Logic

You may have read it, but perhaps you failed to comprehend it. The NFLPA is suggesting that players not engage in PRIVATE, on-their-own practice sessions, outside of the scope of the official NFL offseason activities. As such, your comment about "giving money back" for "practices they are not attending" makes no sense and has no relevance whatsoever.

Did you read the article? I'm gonna go ahead and guess you did not.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2020/06/20/nflpa-recommends-that-players-stop-practicing-together/ The NFL had no offseason workouts in 2020, but plenty of players have worked out together on their own. The NFL Players Association officially has asked them to stop. “Please be advised that it is our consensus medical opinion that in light of the increase in COVID-19 cases in certain states that no players should be engaged in practicing together in private workouts,” Dr. Thom Mayer, the NFLPA medical director, said in an email to all players, a copy of which PFT has obtained....

Basically, as players return to team facilities over the next couple of months, we just need to brace ourselves for the fact that likely all 32 teams will have positive COVID tests. There are 90 players on each roster. The likelihood that ZERO players test positive on any given team is extremely low. It doesn't mean everything is going to shut down or that there won't be a season, necessarily -- although it COULD mean those things. Andrew Brandt said it well on Twitter: The primary factor in whether or not we have a 2020 NFL season will be the extent of the NFL owners' greed, and how they weigh the opportunity cost of profits vs safety of their players, coaching and support staffs, and fans. The other thing I could see playing a major role is if a player or coach ends up being hospitalized or dying from COVID. Bear in mind that many coaches are solidly in the "at risk" group, as are a fair amount of offensive linemen. There is a certain point past which even the money-obsessed owners will not be able to justify moving forward with a season.

Just wanted to chime in and thank both @Thurman#1 and @Shaw66 for their excellent posts and say that I think both are at least partly correct. Shaw is correct in saying that the biggest improvement will likely come from Allen learning to read, process, and understand defenses better. Thurm is correct in saying that inconsistency in mechanics really hinders Allen. Indeed, on some plays he does everything just exactly right, and the result is usually a pinpoint laser that hits his receiver in the chest. However, on the plays where his accuracy is off, where his ball sails 3 feet past his receiver's outstretched hand, you can almost ALWAYS watch the replay back and see that this body was in a wonky position. He either didn't "set the hallway" properly, didn't step into his throw, didn't transfer his weight efficiently, etc, etc. I don't pretend to know the finer points of quarterback mechanics, but I CAN see when a quarterback's body doesn't look quite right when he throws it. Here is a great example. Look at the Cowboys throw (even though he's on the move), and look at the Dolphins throw. You can see on that second throw what "poor mechanics" look like in action. It's THOSE types of throws that won't improve even if he learns to read defenses better. Even when he reads the coverage correctly and picks the right target, he needs to be able to get the ball there with consistency. Allen will always miss some throws, as all quarterbacks do. He'll never be perfect. But I DO believe that there's merit to the idea that an improvement in the consistency of his mechanics will lead to an overall much more productive version of Josh Allen. If he JUST improved his throwing consistency or JUST improved his reading of defenses, I think he'd become a consistently league average level passer who, paired with this defense, can win you 9-10 games a year. If he does BOTH of these things, I believe he will become a legitimate "Franchise QB" who can win you ballgames on his own and compete for Lombardi trophies. I feel strongly that both the reading of defenses AND the improvement of consistency in throwing mechanics are necessary for Allen to reach his lofty ceiling, and I personally feel that the importance of each is closer to 50/50 than 80/20.

Do you agree that his primary/best attributes are his run stopping and blitzing abilities, and not so much his pass coverage abilities, either in man or zone?

Agreed. Scrolling through sports news today, it's happening to multiple teams across multiple sports. The idea of just being able to quarantine one or two people and have everything be fine seems like a total fantasy. It really doesn't seem to work that way. From where I sit, a full NFL season -- or even a 10 game NFL season or whatever -- seems next to impossible.

At a time when high quality coverage safeties are of the utmost importance and the NFL is more of a passing league than ever, I don't see a box safety like Adams being worth the money he likely wants and the headaches he seems to create. It's not that he's not an elite box safety and a great leader -- he absolutely is both of those things. It's just that investing big bucks in a run-stopping safety who is not elite in coverage doesn't seem fiscally wise in the 2020 NFL. Ship him out.

Not sure how much they're going to get in exchange for a linebacker. ?‍♂️

“Hey look everyone! Here’s one specific instance that completely invalidates the dozens of other videos showing police murdering unarmed black people!” What a ridiculous post. Now show George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Eric Garner, etc, etc.

There are far more white people living in the United states. Therefore the numbers you posted don't really tell us much. It's much more useful and informative to look up "shootings per 100,000 people" categorized by race. Here's a good website, with charts and adjustable toggle switches and so forth. https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/cities Key Findings: 26% of U.S. police killings between January 2013 - December 2019 were committed by police departments of the 100 largest U.S. cities. Black people were 38% of people killed by these 100 police departments despite being only 21% of the population in their jurisdictions. Only 1 of the 100 largest city police departments did not kill anyone from Jan 2013 - Dec 2019 (Irvine, CA). 47% of unarmed people killed by the 100 largest city police departments were black. These police departments killed unarmed black people at a rate 4 times higher than unarmed white people. Rates of violent crime in cities did not make it any more or less likely for police departments to kill people. For example, Buffalo and Newark police departments had relatively low rates of police violence despite high crime rates while Spokane and Orlando had relatively low crime rates and high rates of police violence. From 2013-2019, St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department killed 34 black men and Oklahoma City Police Department killed 25 black men. This is an average rate of 7.0 per 100,000 black male population in St. Louis and 8.5 per 100,000 black male population in Oklahoma City - a higher rate than the 2018 US Murder Rate of 5.0 per 100,000.

According to the CDC website, it is not yet known whether infection with COVID confers any kind of future immunity. [Edit: I tried to address this and answer some questions here if anyone interested. Tnks -Hap]

I don’t “suggest” anyone do anything, other than not spreading misinformation. I made no comment about what the NFL, or the population at large, should or should not do. Listening to experts, following common sense, and wearing masks would be nice, but I’m not silly enough to think that most people will actually do those things. The statement “getting infected with COVID once means you’re immune from getting it again” has not been proven. It is not factual. That is all that I “suggested” with my comment. That’s it. Anything else you inferred was your own projection.

Fair point. But on the other hand, if the only clear section you can point to on the Bills roster and call them inferior is BACKUP QB, well...ya know...they must have a pretty good roster. The Jets, by comparison, are lacking in edge rushing threats, cornerbacks, and have a completely new offensive line that needs to prove its worth. THAT seems more important to determining game outcomes than the backup quarterback situation. I do agree with your overall point that fans get too worked up about opposing viewpoints. Like...a Jets writer predicted the Bills will do poorly? Oh nooooo! Unacceptable! Let's spam him with hateful comments! ?

I'm not sure how you got THAT from what I wrote. My pointing out that COVID infection does not necessarily confer future immunity DEFINITELY called for this type of response. ? Your ongoing ability to sidetrack a discussion with immature and unrelated babble is unmatched. Bravo.

As I understand it, there is not yet proof that COVID infection confers future immunity. From the CDC website: "Are you immune to the coronavirus disease after recovering from it? The immune response, including duration of immunity, to SARS-CoV-2 infection is not yet understood."

Another Muppy sighting! Good to see you 'round these parts.

It gets tricky fast, though, even if you're only quarantining the sick. Let's say it's a crucial divisional matchup to decide a playoff spot in the AFC. For the sake of argument, let's say its Bills vs Patriots. The Patriots enter the game with no COVID infections and a pretty complete roster. The Bills, on the other hand, see Josh Allen, Stefon Diggs, and Tremaine Edmunds sidelined due to COVID. Is this the type of season we even want to watch? Sure, you can argue that there are injuries every year, but I think there's a good chance COVID infections will be much more prevalent. Players also come into such close contact, both in locker rooms and on the field, that it seems unrealistic to think that COVID won't affect wide swaths of players as the season wears along. Many analysts expect there to be so many positive COVID cases throughout the season that each team would have to have a whole "taxi squad" of replacement players at the ready. How far into the bench of replacement players do we want to go? At what point is it no longer a fair representation of each team and, thus, a risk not worth putting people through?

Why would it be sarcasm?

Right. 53 players x 32 teams = 1,696 players. Then, once you start factoring in coaches (many of whom are at-risk types, either age or weight wise or both), coordinators, support staff, media....it's a massive amount of people. And the physical closeness and intensity of contact between players is just off the charts compared to other sports. In my mind, the idea of a 16 game season successfully taking place is incredibly unlikely. I desperately want to be wrong, because football is just about my favorite thing in the world. But confronting the facts with any sense of realism does not lead to an optimistic outlook.

Yep. They'll either get over it or...ya know...die. Or maybe they'll survive, but have ongoing organ problems, lung problems, blood problems, or a stroke. No biggie. ?

I remain pessimistic about a full season happening. I stick with my position that the season will be started, but will not get the chance to finish.

There's a really simple fix that would greatly improve the quality of reporting and discourse from the mainstream media. The FCC simply needs to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. Under the Fairness Doctrine, broadcasters were required to "present controversial issues of public importance in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced". It was effectively killed under the Reagan administration, and its ouster has given rise to the highly polarized, not-at-all fair and balanced news networks we see today. What we now have, in the absence of the Fairness Doctrine, is propaganda masquerading as news. Fox News is very clearly GOP TV, MSNBC is clearly Lefty TV, and on and on. I agree that mainstream media is failing us insofar as they do not present a clear, unbiased picture of current events to the public, they are not transparent about the FACT that their broadcast is biased, and they allow their financial interests to outweigh their duty to inform the public in an honest way. I do NOT agree with the Trumpian attacks on the free press in general, and I do NOT agree with his constant crusade against them. In fact, I think its downright fascist and incredibly dangerous. A well-functioning free press is a cornerstone of a strong democratic republic. So, bringing back the Fairness Doctrine and increasing the levels of honesty and accountability of our mainstream media? Yes. Attacking the free press in general and sophomorically labeling anything one doesn't agree with as "FAKE NEWS!!!"? Absurd, counter-productive, dangerous. Bring back the Fairness Doctrine.

Thank you for this quote. Along with a comment your previously made this week about how racism and white privilege aren't real things, you've saved me the time of bothering to debate with you. "Tell that to the journalists who lost their jobs"? How about "tell the countless black people who lost their LIVES to police brutality that racism isn't real"! Or, to stick with your "journalists" idea, "Tell the journalists getting unlawfully attacked by police DAILY this week that this cause isn't worth fighting for"! Your mind is clearly completely closed. Your obvious anger at people wanting justice for black Americans shows me exactly where you stand. You've made it abundantly clear. If you think this movement's aim is to "destroy free speech and jobs" and you don't think racism is real, I don't know what else to say. The only other thing I can think of is this: You're part of the problem. You've once again ignored the fact that the spreadsheet I linked, with over 100 videos from just ONE WEEK....is not linked to any one source. But you do you, bud. Cheers!