Quite probably not, but you must already know that you posed that question to somebody who meant no such thing.
Given that you've already admirably declined two provocations to, essentially, 'catfight' on, of all things, suck-it-up tough-guy masculinity, it's a genuine puzzle as to why you wouldn't just stand firm on your original ground that the NFL's track record on being forthright and assuming responsibility regarding a certain category of highly-compromising injuries leaves you with a skeptical starting point for assessing this new tragic story.
I don't watch much football anymore, and I've come to expect emotionally impactful stories to elicit a lot of strong & often awkwardly expressed reactions and responses from pretty much any population of American men, let alone big-time sports fans, so the variation in takes and strength of affect has led me to lay back and simply witness how things have unfolded, as speculation builds and more facts come to light.
NFL has as strong a connection to the classic "follow the money" narrative as any competitive entertainment venture in the USA. Two coaches, meeting in mass-audience exposure & real time, jumped a lot of possibilities by deciding, "Yeah, no, we're not doing this. No getting back to playing this game."
That doesn't mean that there weren't or aren't parties who were motivated for things to go differently, and are dealing with a lot of, "What now?"
Then again, your follow-up paragraph in the post that originally presented your POV on football's most controversial subject struck me as extreme & harshly conclusive toward the poster you'd quoted, which, in context, could be considered equally puzzling.
ksi.uconn.edu
