Rochesterfan

I think he was aware - his family was given a box by the Dolphins. I am pretty sure this was their plan and sticking to it takes guts.

Not really that surprised- I believe this was the plan and the reason Fitz’s family was in the box at the last game. With no preseason - Tua was not ready at the start. Give Fitz to the bye- so the team is up to speed and then give Tua the 2 weeks to get ready and move forward. The Dolphins are not worried about this season - this is about getting the team ready for 2021 and beyond. Good call by a staff that feels safe in their environment and can look ahead and prepare. I think prior to COVID schedule changes - this move was slated for later in the season. I think the change to their bye week and the fact that Tua and Fitz will run very different offenses meant they want the bye week to plan, set-up and teach the new plans.

It was zone coverage - it was not switched up. If White drops deeper - it opened the flat right in front of him. I think he recognized the issue and was trying to get safety help deep. It was the perfect play call for that defense and the throw and catch made it work. I do not believe it was a breakdown as much as the right call at the right time. That play is designed to put Tre in a predicament because if he drops to cover Kelsey - it opens the flat and if he plays the flat it opens Kelsey. He tried to be in between, but was in no mans land.

Have not seen anything, but I am sure he got rolled on the 3rd down play. They fell across the back of his legs. He knew they were rushing to the line to quick snap and tried to play the 4th down play with a bad knee. The definition of team effort trying to gut it out.

Yes NE had more positives late last week and so they shifted both teams bye weeks to give more time to ensure the spread in NE is stopped. Sucks for Denver that prepared all week instead of a bye and then has to practice some next week, but it logically makes sense.

It seemed like a combination. I believe they knew he was not 100%, but thought he gave them the best chance to win and even as early in the season as it is - the 49ers knew they needed a win. I think they recognized his injury was causing him not to be able to plant and throw - so the injury had a huge part, but he was also legitimately bad. Without the injury - I imagine he does not get benched, but the combination made it the best option.

I totally agree and will take it a step further. What was the point of kicking the extra point on the previous drive - if not to give yourself this exact scenario to go up by 8. The earlier TD - the Vikings had a choice. Up 4 do you go for 2 or 1. 1 puts you in a position to kick a field goal and go up by 8 and you are playing for at worst a tie. Going for 2 puts you either up by 6 or based upon earlier attempts - most likely up by 4. If 6 - the FG wins. If 4 - you have still have a shot at a loss. For me the scenarios unfold as: Up by 4 - failed 2 point - I am going for it like The Vikings did because the Seahawks have a history of scoring and not being afraid to go for 2. I do not want them to have the ball and 7 points is not safe. Up by 5 - kicked the XP - this is the scenario that played out and you kick the FG to go up by 8 - you ensure you can’t lose in regulation and you force Seattle to score and get the 2. I am also playing more aggressive because if Seattle goes over the top and scores quickly - I may still have a shot to get the ball back with worse case being a tie and OT. Up by 6 - converted the 2 pt - you again kick and go up by 2 scores. The issue I have is the Vikings played middle ball earlier with the XP to create the tie scenario and then didn’t follow the same thought process later on and it cost them the game. If you played for 1 earlier - you were playing for a FG and 8 points later on.

It would be a wonderful idea - hmm wonder why it did not happen - because the NFL does not have the ability to do that without agreement from the NFLPA. What we know is the NFLPA blocked the bubbling effort as a hardship. What we have also been told is when the NFL suggested a 2nd bye week - so adding 1 more week to the season - the NFLPA would agree if the players received an extra game check for adding weeks. That ended up as part of the testing negotiations and in the end the NFL determined it was better to leave the schedule alone and utilize their “emergency” power to make COVID adjustments to the schedule as needed. The NFL was already worried about losing money and adding additional benefits/money to add weeks was not going to happen. The same thing with shortening the season - the NFLPA was fine as long as they got paid for the entire 16 game schedule. I believe if both sides wanted to play some hard ball - they could of come to an agreement, but as we saw with baseball - there was the chance that if one side overplayed their hand the season could of crashed. It sounds like the owners decided to just leave things and work around to ensure the games were played. It is also why you won’t have forfeits unless absolutely necessary- the NFL loses money and this year is already a loss and next year with the reduced cap won’t make up for it.

Except - I doubt the NFL would allow it. If the Bills decide not to play - they figure out how to move it to week 18 and the Bills get screwed. The NFL is working hard to get every game in and the Titans bye last week screws the easy move like the Den/NE game.

You really do not want the infective team to travel - that is higher risk than the Bills playing in Tennessee.

😭 - poor guy - try being Buffalo - suck it up baby.

He might have, but that was a low risk exposure between the 2 of them - outside, brief contact. Most likely if Mahomes was exposed, he would of turned up positive Thursday or Friday and he has not. That is the problem with how the NFL is doing the testing - a positive comes back 24 hours later - so you have to contract trace based on contact length and have those players limit exposure as much as possible.

The Falcons player when reviews had no defined close contact based on tracing and the Falcons were not traveling. They decided it was a very low likelihood of spread and went ahead. I think after seeing Tennessee and NE - the evaluation has become more important, but the planning was similar to NE. Even if the Falcon player did spread it to other Falcons at Friday’s practice - those players would not be infectious on Sunday - so you begin to identify on Monday of the next week. The big difference with NE was travel and spending potentially 3 hours on a plane which is a high risk to exposure and then additional time on a bus.

Because that is not what happened at all. They had 1 positive (Cam) the day before they had to travel. The travel has been identified as the highest point of possible infection and spread for the team. The NFL needed to do contact tracing to identify the potential exposures and then worked to have them travel separately in a bubble. There was low likelihood of them being infective on Monday because of the exposure date. They travelled and played and as expected there was no field spread. Now the NFL was waiting for the other shoe to drop as we hit 4-5 days from exposure. Then the Pats get word (as predicted) that 2 more players tested positive - the NFL closed the facility and asked people to work remotely and wanting to ensure the NFL has additional time for exposures to Gilmore - they would expect those to come positive on Fri - Sun - so the best thing was to push the game to Monday give time for the positives to show up and then play. The NFL would love to get this game in because then the Pats have a bye week and that would allow the infections to run their course and be done. It all has to do with travel and timing. They know they are dealing with an outbreak in NE that has limited spread - some caused by exposure (a dinner between Cam and Gilmore) and some caused by the travel to KC for exposed players. It does not appear that anything was done to help the Pats - it was done to try and identify the potential prom lens and limit spread as much as possible.

That is it - 😂

Saw my first add for this product watching You Tube - it featured Gronk and the Jokes in this thread barely skim the surface of the innuendo in that add. OMG.

Just DM me directly with the numbers and any PIN codes you have and I will be sure you get what you deserve. 😂

Jerry Jones talked about it on NFL Radio and Chris Brown reiterated it on One Bills Live. Both times in response to people questioning if they have a plan. I have not seen anything written about it - except on places like Wikipedia. I have heard it discussed on the radio multiple times, but always as a last resort.

No - they get paid for 16 weeks and from the discussion on NFL radio with Jerry Jones (I think) he stated they discussed adding weeks and the NFLPA refused without getting a boost for the extra weeks. Basically they said we get paid for 16 games and 17 weeks - if you are adding weeks we need to practice and be available - we want to be compensated. Now - I don’t know how hard they pushed, but it was lumped in with the refusal to bubble. Any schedule changed need approval and it did not sound like it was going to be given without compensation. They were willing to drop a couple of games and stay at 17 weeks, but not change the players salaries- which was a non starter.

Not true - the NFL stated they actual have an agreement with the TB stadium for every Sunday in February and have the ability to shift back the season up to 4 weeks, but they are for emergency use only - the NFLPA did not agree changes to the schedule or additional bye weeks. The biggest problem with a pause right now is that this might not be the apex of the virus for the fall. So if they pause for a couple of weeks - they still have to try to get the 16 games in and now you are left with only 2 potential emergency weeks. The NFL would like to hold onto the weeks if needed because if things get worse - they run out of options.

Again - you are blaming the NFL for something they alone could not approve. The NFLPA would have to agree to any schedule changes and the NFLPA refused bubbling and refused to give back money for a shorter season. They also rejected adding bye weeks without adding another week of pay. In the end the easiest agreement was keeping things the same. Some of that is greed and some is waiting for guidance from the Federal Level that never came. They did not want agreements in place that then got overwritten by federal guidelines. I think it was very difficult to put exact numbers in place - it was always going to be based upon their infectious disease guideline expert. They planned and expected to have to postpone games around testing. They identified that travel (airplane/bus) were the 2 biggest risk factors to transmission (much higher than game play) and therefore - like the Pats game - it wasn’t Cam’s positive that delayed anything - it was needed Int to do contract tracing and determine who were higher risk exposures. Then determining how to transport them safely without infecting others. The protocols were fairly clear and appear to work - the idea - much like baseball was always based upon the players following it. When they don’t bad things happen. The problem was for breaking protocol- the league was not given permission to penalize the players - it comes from the teams. The NFL can fine teams and coaches, but it is the teams job to punish the players. The agreements make it difficult for the league to do everything they would want.

The NFL was hamstrung by the NFLPA. They had to agree to any changes and the NFLPA refused the bubble concept and refused adding weeks without adding pay. It appears they did make an agreement that the NFL would have some flexibility if needed to push back the playoffs if needed for emergency use, but without adding a paycheck for additional weeks of service - they did not want it scheduled that way. There were several NFL proposals on schedule adjustments and basically in the end the decision that they could agree to was keep the schedule as is and have an emergency use if needed. Part of it is greed by both sides - as every change required negotiations- but they had already seen that the baseball protocols worked when followed and I believe they were confident that the protocols in the NFL would work when followed. So far I agree - that seems to be the case (minus the Titans - who screwed everything up and are still screwing up).

They are doing everything they can to get games in. Does it suck - maybe, but other options screw other teams. I am trying to look at the big picture and recognize - the NFL has a protocol in place that obviously works when followed. You have 1 team (one less than in baseball) that decided not to follow the protocol. The league is looking for every option they can - the fairest thing is to get the game in, but in doing that it screws the Bills. Not playing the game this week potentially screws the Bills later and a forfeit screws other teams (and doubly the Chiefs).

This is total Bull. The NFL has been fine - ONE TEAM did not follow protocol and specific directives. The only thing embarrassing to me is these constant takes.

The NBA and NHL also only had to do it for essentially the playoffs. The players in both sports said they would not have agreed for a longer period. It was also noted that some players/teams just wanted out and they purposely “tanked” to get away from the bubble. I can’t imagine trying to do an NFL season (and say you are the Jets) and your season is over after week 3 or 4, but you still have 14 more bubble weeks - it would have been a nightmare. I think the NFL recognized this, but there are so few other options to try and bubble. Division bubbles in an area where you could play 2 games - the logistics of even just players, staff, trainers - would have been over 1000 people and you get no contact with family. Even if you then break things up to give people time to see family and then re-quarantine you are either extending the season by several weeks or cutting the schedule both of which impact TV deals and players pay.