Rochesterfan

This is correct - same as last year - if they designate him without the ability to promote him to the active roster. Then following the guidance we would get an additional spot, but Wade is sort of separate- just like last year.

True serology testing is very easy - draw a tube of blood and spin it to get serum and run it with results in anywhere from 18 - 30 minutes. You can also do quick assays that are becoming available- like over the counter pregnancy test- that need less sample and 5 - 10 minutes. The cost is going to depend on the deal they get, but for a good assay using serum - it will run about $50 a sample - with a volume discount they might get it at $30 or so. Currently most labs are charging around $100 self pay for the testing now as the volume is low and there is no shown clinical utility to the testing - therefore insurance will not cover and the patient gets screwed (go US health care). The assays are ok depending on manufacturer with a higher level of false positive and false negatives that we typically see in Ab assays. The quick assays would be cheaper, but right now they tend to have high false positive and false negative rates because they have been rushed to market. They tend to cross react with other illnesses at a higher level as they are not as specific as they should be and for several patients tested as we tried to evaluate kits for pre surgical testing - we found they missed patients that were known positives and were picked up by other assays. The biggest problem is studies done in other areas have shown exactly what Hapless talked about. The antibodies fade very quickly so a negative does not tell you someone was not exposed as their levels may have dropped off to undetectable levels. The antibodies also have not shown to be effective long term in preventing reoccurrence of the illness as there have been some multiple infections around the world. Therefore - although it might be a nice additional piece of the puzzle- at this point until additional studies are done and most importantly a longer time review of the impact and effectiveness of the antibodies - it doesn’t really give anyone concrete info and could lead to some players thinking they are safe when we do not know that for sure. I am also not sure the players would agree to giving up a blood tube as they have fought that tooth and nail in drug testing. If they submit now - it might impact their argument long term on HGH blood testing. Totally different case, but potentially could be used in future arguments.

They do not need the stadiums for the fans, but they need it for everything else. To produce high quality video - you are going to need stadium quality lighting for each field. You will need a small-mid sized town’s worth of electricity and power to handle the Huge TV crews. You need enough high quality cabling to move a butt ton of data and video to the booth for the spoters and the guys calling the game. They need the stadium structure to get all of the angles for watching and having acceptable review angles. They have cameras - including the eye in the sky - throughout every stadium and at multiple levels to help get so many views. You also need the stadium so the traditional down the line of scrimmage view does not create a long range distortion with nothing really in the background. The players/teams would need workout space, rehab space, and excellent space for locker rooms. Coaching areas for watching film and getting prepared. The area would need a bunch of medical equipment needed at each field for things like x-rays, and MRIs during the game, and the ability to handle cases where someone needs immediate care like a neck injury or serious concussion. There is so much more in the background of an NFL game that really requires a stadium and the proper support staff to ensure the fans enjoyment on TV and the safety of the players. You would essentially need to create a good sized city to make this work with approximately 32 fields to allow practice, lights, data, power, and medical to handle the safety aspect. And enough support to make it work. It would be great - just not feasible. Even the NHL trying to make their hub city bubble is struggling to get space for games, practice, and rehab because the numbers are just to great. They will be better once teams are eliminated and they are down to 8 teams in the hub.

Not sure it matters much if many teams will use it as roll-over - May give some teams a bit more flexibility to sign guys this year if there are a lot of opt outs or injuries/COVID cases and you need to rebuild part of a roster. The pro-rated money to me makes sense to roll-over to balance out the contract and provides some protection to vet players. For example if a guy (maybe Mosley from the Jets) had a large prorated portion that you covered this year with him opted out - and then next year he is really only do a large salary - cutting him is easier. Now the team essentially pushes everything one year down the road - so it becomes more difficult to cut him. From the team’s perspective- yeah I rather get everything covered when I have the money, but with roll-over it has little impact on a well managed team. It could really bite a team that wants to go for it this year - with the drop next year, but I think most teams aren’t sure what the year will hold anyway.

My understanding if they opt out - they can not be cut until the new NFL year starts. They are essentially on hold. They are for all purposes not on a contract and their contract resumes after the season as if this year did not happen. He may get cut next year, but the limited info is high risk guys still get an accrued season for retirement - the rest is just a pause.

He does not need to get invited. He already has a contract with the Bills for next year. He does not lose this contract - it rolls to next year. He may or may not make the team, but his contract is set.

Man what is up with this take? You do know that so called “greedy” Roger Goodell and the owners wanted a bubble format, but the NFLPA rejected it from the beginning. The NFL floated several plans to the players, but got a lot of rejection.

why would you help JJ - so they could beat the Bills? Boooooooo to you sir. ?

Depends on the assay, but I would assume they are using an RT-PCR assay and therefore the false positive rate is almost 0. The RNA must be present for the assay to work. The only false positives are lab related errors. Mislabel a sample so the wrong person is called positive or contamination of a specimen/reagent - which usually causes many Positives on a run. The assay is highly specific and positives are almost always positive. False negatives are a different story - that depends Almost entirely on sample collection and that rate varies depending on where samples are collected and the viral load. Most likely if the data is compromised - it is compromised on the low side with positive patients being told they are negative. The actual number of infected people is probably at least 10% higher than the reported value and some AB studies suggest closer to 20-40% percent higher than the reported numbers. The Bills are doing the right thing - shut it down and clean up and try again once we get people back to baseline.

It is not a secret - the team won’t discuss, but the names will come out with the COVID list - usually submitted by 4pm - so names are available by 4:30. edit see Yolo’s post.

Agreed, but we all know and CBA process takes longer than it should.

As the CBA part drags on - the timing on opt outs goes further down the road. Originally it was 8/1, but they are talking about 7 days after the agreement and players are sent the final letter - so currently it is the 4th, but that could extend until after the agreement and some players are waiting to see the final agreement because if they can get designated a high risk versus a normal opt out - that additional year of service might be critical. My guess is we will still see a flurry over the next couple of days, but then there will still be a trickle until everything is settled.

The only concern with opting out if you are Age 25-28 - is yes it pushes your contract out, but you lose a year before becoming a potential FA again. Older guys with big guarantees - yep, but if I am younger - even if I lose some money this year - if it gets me to another FA signing in 2022 - I am staying in. If I had 1 year left and was going to be a FA next year - opting out all the way because there is going to be no money next off-season. I am really looking at my payout and contract to decide this.

I hear what you are saying - I just do not believe it myself. Alex Smith and Tyrod Taylor are not even close to equivalent. The year Mahomes was drafted Alex Smith averaged over 100 yards more passing per game than TT. He threw nearly 2x as many TDs and had a better TD to Int ratio. Alex Smith was a legitimate ProBowl player that year (not the 6th alternate because everyone else dropped out). Mahomes got to learn under an offensive wizard in Ried and got to watch a ProBowl level QB run the offense. The Chiefs had also been building offense for years - so when Mahomes was ready to take over they had a superb offense ready to go and then Reid tweaked it to hit Mahomes strengths as a spread QB. In Buffalo with a defensive Head Coach and a limited offense - he would have been asked to do so much less - plus he would have learned behind Taylor who was more of a free lancer on the field making film study harder. You also have to remember that Mahomes was no more highly touted than JA in the draft process - most thought he was the 2nd or 3rd best QB and a middle of the road prospect that was very raw and was not suited to an NFL style of play as a spread QB. Many spread QBs have lead college football in passing yards/TDs etc. - few ever turned out as anything special. I think he went to the perfect team and at the perfect time and had Buffalo drafted him - we would be looking to move on/mid level contract extension because he would lack all of the support that made him great. The offense might be better, but Mahomes gets away with a ton of throws because his WRs make plays for him. The Bills WRs the last 3years have struggled to make routine catches - let alone bail out the QB by going up and making a spectacular catch on what should have been an INT. Maybe he would have been special/maybe not - very hard to know, but my belief is coaching and scheme matter in this league and if he had come to Buffalo - the coaching and the scheme would have held him back because that was not the type of team we were building. Now could Bean have changed course for year 2 and pushed us forward - maybe, but there was still a discernible lack of talent on offense that needed to be addressed that would most likely have significantly dampened the numbers Mahomes put up.

I wouldn’t say 90%. The first week when it debuted it was like maybe 1/4 of NFL viewers and by week 4 - the consistent drop had it at 1 out of every 20 and even less when they calculate in the fans from bars group watching. It was a top rated show, but it was about to get shut down even further by the final four tournament. That would have dropped ratings even further. I still believe the XFL could have survived for another year or two with minimal viewership because of the contract Vince got with Fox based mostly on moving his WWE partnership to Fox also. That was the big difference between the XFL and the AAFL set-ups. The new XFL is going to struggle badly because both ESPN and Fox nullified the TV agreements as part of bankruptcy and I do not see the new ownership partner getting an equal deal - it will be closer to the AAFL deal - where the league has to pay for coverage rather than the TV coverage cost being assumed by the network. Any new XFL agreement will most likely cost the owners significantly more to produce the product - resulting in a failure. The only successful way forward that I see is if the XFL is purchased by either Fox sports or ESPN out of bankruptcy and therefore the network as owners assume the TV contract and over promote the heck out of it - to get Ad dollars.

If they hurry maybe the Washington Kraken - I hear that is available. Oops - they waited to long - the other Washington (state) stole it for Seattle. Man Snyder needs to be faster.

Mahomes is like 6-3 - I don’t think the knock on Mahomes was height. Mahomes was raw from a spread offense - a combination that has failed many times. Mahomes went to a perfect situation with an offense head coach that had a powerful offense and he got to sit and learn behind a guy that had an incredible season. The entire set-up worked perfect for Mahomes and I would be shocked if it would have worked the same way on most other teams. Picture the difference if Buffalo would have drafted him. A defensive Head Coach stressing defense and being asked to play within a system (Mahomes strength is his free lancing style in the KC offense). He would have been behind a Super conservative QB in Tyrod Taylor and they would be asking him to limit mistakes. Mahomes in Buffalo would be a different version of Josh - I believe. It is no different than if Wilson had been drafted here - the situation they are drafted into has a huge impact on their career. I believe the team and situation has more impact than individual talent in the success of many players.

I don’t think so - Gailey had Fitz and all the talk was about how much he could add because Fitz was smart and had experience in the offense. Gailey valued experience a ton - I don’t think Wilson even sniffs the field. Also based upon Fitz’s history - if Wilson had played at some point Fitz would have taken back over and Wilson would have wallowed away. See the Fitz circle. He may have had a shot with Marone - as he did not seem set on EJ, but that is all speculation if things had stayed the same.

I just do not think we would have gotten any where near the player Wilson became - even if we drafted him rather than Graham. That was the last year of the Gailey/Fitzpatrick duo. There was no way that Gailey would have let Wilson even sniff the field. His “complicated” timing offense was supposed to get better with experience in the system and Fitz had experience and brains. Therefore - instead of having a shot at competing like in Seattle - he would of been relegated to back-up year 1. Then the team changed direction and with a new Head Coach and de facto GM - drafted their QB of the future. Now here is where maybe Wilson beats out EJ, but does Marrone and Whaley still push EJ over people and therefore Wilson gets pushed down. Who knows, but I am not sure that Wilson becomes a big difference maker with that staff and that team or that he ever gets freedom to become the Wilson we see today. I truly believe for many of these players the situation is just as (or more important) than talent. You need someone that trusts and lets you develop fully and that would never have been here at that time. Now Dak would have been interesting. That would have made so much more sense than Jones, but the chances that either excelled n this environment at that time was slim. I liked Dak for exactly what he brings to Dallas and would have loved some of that here, but it didn’t happen.

I think they start on time and when the flu hits along with Covid - the season is cancelled early. I do not think they get through the season without at least one break.

It is not what I would do - just some of the discussion talked about on WGR to try to help teams address the 10-14 days away with a positive test. If they do not look at the schedule - the discussion on WGR is what happens when your WR is positive on a meeting day or in position work-out and now potentially all WRs on your team need to sit for 10 days and test negative 2 times prior to clearing. The NFL and NFLPA would need to agree to an altered schedule and how that impacts contracts and if the want to stretch out the season or what. As far as they talked yesterday - the first thing they need to agree on is testing frequency and where that cost is coming from - the NFLPA was asking for daily tests for all players - which would be a huge cost. They also have to decide on where and type of testing as the NFLPA was hoping to use a saliva test rather than a swab.

My take is that we don’t know because they have not come to an agreement yet on any of that. All of the questions you asked are legitimate, but no one can really answer because they are still in discussions. WGR had a great interview yesterday talking about this and the journalist basically said there is a ton of speculation, but everything needs to be agreed to similar to a short term CBA because these are not part of the current CBA. The NFL and NFLPA were meeting this week to begin discussions. As they come to agreements you (and everyone else) will get answers. Sorry if you do not like my answer, but it is the truth.

Ok - guys slow down with the takes. The NFL and NFLPA are having meetings to determine answers to all of these questions and more. They have to determine and agree to thresholds for the games counting for this year and how to account for the loss of revenue. To prevent a huge drop in the cap - they are discussing spreading the lost revenue out over 3-5 and even the next 10 years. Typically (as in other work stoppages) - the NFL just have to play games to get the TV revenue that was agreed to, but my guess is the NFL will be working with the stations to help cover if games go missing. They also have to negotiate with the NFLPA the entire testing protocol and how teams are going to handle positive tests. There was talk of maybe trying to negotiate AFC plays on even weeks and NFC on odd weeks to give teams 2 weeks between games to lessen the impact. The NFL and NFLPA were hoping for some clear plan by the CDC or federal government to help guide their planning, but as that looks lost - they will have to hammer all of this out in a changing environment. Until they come to agreements - everything else is just guessing and some may be right, but most will be wrong.

MLS also shut 1 team down and is on the verge of shutting down a second team and they have just started. It is no joke in these community spread situations- it is spreading like wildfire.

What source should he cite - they are still doing studies, but leading experts from several infectious disease and immunology departments have stated this. People like Dr Fauci and others have talked about the very low level of antibodies seen in confirmed positive cases. They also know that based on the other types of coronavirus (for example the version that causes the common cold) that AB production is very limited and vaccine production is nearly useless and people get infected year after year and sometimes multiple times in a year. Even the CDC with its vaccine guidance is hoping for a vaccine on par with the flu vaccine that provides about 50% effective production in people and lasts for most of a flu season. There are not any great studies - one way or the other - just initial studies that are not proving to be the impactful Ab production one would want - even in people directly infected.