Your claim to be "well-intentioned" is quite subjective. I have no idea what your intentions are.
Sure, that's kind of my point. You've stated previously that those who are questioning whether there is any real long-term danger from multiple concussions as a result of playing football are doing so because they don't like the "martial nature" of the game and find it morally objectionable. I am pointing out that I like the martial nature of the game and have no moral objection to it, but I remain concerned that the participants are placing themselves in a hazardous situation beyond the usual injuries that are incurred on the field.
Let me put it another way. I like mixed martial arts, and enjoy a great fight between two trained athletes. While they are often beat up and sometimes injured even quite severely during the fight (broken arms from armbars, for example), they eventually heal and they knew the possible consequences, so I have no issue with this. There's also a ref there to make sure things don't get out of hand. However, if the fight included them being locked in a cage with no referee and only one man is allowed to come out still breathing, yes, I have a problem with that even if the athletes agree to these conditions. It's society, we've kind of moved beyond the Roman amphitheater.
As far as the references from the "article" you posted, (from a class-action lawyer publication) there is a single peer-reviewed article referred to whose scientific significance is under dispute, which seems logical based on the extremely small sample it considers.
It is interesting that mike webster recurs as a key figure in these studies, considering he was the most notorious steroid abuser on the Steelers. What factor did that play in his post-career problems? Unmentioned in your article. This is one confounding factor which trial lawyers would prefer be ignored in this discussion. That is because the intention of the article you posted is to lay the groundwork for making money, which is the profession of class action lawyers, not establishing scientific certainty.
Dude, I am an engineer so I understand science. I also understand scientific certainty. Yes, you're correct, there is not a large enough sample size YET. However, the evidence that has been observed from the existing small sample size is so compelling that the NFL, who stand to be the biggest losers from this moving from hypothesis to proven, are already in agreement that this is a likelihood and are changing their policy accordingly.
You don't watch the first group of human subjects in a scientific experiment start vomiting blood from taking a new medication and say "okay, doesn't look good, but we need to run through five more groups before we can say for sure". The reason is that this is a moral hazard. If it were groups of mice, hey, they're mice. These are people. It works the other way too - when a cancer medication is partially through a trial and it is clear that it is saving the cancer patients, they stop giving the control group placebos because it's unethical to do otherwise. In both cases, you don't wait until you reach the required statistical sample size before taking action.
You're likely correct that the reason the NFL is reacting so quickly and are NOT stonewalling like they were before is that they are trying to gain protection from lawsuits. But this doesn't change the fact that it is the right thing to do. I'd be interested to see if you can find a neurologist who is challenging the quite well-known research findings that have sparked this discussion. The guys working for the NFL aren't.