"League of Denial"

With any luck, last night will mark a turning point in the evolution of pro football.

PBS aired an important new documentary on its FRONTLINE program. This is a trailer:



It's simply devastating. The full documentary is available for streaming on FRONTLINE's site - stop right now and watch the whole thing.

ESPN was originally an equal partner in the project until just weeks ago. After fifteen months of collaborative work, the documentary was almost complete when ESPN abruptly and shamefully pulled out, reportedly at the behest of the NFL.

If that's true, it's hardly surprising; League of Denial reveals that the NFL systematically stonewalled inquiries, buried evidence of brain trauma, produced questionable medical studies, and attacked doctors who dared even suggest a possible connection between football and brain damage. This program should be required watching for all Hall of Fame voters every time Paul Tagliabue is put up for consideration.

Yesterday also saw the publication of its companion book, entitled League of Denial: The NFL, Concussions and the Battle for Truth. It was written by by Mark Fainaru-Wada and Steve Fainaru, ESPN investigative journalists and two of the writers of the FRONTLINE documentary.

From the publisher's description:

“PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL PLAYERS DO NOT SUSTAIN FREQUENT REPETITIVE BLOWS TO THE BRAIN ON A REGULAR BASIS.”

So concluded the National Football League in a December 2005 scientific paper on concussions in America’s most popular sport. That judgment, implausible even to a casual fan, also contradicted the opinion of a growing cadre of neuroscientists who worked in vain to convince the NFL that it was facing a deadly new scourge: A chronic brain disease that was driving an alarming number of players -- including some of the all-time greats -- to madness.

League of Denial reveals how the NFL, over a period of nearly two decades, sought to cover up and deny mounting evidence of the connection between football and brain damage.

Comprehensively, and for the first time, award-winning ESPN investigative reporters Mark Fainaru-Wada and Steve Fainaru tell the story of a public health crisis that emerged from the playing fields of our 21st century pastime. Everyone knew that football is violent and dangerous. But what the players who built the NFL into a $10 billion industry didn’t know – and what the league sought to shield from them – is that no amount of padding could protect the human brain from the force generated by modern football; that the very essence of the game could be exposing these players to brain damage.

In a fast-paced narrative that moves between the NFL trenches, America’s research labs and the boardrooms where the NFL went to war against science, League of Denial examines how the league used its power and resources to attack independent scientists and elevate its own flawed research -- a campaign with echoes of Big Tobacco’s fight to deny the connection between smoking and lung cancer. It chronicles the tragic fates of players like Hall of Fame Pittsburgh Steelers center Mike Webster, who was so disturbed at the time of his death he fantasized about shooting NFL executives; and former Chargers great Junior Seau, whose diseased brain became the target of an unseemly scientific battle between researchers and the NFL. Based on exclusive interviews, previously undisclosed documents and private emails, this is the story of what the NFL knew and when it knew it – questions at the heart of crisis that threatens football, from the highest levels all the way down to Pop Warner.

The best news, if there can be anything resembling good news in this story, is that Fainaru-Wada and Fainaru understand the real issue. As dangerous as concussions are, an equal danger comes from the relatively repetitive hits that players regularly sustain throughout their career. Those are what's going to force the NFL into real change. All the emphasis is on concussions—witness the subtitles of both documentary and book—while the real danger goes largely unremarked.

The NFL must change the way the game is played. It is not sustainable in its current form. To save the sport, it must adapt to this new information.

If I'm right, and if at some point in the future we can look back on yesterday as a real turning point for the sport, we'll have PBS and ESPN to thank. Even if ESPN doesn't want those thanks at the moment.

Bye-Bye Brown Helmets, Part II [UPDATED]

As I reported last night, the NFL has suddenly eliminated alternate helmets, causing at least one team to cancel a planned throwback event.

Paul Lucas at Uni Watch did some digging, and is able to clarify the policy. To a point.

This is what the Bucs' site had to say:

The league-wide guideline, which requires players to use the same helmet for all games during the season, was recently implemented based on the strong recommendation by the NFL’s Head, Neck and Spine Committee as well as the Player Safety Advisory Panel. … Due to the new regulations, Buccaneer players will wear their standard pewter, red and white uniforms in place of the classic Florida orange, red and white throwback attire that had previously been scheduled.

Uni Watch then quotes from an article released a few hours later on NFL.com. That article says the new rule "forbid[s] teams from switching helmets during the season." It also includes some clarifying quotes from NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy:

"This offseason, we communicated a recommendation from the Head, Neck and Spine Committee and the Player Safety Advisory Panel to those teams planning to wear throwback uniforms for at least one game this season. They recommended that players no longer wear different helmets as part of a 'throwback' or 'third' uniform. … Teams may continue to wear throwback uniforms under league guidelines, but players must wear their regular helmets. The outside of the helmet can be modified by removing or replacing decals, as long as it does not affect the integrity of the helmet."

Regardless of whether this is a "rule" or a "guideline" (and the NFL seems to be treating it more like the former), this is a pretty stunning turn of events. When exactly was the rule implemented? Couldn't have been that long ago, since teams still have throwbacks scheduled and the Buccaneers apparently didn't know until recently that they couldn't wear their white helmets.

This also indicates that, as I feared, the brown helmets will be eliminated from the Packers' throwbacks. Presuming that they just strip the logos and Braisher stripes from their current helmets, this is what we can expect Week 7 against the Browns:

(Photoshop by Phil Hecken)

I hope they at least swap out the green facemasks, unlike the 1994 throwbacks.

I'm in favor of the new rule, although I loved the brown helmets (and was hoping for a Washington-style leather print treatment this year). I've long argued that the NFL doesn't take head injuries seriously, even when they make lots of noise about concussions, but perhaps this is a signal of changing times.

Much more to come, I'm sure.

---

UPDATE:
We have confirmation, from Jason Wilde at ESPN Wisconsin. That's exactly what we're getting:

Packers will still wear throwback uniforms, normal helmets: Photo/Getty ImagesThe Packers will wear their alt... http://t.co/bbBug1ADYV

— Jason Wilde (@jasonjwilde) September 18, 2013

Bye-Bye Brown Helmets?

Breaking news - the Tampa Bay Buccaneers have announced that they're scrapping an upcoming throwback game over a brand-new NFL rule prohibiting (or at least discouraging) the use of alternate helmets.

This could mean the end of brown shells with the Packers' blue throwbacks.

Ironically, when throwbacks were first introduced to the NFL many teams elected to re-use their current shells, labeled with period-appropriate decals, out of these same safety concerns:

Ultimately, nobody was seriously injured wearing a throwback helmet, so all teams started wearing a second set with their throwbacks. But since we now know that concussions aren't the real problem, all those tiny cumulative hits are, the NFL looks to be reconsidering its previous stand.

So, presuming that the Packers will still hold their throwback game Week 7 against the Browns, it appears that they will have to wear the standard gold shells. That's what they did in 1994, removing the logo and Braisher stripes but retaining the green facemask.

It would also mean no leather-textured helmets for the Pack.

A Team By Any Other Name Would Play as Sweet

The Washington Redskins came into Lambeau Field last night, bringing along their Vince Lombardi-inspired uniforms.

It was a great-looking game, from the scoreline to the uniform matchup.

Two uniform-related notes. First, running back Eddie Lacy was knocked out of the game in the first series with a concussion after a helmet-to-helmet hit from Brandon Meriweather (who later suffered his own concussion when he tried the same trick on Lacy's replacement James Starks). This means we're going to hear all about concussions, and how to prevent concussions, and which helmets protect best against concussions. Which will allow the press, players and league to keep sweeping the real issue under the table; namely, that concussions aren't the real problem.

The other note relates to the visitors. A group of about two dozen Native Americans, most from the Oneida Nation, gathered outside Lambeau Field to protest the use of the "Redskins" name.

This has bubbled under the surface for the last few decades, but really gained national prominence in recent weeks. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has backed down from his previously strong defense of the nickname; four months ago it was "a unifying force that stands for strength, courage, pride and respect", and today "If we are offending one person, we need to be listening and making sure that we're doing the right things to try to address that."

Closer to home, Packers CEO Mark Murphy (who played for Washington from 1977-1984) has made recent statements expressing a degree of support for the protestors' position. Everyone agrees that the decision to keep or change the nickname ultimately belongs with Washington owner Dan Snyder, but his defenders are becoming quieter as his opponents gain strength.

This issue shows no sign of going away. From the Atlanta Braves and their tomahawk chop to the Cleveland Indians' "Chief Wahoo" logo, the appropriation of native names and iconography by sports teams continues to be problematic at least.

I'm reminded that one of the original names considered for our Packers, way back in 1919, was the "Indians". That would be after "Indian Packing Company", Curly Lambeau's employer and sponsor of that first team.

Lambeau convinced his bosses to put up money for uniforms, and in return (whether part of the agreement or not) he named his team after the company.

Fortunately for us, Curly chose the second word in the company's name over the first. Of course, "Indians" might have been short-lived, as the meat packing plant was and purchased by the Acme Packing Company in 1920.

But who knows? If things had turned out just a little differently, we would be facing the same issue Snyder is today.

Now, "Redskins" is a pretty extreme example of the native-nickname controversy in sports, so the "Green Bay Indians" wouldn't be exactly the same. Still, I'm glad that we can honestly say our nickname really is a unifying force that stands for strength, courage, pride and respect.

President Obama: "Those of Us Who Love the Sport"

Spring is coming, the swallows are returning to Capistrano, and those of us with kids have to start looking at the sports they'll play during the summer.

It got me thinking about an interview President Obama gave in January to Franklin Foer and Chris Hughes of the New Republic. Of all the subjects covered in the wide-ranging discussion, perhaps none received more press in that Super Bowl week than his comments on football and player safety.

When asked if the recent discussion of player injuries impacts his enjoyment of the game, the President responded:

"I'm a big football fan, but I have to tell you if I had a son, I'd have to think long and hard before I let him play football. And I think that those of us who love the sport are going to have to wrestle with the fact that it will probably change gradually to try to reduce some of the violence. In some cases, that may make it a little bit less exciting, but it will be a whole lot better for the players, and those of us who are fans maybe won't have to examine our consciences quite as much."

He goes on to make a distinction between professionals, who are adults, represented by a union and (for the most part) well-compensated for the risks they take, and college players. I'm less interested in that distinction, since I gave up on college football years ago, but his remarks as a whole struck me.

I do have a son. Two of them, in fact, active boys who are in organized sports and love every minute of it. And there is no way in hell I'd ever sign a permission slip to let them play football.

I'm not against them playing tough, physical sports. I've already signed the slip for soccer, and I'd be glad to do so for rugby or hockey. But there's something about football, and the equipment they wear, that encourages reckless and dangerous contact. So long as my consent is required, it's not happening.

Now, does that make me a hypocrite? I love watching others play the game, I dissect and revel and blog at length about watching them play the game, but I won't let me own kids near it. I hope not, largely because I really don't want anybody playing the game in its current state.

One of the touchstones I return to again and again in my writing on football is how added safety equipment has ironically made the game less safe for its players. In calling helmets "the NFL's WMDs", NPR's Scott Simon said "(m)odern polycarbonate helmets have let players weaponize their heads." I couldn't agree more. Players have been granted the dubious gift of short-term thinking, extending their playing careers and their ability to collide while simultaneously passing the consequences down the road. These young men, perhaps more so than most, are understandably disinterested in their lives at forty or fifty. I'd like to see padding of all kind reduced.

Ironically, this was the objection first raised in the 1940s when plastic shells were being developed. One physician who opposed their introduction was Dr. George Bennett, an orthopedic surgeon who specialized in sports medicine at Johns Hopkins. In his practice, Dr. Bennett treated the nation's greatest athletes, from Joe Dimaggio to Johnny Unitas, and he was aghast at what he saw as the destructive power of the helmet. Instead of serving "as a protection against head injury and shock, now it serves as an offensive piece of armor." Worse yet, it was creating an arms race of padding. "In order to protect himself against the jar and injury of the helmet, the underneath equipment has been toughened and increased until every player goes on the field covered in armor, all of it carrying potential injury on every play."

In response to the concerns of Dr. Bennett and others, the NFL actually banned plastic shells over these concerns in 1948, but the ban only survived one year before being lifted. It's time to reconsider that ban again; although they were principally concerned with the damage a player's helmet could do to others, we are now painfully aware that repeated collisions, the kind encouraged by modern padding, do real damage to the man wearing the helmet. Not just concussions, although those are the most dramatic form of injury and focusing on those allows journalists and league executives to avoid the underlying problem, but the small hits that add up, in too many cases, to brain damage, early dementia and worse.

There isn't a soul alive who can claim rugby is a boring game, or a game played by sissies, or whatever objections are currently being raised to safety standards. The biggest difference is that rugby players don't wear body armor. They play a violent, physical game, but have to face the consequences immediately. They can't pretend that their sport is safer than it is, and therefore they don't make it any more dangerous. It's an attitude I think we should bring to the gridiron, instead of kidding ourselves that we need better helmets and higher technology.

There's another issue raised by the President that I think merits serious discussion: his contention that reducing contact "may make (the game) a little bit less exciting". I'm not sure that I can agree with him here.

Defenders of the status quo love to talk about how hard hits are an essential part of the game; indeed, the essential part of the game, and the most popular element to boot. Fans love the big hits, they say. You can't legislate them out of football without destroying the sport's popularity. But where's the evidence for that? Certainly not on the field. The game is more popular than ever, despite the NFL's increasing focus on player safety and despite all the rule changes designed to eliminate those collisions (and despite all the whinging former jocks who moan about "skirts" or "flag football" on ESPN). If violent contact is the point of football, then you wouldn't know it from the fans.

On the contrary, I think the essential spirit of the NFL today lies in the long pass and diving catch. It lies in the quarterback scrambling out of the pocket to find a receiver, not the tackle eventually made to bring him down. It's a passing league, we are told, and most of the excitement in a game comes from a quarterback's arm. It seems pretty clear to me that the NFL could outlaw the most destructive hits without any serious loss of interest or viewership.

I'm glad the President has weighed in, and I'm glad that his words have attracted so much attention. He's right that those of us who love the sport have to keep pressure on the NFL to continue to do the right thing. We can make the sport better for all, and soon we may indeed be able to watch with our consciences clear.

Finally Starting to Get It

Win McNamee/Getty Images

For years, concussions have been a major topic of conversation around football. The NFL is changing rules to eliminate concussions. Players are wearing new and better types of helmets to prevent concussions.

For years, that has allowed us to avoid the real issue.

Today on Bloomberg.com, Jonathan Mahler is trying to drag the conversation back where it belongs, with a piece entitled "There Is No Concussion Crisis in Football".

The biggest NFL story of the week may not have been Jovan Belcher’s horrific murder-suicide in Kansas City, Missouri, but the release of a small study in the scientific journal Brain. And we may yet learn that the two are intertwined.

The four-year study looked, posthumously, at the brains of 85 athletes and soldiers. Fifty were former football players, 33 in the National Football League. The study found that the incurable degenerative disease known as CTE -- chronic traumatic encephalopathy -- is just as likely to be caused by a routine hit to the head as it is by a big, concussive blow.

"This is a disease of total, overall repetitive brain trauma," one of the researchers said.

In other words: Football doesn't have a concussion problem. It has an existential one. By calling it anything else, we are doing the brain-trauma issue a grave disservice.

Thank you, Mr. Mahler. Thank you.

I've been saying this for years. My skin crawls every time an ESPN personality waxes on about concussions, or about how the latest wonder helmet prevents them, as if a helmet could stop the brain from moving around inside the skull.

Football is a violent game that came of age at a time when the men who play it were smaller, slower and less protected. As the game has grown, players have gotten faster and bigger (William "the Refrigerator" Perry wouldn't be able to earn his nickname today). They have become more armored, which has allowed them to shake off the immediate effects of hits that would have knocked their fathers out of games.

I'm glad that the NFL, after years of ignoring the issue, has finally decided to admit the problem. I'm glad that they've started making rule changes to eliminate helmet-to-helmet contact as much as is possible. I'm glad that they're continuing to evaluate new ways of making the game safer, even if it means eliminating kickoffs.

I'm especially glad that national writers such as Jonathan Mahler are trying to keep the conversation honest.

Evolution of the NFL Football Helmet

The NFL has posted a very interesting graphic, charting the evolution of the football helmet from Curly Lambeau to Wes Welker. Great to see three references to the Packers. You can't tell the history of the NFL without Green Bay.

I am a little disturbed to see the note about the Revolution helmet in the '00s. I know it makes us all feel better to talk about reducing concussions , but 1) we can't innovating our way out of the NFL's current health crisis, and 2) it's not about concussions. But perhaps that's a longer discussion for another time.

Take a Knee (Pad)

News from the NFL Owners' meeting that the league will mandate thigh and knee pads for all players, beginning with the 2013 season. The NFLPA is objecting to the rule being implemented outside of collective bargaining, but that seems overly political to me.

The thigh pads were very prominent in the mannequins at Nike's unveiling event, but I didn't think they'd actually require players to wear them.

The easy snark is that "knee pads will do soooo much to prevent concussions", but this seems to me to be consistent with the NFL's overall goals so far. There is no inconsistency in stressing player safety while exploring an 18-game season; in fact, the former is a prerequisite to the latter.

I do worry, though, that it's a step in the wrong direction. Adding body armor is what got the NFL into the situation it is now, and for years I've been arguing that the solution is to reduce padding, not increase it. Then again, I'm not terribly sympathetic to the union's concerns, considering how many former players are currently suing the league over the NFL's ignoring safety concerns, and how many current players continue to demonstrate their profound objections to the ongoing safety concerns.

At the very least, mandating knee pads will end the biker-shorts look that many receivers, notably Greg Jennings and Donald Driver, have been wearing in recent years:

---

UPDATE 5/23/12:   Paul Lukas reminds me of this excellent article by Stephen Fatsis on the reasons behind players abandoning pads.

A Super Bowl Ad Worth Watching

National Football League

The N.F.L.'s Super Bowl commercial includes an actor portraying the Hall of Famer Gale Sayers, whose career was cut short by knee injuries.

The New York Times is reporting that the NFL will be running a commercial on player safety during the third quarter of the upcoming Super Bowl.

The concept sounds interesting:

The commercial, directed by Peter Berg — who created the TV program “Friday Night Lights” — will be shown during the final commercial break of the third quarter. It uses one long kick return as a way to take viewers through the evolution of the game’s rules and equipment, from the sport’s beginnings on a muddy field in Canton, Ohio, when players wore no helmets or pads, to the present in a brightly lighted Soldier Field.

At one point, a leather helmet peels back to reveal a more modern one made of plastic. Later, a player grabs an opponent’s face mask, a violation of current rules.

Only the most devoted fan would recognize all the references. The flying wedge, a blocking technique that is believed to have made its debut in 1892 but was banned soon after, is shown briefly in the opening seconds. Near the end, a horse-collar tackle, only recently forbidden, is featured.

But nobody, particularly the casual fan at whom the commercial is primarily aimed, will miss its closing message, delivered by Baltimore Ravens linebacker Ray Lewis: “Here’s to making the next century safer and more exciting. Forever forward. Forever football.”

I'm a little uneasy making Ray Lewis a spokesman for anything related to saving lives, but that's beside the point.

There's also been some criticism leveled at the NFL that, after years of ignoring the problem, it took lawsuits for them to actually address it. And that's very fair, but again a little beside the point. Yes, they waited too long to address the problems inherent in the game. But they are addressing them, even if reluctantly. And the fact that they feel compelled to spend their valuable Super Bowl face time on this is a huge step forward. You may recall that last year they ran a much less hard-hitting ad, if you'll pardon the pun.

I'm intrigued to see the ad. Even if that screenshot's the closest our Packers will get to the game this year. The re-created mid-1960s uniforms look pretty good, although I'll have to check those 5's.

Top Secret

Apparently, the Packers are being somewhat secretive about the details of Aaron Rodgers's new helmet.

From Gregg Easterbrook's Tuesday Morning Quarterback column on ESPN.com's Page 2:

Kurt Snibbe/ESPN.com

Packers should reveal QB's helmet info

All across the United States, football players and their parents -- there are 500 high school football players for each NFL player -- are worried about concussions, which a report released last week shows are rising in incidence.

Aaron Rodgers of the Packers, who will start at quarterback in the upcoming Super Bowl, just switched to a helmet he thinks offers superior protection. Rodgers says the helmet prevented a concussion when he took a brutal blow to the head from Julius Peppers of the Chicago Bears in the NFC Championship Game.

So a Super Bowl quarterback has found a helmet that might reduce the concussion plague, protecting huge numbers of football players at the college, high school and youth levels. Good news?

Here's the catch -- Rodgers won't tell you what kind of helmet he switched to. Neither will the Green Bay Packers. A Super Bowl quarterback and his team have information that might increase neurological safety -- and won't share it.

We don't know why the Packers are reluctant to identify the helmet (although it appears to be a Schutt AiR XP). It might have something to do with reports that it may have been specially customized, either by Schutt or the Packers.

Perhaps the team is also reluctant to give any helmet their endorsement, implied or otherwise, until more data has been collected.

Easterbrook also makes the very common mistake of focusing exclusively on concussions. As we've discussed, concussions are a very big part of the problem, but not even the scariest bit. Especially when talking about the "the college, high school and youth levels". It's the cumulative number of small hits, small hits encouraged by the false sense of security engendered by plastic armor, foam padding and tons of marketing hype.

I remain convinced about one thing; the emphasis on armor contributes to the frequency and severity of neurological injuries suffered in the course of playing this game. If that has made the Packers circumspect about promoting a technological solution to the problem, then good for the Packers.

In Which We (Ought to) Gain a New Reader

Peter King of Sports Illustrated opens his post-NFC Championship Game Monday Morning Quarterback column with this:

Interesting little-known factoid I got from my postgame conversation with Aaron Rodgers: After being twice-concussed this season, he changed helmets to one of the new, safer, high-tech models the league has been urging players to use.

Far be it from me to quibble with Mr. King, but he's well behind the curve on this one. I discussed it at some length back in December, when the new helmet made its first appearance against the Giants.

Now I understand that The Wearing of the Green (and Gold) is probably not on his regular reading list (although it should be!), but the new helmet was pretty big news at the time. It was featured in the New York Times, not to mention King's own Sports Illustrated. It was indeed interesting, but far from a "little-known factoid". King's followup was better:

Remember the big helmet-to-helmet hit he took early in the fourth quarter from Chicago defensive end Julius Peppers, the one that drew a 15-yard penalty on Peppers? Well, Rodgers feels that hit could well have led to concussion number three had he not been wearing the new helmet.

"That was lucky," Rodgers told me. "As much as the new helmet feels uncomfortable and I'm still getting used to it, I'm really happy I was wearing it on that hit."

I'm still wary of trying to tech our way out of this problem; the bigger issue for me is that Peppers appeared to be aiming deliberately high on the hit in hopes of forcing a turnover.

Extra padding has allowed players a false sense of security, allowing them to think (or pretend) that they can do so without consequences. Or, as NPR's Scott Simon put it, "Modern polycarbonate helmets have let players weaponize their heads." It's time to rethink this particular arms race.

Shell-shocked

Sharp-eyed viewers noticed something new in last Sunday's game against the Giants. Quarterback Aaron Rodgers, back after sitting out a week with his second concussion of the season, was sporting a new helmet:

That's the Schutt AiR XP, modified with Aaron's standard facemask.

Previously, Rodgers wore a classic Riddell shell. The external difference between the two is most noticeable in the construction of the side and shape of the earhole. Here's his old lid:

Going forward, the round ear hole will be the easiest way to identify pre-Week 16 of 2010 photographs of Rodgers.

From behind, the Schutt looks much the same as his old Riddell:

I hadn't noticed it before, but the Packers have moved the player identification decal off the center stripe. Looking through the archives, this tweak appears to have been made between Week 8 (at the Jets) and Week 9 (against the Cowboys).

Details on the new helmet are sketchy, other than vague reports that it is "specially modified with extra padding to reduce the risk of sustaining another concussion". It isn't clear if those "special modifications" refer to the off-the-rack Air XP, which was originally designed to minimize concussions, or if they're talking about custom modifications to the standard helmet.

Rodgers isn't alone in wearing the AiR XP; it has been seen on Donald Driver, BJ Raji and Sam Shields, among others.

Another interesting note on the Schutt helmet is the team branding on its nose bumper. Riddell is the "official helmet" of the NFL, which means that although players can chose from a list of safety-approved helmets, only Riddell helmets are allowed to display a manufacturer's logo. Teams fill the resulting empty space on non-Riddell helmets with their own iconography; the Packers use their stencil wordmark.

The difference can be seen on Rodgers's two helmets (the photo on the left comes from the October 17, 2010 game against the Dolphins):

Rodgers reportedly took some kidding from his teammates about the new shell:

"His helmet is just hideous, but you’ve got to do what you’ve got to do. It scrunches his face up pretty bad."

– wide receiver Greg Jennings

"He does have an ugly-looking helmet. But we’ve got him back."

– cornerback Charles Woodson

Rodgers's new helmet is one more step away from the iconinc "round-hole" Riddell look, which has defined the football helmet at least as far back as the 1970s. Renderings of the helmet are used as alternate logos by every team in the NFL.

The Cleveland Browns take it one step further, using this particular rendering as their primary logo.

The Packers, for their part, use the same graphic on all manner of team merchandise, everything from smokeless candles to this customizable sweatshirt:

I wonder what will happen as more and more players move away from the standard Riddell shell to different (and distinctive) profiles, if this graphic will be phased out of use or will begin to take on a "throwback" patina.

Progress

According to this morning's New York Times, players seem to be getting the message.

Donald Driver saw it in the eyes of Aaron Rodgers. Rodgers, Green Bay's quarterback, was not quite right after taking hard hits on back-to-back plays and sustaining his second concussion of the season against the Lions last week, but he still wanted to go back into the game.

What happened next can be seen as another sign that N.F.L. players' attitudes toward concussions are changing. Standing on the sideline, Driver helped talk his teammate into sitting out the rest of the game.

"I was very concerned about him," Driver, a receiver, said. "I kind of whispered in his ear, walked behind him during the time he was sitting on the bench and kind of told him: 'This is just a game. Your life is more important than this game.' I told him I love him to death, and you’ve got to make the choice, but this game is not that important."

This is a powerful statement, and a very positive one.

There's a difference between being tough and being stupid. You can fight through some types of injuries, but head hits, with their possible relationship to CTE, are not among them. What the last generation called "getting your bell rung" now sounds as a clarion call, a warning.

Hope the League is listening.

A Good Sign

The NFL has created a new warning sign about the effects of concussions, to be hung in every locker room this upcoming season.

A version of this will also be given to all active players in the form of a brochure.

I'm still concerned that the focus on concussions allows the league to ignore the greater problem of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE). CTE may be caused by repeated blows to the head, even those that don't necessarily rise to the level of a concussion. Evidence suggests that the small hits that every player takes again and again and again over decades of play, can add up and finally trigger the onset of the progressive neurodegenerative disease. Pretending that concussions are the only problem, or even the primary problem, is to ignore this great danger lurking on the field of every game.

But small steps. What's really important here is that after years of denial, the NFL is finally admitting that the game has serious and long-ranging consequences for the men who play it. And it's about time.

Retire the Football Helmet?

In recent years, much attention has been paid to the potential harm suffered by football players in the routine course of their sport. In the past, it has been widely accepted that the price of a football career includes lingering problems with knees, elbows and other joints. Shocking new evidence suggests, however, that football players are putting themselves at risk for severe mental problems.

The NFL's own study indicated that retired players suffer early-onset dementia at a rate four to five times higher than the general population (the League then tried to claim such studies were unreliable). Books have been published on the subject, studies have been commissioned. Last month, Commissioner Goodell was grilled by Congress over this issue.

Even if the League eventually admits that this is a real problem, the question of how to address it remains. Much of the focus has been on preventing these types of injuries by improving the technology. More padding, different types of padding, new shell designs. Special mouth guards.

Today, the Wall Street Journal weighs in with a long and interesting article proposing a different solution. I'm only going to quote an exerpt here, but check out the full article.

SPORTS - NOVEMBER 11, 2009

Is It Time to Retire the Football Helmet?

New Research Says Small Hits Do Major Damage—and There's Not Much Headgear Can Do About It

By REED ALBERGOTTI and SHIRLEY S. WANG

This football season, the debate about head injuries has reached a critical mass. Startling research has been unveiled. Maudlin headlines have been written. Congress called a hearing on the subject last month.

As obvious as the problem may seem (wait, you mean football is dangerous?), continuing revelations about the troubling mental declines of some retired players—and the ongoing parade of concussions during games—have created a sense of inevitability. Pretty soon, something will have to be done.

But before the debate goes any further, there's a fundamental question that needs to be investigated. Why do football players wear helmets in the first place? And more important, could the helmets be part of the problem?

"Some people have advocated for years to take the helmet off, take the face mask off. That'll change the game dramatically," says Fred Mueller, a University of North Carolina professor who studies head injuries. "Maybe that's better than brain damage."

The first hard-shell helmets, which became popular in the 1940s, weren't designed to prevent concussions but to prevent players in that rough-and-tumble era from suffering catastrophic injuries like fractured skulls.

But while these helmets reduced the chances of death on the field, they also created a sense of invulnerability that encouraged players to collide more forcefully and more often. "Almost every single play, you're going to get hit in the head," says Miami Dolphins offensive tackle Jake Long.

What nobody knew at the time is that these small collisions may be just as damaging. The growing body of research on former football players suggests that brain damage isn't necessarily the result of any one trauma, but the accumulation of thousands of seemingly innocuous blows to the head.

An interesting idea. I've long advocated a ban on the body armor baseball players wear at the plate, for similar reasons. It breeds a feeling of invincibility and allows the batter to crowd the plate. In that case, my concern was more about pitchers losing the ability to pitch inside, not about preventing injuries.

They bring up rugby and Australian Rules football as examples of two sports with similarly violent play, yet only a fraction of the head injuries of the NFL.

Plastic football helmets were first developed by Riddell in 1935. This 1940 article from the Bend (Oregon) Bulletin describes the new plastic helmets to be worn by the University of Minnesota, an early adopter, as "glass-like." Riddell used a trademarked clear plastic they called "Tenite" in their helmets, which were painted on the inside. This would last until the later 1950s, when "Tenite" was replaced by a material called "Kra-lite," which was gray in color. Teams then painted the outside of the helmet to match their desired colors.

World War II diverted the bulk of plastic production to defense and delayed the plastic helmet's introduction to the NFL until the 1944 season.

As the plastic helmet's popularity spread, controversy followed.

The chief complaint, echoed by at least one prominent sports surgeon, was that by shielding football players from impact plastic helmets encouraged more violent play, and the unyielding synthetic surface increased the potential damage done to other players in collisions. Sound familiar?

The NFL, concerned about rising injuries, took the extreme step of actually banning plastic helmets in 1948. This was the announcement, following the League's annual owners' meeting in January of that year:

The ban was short-lived, and was rescinded at the following year's meeting:

Still, some teams held out even after the prohibition was lifted. I'm not aware when the first Packer stepped onto the field in City Stadium wearing a synthetic helmet. Curly Lambeau doesn't appear to have been a proponent, based on team photographs.

The man who personally led the League in innovation with the first team to travel to games by plane, own its own self-contained training camp facility, and have a fight song seemed to be in no hurry to replace his leather helmets. Perhaps he had the same safety concerns.

Even into the 1960s, the controvery lingered:

Since then, of course, helmets have become the most identifiable feature of pro football teams. They have become a visual stand-in for a club (as anyone who has ever seen Monday Night Football can attest). They've become additional logos. Heck, the Cleveland Browns use their helmet as their logo. You don't see this happening with baseball caps.

The NFL recognizes and encourages this helmet branding. In 2002, the Seattle Seahawks submitted a new uniform design to the NFL for approval, including different helmets (one blue, one silver) for home and road.

This road/home split might be common in other sports, but other sports are not Pro Football, and the League rejected that element out of concern that the Seahawk brand might be diluted. The team then held a fan vote to see which helmet would be adopted (blue won).

So the League not only has an interest in denying the connection between repeated hits and early onset dementia, they also have a financial interest in maintaining the helmet status quo.

Where does that leave us? The game has changed relatively slowly around us. Hits are getting harder, and players are getting bigger. I'm not the first one to point out that in 1985 William Perry's 335 pound frame was so out of the ordinary it earned him the nickname "the Fridge." Now fully one-quarter of the league weighs in over 300 pounds.

Change is difficult. Sudden change doubly so. The modern game has evolved slowly over decades to become the bone-jarring contest it is now. Any attempts to suddenly alter it will be met with great resistence. But as NPR's Scott Simon put it, "Modern polycarbonate helmets have let players weaponize their heads." That just can't be sustained.

Something will have to be done. Surely there's a middle ground between eliminating helmets altogether and continuing down the gladiatorial path. Perhaps streamlining helmets, making them strong enough to reduce one's own injuries but not so much so that they cause injuries in others, can be that ground. The league can still slap logos on the sides, but players won't have to pay such a terrible price to play the game they love.