HalftimeAdjustment

Agreed. Undoubtedly Cole has multiple supporters among the other players as well as guys who disagree but like him personally. It is not at all in the team's interest to overreact to his social media activity.

Not too many so far. And... next man up. There will be other players who get paid as a result. Now, I hope that Cole does not retire. Most likely the protocols will get relaxed if the situation continues to improve. But if he does retire, it will hurt us for a season... and yet the NFL as a whole will move on.

Cole Beasley...

Actually many newer vaccines don't really have that risk due to not using live or weakened virus of the targeted illness.

And the first polio vaccine sometimes gave you polio.

Sounds like he is trolling.

He wants the money.

What if he robs stagecoaches on the side?

The amount of Beasley content has dropped enough that this thread is probably due to be locked.

That is the other ridiculous thing about his outburst. The trend is towards a reduction in restrictions as overall case counts drop; the likelihood of the protocols not being relaxed seems low. If he was informed that it was just for preseason and the final protocols are not established, that seems like all the more reason to hold back and not have a public attention-seeking meltdown. He could continue rationally lobbying for reduced restrictions (publicly and privately). But apparently he lacks any sense of patience.

I find it highly unlikely that any meaningful number of people (including Cole Beasley) who do not wish to take the vaccine under the current Emergency Use Authorization will take the vaccine after the FDA grants formal approval.

But they played with highly restrictive protocols for everyone. Are the protocols for unvaccinated players MORE restrictive than the protocols for everyone last year? If so, unvaccinated players (as a group) should raise a complaint to the NFLPA together instead of letting Cole hang out there. But if they are essentially the same as last year, then they are complaining about the pass that vaccinated players get, and are unlikely to get far with their complaints. Especially if they don't get much more specific.

And his current approach to challenging the protocols leaves a lot to be desired. If he chooses to try a stunt motorcycle jump and gets killed, that probably violates some terms of his contract and/or team rules. His argument would apply equally to that: "I am going to live my life" and "God's will". That is not a focused argument on "I should be allowed to bring my family with me because that restriction is unreasonable compared to the relative risk it introduces".

I'm not sure he really chose to enter the NFLPA except by choosing the be in the NFL. It's not like there is actually a choice to join or not. That's a whole larger subject/problem but it is not clear how the sports industry could work without it.

If he has a specific problem with the restrictions of having family with him on the road, or other restrictions during his hours away from the facility, he should zero in on that more specifically and drop the distracting commentary about flu, death counts, relative risk, etc. I think he'd find a lot more sympathy if he got very specific about the restrictions that he does not want to abide by. It appears however that he wants zero difference, which is a less reasonable stance in my opinion. And in any case, is not what the NFLPA negotiated. He started out by basically attacking the NFLPA for this and in some respects, that was more on point. Since that time he's off onto why COVID is no big deal and he can't live with restrictions, so ... that's unfortunate.

What page is that, the one where the NFLPA let them down? Or the one where they were all planning to shut up about it until one guy started tweeting? (She is not a player... so whatever she tweets... it is what it is. I would never hold her comments or opinions against her husband, that is not even logical).

He certainly has the right to retire and live his life free of the agreed upon protocols and all of the other encumbering rules that he has to deal with as a pro football player. He can move about freely (in most states) and he does not have to get vaccinated. Alternately, he can not get vaccinated and abide by the rules agreed upon with the players' union, understanding they might even be relaxed later in the season if warranted. He would then get paid. Both of those are choices he could make, and may still make. Instead, on the surface, it appears he wants to defy the rules in some form of "resistance" so that he can be a martyr and forced to retire. I would expect, if he makes that choice, that he will then fight (via his lawyers) to get paid for not playing.

When it's the subject of collective bargaining and the union has agreed to those protocols... I would not be surprised to find that they are given great deference. In fact, it is not clear who he has to sue in order to challenge them; does he have standing to challenge without also suing the NFLPA?

I don't agree with anyone suggesting he should be cut for his social media activity. If he does not intend to comply with the protocols negotiated by the NFL and NFLPA, the team should be able to ascertain that during training camp. The process agreed upon with the NFLPA should be followed and he should be fined and/or suspended appropriately. If at that point, he continues to complain, he may need to be suspended or cut for conduct detrimental to the team. Not before that. Why? Because if he is unwilling to follow an agreement made with the NFLPA, he should also not benefit from any other agreements made between the union and league... such as salary guarantees, practice limits, benefits, etc. Since the NFL depends on its collective bargaining with players for its ability to avoid anti-trust lawsuits, the agreements with the union have to be honored. So... either he gets the NFLPA to renegotiate or he has to adhere to it. As far as his tweets and media being a distraction, I'm confident the other players are not going to get that bothered by it. I disagree with them very deeply, but it has to get significantly more egregious to qualify as detrimental conduct warranting action. A premature cut, fine, or other action by the Bills has more of a risk of backfiring on the team so they should tread lightly until he is clearly in violation of rules, not just making ill-advised tweets.

I think I'm off the "fan of Cole" bandwagon. Not because he chooses not to get vaccinated (apparently) but because he feels the need to complain about the rules on Twitter and make false/misleading analogies. He absolutely could have contacted his NFLPA reps or even gone to other players to approach them in a group, but instead he's carrying on and asking someone if they cared about people who died of the flu. So, I will root for him as a Bill, but as a person I'll group him with a few other Bills players that I didn't care for over the years.

That made it a special teams call and was not eligible for PFF scoring 🙄

I think the term "worst" is too vague l. Wide Right was the "worst" in terms of impact but it certainly was not dumb, embarrassing, or even unbelievably inept. It would be the "worst play" if Norwood spontaneously decided to fake it and throw a long pass instead. Or if the ling snapper somehow snapped it over his head and a series of failed attempts to pick up the bouncing football led to it rolling out of bounds. Imagine, it would be known as "The BAD Snap" instead of "Wide Right".

Well then I guess he is a "process" guy... back up the Brinks truck.

Was he at voluntary OTAs?

The QB who recently talked about his eating habits, water drinking habits, sleep habits? The QB who modeled Uggs? The QB who once had a MAGA hat? The QB who once talked about how bad the hotels were in Buffalo? Who fathered a child with his girlfriend right before they broke up? I mean, he is good at this but he is not perfect in terms of avoiding non-football media attention.