49ers Borland Retires

[Rastak]

Now the 49ers should insist he keep it.

Why?

The 49ers are a business and they blew on 3rd round pick on a guy who doesn't want to play. My position on this is that these head injuries are a huge concern and I really feel for the guys that play but if you don't want to assume the risk don't accept the pile of money in the first place.

[mraynrand]

I agree with Esoxx about the hysteria. Sure, there are a lot of professions that are safer than pro football, like accounting, etc. But there are those that are a lot harder and riskier. Try being on a fishing boat off Alaska. I don't see you guys lamenting the danger those guys face. Why do they do it? Shouldn't it be banned? What could be more mundane than putting your life on the line so Rastak can get cheaper cod or halibut, or whatever in the Twin Cities? Football is risk-reward, like any other endeavor. The rewards are very high, and the risk is very low. Of course, if you are one of the few who lose your mental capacities, it's a huge suck. Just like if you're the guy who gets swept off the deck into the Bering Straits.

[pbmax]

Why?

The 49ers are a business and they blew on 3rd round pick on a guy who doesn't want to play. My position on this is that these head injuries are a huge concern and I really feel for the guys that play but if you don't want to assume the risk don't accept the pile of money in the first place.

If its a signing bonus then its his. If its not his, and he must play a certain number of games to vest it, then call it something else.

Or, just stop goofing around, outlaw bonuses, guarantee the contracts and limit them to four years.

It would be much more efficient. And several reporters and bloggers could be employed elsewhere to decipher money on the front and back ends and the points of movie contracts.

[Rastak]

If its a signing bonus then its his. If its not his, and he must play a certain number of games to vest it, then call it something else.

Or, just stop goofing around, outlaw bonuses, guarantee the contracts and limit them to four years.

It would be much more efficient. And several reporters and bloggers could be employed elsewhere to decipher money on the front and back ends and the points of movie contracts.

Well, the term "signing bonus" is kind of generic. I have not read an NFL contract but I would assume the language is something like "We agree to fork out 400k and you agree to make yourself available to play for the duration of the contract. It would be similar to taking any kind of job with a up front bonus and language saying if you walk out we get that back since you didn't deliver the services we paid for.

[Rastak]

I agree with Esoxx about the hysteria. Sure, there are a lot of professions that are safer than pro football, like accounting, etc. But there are those that are a lot harder and riskier. Try being on a fishing boat off Alaska. I don't see you guys lamenting the danger those guys face. Why do they do it? Shouldn't it be banned? What could be more mundane than putting your life on the line so Rastak can get cheaper cod or halibut, or whatever in the Twin Cities? Football is risk-reward, like any other endeavor. The rewards are very high, and the risk is very low. Of course, if you are one of the few who lose your mental capacities, it's a huge suck. Just like if you're the guy who gets swept off the deck into the Bering Straits.

Thing is, what is the percentage? They studied 77 brains and something like 75 were fucked up. Look, I'm neither a scientist nor a DR. I hope it isn't a large portion of retired players but it seems to be. Rewards are high but I'm not sure where you get the risks are low.

I got kicked in the nutsack a couple years back reading an article about a guy named Scott Kooistra. The article talked about how his life was basically destroyed one fine day in a pre-season game. I was like Scott Kooistra....who the fuck is that. Then I recall he was carted off in a Vikings pre-season game. He was a fringe dude so I gave it no further thought. This fucker broke his neck and I couldn't give a shit because he wasn't a starter.....anyway, kind of woke me up that these guys get a ton of money but can pay a pretty hefty price. Seems like most of them have some sort of permanent physical disability....and no I do not have the numbers.

http://www.twincities.com/ci_20719523/minnesota-vikings-lineman-scott-kooistra-rebuilding-life-after

[pbmax]

Well, the term "signing bonus" is kind of generic. I have not read an NFL contract but I would assume the language is something like "We agree to fork out 400k and you agree to make yourself available to play for the duration of the contract. It would be similar to taking any kind of job with a up front bonus and language saying if you walk out we get that back since you didn't deliver the services we paid for.

I think it was always a signing bonus and was the players', but there was a great hue and cry raised when players got themselves in trouble and weren't available because of suspensions or legal issues during the Great Thuggery of 2007. That was when the forfeiture language was inserted into contracts. Prior to that, teams had nowhere to turn and were losing the arbitration hearings.

[Guiness]

Yep. Law of unintended consequences. They designed today's helmets to stop skull fractures and lacerations. They unintentionally made a fumble generator and Chuck Cecil.

I hear ya. In university, I was a third string db on a team that had the league's leading rusher, he broke the league's season record at the time. He was a short guy, the MO to tackle him was to get your helmet between his knees. Sat in the change room after practice waiting for the cobwebs to clear more than once...smh

[Patler]

It is quite clear in the CBA:

Forfeitable Breach. Any player who ....

(iv) voluntarily retires (collectively, any "Forfeitable
Breach") may be required to forfeit signing bonus, roster bonus, option bonus and/or
reporting bonus, and no other Salary, for each League Year in which a Forfeitable
Breach occurs (collectively, "Forfeitable Salary Allocations"), as set forth below:
.....
(vi) Retirement. Should a Forfeitable Breach occur due to player's retirement,
a Club may demand repayment of all Forfeitable Salary Allocations attributable to
the proportionate amount, if any, for the present year and the Forfeitable Salary Allocations
for future years. If the player fails to repay such amounts, then the Club may seek
an award from the System Arbitrator pursuant to Article 1 5, for repayment of all Forfeitable
Salary Allocations attributable to present and future years . Repayment of Forfeitable
Salary Allocations attributable to future League Years must be made by June 1 st of each
League Year for which each Forfeitable Salary Allocation is attributable. If the player
returns to play for the Club in the subsequent season, then the Club must either (a) take
the player back under his existing contract with no forfeiture of the remaining Forfeitable
Salary Allocations, or (b) release the player and seek repayment of any remaining
Forfeitable Salary Allocations for future League Years.

[Guiness]

It is quite clear in the CBA:

Oh, I know it's clear in the language. Doesn't make it right, except to those that benefit from it.

[pbmax]

It is quite clear in the CBA:

Point was that it was added after signing bonuses had become a regular feature of deals. Teams lost several cases trying to get money back before that was added.

[mraynrand]

Thing is, what is the percentage? They studied 77 brains and something like 75 were fucked up. Look, I'm neither a scientist nor a DR. I hope it isn't a large portion of retired players but it seems to be. Rewards are high but I'm not sure where you get the risks are low.

I got kicked in the nutsack a couple years back reading an article about a guy named Scott Kooistra. The article talked about how his life was basically destroyed one fine day in a pre-season game. I was like Scott Kooistra....who the fuck is that. Then I recall he was carted off in a Vikings pre-season game. He was a fringe dude so I gave it no further thought. This fucker broke his neck and I couldn't give a shit because he wasn't a starter.....anyway, kind of woke me up that these guys get a ton of money but can pay a pretty hefty price. Seems like most of them have some sort of permanent physical disability....and no I do not have the numbers.

http://www.twincities.com/ci_2071952...ing-life-after

again, it's risk-reward. Far more kids get killed or paralyzed biking than playing football. Want to outlaw bikes? How about skateboards, skis, etc. etc. 40,000 people die on the highways each year. Want to reduce the speed limit to 15? If you live long enough, you get alzheimers (at least for now). By the time you're 80, you have a 100% chance of having compromised mental capacity due to alzheimer's or ALZ-like protein sludge - among other things. The brain studies I've seen look at brain 'damage' in a comparison to 'normal' brain, but not so much functional studies, compared to other similarly aged adults (and I don't see comparisons of life expectancy among professions, typically, just comparisons to pristine, protected brains). OF course there are other studies showing that the conditioned NFL athlete has a lot better prognosis for other diseases, due to a lifetime of exercise, brought on by a dedication to a sport. There are many more factors to consider. It's not that the concussion stuff isn't for real, it's just that the approach to it is hysterical, as it is out of proportion. That's my point.

Yep, it's a brutal game, and it has long lasting effects. So do other things.

[vince]

So if it's confirmed as fact that football causes the complete destruction of people's lives (no hyteria there), then why is anyone still playing this sport?

Is Chris Borland just smarter than everyone else?

Maybe the better question is, if you think football causes complete destruction of people's lives then why do you continue to watch and maybe attend games in person? That seems a bit hypocritical.

I'd say it has very little to do with intelligence and everything to do with specific circumstances and personal values. I think you're right about the risks in general but different people have different risk tolerances and exposure to the risks as well.

Concussions become progressively "easy" to sustain and potentially more damaging with each occurrence, so the risks vary by individual. If Borland sustained a concussion on a nondescript play in practice, that might have given him an inclination that he's maybe at higher risk than most.

Then add on this sidenote:

Matt Maiocco of CSN Bay Area reported that Borland was dealing with chronic problems in both shoulders and that the linebacker was so beat up following last season that one person close to him thought he would seriously consider retirement due to the issues.

[mraynrand]

Is Chris Borland just smarter than everyone else?

not at all:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...a-math-journal

[Cheesehead Craig]

Sanders, Smith, and Staubach are all apples/oranges comparisons. None of them played one year and then quit b/c of potential injury. One freakin' year.

We also didn't have a climate of hysteria surrounding concussions during any of those players time frames. There's a climate of fear on long term impact out there now. I'm not sure how anyone can deny that.

It's not apples/oranges. They all left as they didn't want to be so hurt they couldn't enjoy their later years to their fullest. Doesn't matter how long they played, the rationale behind their decisions are the same.

[smuggler]

People whose brain cavities have more fluid and less brain seem to be slightly more susceptible. That might seem derogatory, but it's not. Biological anomalies between this person or that, and these are subtle variances.