A couple quick comments (and these are based on hearsay -- if someone can provide correct info, please do):

1) Teams may not be allowed to cut injured players (although it may be true that their salary is halved).

2) Players who are on the opening-day roster are guaranteed some minimum or some percentage of their salary...not sure which.

But other than disagreeing on the harshness of the CBA, Moss would favor many of your suggested changes. No headsets, weight limit, DL, etc. Moss would like a 20-yd end zone like in the CFL, too. And get rid of the FG and extra points.

Moss:

Looked it up.

No termination pay after first game unless the player has four years of service in the league. Can only get termination pay once per career (it is the balance of the salary for that season alone).

In case of termination for injury, gets 50% of salary for that year up to a $250,000 benefit. So if you have a $2,000,000 deal, you get a 12.5% benefit. Nothing for seasons beyond that.

Moss would take a $250k severance package...

I completely agree with your diagnosis, SBG (I feel as if I have been saying that too much recently - must find points of disagreement in future). As an English ex-pat who grew up playing the real football (you know, where you use your feet instead of your hands) and rugby, I have always loathed the completely coach-centric nature of the NFL.

NFL players are obviously tremendous athletes, but they are specialists who do one or two things well and, as you say, they are not required to think. Watching sports that require intelligence as well as a range of physical skills are far more entertaining, I think (hence my appreciation for NBA players, like Steve Nash, the post-baseball MJ, Magic, Bill Russel etc., who won because they out-thought the opposition while sprinting up and down the court).

Unfortunately, I think it is too late for the NFL to reverse course and return to the player-centric game from which it evolved and I don't think it would ever want to anyway. It is hamstrung by the rules, which end every play as soon as the ball carrier is tackled or a pass falls incomplete, followed by a 45 second break for each side to reorganize and the coach to call a new play for the players to execute at full speed.

For me, the most entertaining part of a footbal game is the 2-minute drill. If the rules could be changed such that the whole game was being played like that, it would be more interesting and challenging for the players and remove some of the coaches' influence.

A few proposals to that end. First safety:
1) I agree with the weight limit - 300 pounds tops, 275 is probably better.
2) Padding needs to be reduced - as a rugby player, those helmets and hard plastic pads cause more damage than they prevent because they enable defenders to tackle with absolutely no thought for life or limb. Reduce to soft rubber/foam type padding with a maximum density, thickness etc. Not sure what to do about the helmets, I would like to see them go, replaced by rugby style helmets without face masks (see Natalie Portman in Garden State) But I don't knw if this is plausible
3) DL stuff you proposed is fine.
4) Reduce the roster to 40, ostensibly 19 each for offense and defense, plus a kicker and punter - no more special teams because of:

The new game rules:
1) Obviously no more microphones in QB helmets.
2) Once a drive starts, only one substitution permitted between each play (one player on, one player off) for both offense and defense. Multiple substitutions only permitted when the clock is stopped by timeout, out of bounds, or the end of a quarter, NOT an incomplete pass, which no longer stops the clock (this would have the effect of requiring the offense to have to operate as the special team, with the punter or kicker being the one sub (no long snapper!) - very tricky - or requiring QBs to learn how to drop kick out of the shot-gun - what fun!)
3) Reduce play clock to 30 seconds, putting more onus on the QB to call plays and requiring greater fitness levels of all players, (rather than the current 5-10 seconds of play followed by 45 seconds of rest) this would almost mandate the weight limit by itself.
4) Widen the field by ten yards and widen the hash marks by five yards.

I think this would make the entire game more like the 2-minute drill, which is when the players are allowed to play and the coaches just have to watch and discuss tactics between series.

This would be a huge aesthetic shock to the football watching public who like their sanitized and disinfected game and none of it will ever happen; however, I bet the players would enjoy it a hell of a lot more, as would I as a spectator. It would be an entirely more challenging and real sport than the made for TV, hollywood version of football the NFL currently presents. Apologies for the length.

Yes, I forgot the limited substitution. I like the wider field and hash marks, too.

With reduced rosters, you'll see more 2-way players.

Plus, the clock should not run in the final two minutes unless the offense has moved the ball forward. No more taking a knee!

I'll chime in, thanks for asking!

I'll go with the weight limit, 300 lbs sounds good, but I think every other week is fine for checking. Guys are not going to gain and drop an excessive amt of weight in that time. They go over 300, they are suspended for 2 weeks, re-weighed at that time, if fail again, 2 more weeks of suspension and so on.

I'd go with a 45 man roster, have a practice squad of 9. Gotta have players in case of injuries.

Like the IR rule.

I know better than to argue contracts with a lawyer.

Oh, and 3 preseason games max. One of the biggest wastes of time out there and a too many injuries happen there. Teams want more work, they are free to schedule scrimmages against other teams.

SBG - You will have much more knowledge from the law perspective than a commoner like myself, but how do you think the player's union/Nate Newton types would react to a weight limit? I don't see how such a limit could exist legally. I realize these will probably never happen so are hypothetical points, but I have a hard time seeing how this would be acceptable. Thanks.

DiggityDino

Something like a weight limit would never happen in Baseball, their union is too strong. But, the players' union in the NFL is very weak. It has to be collectively bargained, agreed upon. It's not a legal issue really, it's whether the players would agree to it. I think that a lot of players would agree to it, if it was presented to them this way: it will prolong careers and have a positive effect on your health. A lot of big guys are already concerned about carrying too much weight.

If I were actually going to try to implement this, I'd do something like setting the weight limit at 350 or something and drop it 25 pounds a year until it was at 275. That way, the players' could lose the weight and stay in the league.

I agree with every point except the weight limit. I mean, you have compassion for those who get injured, but what about a 330 lineman who was an all american in high school in college, then suddenly has to lose 55 pounds, most of which is muscle. You made your exception to deviate it somewhat from the horrors of wrestling, but I think with a weight limit these horrors are inevitable.

Here's one I haven't heard: eliminating the concept of a "pocket" altogether as far as inetentional grounding reasons? What is so damn special about the edge of the field that allows one to chuck it into the stands there that they cant do in the middle of the field? This would certainly increase the number of interceptions, which is arguably the most excting play in football. Just a thought.

I don't know where you go to high school, but I didn't know any high school kids that were 300 pounds of solid muscle.

Perhaps that's the case now, but how are they getting that big?

If the NFL had a weight limit, there'd be no 300 lb. solid muscle kids playing in high school. Or college.

"2) Padding needs to be reduced - as a rugby player, those helmets and hard plastic pads cause more damage than they prevent because they enable defenders to tackle with absolutely no thought for life or limb. Reduce to soft rubber/foam type padding with a maximum density, thickness etc. Not sure what to do about the helmets, I would like to see them go, replaced by rugby style helmets without face masks (see Natalie Portman in Garden State) But I don't knw if this is plausible"

The problem is that if one changed the equipment overnight, the players' mindset in the game woulnd't change with it, and we'd have 2-3 years with a catastrophic injury rate.

-tootie

TJ, the out-of-pocket exception to intentional grounding exists only to protect the QB. Just like many of the rules. Ideally there wouldn't be any special rules like that, but with today's game there is a perceived or real need to have rules to protect the QB from injury.

250 is way too light, especially for the taller guys.

Some people who weigh more than 250:

Daunte Culpepper
Jim Kleinsaucer
Wally Szczerbiak
Shawn Bradley

Also, as a former rugby player myself, I agree about the padding. How many times do you see a player get injured because he leads with his head. Now if you're not wearing a big ass plastic helmet, who's gonna do that? It would be suicidal.

I don't think the NFL would ever do it though. All the equipment makes them look like warriors and the fans love that.

Tootie: re reducing padding:

I disagree that there would be two or three years of catastrophic injuries. Players are not idiots, you take their helmet off, and they will tackle with their shoulders and arms, not their heads, frankly, the way they should tackle now. If you actually watch most middle linebackers tackle, they do it properly - hitting with a shoulder and wrapping the arms - its the safeties and cornerbacks and hot-dogs (Lavarr Arrington, I'm looking at you) who fly around like head-hunters or knee-hunters.

Have you ever played a pick-up game of contact football with a bunch of guys? People can hit, block, tackle without all that padding and still not get hurt. They don't need to learn how to play without paddding, they instinctively know.

If you watch a professional rugby game on TV you will see those guys hit just as hard, they just do it with far more control and intelligence about how they expose their own bodies to the impact - plus there are rules about dangerous hits (you must wrap, no tackling above the shoulders). I think any fool knows how to take a hit, brace for a blow and turn their body to protect the fragile areas, particularaly the head - its hard-wired into us to an extent.

>Players are not idiots

I'm talking about something I don't know much about, but I never let that stop me before. It just seems like there must be some way to make a helmet that is equally protective but can't be used as a weapon. With all the scientific knowledge at our disposal, and some good old American know-how, can't someone invent a helmet that would protect the head but be made out of a softer material so that it won't hurt someone else?

Maybe I'm wrong, but it just seems like if the NFL really went to work on this, it could come up with something.

Jeff A,

Actually it could be possible, by using a material that has the right "rheology." There are materials, for instance, that get more stiff when an instantaneous pressure is applied, but are supple when a gentle force is applied. Moss believes the term is "thixotropic" but not 100% sure. There are kid's slimes that have that property, for example.

(PS -- Moss was a chemist in a former life.)

Who killed the Avatars?