Magox

We will never reach global herd immunity or at least not for a very long time. There is more immigration in flow from varying countries in the U.S than any other country in the world. With that said, COVID is most likely going to stay with us for most of our life times, it will most likely become a seasonal issue. Sounds scary, but most likely won't have a large overall affect because of all the protections that are available to the vulnerable population. I think for us here in the U.S, COVID is on the decline and is now becoming a low risk threat. What concerns me more are other potential viruses and the measures that we can take that are under our control to make sure that these viruses are not exposed to the public.

Yes, but they are grown adults. They have access to the vaccine and they have been informed and educated on the efficacy of the vaccine. The ones who have decided to not take the virus are at a statistically very low odds of dying. There were nearly 300 known positive cases from active NFL players and to my knowledge none of them died. The point is, they have the choice to take the vaccine, if they contract it and have medical complications then that is their own fault. We aren't in the same place we were months ago, things now have changed dramatically and the risks of having complications from COVID are declining precipitously week over week and the options to protect ourselves are increasing. We all make decisions every day that has some sort of risk ramifications to them, there is always a risk cost - benefit analysis in the decisions we make. To get back to the crux of it all, the dictates/guidelines are too draconian and should be revised and amended.

Right, but we now know the immunity lasts considerably longer than that. With that said, I am a big believer in data and the data conclusively shows that vaccines saves lives so even though someone had previously contracted COVID, if they decided to get the vaccine, I'm cool with that. I don't believe it's necessary because of all the things that I had previously mentioned but there are some studies that show that it gives an additional boost of protection. We are at the stage now that everything in my view should go back to normal with some adjustments. The vaccine is available to virtually everyone who is vulnerable to the virus, so if anyone who catches the virus now and happens to have a bad outcome, they had the choice to take the vaccine. In other words, the argument that "You are putting other people at risk" loses it's edge because the people who contract it, had the option to get the vaccine and they decided not to.

Right, but that’s the point. There were many more restrictions for children than there ever was with fears from the flu. Of course because it was a novel virus had a lot to do with it but even after it was very clear of the negligible risks to children many of the restrictions were still in place and are to this day. The point which I mentioned earlier is that there should be a more appropriate cost- benefit outcome than what the NFL and NFLPA have come up with. And I think what Cole has done is brought more attention to it. I would venture to guess that There are many players reaching out to the union demanding change. And rightfully so. I’m not saying everything on that list of guidelines should be changed but definitely some of them serve negligible substantive protections.

For children it is.

A couple points, if you are worried about getting the virus, take the vaccine. It's available to virtually everybody who is vulnerable to it here in the U.S. Also, in regards to risk, we have to determine how much risk we are willing to take and how many civil liberties we are going to restrict in order to take that risk. Because it's not a zero sum game, if it were, we would never allow kids to be exposed to other kids because they could catch the flu. We know that the flu is more dangerous for school age children than COVID, yet we allowed kids to expose themselves with no mandated safeguards against the flu. I think what Beasley is saying is that the new protocols/dictates/guidelines by the NFL and NFLPA are too draconian and should be amended to something that is less draconian.

Unless I am misunderstanding what you mean by natural immunity, but previous COVID infection does offer natural immunity. The only question is for how long? We know it's for at least up to close to a year and possibly a lifetime. This doesn't even take into account all the t cell immunities that are provided by natural immunity which is seen to be very effective against variants.

For purely selfish reasons, I'd like for him to just take the damn vaccine and play ball. With that said, I am 99% sure that if it weren't for these utterly draconian dictates/guidelines that he wouldn't be speaking out. Personally, I've seen enough evidence to determine that the vaccines are highly effective in stopping the spread of the virus and thwarting it's risks that it could impose on those that are most vulnerable. However, there is plenty of vaccine availability to anyone who wants the vaccine and the only people who don't have access to it are children, who we know statistically speaking are at less risk of COVID than the common flu. In other words, if you are worried about COVID, take the vaccine. What I'm hoping that happens here is that Beasley has now drawn a lot of attention to these proposed dictates/guidelines and that they revise/amend them to something that is more appropriate. I know that the NFL and NFLPA are trying to lay down the gauntlet to get the players to take the vaccine and for some players it will induce them to take the vaccine because of the lifestyle changes that they would have to obey. But it's too much, some of them are illogical and frankly for the reasons I mentioned above they are more performative than substantive. Hopefully, this will serve as a spearhead to continue dialogue between the NFLPA and NFL. I would have to imagine there are a lot of NFL players that are backing Beasley and are now reaching out to the union.

Most likely the majority of those funds is to lock up Josh.

Fat chance, some people would rather talk about aspects of people's own personal medical decisions than football.

This appears to be a potentially low risk high reward sort of pickup. Nice writeup on him in SI, essentially the Jaguars and some observers thought he was one of their better defenders towards the end of the season when he was given an opportunity.

I remember reading this. Although he says he doesn’t dwell on that fateful drop against KC, he says it stays with him and that it won’t happen again and that it has motivated him to be the best version of himself. It appears that what he said is not BS.

I actually was thinking how satisfied you must have felt during this draft.

You are currently batting .032%

I personally like the idea of having 4 more draft choices. Odds of finding a keeper is probably higher having 2 6th rounders vs 1 5th rounder. I think Buffalo took the same approach with Barsham, Beane said if he had been gone they would have traded down. My hunch is that they didn’t really love anyone enough with that 5th rounder and traded down for 2 6th rounders because there wasn’t much difference in the value of the players available.

That Nathan Peterman had a shot at becoming a solid QB in the NFL.

I think you’ve taken Joe’s title of king of the hot takes.

The Bills needed to get more physical on the defensive line and they are addressing it in a major way.

He’s not slow at all. Ran in the 4.6’s His shuttle time was slow.

I will trust Beane's evaluations and decision making for this football team, he has more than earned that right. With that said, even though I generally don't like the idea of getting RB's in the first round, as someone who has watched ACC and plenty of Clemson football, Etienne is a top tiered talent and game changer. The guy has made big time plays throughout his entire life and has the sort of speed and receiving ability to take this offense to a whole new level. Personally, I'd rather get a DB or edge rusher if there was one that we thought could make a difference but I'd be just fine with Etienne.

8 years 375 Million with $250M guaranteed.

I do agree that Oliver had a somewhat disappointing season, yes he was playing in a situation that wasn't ideal but he still underperformed. He's good at stuffing the run but he was drafted to be a disruptor behind the line of scrimmage. I would expect him to step it up this year.

I remember reading a lot about him his first year with the Bills and how internally the Bills were very positive about his prospects of becoming a meaningful players on the Bills roster.

I see the Bills doing something with Dawkins to free up some money and I think they will extend Diggs to reduce this years cap. Plus, I think they know that even though Diggs has been a great teammate, he is not about to take any discount. I think for him getting paid is also a sign of respect and he right now is nowhere near the highest paid WR. I think if not addressed it could end up being something that eats away at him. I'm totally guessing here but that is the sense I get. I think a 2 year extension worth $36 million with $20 Million guaranteed gets it done. Hughes, I'm not so sure. They could do something with him but do we really want to extend him beyond what the contract that he's currently on? I love the way Hughes plays and he's a great teammate who gets pressures but I feel that he's beginning to fade.

Could be, flexibility is always a good thing. Right now, this is a market for patient GM's.