Amani Toomer calls out Kurt Warner

**wickedsolo** · 05-04-2012, 06:26 AM

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...e-of-football/

This was in response to a couple of days (weeks?) ago when Kurt Warner said he'd never let his sons play football, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Kurt Warner needs to keep his opinions to himself when it comes to this. Everything that he’s gotten in his life has come from playing football. He works at the NFL Network right now. For him to try and trash the game, it seems to me that it’s just a little disingenuous to me.

Nothing against Kurt Warner, but I tend to agree with Toomer on this one. Prior to his success with the Rams he was an NFL castoff for a while in the NFL Europe and I actually believe he was working as an assistant manager at a grocery store or something.

**JAB1985** · 05-04-2012, 06:32 AM

Warner comes off as kind of a douche at times. I dont know how you can be bitter towrds the game/league that gave you riches, especially being healthy as well. He was so pissed off about that bounty gate saying they were dirty when the guy gave him a clear shot when he was eunning towards the play. Instead of crying about it he should have acknowledged for what it was and moved on. Same with this.

**leachisabeast** · 05-04-2012, 06:44 AM

Agreed, he isn't really a great analyst either, not a fan of him at all.

**ActualSpamBot** · 05-04-2012, 06:50 AM

So according to Toomer, Warner is wrong to share his opinion, and we know this because Toomer...shared...his opinion?

Dude... Warner is allowed to believe that athletes have advanced faster than pad and helmet technology. I personally don't think I'll let my kid play unless I see some major advances in helmet tech between now and when he gets to middle school. That doesn't mean I'm trashing the game, and it doesn't make me a hypocrite even though I played in my day.

**leachisabeast** · 05-04-2012, 07:05 AM

Originally Posted by ActualSpamBot

So according to Toomer, Warner is wrong to share his opinion, and we know this because Toomer...shared...his opinion?

Dude... Warner is allowed to believe that athletes have advanced faster than pad and helmet technology. I personally don't think I'll let my kid play unless I see some major advances in helmet tech between now and when he gets to middle school. That doesn't mean I'm trashing the game, and it doesn't make me a hypocrite even though I played in my day.

But football has given him so much in return. If he is so against his kids playing it, why didn't he quit football when he wasn't so good and famous over here in Europe? Fact is, he's lucky from where he came from, to where he is today working in the NFL network looking back on a very good career in football too. Obviously he had a huge part in that, working hard him self to become a SB winning QB and all that, but without the NFL, his family would not be in the very fortunate position they are in now.

**ActualSpamBot** · 05-04-2012, 07:12 AM

Originally Posted by leachisabeast

But football has given him so much in return. If he is so against his kids playing it, why didn't he quit football when he wasn't so good and famous over here in Europe?

Because concussion information is only just now coming out, especially for laymen like Kurt and us folk who didn't go to med school. I'm sure that Kurt is grateful for what he's gotten from football, but I bet if he knew then about the dangers of brain damage that we know now, he might have stuck to selling insurance and stocking shelves. And he's not out of the brain damage woods yet. He had a few concussions in his career... he's in an elevated risk group to develop early onset Alzheimer's and dementia.

And I don't understand how he's doing anything wrong for viewing it now, as a parent, and with more information about the likelihood of severe brain injuries from play, to say that he doesn't want his children playing. Everyone has the right to decide how to raise their kids. He's not saying no one should play. He's saying that knowing now what he does about the risks, he doesn't want HIS kids to play. In wake of the death of Junior Seau, and the likely connection his suicide had to brain injuries suffered as a player, I think Kurt has every right to be cognizant of the risks involved in football.

**leachisabeast** · 05-04-2012, 07:56 AM

Originally Posted by ActualSpamBot

Because concussion information is only just now coming out, especially for laymen like Kurt and us folk who didn't go to med school. I'm sure that Kurt is grateful for what he's gotten from football, but I bet if he knew then about the dangers of brain damage that we know now, he might have stuck to selling insurance and stocking shelves. And he's not out of the brain damage woods yet. He had a few concussions in his career... he's in an elevated risk group to develop early onset Alzheimer's and dementia.

And I don't understand how he's doing anything wrong for viewing it now, as a parent, and with more information about the likelihood of severe brain injuries from play, to say that he doesn't want his children playing. Everyone has the right to decide how to raise their kids. He's not saying no one should play. He's saying that knowing now what he does about the risks, he doesn't want HIS kids to play. In wake of the death of Junior Seau, and the likely connection his suicide had to brain injuries suffered as a player, I think Kurt has every right to be cognizant of the risks involved in football.

The risk of concussions and getting Alzheimer's later on in your life vs playing a sport that you love doing and possibly earning millions to do it, and maybe even have a coaching or media career after you finish with the sport, take your pick. I haven't had kids or plan to until I leave the Army, but at the end of the day, it's your kids decision, if he/she really wants to do something (providing it isn't anything illegal) then IMO you can't just stop him from doing it.

**ActualSpamBot** · 05-04-2012, 08:08 AM

Originally Posted by leachisabeast

The risk of concussions and getting Alzheimer's later on in your life vs playing a sport that you love doing and possibly earning millions to do it, and maybe even have a coaching or media career after you finish with the sport, take your pick.

Except the odds of making it big versus the odds of getting a really bad head injury aren't remotely comparable. It's ludicrous to bank on making it big in football as a means of compensating for the eventual head trauma just like it's ludicrous to play the lotto to pay for your retirement.

Originally Posted by leachisabeast

I haven't had kids or plan to until I leave the Army, but at the end of the day, it's your kids decision, if he/she really wants to do something (providing it isn't anything illegal) then IMO you can't just stop him from doing it.

A parent only has about 3 real jobs. One of them is protecting their kid from hurting themselves before they're old enough to understand the risks of their behaviors. If a parent wants to ok it, that's the parent's prerogative, but the idea that you can't or shouldn't stop a child from engaging in an activity that you find too risky shows me that you don't understand what being a parent is about.

**alien bird** · 05-04-2012, 08:10 AM

Originally Posted by leachisabeast

but at the end of the day, it's your kids decision, if he/she really wants to do something (providing it isn't anything illegal) then IMO you can't just stop him from doing it.

Really? I don't want to get off track here, but there is something in the States called a parent permission form. Your children aren't allowed to play unless it's signed, so you certainly do have control of whether or not your kid plays football, baseball, lacrosse or any other sport. You seem to view parenting like a fatalist and I don't think that was your intention.

I haven't heard Toomer's comments, so I can't really say anything about them. However, I don't really see anything wrong with Warner saying he would not want his kids playing a sport where it could ultimately affect their longevity and mental health, even if he at one time benefited from the sport. There are a lot of things we do as people, yet because of increased knowledge or changes in the activity we wouldn't do them again, nor would we want our friends and family to do them. that's not hypocritical; it's prudent.

**GOTA** · 05-04-2012, 09:06 AM

Originally Posted by leachisabeast

The risk of concussions and getting Alzheimer's later on in your life vs playing a sport that you love doing and possibly earning millions to do it, and maybe even have a coaching or media career after you finish with the sport, take your pick. I haven't had kids or plan to until I leave the Army, but at the end of the day, it's your kids decision, if he/she really wants to do something (providing it isn't anything illegal) then IMO you can't just stop him from doing it.

You can stop them if they are under 18 and you are their legal guardian. I have this debate with my wife all the time. My son is almost 9 and she still doesn't feel that he should be playing football. He plays soccer all year without any pads or helmets and somehow that's okay in her mind. Some battles you just can't win. At least she's agreed to let our 6 year old daughter play lacrosse. Baby steps.

Honestly I like both Toomer and Warner and see where they are both coming from. This is one of the rare issues where I really can't chose a side.

**wickedsolo** · 05-04-2012, 08:06 AM

Originally Posted by ActualSpamBot

So according to Toomer, Warner is wrong to share his opinion, and we know this because Toomer...shared...his opinion?

Dude... Warner is allowed to believe that athletes have advanced faster than pad and helmet technology. I personally don't think I'll let my kid play unless I see some major advances in helmet tech between now and when he gets to middle school. That doesn't mean I'm trashing the game, and it doesn't make me a hypocrite even though I played in my day.

Warner can give his opinion based on his experiences, but it would appear that Toomer is looking at it from the stance that being blessed enough to play pro football has given him millions of dollars, notoriety, and a lifestyle for his family that he probably never could have achieved without it.

Warner's opionions may come across as bashing the sport to some and a lot of guys just don't have anything else, so it's almost like a personal attack for Toomer. If Warner is not going to "allow" his sons to play football I can understand why it may come across like Warner feels like his progeny is too good for football.

If you're going to say stuff (are you listening Coach Harbaugh?!) that the media can twist and others can misinterpret then you need to be prepared for backlash and playing defense. I think Warner could have really worded his thoughts a lot differently, though I do understand where he's coming from.

**HoustonRaven** · 05-04-2012, 07:17 AM

Originally Posted by ActualSpamBot

Because concussion information is only just now coming out, especially for laymen like Kurt and us folk who didn't go to med school. I'm sure that Kurt is grateful for what he's gotten from football, but I bet if he knew then about the dangers of brain damage that we know now, he might have stuck to selling insurance and stocking shelves. And he's not out of the brain damage woods yet. He had a few concussions in his career... he's in an elevated risk group to develop early onset Alzheimer's and dementia.

And I don't understand how he's doing anything wrong for viewing it now, as a parent, and with more information about the likelihood of severe brain injuries from play, to say that he doesn't want his children playing. Everyone has the right to decide how to raise their kids. He's not saying no one should play. He's saying that knowing now what he does about the risks, he doesn't want HIS kids to play. In wake of the death of Junior Seau, and the likely connection his suicide had to brain injuries suffered as a player, I think Kurt has every right to be cognizant of the risks involved in football.

Agreed 100%