Mr. WEO

Certainly last year--Rodgers was the least deserving MVP in years (considering the other candidates).

he is registered self employed--he runs a landscaping business. I assume he declares his income in such.

Can one be hired per diem at all? If a man mows my lawn each week for 2 years and I decide to go with someone cheaper, I would be bound to continue to pay him regardless?

no one can argue that Jackson doesn't belong in the MVP discussion right now. It's a 4 man race; Allen, Jackson, Hurts, Mahomes.

neither Allen nor Wegmans are "home grown" in Buffalo. Plus, it's a DiBella's sub wannabe

Guy was a day 1 bum, right off the bus. What would possess the Athletic to write a story about this long ago washout? What hasn't been said about this kid yet?

Even if the contract the doctor signs with the team specifically states that his/her services may be terminated at the discretion of the entity that is contracting for their services? Such a contract would not be legally binding in the UK? The collective bargaining in this case doesn't involved the doctor for hire.

I meant the bargained for condition is that either/both the NFL and the NFLPA can terminate the neurologist without cause. The neurologist accepts the job with that understanding and signs with that knowledge his contract with the NFL. All of these guys are just doing this as a side gig to their actual practice. They probably get a per diem.

amazing this went right to CTE.

The independent neurologist is a contractor--he/she serves at the pleasure of the NFL and the NFLPA with the understanding that he/she can be fired by either entity without cause. That is the bargained for concussion protocol as it is. There's no chance this will happen. It's absurd. no way

lol, this thread

a real head scratcher

say what?

or 2...

"Breaking news 2 hours ago in the thread dedicated to this topic"

Stringer's death during practice changed rules for the conditions for which players are monitored for heat stroke--a major move which is well known and well documented. Despite this, 20 yers later, there is no rule making for games in the heat. None. The conclusions are obvious. You won't accept this...that doesn't change them. I'm not disagreeing with anything. I'm stating the facts as they are. It really doesn't get any simpler than that.

they think they are safe. You say they are wrong. summed for you

They can just watch the game film from Sunday--watch a D give up 500 yards on 90 plays...and still win.

None of them have said that, but that's far from thew point because no one is claiming they did. As you correctly landed upon--they understand it's their job. Sometimes it's very hot, sometimes it's very cold. Or very wet with unsure footing. Has any of them said "I hope it pours so hard that the grass is almost unplayable"? How about, "man, I hope the wind chill is such that my toes and fingers may lose tips due to frostbite"? It's a silly as it sounds. Players and the NFLPA play on artificial turf because "it's there job"----yet they are extremely vocal (have a public opinion) about the dangers of turf to their health and safety. On weather? Nothing. On very hot weather? Nothing. You are determined to tell me how I should feel about this (over and over), when how I feel has no bearing whatsoever on this topic. You are essentially telling them how they should think about this as well., I'm sure we both could compile a list of jobs that we feel are "unsafe" that people do "because it's their job". So what? Pro athletes as a group, and NFL players in particular are very publicly vocal about what they want and what their interests are. Your insistence that playing in Miami in September at 1 PM is on its face inherently, always, by its very nature, completely unsafe....does not make it so for the NFL. I could not be more obvious that those involved in the game do not agree with you.

You keep projecting this on me--for reasons only you know. Weird. Show me where these 300+lb men, their coaches, their owners or their union have deemed it tooo dangerous to play in those conditions. I've asked you several times now to do so. You keep throwing you own thoughts and feeling on me. They aren't germane to this discussion.

If you've read my posts, I have repeatedly said that visitors should have some shade. But pointing out 6 years later that the field has an unfair advantage after a Bills loss in a game where they absolutely dominated the home team, despite this advantage (and lost) makes a poor argument for the safety issue. If anyone in the NFL/players/owners were calling for some sort of immediate change/relief, your point would carry some weight (see the Tua conversation, for contrast). But they aren't, so it doesn't. Me pointing that out really isn't arguing for the sake of it. It's a safety issue when anyone involved says it is--your opinion doesn't make it a safety issue. I don't know why that is hard for you to accept or understand.

If Kenny hadn't lost his stool like that, would Pat be asking if Dorsey even really cares at all?....

Bills lost 3 O-lineman by the 4th Q: 2 from heat and 1 from head injury. A couple of players receiver some reported form of treatment (stretches and IV) but came back. 1 threw up on the sideline. The Bills still, despite all this, were able to thoroughly outplay the Fins--500 yards on O. But they went 2-4 in the redzone and missed a FG. Yes, shade on both sides would be good.

why not just bring in a Lamar?:

finally got one right