The Frankish Reich

You gotta be mixing up columns or something. It is inconceivable that a guy could play that long and have only 14 tackles. I mean, I know he avoided contact, but you're kidding, right?

Excellent point. I had neglected that. Where the bubble (or bubbles) is located is critical too. I may revise my predictions accordingly: - NHL: 80% chance of actually playing a "full" tournament. - NBA: 65% chance - MLB: 50% chance (with at least one league-wide stoppage) - NFL: 25% chance (unless they come up with a better plan, like 4 regional bubbles)

Yep. Very fair assessment overall. And obviously there are movers up and down. Brady demoted this year, Rodgers probably should've been too. Watson moving all the way up, Allen ready to move up a notch, and very green kids off to an impressive start (Drew Lock) have a chance to move up a couple notches in a good year.

"forfeit" vs. "game not played" may make a huge difference in the standings, particularly with the expanded playoffs. Prediction: the MLB season will not end well.

The larger problem is that there's things we think we know to be true, but they aren't backed up by the kind of studies we'd like to see. This is just too new. But there's a growing consensus around certain best practices. Outdoors is far better than indoors. Creating a "bubble" is very effective. Travel is dangerous. How do these fit within our major sports leagues? 1. Best: NBA, Women's Soccer. The "bubble" model. Travel exponentially increases the likelihood of exposure/infection. It is not perfect, but so far it appears to present an acceptable level of risk for participants, and a reasonably good likelihood that a revised "season" may be both started AND finished. Let's say 80%. 2. Better: NHL. Not exactly a bubble, but travel is restricted -- the only team travel that will happen is when we hit the Stanley Cup finals. There's good reason to believe that the indoor climate of hockey -- cool temps, on ice -- is conducive to spread (see the meat packing plant outbreaks). So that's another worry. It will be an interesting experiment, but I think it's more likely than not that the tournament can be started AND finished. Let's say 65%. 3. Not so good: MLB. We already have a very significant outbreak, so far confined to one team. But ... way too much travel, and traveling parties are large (30 man rosters now, plus all kinds of affiliated coaches and personnel). Teams typically traveling 2-3 times/week. The good thing is that baseball is about as solitary a game itself as any team sport -- really only the hitter/catcher/homeplate ump (and for extended times only the latter two) are in close contact for any extended time on the field. And most of this is outdoors (even empty domed stadiums don't seem likely to present the risks we see even in air conditioned office buildings). But I'm skeptical they'll get anything resembling their plan completed. I am assuming, at a minimum, another shutdown/restart. Chances of finishing the season (with such a restart)? Let's say 50%. 4. NFL. Terrible. Part of it is just the nature of the game. Players in extremely close proximity while the game is in progress. There may be face shields, etc., but whether they're effective remains to be seen. Huge teams/traveling parties. Weekly travel. No bubble or quasi-bubble. (Q. Why not? At least at the start of the year?). Chances that the season starts, that we get in substantially the full schedule (even assuming a 2 or 3 week shutdown) AND finish the playoffs/Super Bowl? I'd say unlikely. Let's call it 35%.

I don't remember which ESPN guy it was, but the question -- about a month ago -- was this: "Are we going to have pro sports this summer/fall?" And the answer was this: "Yes, in that they'll start, but they won't finish." And it's becoming less and less likely that we play anything resembling a full NFL season. If you can't keep a baseball team healthy, how can you possibly do it for a pro football team? You've got traveling parties of about 100 people. You've got anywhere from 8 to 11 guys lined up, sweating, panting, a couple inches from each other's faces. I was thrilled when baseball came back -- thank you, MLB -- and I watched a fair amount this weekend. I desperately want these seasons to go for my own entertainment value. But ... it's not gonna happen.

I didn't know that about Brown. And we play in Denver this year ... Ryan Clark sat out games at elevation based on his sickle cell trait.

This thread has gotten its second wind. They're getting better! Actually, what the hell is wrong with Washington FC, just like the Brits. Nicknames are pretty stupid when you think about it.

Lobster boats to helm up there. I liked this idea the last time the Pats did it: https://www.espn.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/7208252/new-england-patriots-cut-ties-albert-haynesworth

Right. I didn't even know what New Era (the company) was, and I suspect most people never knew. But it beat the heck out of Guaranteed Rate Field (White Sox). A while back I tried to find a study that showing that buying naming rights to a stadium is an effective form of advertising. There was none. Yet companies still do it out of vanity I suppose. In fact, you could make a good argument that buying naming rights is correlated (not a cause and effect, but correlated) with business failure, because it is the particularly stupid businesses that invest good money in vanity projects rather than R&D or something more worthwhile. Enron Field anyone? Stop the madness. Just call it the Ralph again.

The Shanahans have had one HOF RB: Terrell Davis. And one very good one: Alfred Morris. And a pretty good one: Clinton Portis. And a bunch of other replaceable parts that have all used that offense to put up a big season or two before sliding back into obscurity. I get that Mostert wants to cash in now before it's too late, but I've got news for him: it's already too late. The Shanahans understand that RBs are like power hitting first basemen/DHs in baseball - as Bill James correctly noted about 30 years ago, there will always be plenty of them available, and true shortage of talent almost never occurs at that position. Mike Shanahan lead RBs Olandis Gary (1000 yards rushing) Mike Anderson (1487 yards, 5.0 YPC ... with Brian Griese at QB) Ruben Droughns (1000) Cinton Portis (consecutive 1500 yard, 5.5 YPC seasons, followed by about 4.0 YPC after the Broncos traded him) Tatum Bell (921 yards, 5.3 YPC followed by a 1000 yard season in 2006 - last spotted at a shopping mall in Denver c. 2008 selling my dad a cellphone) Kyle Shanahan Steve Slaton (1282 yards, 4.8 YPC) Alfred Morris (1623 yards, 4.8) Devonta Freeman/Tevin Coleman (Falcons) Carlos Hyde/Matt Breida (Niners) Coleman/Breida/Mostert (last year)

That Desean Jackson is one clever guy. He apparently arrived at this wisdom after being exposed -- for the first time -- to the intricate theories of one Louis Farrakhan. Which reminded me: Louis Farrakhan is still alive? I hadn't heard/thought about him in a couple decades.

Oy vey. I checked: Jeffrey Lurie is Jewish.

Desean Jackson is making the tough decisions just a little bit easier: https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/29422431/eagles-desean-jackson-says-hate-jewish-community-posting-anti-semitic-messages Quoting Hitler with approval (or at least what you think was said by Hitler) is generally not a career-enhancing move.

I hope you're right. In fairness to Locker (I liked him, and for a few weeks there I thought he'd be really good), the injuries simply were too frequent and serious and they wore him down mentally and physically. What I like about Allen is that he definitely adjusted him playing style to avoid leaving himself as exposed to injury. But I still think they're remarkably similar as young QBs about 7 years apart: crazy athletic, great arms, big frames, accuracy issues ...