Football violence: the hit! Especially in the NFL: Is it about tackling technique?

We all know what's been going on and talked about for about three days. "Devastating hits" and the concussions and ociated injuries have been getting a lot of attention, and the NFL is talking about legislating against the violence. Mike Ditka has addressed the helmet itself being used as a weapon, and thus indirectly causing more injuries than are thus prevented. Rodney Harrison has mentioned that suspensions mean more than fines. I've been going over some tapes and films in my collection, and I notice that there is LESS actual tackling and MORE "mive hits", much of it apparently for "effect" and to "inspire fear", rather than to actually stop an opponent. Going back some twenty years, I notice that, far more often, there was REAL tackling, where the act commences with hand contact, proceeds to wrapping up the runner or receiver, and concludes with wrestling the offensive player to the ground, sometimes still with great violence. Is this merely a matter of the cliche, "bigger/faster/stronger", or is the "vicious hit", sometimes at the price of picture book tackling, MOST of the problem? Notice, in the days of Chuck Bednarik and Ray Nitschke, who were hardly "softies", hits were still done, but there was more traditional tackling involved. Also, I have heard from former players that the "horse collar" rule, designed to eliminate neck injuries, may have actually spurred an increased number of concussions due to leverage considerations. Shouldn't more actual tackling, involving the hands and arms, be deployed? And would it HELP to eliminate some of the concussions and similar neck and head injuries? Feel free to comment at length, I'd like this to be a serious discussion.