Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

Have you paid attention in particular to all the stories that have come out from retired NFL players?  You honestly think these guys are making choices to get shot up with whatever multitude of things these guys get shot up with understanding the long-term side-effects or repercussions of these shots? 

 

Same thing goes with the NFL's history of concussions among the players.


Ok, have fun at the coliseum while your gladiators entertain you.   
 

God forbid they think beyond “me football player, me get vaccine”.  

  • Eyeroll 2
Posted
1 hour ago, K-9 said:

Yep, and then the first wife just cut ‘em off, said I wouldn’t be needing them anymore, and that was that.

Contender for Post of the Year!!!!

Posted

While it can't be the sole reason to cut a player it will and should be a factor should a few players be close in deserving a spot. Guys on the bottom of the roster would be wise to get it.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted

Poor form on their part. He didn’t say it was because of not getting vaccinated, it was due to gaining a competitive advantage. 
 

God I want this all to be over. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, Jpsredemption said:

I heard it and I thought to myself before it went viral that it just wasn’t a good look. 

 

I mean I am sure all the other GMs are thinking the same things, they just didn't verbalize it.

 

Just like how players aren't supposed to be cut for not attending "voluntary workouts"...but when they end up way behind the players that are they make it pretty easy for the coaches.

  • Agree 1
Posted
55 minutes ago, No Place To Hyde said:

While it can't be the sole reason to cut a player it will and should be a factor should a few players be close in deserving a spot. Guys on the bottom of the roster would be wise to get it.

All the players would be wise to get it.  The less time you have to spend going through protocols the more time you have to study film, game plan, work out, practice, etc..

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
On 5/6/2021 at 2:17 PM, H2o said:

To me, and this is just me, it seems kind of discriminatory. Don't you think? There are rules and regulations against discrimination for many other things which make it illegal. Is this any better? It should be a personal choice whether you do or you don't and not forced onto anyone using manipulation tactics. Simple. 

 

I understand you are stating your personal beliefs, I just want you to understand this is not the way the US  or private employers have historically operated.

 

The courts (all the way to the Supreme court) have so far pretty uniformly upheld work related and school related vaccination and PPE requirements, and also upheld local and state vaccine requirements (eg mandatory school vaccination, vaccination during epidemic disease outbreaks), providing exemptions were allowed for legitimate religious or medical reasons. 

 

It's discriminatory if it's applied differently to different groups of people working in the same or similar roles.  If it applies to everyone, you may not like it but it's not considered discriminatory.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
On 5/6/2021 at 2:23 PM, BillsShredder83 said:

i wouldnt take a job that tried this, and i agree its wrong.  That said, i want my team to have any advantage they can possibly create, no matter how small, im on board and appreciate the honesty

 

I appreciate your desire to avoid jobs that require vaccination and that is 100% your personal choice, but why is it wrong?  If my employer is paying me to be available, why should they tolerate me being avoidably unavailable because I'm sick with a preventable illness?  And why should they tolerate me potentially transmitting that illness to my coworkers and making them unavailable to do their jobs?

 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Agree 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted
On 5/6/2021 at 2:37 PM, Rochesterfan said:

I know COVID is 5X more likely to kill you than drunk driving and is easier to prevent with a quick shot.

 

Now football related Beane is 100% correct - The coaches, staff, and FO are all getting vaccinated or they can not meet with the players.

 

No reason not to do the same with the players - those that aren’t can not get together with the rest of the team.  Consistent rules with the rest of the staff.

 

The reason not to do the same with the players is that they have a union and operate under a CBA, and the negotiated agreement with the union was that the vaccine would not be required for the players.

 

Now as far as I know, there's nothing saying that vaccinated and unvaccinated players can't operate under different rules as a "reasonable accomodation" - in-person vs virtual meetings; weekly vs daily testing; practice and work out without wearing masks vs. have to wear masks.  If those differences lead to a performance disadvantage that makes the unvaccinated player at the bottom of the roster more likely to be cut....Oh Well.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted (edited)
56 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

All the players would be wise to get it.  The less time you have to spend going through protocols the more time you have to study film, game plan, work out, practice, etc..

Yup agree. Very good point. I wonder if everyone gets vaccinated if they still will have to get tested all the time? Or maybe not quite as much?. Or maybe just the ones that choose not to be vaccinated only gets tested so much?

Edited by Patrick_Duffy
×
×
  • Create New...