Even When NFL Players Use Safer Helmets, Gregg Easterbrook Still Finds Something To Complain About

My ears are still hurting from the halftime show last night. I have always hated the Black Eyed Peas, mostly because I prefer to listen to music from groups with a shred of talent outside of writing a catchy hook, but I didn't realize how terrible they would be live. I know it is "cool" to hate on the halftime show, but I am not hating just to hate. It sounded bad. I was very much in favor of the NFL getting away from the old geezers doing the halftime show, but if this is their way of convincing the world that was better based on the lack of screaming and auto-tuned vocals then mission accomplished. If the NFL is going to go with a "hip" act, go with a group that has talent.

Gregg Easterbrook has been on a noble crusade all year. He wants the NFL players to start using safer helmets to prevent concussions. I agree, NFL players should probably do this. Of course even when players do this, Gregg isn't happy. Now Aaron Rodgers is using a safer helmet and even credits it (but he isn't a doctor, so this should be taken with a grain of salt) with preventing another concussion in the NFC Championship game and this isn't enough for Gregg. He wants Rodgers to say which helmet he is using, in an attempt to make sure all of the high school football players that aren't playing football right now (as pointed out in the comments by Martin F. last week) know which helmet to choose this winter when they aren't playing football.

There is time to reveal this information before high school football starts is my basic point. Oh, and Gregg Easterbrook still annoys me is my other basic point.

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.

Let me point out, for the third time, high school football is not currently being played. So parents are worried about concussions, but there is time to ease this worry. This isn't an incredibly time sensitive issue. If Aaron Rodgers doesn't reveal the helmet he is using, several hundred high school football athletes won't get a concussion by the end of this week.

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?

Yes, it is the news Gregg has been whining about pretty much all year. A high-profile NFL player is using a safer helmet.

(cue "Hallelujah" chorus)

Here's my big question: Concussions are slippery things. Doctors aren't even exactly sure what causes a concussion or how a concussion exactly affects the human brain. So how does Aaron Rodgers know this helmet prevented him from sustaining another concussion and why does Gregg take this at face value and not second-guess Rodgers believe since he isn't a doctor. The obvious answer is Rodgers statement reflects something Gregg wants to believe, so he doesn't question the statement of a football player about a medical issue.

Here's the catch -- Rodgers won't tell you what kind of helmet he switched to. Neither will the Green Bay Packers.

Here's the catch on why they can't/won't tell people--there is this thing called a "contract" and the NFL has signed this "contract" with helmet maker Riddell to be the official helmet of the NFL. So either Rodgers or the Packers would be fined by the NFL for publicly revealing the exact brand of helmet Rodgers has been using. This is very unfortunate, but also not hugely surprising if you aren't a knee-jerk type person...which Gregg is.

Here's another reason he won't reveal the type of helmet. Neither the Packers or Aaron Rodgers know for sure the helmet prevented another concussion.

A Super Bowl quarterback and his team have information that might increase neurological safety -- and won't share it.

This may be the most dramatic way to arrange this sentence for maximum effect. Well, I can do one better...

"Aaron Rodgers has information that could save the life of thousands of adolescents, but won't reveal it. The Packers are his accomplice on this and don't seem to care about high school players safety because they won't announce how to save these thousands of adolescents' lives. Meanwhile, thousands have a higher risk of concussion due to Rodgers and the Packers actions."

I have a solution. Here's how you get the fucking information Gregg so desperately wants shared. Concerned parents can do this at home! Here's how:

-Open up your Internet browser
-Choose your favorite Internet search provider. I would suggest Google.
-Type in "safest anti-concussion helmet."
-Go to the very first link. You will see an article about DeSean Jackson's helmet.
-Use your eyes to read the column that Jackson wears a "Schutt" helmet.
-Use your brain to deduce "Schutt" may possibly make an anti-concussion helmet.
-Choose your favorite Internet search provider again.
-Type in "Schutt anti-concussion helmet."
-Choose the first link to see this helmet.
-Decide if you want to purchase this helmet.

There are other anti-concussion helmets out there. It isn't like Aaron Rodgers knows the location of a dead body and won't tell anyone. Any parent concerned enough about their child's brain will be concerned enough to take 10 minutes to examine the best helmets available. It's all public knowledge, yet Gregg acts as if it isn't.

When he returned to the field late in the year, Rodgers said he had switched to a helmet that reduces concussion risk. But he wouldn't be specific, leaving college and high school coaches and players in the dark.

College and high school coaches are in the dark? Are these by chance only the high school and college coaches that don't have hands, therefore aren't able to do an Internet search, or dial a phone to contact helmet manufacturers? If not, there is no excuse to be in the dark. There is plenty of information available on anti-concussion helmets out there. A person simply has to make an effort to find it.

Rodgers told Peter King of NBC he thought his new helmet prevented the vicious hit by Peppers -- whom the league fined $10,000 for unnecessary roughness -- from causing another concussion. "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,'' Rodgers said to King. But King's report did not include the critical item of information that all other football players, and the parents of young players, need -- namely, what kind of helmet.

We can guess it is not a Riddell helmet, because if it were, then Rodgers might be more forthcoming with the helmet type. Yeah, possibly Rodgers should reveal the type of helmet, but since Rodgers isn't a doctor he doesn't know for sure if the helmet actually did prevent the concussion. Again, with the advent of the Interwebs this information, a parent doesn't have to rely on Rodgers' endorsement and can do their own research.

There is another theory. Maybe Rodgers did have a concussion and doesn't want to reveal he did because of a fear he would be held out of the Super Bowl or should have been pulled off the field against the Bears. So Rodgers doesn't want to endorse a helmet that he know doesn't work, so he says the helmet did work to cover up for the fact he got hit hard and the hit could have easily concussed him and he would have had to be removed from game.

$100 says Gregg didn't think about this angle when he is criticizing the Packers and Rodgers because it didn't fit the point he was trying to prove.

So I asked the Packers again. Jeff Blumb, the team's director of public relations, told me, "I did check again on your behalf, and that's still not information we're comfortable sharing outside of our building."

Sort of stupid, yes, but the Packers may not want to reveal Rodgers isn't wearing a Riddell helmet for whatever reasons I have already discussed.

Each year 1.1 million boys, and a few girls, play middle school and high school football.

Each year 1.1 million boys, and a few girls, play middle school and high school football .

It looks like ESPN.com needs a better editor for Gregg's columns. This was printed twice in a row, once with the link, and once without the link.

For the fourth time, there is no middle or high school football going on right now. Simmer down.

But the main reason large numbers of high school players wear obsolescent helmets is that below the level of the pros and big colleges, coaches, parents and athletic directors have no idea which helmets are best. They look to the top of the sport, the NFL, for guidance -- and receive none.

This is not the fault of college football, the NFL, the Packers or Aaron Rodgers. If high schools are too lazy to do their own research in an effort to get their football players better helmets, that's on them. The information is out there. There's no reason a school can't do its own research on this issue and should rely on the NFL or the NCAA to tell them what to do.

Like any athletic enterprise, the Packers have reason to keep game plans, training techniques and other such specifics private. But safety information should never be proprietary. Any information that improves sports safety should be declared openly, to all.

I don't know the NFL's policy on notifying the public their players aren't using a Riddell helmet, but I will guess the NFL would frown on the Packers publicly stating which helmet Rodgers is using. In an environment where concussions have become a major issue with the NFL, if the Packers announced the anti-concussion helmet their star quarterback endorses is not a Riddell then I would imagine the NFL wouldn't look kindly on that. It's a stupid reason possibly, but it has less to do with the Packers need to not get fined then it deals with them not looking out for high school kids.

Another reason the Packers haven't announced the type of helmet is...............the Packers aren't holding back information about safety from the public. The information is out there for anyone to find and Aaron Rodgers' statement he didn't sustain a concussion because of the helmet isn't exactly a fool-proof endorsement. Rodgers' statement isn't based on scientific data, but merely reflects his opinion.

NFL teams may be squeamish about revealing which helmets players wear because they think such an action makes them liable for any harm someone might sustain after donning a helmet of that type. As TMQ detailed here in November, this view is likely to be incorrect, in legal terms.

I love how Gregg just throws this in there. NFL teams may be concerned they could be sued for millions of dollars if they could potentially be found liable for any harm a person sustained while wearing said helmet. He throws this in like it is just a minor point and not really worthy of more discussion.

Then as the cherry on top, instead of saying how ridiculous this is, Gregg says this view is "likely" to be incorrect. So basically NFL teams may have a viable legal reason to not announce which helmet a player is using, but that's not good enough for Gregg because it is "likely" an incorrect reason. I am sure Gregg would be willing to take responsibility for paying any lawsuits that may arise from the Packers announcing which helmet Aaron Rodgers using (assuming a person gets hurt and sues), since he is adamant the Packers announce that type of helmet. It's not his money to lose, so he feels free to be as critical of the Packers as possible.

But if Green Bay is being held back by a mistaken belief about liability, the NFL needs to step in, and say, clearly, what helmet type and model is worn by Rodgers.

Riddell would love this. I am sure there is some language in the contract that would prohibit the NFL from doing this.

Safety information must never be withheld from the public. Withholding safety information is irresponsible. If a Super Bowl quarterback has found a helmet type that he believes reduces concussion risk, the team and the league have an ethical obligation to share the details.

Let's all remember Gregg is basing his entire criticism on the evaluations of Aaron Rodgers on how the helmet helped him not have a concussion. It is not like a doctor is reporting his findings, a football player is saying the helmet helped him not sustain a concussion. This may be completely false by the way. Aaron Rodgers is a lot of things, but he sure as hell isn't a doctor, so even advocating the use of the helmet to prevent concussions would be irresponsible of him and the Packers.

But just knowing a helmet brand isn't enough -- the model must be known, too. Riddell and Schutt, the leading manufacturers of football helmets, sell helmets engineered to reduce concussion risk and helmets that lack such engineering. The public needs to know both the brand and the model of whatever is on the head of Aaron Rodgers.

The public can do an Internet search and find it out with a good degree of certainty.

Riddell's advanced Revo Speed model (which my older son wore when playing college football) and the Schutt DNA (which I bought my young son when he played JV) are designed to reduce concussion risk, and data show this works. Is Rodgers wearing a Riddell Revo Speed or a Schutt DNA?

The odds are good if it were a Riddell helmet then Aaron Rodgers would say so. Logic dictates between the two choices given, that Aaron Rodgers is using a Schutt DNA. Go purchase accordingly. Problem solved.

The Schutt Ion helmet also has advanced engineering -- is Rodgers wearing an Ion? Is he wearing a Xenith X1, a new helmet brand designed around concussion prevention? Is he wearing the new Rawlings Quantum, which goes on the market soon, and was designed to reduce concussion risks? The public needs to know.

WHY? It isn't scientifically proven it prevented Rodgers from having a concussion. That's just his opinion. His opinion doesn't make it fact. Doctors have a fuzzy idea of what hits cause a concussion and which do not. Even a small hit could cause a concussion while sometimes a very hard hit doesn't do anything. Rodgers giving the type of helmet he uses would be in essence endorsing that helmet as effective, when he doesn't know if that helmet really benefited him from sustaining a concussion or not. Can't Gregg see this?

Regardless, a starting quarterback in Sunday's Super Bowl has found a helmet brand and model that he believes offers superior protection against concussions. Yet he won't say what the helmet is,

Rodgers is not a doctor. What he believe isn't medical truth or proof of anything. That's part of the core reason that Rodgers isn't announcing what type of helmet he has. What he believes is irrelevant in terms of whether it prevented him from having a concussion or not. I really wish Gregg could see this. He is getting his panties in a wad over what an NFL quarterback thinks prevented him from sustaining a concussion, which isn't based on scientific facts of any type.

Rodgers and the Packers should be widely criticized for this. Why won't they tell the country's million high school football players, and the players' parents, what the NFL knows about safety?

Because he doesn't know. He's guessing. If Aaron Rodgers said eating dog turds gave him better vision, does that mean kids all over America should start following their dogs around to collect poop so they can see as well as Rodgers does?

Two years ago in the Pittsburgh-Arizona Super Bowl, the Steelers contained Kurt Warner 'til the fourth quarter, when he threw for 247 yards, the rate of a 1,000-yard passing game.

Last week Gregg said the following about what the Steelers defense did to Warner:

In 2009, the Steelers won the Super Bowl by controlling Kurt Warner and the high-scoring Arizona offense.

This week, he doesn't believe the Steelers controlled Warner. What Gregg says or believes changes on a weekly basis, as determined by whatever point he is trying to prove.

Stat of the Week No. 7 Pittsburgh has the league's best defense against points, and Green Bay has the second-best defense against points.

"Defense against points?" I am not sure I have ever heard the amount of points per game a defense gives up phrased this way.

Cheerleader of the Week Erica of the Denver Broncos, who according to her team bio hosts a TV show on a Denver local-access channel and has been reading "In Defense of Food" by Michael Pollan, which contends that people should eat the foods -- mostly plants -- that our distant ancestors ate. The book's position is similar to advocacy of the Paleolithic diet.

Much like Rodgers' helmet issue, this belief should be taken as fact of course, and kids in school across America should eat a lunch based on the Paleolithic diet. Just like Aaron Rodgers is a doctor, Erica the Broncos cheer leader is a nutrition specialist.

That's the way winning pro football teams are built. Of course -- you have to be able to draft well, which eludes many highly paid NFL general managers.

Would it make it more acceptable to draft poorly if the general manager was poorly paid?

This weekend, the Hall of Fame selectors will choose the next class to wear the garish yellow jacket at Canton. As with past years, only the on-field performance of players, not their off-field failings (or accomplishments), will be weighed, while no one who's already been admitted will be expelled.

Consider: O.J. Simpson, a criminal, is in the Hall of Fame. Simpson currently is serving a 33-year sentence for armed robbery.

Lawrence Taylor is in the Hall of Fame, though in his own 2003 book, "LT: Over the Edge," Taylor said he spent up to "thousands of dollars a day" on cocaine when playing in the NFL, and often broke narcotics laws.

Jack Kemp -- who was the AFL's all-time leading passer, then went on to a life of highly distinguished public service, including being the Republican Party candidate for vice president in 1996 -- is not. What's the distinction?

The distinction, in case Gregg is too ignorant to read what he just wrote is the Hall of Fame weights on-field performance and not off-field performance. Or as Gregg just put it:

As with past years, only the on-field performance of players, not their off-field failings (or accomplishments), will be weighed, while no one who's already been admitted will be expelled.

So he gave us the answer to the question before he asked the question. The reason off-the-field failings aren't included is because off-the-field failings aren't included in the Football Hall of Fame voting process. The Baseball Hall of Fame tends to count character into their inductions in the Hall of Fame and that has turned into a clusterfuck, so maybe the NFL knows why they are doing by not counting off-field character.

When Hall of Fame selectors and Hall of Fame management maintain they should consider only performance on the field, this conveniently excuses them from dealing with personal integrity. Disregarding integrity sets a terrible example. Hall of Fame officials and selectors who have children: Do you tell your children that character does not matter? Of course not. So why do you tell this to other people's children?

It's always about the kids to Gregg, isn't it? I never recall as a child knowing Ty Cobb was a dick and a racist and believing he didn't belong in the Hall of Fame. My feeble child mind knew that simply because he was a jerk off the field doesn't mean he shouldn't be recognized for his accomplishments on the field. Or maybe my feeble child mind didn't care. That's most likely it.

It is the Hall of Fame. That is the place where the best players to ever play in the NFL are honored. If a parent is taking a child to the Hall of Fame, it will not say on the plaque, "this person did a shitload of drugs and tried to have sex with underage women." It will show that person's football exploits. A child who wants to go to the football Hall of Fame won't be going there to see the nicest people who also happened to play football well, that child will be going to see the greatest players, on the field, honored with a shrine.

This is especially disturbing because the Hall of Fame is a tax-exempt 501c3 nonprofit organization -- officially, an "educational museum." Tax exemptions subsidize the Hall of Fame, which most emphatically does not behave in an "educational" manner.

How about the Washington Monument. George Washington had slaves. Should we tear this down? So did Thomas Jefferson? What about the Jefferson Memorial? Is it time for a wrecking ball to take it down?

Tomlin, as defense-minded as they come, was playing the percentages: Had the onside succeeded, and surprise onsides usually do,

Yep, surprise onsides usually succeed. Gregg would show some data to support this statement, but he's pretty much just hoping this statement is true.

Then Gregg goes into some strategy that I should really only call "vague strategy." It was more of him just making black and white statements about "if Team X does this, then Team Y will always do this."

Rohit Venkatasubban of Los Angeles reports, "While driving near LAX last week, I noticed a billboard advertising NFL Kickoff Weekend 2011. The Super Bowl hasn't even been played yet, and the start of the next season is already being advertised! Is our football addiction that bad?"

Yes, it is.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio filed a lawsuit last week against the operator of a House of Representatives cafeteria, claiming he is owed $150,000 because a sandwich he bought contained "dangerous substances" -- namely, an olive pit.

Plus it's absurd that media outlets emphasized the $150,000 number in Kucinich's absurd court filing. Damage awards are determined by the evidence and law, not the plaintiff's request. A plaintiff can ask for any number he pleases -- Kucinich could have asked for $150 billion. What the plaintiff asks for in cases of this nature usually means nothing. Reporters should know that, and ignore the headline-grabbing aspect of Rep. Kucinich's nonsense.

The media is simply reporting how much Kucinich asked for. That is news. They are reporting the news. What are media outlets supposed to do when reporting the story say, "Kucinich is suing for an amount of money we find absurd so we won't report it." Media outlets aren't saying Kucinich will get that much money, that's just how much he is suing for, which happens to be a fact.

But there's a larger problem at work -- too many standing ovations at theatrical shows, awards ceremonies, all kinds of public events.

Obviously. This is something that keeps me up at night. All those standing ovations...why??????

And though it's fun, as a high school kid, to see your parents standing to clap, realistically, rare is the high school musical or play that merits an ovation.

It is also rare that a TMQ deserves anything more than to be printed on toilet paper, yet ESPN continues to give them front page treatment.

Why has the standing ovation proliferated? Your columnist thinks it's a form of self-flattery for the audience, a way of saying, "I picked a great show." If you pay $250 for a Broadway ticket for a musical version of "Hedda Gabler," and the show is wretched, you leave feeling like a fool. If you leap to your feet in a standing ovation, as if you've just attended a work of art, you don't feel so bad about that $250.

I think this is perhaps the worst guess there could ever be. Most likely, one person stands up for an ovation and the rest of the people follow...much like cattle. I don't ever believe the audience members are applauding their choice of a show nor deluding themselves into believing they saw a good show. A group of people stand, then everyone stands so they aren't the asshole who is sitting.

Tuesday Morning Quarterback Challenge:

The challenge is to compose a Black Eyed Peas song (one stanza and refrain, plus the title) using only the words and phrases below, plus common articles and conjunctions. Words you can use:

Body; boom; boom-boom; dance; dancing; dress; drink; drank; feeling; get; Goose; gotta; grab; here we come; here we go; high; hot; ladies; legs; money; melon ball; naked; night; now; off; party; pow; shake it; smoke; strip; toke; wanna; want; zoom.

I participated last year. This year, not so much. This is a pretty dumb idea. Of course, given how shitty the Black Eyed Peas are, they could very well steal the winner's idea, turn it into a song (or perhaps an entire album of the shit-music they make) and the moronic public will buy their music regardless. The Black Eyed Peas: Where a lack of talent and the public's lack of ability to decipher talent intersects.

Next Week: That Super Bowl thing you might have heard about.

I will go ahead and give you a spoiler on what Gregg will write. That thing that caused the Packers to win the Super Bowl, well the Steelers should have not done what they did in that situation to let the Packers do that. The Steelers should have blitzed, unless that is what they did, in which case they should have not blitzed, unless that's what they did, in which case they should have blitzed.