National Football League

Page 53 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Well, Cousins could be pretty disappointed, but the positives are:
- he will be going in under no pressure other than what he puts on himself.
- he will be learning from a pretty good coach.
- and Rex may not be a great QB, but he might be pretty good as a mentor.
He's just going to have to treat this like any backup should, work hard at being ready to play, and maybe he will have a Matt Flynn-like start to springboard his career.

Speaking of speculation, here is some inside information on Seattle that most of us did not know on draft day. Seattle took 3 DT's in the draft (rounds 4, and both round 7 picks). Bleacher's grade for round 7 was a "D". I had to really scratch my head at that pick. But their plan for him is not DT... is it OG. Cable worked him out to see if he could fit at the OG position, and liked what he saw. This is obviously a project, but Cable has a way of turning guys that he thinks have potential into pretty good O-linemen. I think what he did last year with Seattle's line was pretty impressive. This is a good example of a situation that leaves us guessing, but teams may have a bigger plan than just bringing in another body for competition's sake.

edit: You're right, I am bad on that. :)
 
Exactly correct in your analysis of Seattle. We don't know what Carrol and Cable are seeing in these guys, and their team. They are planning and putting their team together as we speak. So with the selection of Irvin, Bleacher Report says he went way too early. But obviously Seattle has a certain plan with the players they already have, and see Irvin as a situational blitzer who will most definitely play, especially in a lot of third downs or 2nd and long. They also interviewed him, Bleacher Report didn't, none of us out here did. BR also called taking Wilson a bad pick, after picking up Flynn. But was it? Jon Gruden is big on Wilson, and obviously the kid is smart and determined. What if the Seahawks trade TJax? Or Flynn never really pans out? Then Wilson sure looks like a smart pick, especially as he's bound by the rookie salary cap drawn up in the last CBA.

Gruden also said something about Weeden a lot of people ignore. Roger Staubach didn't enter the NFL until he was 27 (due to Navy service). That guy had a pretty good career as I recall. Not that Weeden is the next Staubach, but he thinks (and I agree) people are harping on his age too much because they want every draft pick to be a long-term career player, but most players aren't.

True on Cousins, but he has to be thinking in the back of his head "when am I ever going to get a chance?" It's really going to be in a couple years when he's traded.
 
Good point on Weeden's age. If he is productive for 6 years or whatever his contract duration ends up being, it will be worth it.

I do not disagree with you regarding Cousins wondering when the chance might come. But that's they same with any QB who is backing up a great QB like a Brady, Manning, or Brees. Difference is, the QB's backing up those great ones are already established backups and not a rookie who is chomping at the bits to play and prove himself. Cousins will just have to be patient and have great work ethic. If he does that, he just might get a few curtain calls late in a game when it is out of reach in favor of the Skins and Shanahan does not want to risk injuring RG3. But to get those curtain calls the coach is going to have to trust him, and the only way to attain that is plain hard work. It is a tough role no doubt, especially maintaining patience when a guy works hard but is not playing. But in the long run, this could make Cousins a better QB, instead of being thrust into a starting role with a less talented team, and resulting in having his confidence crushed. I am talking here as if Cousins will be the #2 QB. But if he ends up being #3, then it really will be a long, long wait.

edit: While on QBs, flipping back to the Browns... if I recall (without re-reading upthread) our discussion on the Browns QB situation has focused mostly on McCoy and Weeden. But what about Seneca Wallace? Where does the entrance of Weeden leave him? If I recall correctly, when called upon to play in 2011, Wallace performed better than McCoy. Now maybe some of that was because McCoy was suffering from a concussion. I don't think Seneca will ever be a starter if the Browns other QB options are all healthy, but could he win out over McCoy for the backup QB job? Seneca is only 31, and has some good years left as he has not taken the beatings of a starter. So maybe the Browns will try to salvage what they can of McCoy (e.g. through a trade) and keep Seneca. On the other hand, maybe the Browns will keep all 3 (Weeden OFC, Seneca, AND McCoy). Holmgren has said he has 4 QBs right now and will line them all up and see what happens. That almost sounds like he would keep all 3 of these guys.
 
Jul 17, 2009
4,317
1
0
on3m@n@rmy said:
Are you kidding me? Moore > Wilson? Wilson is far more talented. The only category where Moore might outrank Wilson is anticipation of when the receiver will be open. But he has to with his far weaker arm.

It is probably good that Moore did not get drafted. Undrafted, he has a greater choice of which team to go to. Believe me, there are some teams that do not have their QB depth situation worked out yet. Some teams will be calling him to come in as an undrafted FA.
Russell Wilson = dan lefevour
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Junior Seau, RIP

Passed away today from an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound.

Remember watching him play at USC, then of course as a long time Charger.

I don't know what is going on with former NFL players but this is getting to be a bit over the top.
 
Scott SoCal said:
Junior Seau, RIP

Passed away today from an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound.

Remember watching him play at USC, then of course as a long time Charger.

I don't know what is going on with former NFL players but this is getting to be a bit over the top.
Wow, if I were to make a list of former NFL players who might be candidates for suicide…he wouldn’t have been anywhere near that list. Unless he harbored some deep, dark secret that wasn’t publicly known, this doesn’t make much sense. The wound was apparently in the chest, as with Duerson, which leaves open the possibility that he might have been diagnosed with some kind of brain trauma and wanted to contribute to medical research. But if that were the case, he presumably would have left a note.

Wonder if there is any possibility this was a murder staged to look like a suicide. Not that I know of any reason why anyone would want to murder this very popular athlete. But I think of Steve McNair, killed by a jealous mistress. Not gonna blame anyone, but a GF reported him dead, with a handgun nearby. That’s all we know.

I understand he is the 8th player from the 1994 Charger team that went to the SB to die. That is eighteen years, I guess nobody on that team would be much past 50 today, and most of them younger than that. Yes, it seems that playing in the NFL is a major risk factor for an early death.
 
Merckx index said:
Wow, if I were to make a list of former NFL players who might be candidates for suicide…he wouldn’t have been anywhere near that list.
:confused::confused: He drove his car off a cliff in 2010 after domestic abuse charges were filed against him. RIP Junior. :confused::confused:
 
RIP Junior. Shocking and sad. I do have family experience with depression and can almost guarantee you that very frequently people are very adept at masking it to where no one knows. The even sadder fact is that it's still generally viewed by many as a stigma, a failing in our society and that those who suffer it should be able to fix themselves and it's something to be ashamed of.

The NFL is likely to look harder than ever at protecting the safety of players, offering some sort of post-career medical insurance, counseling, and financial advice. If there are fans out there thinking players like James Harrison are going to have any sway over the commissioner and league to allow rougher play, think again. Expect the opposite to happen.

I should also note I haven't spoken to or heard from the former player I know who played with Seau, and didn't contact him about the issue.


 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
0
0
As "Alpe" and "on3m" know i am very critical on the NFL (especially game fixing and drug/doping/painkiller issues), but i think there is no more suicides in the NFL than other sports (cycling comes to mind) or even the "normal" public. At least studies for pre-2000 players didn´t show more suicides or lower life expectancy.

The problem tough is: those studies showed a high level of permanent pain in ex-players. Thus leading to high percentages of depressions. In addition, the players earned too much in a short time, never got used to live on a low key lifestyle. They were pampered from day one in high school years. Once they are bathing in millions, they buy cars, marry a ton of times, make bad investments, get defrauded by agents, make half a dozen babies (US-Child-Support-"Law" kills men the same way as in germany :mad:). After the hey days, they get the bills, but not any more the weekly pay-checks. Tons of ex-players go bankrupt. Another way to get depressions.

I guess Seau simply had depressions (+ maybe physical pain), couldn´t pay ex-wifes/child support = suicide.

As i said many times before: Players are no role models.

Anyway, R.I.P. Junior Seau...
 
Feb 4, 2012
435
0
0
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
The problem tough is: those studies showed a high level of permanent pain in ex-players. Thus leading to high percentages of depressions. In addition, the players earned too much in a short time, never got used to live on a low key lifestyle. They were pampered from day one in high school years. Once they are bathing in millions, they buy cars, marry a ton of times, make bad investments, get defrauded by agents, make half a dozen babies (US-Child-Support-"Law" kills men the same way as in germany :mad:). After the hey days, they get the bills, but not any more the weekly pay-checks. Tons of ex-players go bankrupt. Another way to get depressions.
I don't know if Seau suffered any concussions, but it's hard to have a career long in the NFL (and play as hard as he did) without doing so. And, as we've been learning, concussions can cause result in serious problems - neurological and emotional - years later.
 
Feb 4, 2012
435
0
0
Does anyone know if Seau suffered any concussions during his football career? There's a growing body of evidence that concussions can result in long term neurological problems, which could trigger clinical depression.
 
Pazuzu said:
Does anyone know if Seau suffered any concussions during his football career? There's a growing body of evidence that concussions can result in long term neurological problems, which could trigger clinical depression.
Yes, I know he had concussions from playing football. This article sort of confirms it:
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/Junior-Seau-death-another-tragedy-for-1994-San-Diego-Chargers-050212?GT1=39002
Maybe that is partly why he was outspoken (in a recent SI magazine article) about boutygate by saying "...that's not football".

I am just shocked and saddened to the core over this horrible news. Many condolences to family and friends. R.I.P. Junior.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
0
0
I post this here because a.) i don´t wanna offend anybody in the hockey thread, and b.) we talked about this topic before:

When you think it can´t get worse, here we go;

"...(LA) Kings, the first No. 8 seed in NHL history to eliminate their conference's top two seeds in the same postseason..."

As posted sometime ago, hockey has the most "luck influence" in outcomes of games and championships. Still they managed to better their "record" :rolleyes: of useless regular seasons. This year seems the worst (the Kings example is just the tip of the iceberg).

If i´d be NHL-Coach, i´d keep my players uninjured (speak don´t play them for, lets say, 50 meaningless reagular games), qualify as No. 8 seed and try my luck with fresh players in the playoffs. And if i´d be comissioner, i´d skip the regular season completely and play a 100-Game-Playoff-Format. :D

Thanks, we are still better off in the NFL, where the regular season counts at least a little. :)
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
0
0
Yesss, the NFL topic lives!:D

Foxxy, how does your theory re: regular season vs play-offs form and standing apply to MLB? Can you identify the same trend there?
 
Jul 29, 2009
441
0
0
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
If i´d be NHL-Coach, i´d keep my players uninjured (speak don´t play them for, lets say, 50 meaningless reagular games), qualify as No. 8 seed and try my luck with fresh players in the playoffs.

Thanks, we are still better off in the NFL, where the regular season counts at least a little. :)

Very sensible.

the only solution is if you have a league system where everyone plays each other home and away. Maybe even have more than one division and have promotion and relegation. I wonder if anyones thought of that before!

Things is, as we all know, it's about making money and playing as many matches as you think you can get away with and keeping as many teams interested for as long as posssible.

The regular season is just like trying qualify for the final. Doesn't matter if you break the world record getting there or qualify as a fastest loser. All that matters is you get in.

When it comes to the NHL/MLB etc I wonder what percentage of the fans go to every home game and what percentage at any one game are just casual fans along for a good time.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
0
0
Amsterhammer said:
Yesss, the NFL topic lives!:D

Foxxy, how does your theory re: regular season vs play-offs form and standing apply to MLB? Can you identify the same trend there?
No, Hockey is the worst by far (even "beats" US-Soccer).

The biggest joke ever? The 1937 Chicago Black Hawks (- 42 Goal difference, 14-25-9 regular season record = .385 winning percentage) were Stanley Cup "Champions" that year. :eek:

Here is the stats i did in winter:
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=785619&highlight=minnesota+twins#post785619

SirLes said:
Very sensible.

the only solution is if you have a league system where everyone plays each other home and away. Maybe even have more than one division and have promotion and relegation. I wonder if anyones thought of that before!

Things is, as we all know, it's about making money and playing as many matches as you think you can get away with and keeping as many teams interested for as long as posssible.

The regular season is just like trying qualify for the final. Doesn't matter if you break the world record getting there or qualify as a fastest loser. All that matters is you get in.

When it comes to the NHL/MLB etc I wonder what percentage of the fans go to every home game and what percentage at any one game are just casual fans along for a good time.
That´s true. The fans get milked off their hard earned dollars for..... nothing.
I gave up MLB a long time (same with NHL).

After striking millionares (94-95), Steroid-Rod signed a 250 million contract by 2000. After that i only watched occasionally. When the BALCO/Bonds/MLB-Doping scandals came to light, i didn´t give a $hit about the game i once loved as much as football. I just wonder what the average american thinks when paying overpriced "made in china" game shirts and overpriced tickets? Do they like to get cheated by this drug addicts?

I mean i watch cycling for free, so i do NFL (you guys know i boycott everthing NFL-related other than seeing free games). But if they´d strike only once, and/or investigations find out that more than 1/3 of games are fixed, i´d say good bye forever.
 
I don't buy NFL memorabilia and swag either. I'm not that much of a sucker.

The NHL is indeed two seasons. One just for show to fill the seats that has almost no meaning towards a championship. Then, a second season where they might as well toss into a hat the top 16 teams and play them. I'm surprised fans aren't in an uproar with this, while the league gets away with calling it "parity". Right. And the sad part is I actually like watching a good hockey game.

I too mostly gave up on MLB about the time A-Roid signed that absurd contract. Contracts like that, and the steroid era heavily damaged the sport, turning it into a farce on part with some of the Tours in the 2000's. But the biggest problem MLB has, by far, is that they have very poor revenue sharing and a nearly useless luxury tax agreement. And no salary cap of any kind. So rich teams just wildly spend. A couple years ago the then Florida Marlins entire payroll was less than A-Roid's salary, and the Pittsburgh Pirates weren't far behind. Think about that. A team with one guy getting paid more than the entire other team. Yeah, that makes for competitive baseball. Then you have owners like Frank McCourt. I still watch a little MLB, but nothing like I used to.
 
Jul 29, 2009
441
0
0
Getting ripped off depends on what you're expecting really. I think for many people watching a game represents an evening's entertainment and the sport is secondary. (This can only be why people watch wrestling!) It's not unlike going to see a show you like over an over again only with the added excitement of not knowing the ending!

I enjoyed my one experience of watching baseball live and would go again. For me it was the experience of seeing it and the enjoyment of trying to understand tactics etc. If the result was fixed or the players on drugs it would not affect my enjoyment unless I'd found out!

Funnily enough the sport I actually really know something about and have played and coached at a high level I don't watch for fun, don't support a team and certainly would never join a message board for!
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
I don't buy NFL memorabilia and swag either. I'm not that much of a sucker.

The NHL is indeed two seasons. One just for show to fill the seats that has almost no meaning towards a championship. Then, a second season where they might as well toss into a hat the top 16 teams and play them. I'm surprised fans aren't in an uproar with this, while the league gets away with calling it "parity". Right. And the sad part is I actually like watching a good hockey game.

I too mostly gave up on MLB about the time A-Roid signed that absurd contract. Contracts like that, and the steroid era heavily damaged the sport, turning it into a farce on part with some of the Tours in the 2000's. But the biggest problem MLB has, by far, is that they have very poor revenue sharing and a nearly useless luxury tax agreement. And no salary cap of any kind. So rich teams just wildly spend. A couple years ago the then Florida Marlins entire payroll was less than A-Roid's salary, and the Pittsburgh Pirates weren't far behind. Think about that. A team with one guy getting paid more than the entire other team. Yeah, that makes for competitive baseball. Then you have owners like Frank McCourt. I still watch a little MLB, but nothing like I used to.
Me too. Fans in america seem "to buy" every BS. Like that of parity in the NHL. I´d call it a dice game on ice. Pure luck, absolute meaningless.

If we take out the 2011-Giants, NFL regular seasons still have a meaning. Let´s hope it stays like that and 2011 was just a exception. As funny as it sounds; a big scandal (bigger than the Saints or Beli-Cheat) would help us true fans. It would bring the NFL back to a normal level... The same sickness that infected MLB/NHL is just around the corner (strikes by rich people, meaningless regular seasons) or already there (drugs/doping, cheating/fixing, absurd contracts).

Imagine, i had the same knowledge of baseball in the 80/90s as in football. Even bought "baseball weekly" when visting the (back then free) USA in 96 & 97. Also there, the 80s were the greaties (even superstars like Steve Sax didn´t earn more than 250.000 per year). From then on everything went south. Flyballs were flyballs, 50 HR seasons were something extra ordinaire.

Then came Steroid-Rod, flyballs became homeruns, contracts got absurd. Nobody is worth 250 Mio for swinging a bat 4 times and catching 3 groundballs a evening.

At cyling we are not that bad yet. It´s still european style (even tough Armstrong had a almost successful try to destroy cycling; he brought all the naive fans & naive "journalists", and other garbage with him. Thanks god the hype is gone & with him his fan fanatics). Still free entrance, somehow understandable contracts, men fight against men. Not all show like US-Sports. But wait when JV´s "franchise cycling" dreams come true.... Everybody would wan´t McQuaid back. Sounds crazy now, but we´ll see.

SirLes said:
Getting ripped off depends on what you're expecting really. I think for many people watching a game represents an evening's entertainment and the sport is secondary. (This can only be why people watch wrestling!) It's not unlike going to see a show you like over an over again only with the added excitement of not knowing the ending!

I enjoyed my one experience of watching baseball live and would go again. For me it was the experience of seeing it and the enjoyment of trying to understand tactics etc. If the result was fixed or the players on drugs it would not affect my enjoyment unless I'd found out!

Funnily enough the sport I actually really know something about and have played and coached at a high level I don't watch for fun, don't support a team and certainly would never join a message board for!
Maybe that´s difference between europe and USA. I don´t know. When i watch a game i wanna see the best playing the best, with the better one coming out as winner. I don´t wan´t to see shows. For that there is theatre, circus, theme parks and whatever...

OK, you found out. McGwire and Bonds cheated you and the long history of baseball. And still 50% of US-"Journalists"/Hall-Voters would elect McGwire to the Hall of fame. :eek: What´s wrong over there in the US? It´s like they would elect Ulle the cyclist of the century in germany. Actually it´s the other way around. That´s good, even tough i really like Ulle.
 
McGwire will never get into the HOF. He's not only a doper, but he doesn't have the numbers.

I'll be really surprised if Bonds, Palmero or Clemens get in during their lifetimes, and those guys do have the numbers.

Back to the NFL talk. Right now the entire concussion talk and lawsuits stemming from old players is going to dominate things, along with the whole Bounty-gate issue. But I don't think it will cause one ticket to not get sold, and we'll see a great season with surprises. But there is reason to believe something could blow up in the NFL's face. It may come from a series of doping or gambling scandals. I don't see it coming from contracts though, because the CBA is so tight and the salary cap so strict. It's much, much more difficult to buy championships in the NFL than MLB or NBA or FIFA. For example, the two top paid players in the NFL last year were Peyton Manning and Sam Bradford. Those two teams were the worst two in the NFL last year. The Jets and Raiders also have proved that signing big contracts don't mean anything. Oakland had to shed several players, and with Sanchez new huge contract, does anyone really see him leading them to the Superbowl?
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
It may come from a series of doping or gambling scandals ... much more difficult to buy championships in the NFL than MLB or NBA or FIFA. For example, the two top paid players in the NFL last year were Peyton Manning and Sam Bradford.
Doping? No way. Seems americans are numbed to this... 4 game suspensions, doped rookies get re-voted, etc.! It´s no big deal in your country. In ours even the biggest heroes get slaughtered (see Ulle, Pechstein, Mühlegg).

A big betting scandal will come out. By chance. Maybe tomorrow, maybe in ten years. But it will. The NFL can´t sweep that under the carpet forever. And that will keep the fans from spending more money. Now they still believe in honest games, and think Vanderjagt just missed. But one day...

On the salary cap i disagree. You can buy championships in MLB by looking at pure player numbers. But in football, player stats interact with the talent around you. See our QB-Discussion. A Cassel in NE just isn´t the same in KC. Even if you throw millions after him. If football was the same simple man against man battle, you could easily buy championships (ok, you need the luck to get your team relative healthy trou the season).
 
I'll accept that Vanderjagt missed on purpose. I say it's 70/30. And I remember reading about how in the early 90's the FBI looked into referees accepting bribes from the mob. But what about these?

Referees in in SB XL or XLIV? (Steelers over Seahawks/Cards?)

2007 AFC championship. The Pats were demolishing the Colts, until a strange penalty turned the tide. Later this year Spygate was revealed, but did the NFL already know?

Do you think there could be a Tim Donaghy (NBA ref) scandal in the NFL?

Not to just pick on the refs, let's look at some coaches and players:

SB III, which Bubba Smith was certain the coaches threw under pressure?

What about 2009 when the Colts had a perfect record after 14 weeks, but sat their starters against the Jets, allowing the Jets to win, and get into the playoffs.

Craig Morton throwing horrible picks and fumbling in SB XII against the Cowboys?

What about Tim Tebow's success last year? Especially that game against the Bears.
 
Jul 29, 2009
441
0
0
Seems like another huge betting scandal is blowing up in Italy Seria A (soccer) just a few years after Juventus were relegated for similar things.

I would have thought that soccer was a tricky game to manipulate anyway and the players earn lots reducing the need to accept bribes etc but it has clearly happened.

In the NFL can you bet on anything or is it just the result?

Cricket has a problem with illegal gambling in Asia. There the problem is made worse by the fact that many players earn relatively little and bets are placed on all sorts of things not just the result. It then becomes easy for an individual to influence (even guarantee) a particular event occuring without the help of his team or refs etc.

Match fixing is a greater threat to all sports than doping imo. The beauty of sport is you don't know the result before the game and the unpredictable can happen. Take that away and there's nothing.
 
I found this article extremely interesting. A mortality study carried out on NFL players found they lived longer on average than the general population.

http://thebiglead.com/index.php/2012/05/09/breaking-down-the-study-on-nfl-life-expectancy/

Here are some basic parameters of the study. They used all players (subject to a few exclusions when they couldn’t confirm things like race) who played 5+ seasons between 1959 and 1988. Thus, the youngest players would have started in 1984, and the oldest began playing in 1950. The median player in the study was born in 1950. The data collection for the study closed on December 31, 2007, so events that happened after that date are not included. They began tracking a player for mortality rate purposes after he completed his fifth season, and continued until either death or the end of the study period. They compared mortality rates for various categories at each age.
The study found that NFL players during this period lived longer than the average male. 3,439 players were included in the study, and 334 were deceased by the end of 2007. Based on racial distribution, age, and calendar year, the expected number of deaths for a male population of that size was 625.
Now, there are reasons for this, and if you look at the specifics in Table 2 of the study, you can see this. The study also directly says that it is likely because NFL players smoked cigarettes far less frequently than the public at large during this time period and were in better shape. The former NFL players died of cancer at a much lower rate, particularly with lung cancer (16 actual vs. 52 expected). The former players were also far less likely to die of other diseases, such as tuberculosis and immunodeficiency diseases (4 actual vs. 29 expected), diabetes (7 vs. 17), mental and personality disorders (4 vs. 12), other respiratory diseases (6 vs. 32), and digestive diseases (9 vs. 34).
The NFL players as a group were also less likely to die of coronary diseases, with one exception: cardiomyopathy. I suspect that the reason that the NFL did not release this when it came out was because it appeared in the American Journal of Cardiology and discussed the increase in risk of cardiac issues depending on Body Mass Index, whereas the timing now, if it is couched in terms of overall mortality, is better for the league.
One major difference between players in this study and those playing now, however, is size, or more specifically, body mass index. It's not known how that might affect mortality.

Now, remember, this study included mostly players from an earlier era, and we were just starting to see size increases. Only 1% of the players in this study had a BMI of 35.0 or greater, and 33% were between 30 and 35. Last year, just taking the Super Bowl champs as an example had 5 starters (23%) with a BMI greater than 35. In the modern NFL, most linemen, except for speed rushers, are going to have a BMI greater than 35, and a decent number of running backs, fullbacks, tight ends, linebackers, and all remaining defensive ends will be above 30.
As another example, the 1973 Bears (the median year in the study) had a defensive line with an average BMI of 30.2. The 2003 Bears defensive line was at 37.4, while the linebackers were also bigger, 31.2, as was the starting running back, Thomas Jones (31.6).
As far as I know, nothing about brain injuries (though I haven't looked at the original report), which is rather curious, considering how much evidence of them has come to light recently. There have been suggestions that they have increased along with the larger size of the players, and maybe even with the development of "safer" helmets, which protect the skull better, but can do nothing to prevent movement of the brain within the skull upon violent contact. I don't think the study addressed mental health issues in general, either, but it did track suicides:

As for the suicide issue, this study has very little to do with today. It is encouraging that the number of suicides for this group was lower than the expected (9 vs. 22).
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY