is why Omalu had to spend years trying to get published elsewhere in lesser known journals. Fortunately once light was shed on this shady behavior, Apuzzo was fired and Omalu's work was no longer blacklisted, able to be judged purely on its merit. After that, it was published everywhere -- the NFL's worst nightmare, because now everyone KNOWS that CTE is real in the NFL. BTW, while the NFL was blacklisting Omalu, they were publishing their own bogus studies that newer helmets produced by Riddell prevented long-term brain injury -- this was later found to be totally false and the primary person responsible for these bogus studies (Dr. Joseph Maroon -- who was being paid by Riddell while writing these articles) was discredited as well -- he happened to be the treating physician for some of the NFL players who initially died after CTE. There is a lot more to this than I'm telling, but I hope that people will at least get some sense of the corruption and cover up the NFL actively engaged in. Pretty clear what was going on- thanks Josh. I think we can put that issue to bed.
  10. Now we're getting to the nuts and bolts.... Great questions Psy. I would think a "3 strikes and you're out" rule would encourage underhanded tactics. "OBJ has a neck injury. Or a sinus injury." You would have to really ferret out the truth sometimes. We can't even get a decent injury report from many teams. Here's an idea: Once a team finalizes their roster and practice squad before the season- every player gets a thorough concussion risk eval. If you score below a certain threshold, you're required to sign off your future rights of medical care. Maybe even attend a league seminar on brain trauma. Welker now has to decide if the money is worth the loss of coverage, and the NFL has clearly presented the gravity of that decision.
  11. From the NFL's point of view, going back to when Tags was commissioner: Assuming they have some nerds locked in a room crunching numbers regarding how many billions this will cost them... 1. What if we give the players healthcare for life, but the average lifespan increases to 120? 2. What if we delay the findings for 20 years and universal healthcare is enacted? Are we still on the hook for the same amount of damages? Healthcare for life? 3. What if we delay the findings for 30 years and a genetic component is revealed, then we can come out and say "The technology wasn't there before for us to understand this". 4. What if the full risk really isn't known? etc,etc. I'm not saying it's right, ideally a government would step in and bitchslap entities that try this sort of thing...but I can understand why they're not coming out and admitting to football being as bad as boxing for long term health. You're dead on with that. Pencil pushers and lawyers sitting in a room calculating cost of change vs. litigation. That may have been a feasible line of defense before the mess they're in now.... but it's not anymore. Similar to how carmakers decide when to issue recalls.... what's the cheapest out?
  12. Buddy... This is the world of 2016. U coverup major medical information and the lawsuits will be just the beginning of your problem. The NFL is always behind on this stuff. Disclose the full risk, take the stance that you want to lead the way instead of having to be dragged kicking and screaming.
  13. They are working with professionals to improve the safety of the game...to expect them to accept FULL responsibility for any ailment a former player has after they retire is unrealistic. Full responsibility? no. Full medical care? yep. With the caveat being that acceptance implies understanding and full responsibility of risk. ie....getting out ahead of it and cutting down on lawsuits later.
  14. Good stuff Low.... thanks for posting that. I do see Psygolf's point. Personal responsibility is sorely lacking in todays society- The lawyers and PC run amok is just disgusting to me. There is no substitute for using ones judgement. I think a healthy distrust of gov't agencies and corporations is necessary. Money corrupts all Money and power both corrupt.And those with it will do whatever they can to retain it. The Big Short and Spotlight are two movies that illustrate this axiom in vastly different entities. The NFL is no different. Yep. And just like any other corporation- They won't go out of their way to address an issue unless it starts impacting the bottom line. Corporations are not here to protect our health and wealth- they are here to enrich shareholders and executives. And in that regard...The NFL is status-quo. I wouldn't expect anything different. It's on the fans- the customer- to shine the light and demand change or boycott.