Hapless Bills Fan Posted August 8, 2020 Posted August 8, 2020 10 minutes ago, WIDE LEFT said: Agreed- as I stated, I don’t care if any player opts out. But that decision is not above criticism, as it’s based on false or faulty premises. Without knowing an individual players' reason for personally opting out, how can you possibly know whether or not it's based on false or faulty premises? 16 minutes ago, Just Joshin' said: I believe in personal choice - if you want to opt out, no issues. If it does not impact me, make what ever choice you desire. If they make a choice, live the the consequences - good or bad. I would like to see them play but someone will make the decision to play in their spots. Many people in normal paying jobs do not have the ability to opt out. The walmart cashier needs to work to pay the bills and he/she is at risk. Many were involuntarily opted out due to restaurants being closed. Those are the people I worry about, not the NFL players. From what I read, I think that's truly what bothers a lot of people - "I'm not a millionaire or even making league minimum, I don't have the option to "opt out", why should the NFL players?" The thing is, a lot of ordinary people actually do have the option to opt out. I know physicians who have taken retirement. Teachers. A bunch of the union guys at GM Tonawanda took retirement. And then many people have the option to work remotely from home. All forms of "opting out" IMO, but they come without the public interest and scrutiny that accrue to sport figures.
SCBills Posted August 8, 2020 Posted August 8, 2020 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said: Without knowing an individual players' reason for personally opting out, how can you possibly know whether or not it's based on false or faulty premises? From what I read, I think that's truly what bothers a lot of people - "I'm not a millionaire or even making league minimum, I don't have the option to "opt out", why should the NFL players?" The thing is, a lot of ordinary people actually do have the option to opt out. I know physicians who have taken retirement. Teachers. A bunch of the union guys at GM Tonawanda took retirement. And then many people have the option to work remotely from home. All forms of "opting out" IMO, but they come without the public interest and scrutiny that accrue to sport figures. Aside from teachers, that’s a very white collar view. I own a business, and we’re in a white collar industry, but I recognize that my situation is not the same every time I see construction workers, every time I go to the grocery store, every time I go to a big box store, every time I pick up some food from a restaurant, every time I walk around the city in shopping districts, every time I see hospital workers, every time I see a cop or emergency vehicle etc.. Edited August 8, 2020 by SCBills
Golden Goat Posted August 8, 2020 Posted August 8, 2020 On 8/6/2020 at 12:10 PM, YoloinOhio said: Real reason: He refused to play with a girl on the team.
JoshAllenisGod Posted August 8, 2020 Posted August 8, 2020 That's rich from Shaq after he got that nice signing bonus from the Dolphins and then quit on his new team.
JoshAllenHasBigHands Posted August 8, 2020 Posted August 8, 2020 1 minute ago, JoshAllenisGod said: That's rich from Shaq after he got that nice signing bonus from the Dolphins and then quit on his new team. He tested positive, he didn't opt out.
JoshAllenisGod Posted August 8, 2020 Posted August 8, 2020 (edited) 2 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said: He tested positive, he didn't opt out. So did a bunch of our players. They didn't quit. It takes a few weeks to recover and we've got over a month before the season starts. Shaq quit. I'm just glad he quit on a division rival and not on us! Edited August 8, 2020 by JoshAllenisGod
Warcodered Posted August 8, 2020 Posted August 8, 2020 1 minute ago, JoshAllenisGod said: So did a bunch of our players. They didn't quit. It takes a few weeks to recover and we've got over a month before the season starts. Shaq quit. I'm just glad he quit on a division rival and not on us! Shaq is on the Covid IR list he didn't opt out and he doesn't have a choice about going on that list.
JoshAllenisGod Posted August 8, 2020 Posted August 8, 2020 2 minutes ago, Warcodered said: Shaq is on the Covid IR list he didn't opt out and he doesn't have a choice about going on that list. Okay my mistake he was totally on a list of "opting out" players the other day, but it looks like that got corrected. Glad to see that he didn't quit then.
y2zipper Posted August 9, 2020 Posted August 9, 2020 It's hard to pass judgement on players that opt out because high-risk people have a different set of math, but Sanders is right in that if you're an NFL player that shows your team they don't need you, you could end up out of a job.
Saxum Posted August 9, 2020 Posted August 9, 2020 16 hours ago, WIDE LEFT said: And for a Bills player - tested every day, advanced medical devices, monitoring and supervision- while living in a community with an extremely low infection rate, a decision to opt out is not above criticism. I don’t personally care if any player chooses to opt out, but that decision making process in light of all the actual science is certainly subject to critique. You should be called Wide Right or even Far Right. You are acting like those in government "Keep it open", "Kids can't transmit - open schools or lose funding", etc. No scientific basis to what you are saying. 16 hours ago, WIDE LEFT said: Agreed- as I stated, I don’t care if any player opts out. But that decision is not above criticism, as it’s based on false or faulty premises. Neither is your theory above criticism since it is not based in fact..
MJS Posted August 9, 2020 Posted August 9, 2020 On 8/8/2020 at 2:30 PM, Warcodered said: Sanders is right, though. Players should not be shamed for opting out, but the game will go on without them. 1
The Dean Posted August 10, 2020 Posted August 10, 2020 3 hours ago, MJS said: Sanders is right, though. Players should not be shamed for opting out, but the game will go on without them. The game absolutely CAN NOT go on without players. It can go on without specific players, for sure. The exact same thing with officials. Individual players and officials can be replaced, but you absolutely need both players and officials to play the game. Or am i missing something?
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted August 10, 2020 Posted August 10, 2020 2 hours ago, The Dean said: The game absolutely CAN NOT go on without players. It can go on without specific players, for sure. The exact same thing with officials. Individual players and officials can be replaced, but you absolutely need both players and officials to play the game. Or am i missing something? game in fact does seem to be moving on without ‘those who have opted out’, a key distinction as to which players the message was addressed.
MJS Posted August 10, 2020 Posted August 10, 2020 2 hours ago, The Dean said: The game absolutely CAN NOT go on without players. It can go on without specific players, for sure. The exact same thing with officials. Individual players and officials can be replaced, but you absolutely need both players and officials to play the game. Or am i missing something? The point is there will always be players. The league will go on without those who chose to opt out. I'm not sure why it's a hard concept. It makes perfect sense. Now if something happens and ALL players choose not to, or can't, play, obviously the games can't be played.
The Dean Posted August 10, 2020 Posted August 10, 2020 44 minutes ago, MJS said: The point is there will always be players. The league will go on without those who chose to opt out. I'm not sure why it's a hard concept. It makes perfect sense. Now if something happens and ALL players choose not to, or can't, play, obviously the games can't be played. Of course. But same with the refs. "The game goes on without YOU" is the same for refs (who have yet to make their decision) as it is for players. True for coaches, owners and commisioners. Individuals can be replaced, but the game cannot go on without two teams of players and officials. He made it seem like refs are more important to the game than players. Well more than "made it seem like"--he flat out said it. So what is his point? Does he think the players that opt out believe the game won't go on without them? If so, I think that's nuts. These players go in with the knowledge they will be replaced for the season. They know the risks to their position long term before taking this move. He isn't telling anyone anything they don't already know. The only thing he seems to be saying with any clairity is he doens't think the virus is that big of a deal. OK, he can think that. But to criticize others who are, you know, smarter than him---well it's perfect actually.
MJS Posted August 10, 2020 Posted August 10, 2020 5 minutes ago, The Dean said: Of course. But same with the refs. "The game goes on without YOU" is the same for refs (who have yet to make their decision) as it is for players. True for coaches, owners and commisioners. Individuals can be replaced, but the game cannot go on without two teams of players and officials. He made it seem like refs are more important to the game than players. Well more than "made it seem like"--he flat out said it. So what is his point? Does he think the players that opt out believe the game won't go on without them? If so, I think that's nuts. These players go in with the knowledge they will be replaced for the season. They know the risks to their position long term before taking this move. He isn't telling anyone anything they don't already know. The only thing he seems to be saying with any clairity is he doens't think the virus is that big of a deal. OK, he can think that. But to criticize others who are, you know, smarter than him---well it's perfect actually. Yeah, but there are fewer officials and coaches and all those other positions. It would be harder to replace them just from a numbers standpoint.
The Dean Posted August 10, 2020 Posted August 10, 2020 5 minutes ago, MJS said: Yeah, but there are fewer officials and coaches and all those other positions. It would be harder to replace them just from a numbers standpoint. Um, what? It's easier to replace fewer positions, not harder. There are plenty of NCAA refs (who look like they may have the season off) former XLF, AAF, etc., to fill the relatively few positions.
MJS Posted August 10, 2020 Posted August 10, 2020 3 hours ago, The Dean said: Um, what? It's easier to replace fewer positions, not harder. There are plenty of NCAA refs (who look like they may have the season off) former XLF, AAF, etc., to fill the relatively few positions. If you have to dip into other leagues then it absolutely is harder vs having players already on your roster replace a player who opts out, or sign a street free agent who is already in the league and waiting eagerly to be signed. The effect on the league overall is like a drop in the bucket for a player, but if you have to start bringing in new officials the effect is tremendous, like when we had to bring in alternate refs when the ref CBA was being ironed out. The quality of officiating went way down and it was very noticeable.
Saxum Posted August 10, 2020 Posted August 10, 2020 8 hours ago, The Dean said: The game absolutely CAN NOT go on without players. It can go on without specific players, for sure. The exact same thing with officials. Individual players and officials can be replaced, but you absolutely need both players and officials to play the game. Or am i missing something? We have not heard about any zebras opting out - some must be. Same with coaches who are for most much more in danger especially with long hours they work.
Recommended Posts