This almost sounds sadistic. Does a tackle or block have to be violent to be worthy of admiration?
Its pretty easy to talk tough from the couch. Voyerism can be enticing, like pornography. Sort of like how war is cool from afar. Not so much up close (I imagine).
Singletary and Taylor might be overmatched in todays game. The size, speed and strength of these phycical freaks is beyond comprehension. When Refrigerator Perry broke into the NFL at plus 300 lbs he was a sensation. Now 300 lbs is nothing special. There is no equipment that can be invented that can fully protect these speeding behemoths from injuring one another, short of force fields that eliminate real contact.
How much time do you spend in the gym getting your body in NFL shape? I suspect none. You seem to have zero appreciation for the real life body mechanics on the field. Those beasts are legitimately deadly weapons, especially when padded up and encased in hard plastic.
You have no data to back up your contention that the reason its losing popularity is because its trying to legislate out violence. In fact, most fans have not abandoned the game for a lack of violence. Theyve left because of the politics/kneeling, of the grotesque player behavior off the field, the overly corporate feel of the games, the poor sportsmanship, the antiseptic nature of indoor stadiums, the frustratingly slow pace of games with absurd numbers of commercials/time outs, the big money feel etc.
The truth is, there are ways to hit people hard, safely. Thats what they are trying to encourage, and most reasonable people understand why that makes sense.
Tommy Nobis, a great player and human being, recently died here in Atlanta. His life was cut woefully short, and his later years were awful, from what I hear, due to all the punishment he took playing the sport. Thats not glory, thats tragic.
At 50 years old and post-back surgery with permanent nerve damage, obviously I have no ability to get myself into game shape. Nor was I ever big enough, fast enough or good enough to play at the NFL level. However, I played both Ice Hockey and Football in high school, and Rugby in college, so I am not without some knowledge of the work it takes to get in shape, and what its like to give and take hits. My point was, that even in the shape I am now, knowing I would get crippled, I would sign a contract to play for the average NFL salary in a heartbeat. Football, like boxing, or any number of less glorious occupations, carries a very real risk of occupational injury/disease with it. If a soldier, marine, police officer, fireman, iron worker or deep sea fisherman is obligated to assume the risk of their occupations, why should we treat Quarterbacks and Wide Receivers differently? And why are offensive linemen, running backs and defensive players not worthy of being afforded the same protection as QB's and receivers? And finally, what evidence is there that any of the changes have actually prevented concussions and other injuries? I still see players getting concussions every game. Wouldn't eliminating Thursday games, and reducing the number of games in a season back to 14 do more to prevent concussions than these B.S. rule changes? But that would cost the NFL revenue.
Additionally, from the players standpoint, football, like boxing, or Rugby, or Ice Hockey, is by its nature a very violent sport. I cannot recall watching a single NFL or College game where there was not at least one injury. When you choose to play the sport you go in knowing that you can get injured on every play. And the rule changes only protect two classes of players, QB's and receivers. A running back who goes helmet to helmet on a safety gets the same concussion, without the 15 yard penalty. And any offensive player can go helmet to helmet on any defensive player, without any protection within the rules. If you are going to ruin the game, at least be consistent.
My point in the rule changes don't really protect anyone. They create more offense (which I would argue is the real reason for the rule changes) which has radically changed the balance of the game, making it, for many people who grew up NFL fans in the 70's and 80's, unwatchable. The only vote I have in what the NFL does with its rules, is with my wallet. I have chosen not to spend money on the product the NFL is producing today. I used to go to 8 games a season, plus playoffs and at least one preseason game. I gave up my season tickets when they came up with the concept of "ticket licenses," as I refused to pay for the right to pay for my season tickets. I am not the only one, as their used to be a long waiting list for season tickets, and now the local teams advertise desperately seeking season ticket buyers.
I used to watch every game available on television as well. This season I only watched the Giants. Again, I am not the only one dissatisfied with the NFL's product. For me it is the game being watered down. As you mentioned, some others might be aggravated by the protests of the national anthem. Whatever then reason, ratings (and thus TV revenues) were down significantly.
Finally, as to your point about Lawrence Taylor, he was the same size and speed as the linebackers playing today, and was double and triple teamed on every play, and still dominated the league. I think he would still be a dominant force, even though the offensive linemen (who averaged about 290 lbs in 1990) now average north of 300. Your point about Perry is a bit misleading. Perry was a defensive tackle. At the time defensive tackles averaged about 265, and he was 320, that was the big deal. But then, as now, offensive linemen were much larger than defensive linemen. That being said, you really can't compare players era to era. The greatest defensive linemen of all time, Deacon Jones, would be way to small to play defensive line today. The great Steelers linebackers of the 70's would be smaller than safeties are today. But they still hit like trucks.
