Ok i'm just going to flipping say it!!!!!
- Thread starter LTH
- Start date
Maelstrom787
Well-known member
LTH":20ycps97 said:
KJ is a Raider, and he's speaking out of self-interest because he is a player who is affected by this. He surely has a different perspective on this than us, and I don't blame him.
Other than that, I really don't care what KJ has to say about it and I find it a pretty random interjection by you.
Maelstrom787
Well-known member
LTH":3vzoq065 said:
This doesn't help your argument.
Silver is stating that the NFL is prioritizing keeping the games running. That's obvious, what the hell else do you want? Canceling the game kills Seattle's season and a forfeit isn't fair whatsoever.
Why would the NFL have ANY OTHER PRIORITY than keeping the football going?
I understand that you want a free win out of this, but it ain't happening yet and it shouldn't happen, and that isn't indicative of some sort of bias or grand conspiracy against a 5-8 team that has hardly a snowballs chance in hell of making the postseason anyway.
Maelstrom787":339ybojs said:
I don't want a free win out of this... I want both clubs to be at full strength..I want to see a kick ass football game with no excuses... But i also want it to be fair and making the Hawks play off of 4 days rest isnt fair to the players or the fans.
It's a player perspective on the situation... if you read the comments Bobby Wagner agrees with KJ. I don't know what the truth is but Like I said this thread was meant to be a half serious spoof as there isn't much to talk about... We are in a waiting game till the Rams and Hawks play...
If you are a player, and your the one that has to play a game on 4 days rest, It's a serious thing. they could have worked it out to add an extra week to the season or any number of different ways to protect Player safety as well the standings. but they don't care it's all about the money and it always will be that way..
LTH
Here's my take on it. The Rams owner goes to the NFL with his cap in his hand. "Ya know Roger, we just paid a gazillion dollars for a new stadium and we would like to recoup some dineros. If we can just get one home playoff game it would help big time." Rogers acts thoughtful and goes "This covid thing may need some consideration and I think the resulting s*#tstorm wouldn't be too bad if we postponed the game".
Now as a fan, I'm thinking that if enough Rams make it back by Tuesday that the game was considered "fair" and we win but lose to da bears, we will always be wondering "what if?" I guess it boils down to you have to play the hand you"re dealt and sometimes the midnight snack is a s*#t sandwich.
Now as a fan, I'm thinking that if enough Rams make it back by Tuesday that the game was considered "fair" and we win but lose to da bears, we will always be wondering "what if?" I guess it boils down to you have to play the hand you"re dealt and sometimes the midnight snack is a s*#t sandwich.
RiverDog
Well-known member
Why are people so shocked and surprised that one of the motivations for changing the protocols are due to the league wanting to make money?
A good part of the motivation for moving the game is financial. With as much of the rosters on 3 teams in 3 games declared ineligible, 20+ players or between 1/3 and 1/2 of the 53 man roster, those games would have lost credibility, the same thing that happened back in the mid 80's when the league fielded replacement teams when the players went on strike. They did not want to risk compromising their brand by putting out an inferior product or canceling the games and losing all that revenue. Likewise, the players themselves would not have wanted the games to be canceled as even if a team is the beneficiary of a forfeited game, the players do not get paid.
At this point of the season, they don't have a lot of options to reschedule games as all the byes are done. The only other thing they could have done was to have postponed the entire week, move the schedule back and give up the bye prior to the Super Bowl, which would have been hugely complicated as things such as stadium availability would have inevitably arisen.
Pete seems to have handled the situation philosophically and isn't holding any grudges. If anyone has a reason to gripe, it's him as his job could be on the line, but he's not going down that rabbit hole. His attitude is good advice for us fans.
A good part of the motivation for moving the game is financial. With as much of the rosters on 3 teams in 3 games declared ineligible, 20+ players or between 1/3 and 1/2 of the 53 man roster, those games would have lost credibility, the same thing that happened back in the mid 80's when the league fielded replacement teams when the players went on strike. They did not want to risk compromising their brand by putting out an inferior product or canceling the games and losing all that revenue. Likewise, the players themselves would not have wanted the games to be canceled as even if a team is the beneficiary of a forfeited game, the players do not get paid.
At this point of the season, they don't have a lot of options to reschedule games as all the byes are done. The only other thing they could have done was to have postponed the entire week, move the schedule back and give up the bye prior to the Super Bowl, which would have been hugely complicated as things such as stadium availability would have inevitably arisen.
Pete seems to have handled the situation philosophically and isn't holding any grudges. If anyone has a reason to gripe, it's him as his job could be on the line, but he's not going down that rabbit hole. His attitude is good advice for us fans.
RiverDog":2sl92vht said:
Yeah you bring a good point about Pete Carroll. I mean how is it going to help him to throw a fit in a situation that he has no control over? It doesn't.. just got to suck it up at this point...
And granted somebody is going to make the argument that it's his fault for starting the season 3-8..
But is that really the case? The Hawks have turned it around...and Have a legit chance to make the play offs. The play off calculator I posted says that the Hawks have a 40% chance to make the play offs if they win out. that means that the Saints, Eagles, Vikings, Falcons, WFT, 49ers have to lose two of four games, there are scenario's where the Niners just have to lose 1 game because we own the tie breaker...there are even legit scenarios where the whole NFC West makes the playoffs and if you look at the schedule it's VERY possible this could happen. Assuming the play off calculator is right.
So If your a coach like Pete Carroll whose job might be on the line, I would be thinking he isn't real happy about now. But if your a fan that thinks Carroll should lose his job then you won't care because you think he should lose his job even if he is 12 and 4... doesn't matter...
LTH
Rat
Well-known member
The league has no reason to hate the Seahawks. Yes, we're getting screwed, but it's not like Roger is sitting in his office laughing maniacally while plotting more ways to take down the Seattle machine.
The media has been talking about why the league would want to punish the Hawks... It's the only good reason I could think of... don't know if it's true, Maybe not, just thought I would throw it out there and see where it lands...
LTH
LTH
GeekHawk
Well-known member
Why does everyone seem to think the lambs have been 'following the protocol'? There's what, 2 or 3 teams with a serious outbreak, and the other 28 or 29 teams have 1 or 2 people out with covid. Seriously, y'all think they're following the same protocols? I'm pretty sure very few teams are going overboard like the Seahawks are.
RiverDog
Well-known member
GeekHawk":1yfqg2kb said:
That's simply not true. In addition to the Rams, Browns, and WFT, the Bears have 12 positives, the Texans have 7, the Vikings have 7, the Giants have 8, the Jets have 5, the Eagles have 4, and the Patriots and Broncos each have 3. It's a major outbreak, with 151 players or 6% of the entire league, have tested positive in just 5 days.
https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nfl/new ... 69uxgubvw4
Over in the NBA, with roster sizes substantially smaller, the Celtics have 5 players on the Covid list, the Nets have 10, the Bulls have 7, Lakers 5, the Bucks have 4, the Knicks have 6, Magic 3, Kings 6, Clippers, Timberwolves, Cavs, Nuggets, and Raptors 2, and the Warriors, Sixers, Heat, and Mavs with one each.
https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/kyri ... d-toronto/
LTH":7qc3kjft said:xray":7qc3kjft said:LTH":7qc3kjft said:
I can make any " homer ' lose his chit . ^^ Oh look...there's another one .
Go eat your meat loaf....meat head LOL
LTH
^^
Now he is really losing it...meat loaf & meat head ? He appears to be a phuking " vegan homer " too. Thoughts and prayers for your 12 step chit . :2thumbs:
GeekHawk
Well-known member
RiverDog":311dy61b said:
Fair enough, the numbers have drastically changed since I last looked (I looked yesterday, and assumed the site was relatively up-to-date).
RiverDog":3n1h7qv1 said:
What I would like to know how is this change in protocol going to keep players safe considering almost the whole Rams team was fully vaccinated and 25+players came down with covid?
[tweet]https://twitter.com/MikeGarafolo/status/1472289751222915080[/tweet]
RiverDog
Well-known member
GeekHawk":1rk1fmws said:
Thanks for the acknowledgement. It's not often that a poster mans up like you just did.
The league had 36 positives on Monday alone. For two weeks between Nov. 14th-27th, they had just 29, so clearly the situation has changed drastically this week.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereksaul/ ... a8204f4952
And here's more fuel to fire up the anti vaxxers. Beginning Monday, the league will quit testing asymptomatic vaccinated players:
The NFL will stop mandating weekly COVID-19 tests for asymptomatic vaccinated players, according to memos distributed Saturday that described a major shift in the league's approach to the pandemic.
The new protocols, which take effect next week, could allow the virus to spread undetected through locker rooms, and could increase opportunities for infected but otherwise healthy players to participate in games.
The NFL and NFLPA announced the "more targeted testing plan" in a statement, along with "more flexibility" for players "to attend meetings virtually" and opportunities for "high-risk players" to opt out of the remainder of the season.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/nf ... d=msedgntp
