Did 2011 CBA create a health and safety risk for players?
As the NFL continues to try to make the game safer and safer (while overlooking safety issues like playing on turf and/or playing with only three days off between games and/or playing 17 — and inevitably 18 — regular-season games), there’s a lingering question in some league circles about the connection between lack of preparation for the regular season and in-game injuries, especially early in the regular season.
An experienced and knowledgeable league figure with extensive experience when it comes to preparing teams to play recently suggested that the league should conduct a careful study of in-season injury rates before and after the 2011 Collective Bargaining Agreement.
That year, the lockout was resolved when the union caved to ownership’s financial demands, but only after getting the owners to agree to all sorts of limitations on offseason and training-camp practices. The shift has created a sense that, for many teams, the first four weeks of the regular season are an extension of training camp, with players still getting themselves into the right overall shape and condition to withstand the balance of the season.
Of course, more strenuous offseason workouts and/or training camp workouts would likely result in more injuries during that phase of the calendar. But it would be interesting to see a full slate of objective injury numbers for, say, the 12 years before the 2011 CBA and the 12 seasons since it was finalized.
Whatever the numbers, it would be worthwhile to compare. Then again, that likely wouldn’t be enough to get the union to revert to the past way of doing things, even if it could be proven to be in the best interests of all players to do so.
Did 2011 CBA create a health and safety risk for players? originally appeared on Pro Football Talk
