Sounds like teams may cut 10-15 players soon

In comment 14928124 SGMen said:

Quote:

My thing is this: you can test positive for CV19 anti-bodies, meaning you've had it and now hopefully have developed some "herd immunity" rather than be a carrier.

The operative word is "hopefully" because they still don't know for sure as far as I've read. You would think by now data would be accumulating but I haven't seen anything conclusive reported (maybe someone else has). One thing I've read is that those who were asymptomatic may not have produced enough antibodies to protect against a second, potentially more severe, infection.

Good question.

I ranted at dinner tonight about this (imagine an Eric from BBI rant in person!) (grin)...

I said, my prediction is one of three things:

(1) NFL doesn't have a season (players will test positive when they report).

(2) NFL starts season, but then cancels it because players will inevitably increasingly test positive for COVID).

(3) NFL ignores/downplays positive tests and has a full season.

I don't see another option.

Side Note: We were just told locally that high school sports will proceed. So the NFL has to also deal with optics here of kids playing and pros sitting out. Then there is the loss of $$$ billions.

In comment 14928124 SGMen said:

Quote:

In comment 14928121 Eric from BBI said: Quote: Assuming there is a 55-man roster, there will be 1,760 players on rosters this year. Players are going to get COVID. It's a virus. Same thing with schools, work, subways, etc. So the NFL either has to shut down or accept players with COVID on the roster. My thing is this: you can test positive for CV19 anti-bodies, meaning you've had it and now hopefully have developed some "herd immunity" rather than be a carrier. Or am I not understanding??? Honestly...lots of people have had Covid with no symptoms or limited symptoms.

Agree with both of you. Fauci even said the other day a vaccine would be no more than 70% effective. It’s inevitable, we just have to hope for the best in terms of people not being severe when they do contract it.

And there may not be a vaccine. We may be sitting in the same situation in July 2021.

It's a double edged sword. Less people in the pool, so a little less likely of spreading it, but also less players in the pool to replace those who are downed by the virus.

When all is said and done, they may start out with fewer players in training camp than previous years, but end up with a larger roster size and larger practice squad come September (60 on roster, 15 on practice squad, as one example, assuming the likelihood that NFL makes exception this year).

The one big question about increasing roster size and practice squad size is what it means to a team's salary cap. If it is originally calculated for 55 players on the roster and another 10 on the practice squad, will they have enough space under the cap for the added players, all of whom will count under the cap if no allowance are made?

In comment 14928116 robbieballs2003 said:

Quote:

players. Between them, the coaches, the staff, etc. it's going to hit teams.

Makes no fucking sense. It’s like our school system proposing having kids go for 5 hours a day instead of 7/8. THEY ARE ALREADY THERE!

Once you are around everyone what’s going to happen is going to happen. If you are going to start football then start football, cutting a couple guys earlier doesn’t do anything.

In comment 14928129 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

And there may not be a vaccine. We may be sitting in the same situation in July 2021.

Just speaking for me: there is no way they are sticking any vaccine in me that went thru any "gin mill" process. Sorry...
And I'm going to guess a good portion of players will feel the same way.

And just not have them come to camp

In comment 14928146 ron mexico said:

Quote:

And just not have them come to camp

How is that fair to the player. If i was a player that wasn't asked to come to camp I should be allowed to shop myself around if/when an opening occurs on another team.

For the bottom tier guys, This would probably be too much of a strain on coaches and admin to be plausible though. But they could still attend the classroom sessions virtually

What if the NFL allowed teams to have split squads so while at 90 you have one team with 45 guys and another team with 45 guys for practicing. Coaches meetings would be on-line with all 90 guys and position coaches would also do on-line meetings. But the teams are at separate throughout the week. Could this be an option that NFL could consider?

In comment 14928127 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

(3) NFL ignores/downplays positive tests and has a full season.

They won't ignore it or downplay it, they will be prepared for the certainty of it and have protocols and regulations in place that are approved by the NFLPA.

Bottomline (in my opinion) is this: what matters most to the owners and fans is that they put a product on the field that we can watch on TV. We can all accept that the product won't be the same quality as years past given the circumstances. The hope/dream is that our knowledge of the virus and the technology applied to it will have improved to the point where the infection rate can be managed so that the quality of the product remains strong.

But let's say the virus is still very much a mystery come September and the technology hasn't reached the point where players, coaches, trainers, and other personnel can be tested on a daily basis, they can still come up with protocols that ensure the relative safety of all involved.

These protocols will make it harder to coach, harder to practice, it will mean players shuffling in and out of quarantine, and it could mean a vastly inferior product on the field for us to watch. But we will watch and we will be happy about it despite knowing full well the product sucks. When you're starving, you don't complain about the food!

That's along the lines of what I'm saying, who knows what solutions they can come up with, the possibilities are endless. Of course coming up with solutions to address all of the concerns will mean diminishing the final product one solution at a time, but if come December we are a watching a Giants team with a bunch of players we never heard of, we will still be watching. Because by then we will have heard of each of those no-names. Granted, a Super Bowl victory won't mean as much to whoever wins it, but we will all still be watching the game. And there's nothing wrong with that.

till 2022 at least for the masses
probably alot better treatments in 2021, maybe make it alot less bearable having it (for those 20% or so that get it bad)
Setting myself up to not see any football
or have to watch it next spring right in the middle of another never ending tax season (thanks to july 15th deadline sitting at my desk with a pile of numbers insteaD OF ENJOYING THE SEASON)

You mean like the concussion protocols that varied from team to team for so long?

You have a lot more confidence in the integrity of the NFL than I do.

If they are going to play a full season, they will have to allow players to play with COVID in their system and not quarantining people. There is no way around it.

said it before and I'll say it again, people are going to be surprised at how many have it when they actually get tested.

Headline I expect to see at the end of this month: "20 percent of players on team X test positive!"

In comment 14928150 ron mexico said:

Quote:

For the bottom tier guys, This would probably be too much of a strain on coaches and admin to be plausible though. But they could still attend the classroom sessions virtually

A camp for 10-15 players. Are they playing 5 on 5 flag football?

that means a coach's job doubles with that. Is it possible? Maybe. But remember that not every position group is 4 deep. What I mean by that is half of 4 is 2 meaning a starter and backup. So how do you run a legit practice like that? OL and DL need reps against each other. Bodies matter. Even during the season, 53 players isn't enough to really practice hence the PS players.

In comment 14928168 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

You have a lot more confidence in the integrity of the NFL than I do.

I have confidence in three things that have nothing to do with their integrity: 1)the owners and fans want an NFL season regardless of the quality; 2)the owners want to protect themselves from lawsuits; 3)the NFLPA wants to protect its players and their families from life- and/or career-threatening illness.

Quote:

If they are going to play a full season, they will have to allow players to play with COVID in their system and not quarantining people. There is no way around it.

I doubt that they let any player in the facility or on the field who has test positive, but they will accept the likelihood that there will be players at practice and playing on game day who are infected, but have not yet test positive for it.

Of course, if they are also going to quarantine any player who was around another player that subsequently test positive that could potentially torpedo the whole operation.

I agree with robbieballs. Under the current situation, teams need more people in camp, not fewer. It is obvious that SOME players are gonna miss SOME time during the season due to the virus. That's on top of the usual attrition due to in injuries. We need MORE bodies in camp and MORE players on Practice Squad if the NFL hopes to get this season in.

In comment 14928171 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

said it before and I'll say it again, people are going to be surprised at how many have it when they actually get tested. Headline I expect to see at the end of this month: "20 percent of players on team X test positive!"

Even now, I never understand what they mean when they say someone has tested positive. I’ve assumed it meant that they had the virus, but it could also mean that they were tested for antibodies and were positive. Those are two different but potentially overlapping things.

And some states have blurred the distinction to make it appear as if they have done more testing.

A nasal swab tests for current infection. If you are positive on COVID testing, you are infected and should quarantine yourself to avoid spreading it.

An antibody test looks for antibodies to a past infection. Those positive on an antibody test are likely to be immune, at least for some time (but nobody knows just how long). In addition, not all people who have been infected have enough antibodies to be detected by current tests. It's unclear whether these people are protected from reinfection.

In comment 14928194 Remdad said:

Quote:

And some states have blurred the distinction to make it appear as if they have done more testing. A nasal swab tests for current infection. If you are positive on COVID testing, you are infected and should quarantine yourself to avoid spreading it. An antibody test looks for antibodies to a past infection. Those positive on an antibody test are likely to be immune, at least for some time (but nobody knows just how long). In addition, not all people who have been infected have enough antibodies to be detected by current tests. It's unclear whether these people are protected from reinfection.

Nobody knows. Thing about protection. They’ve found antibody negative people who are seemingly protected (I know that they recovered as easily as people who made strong responses). For most viruses cellular responses are more important than antibody, so it’s likely that antibody measurements are not very reflective of much (but they’re easier to measure so that’s what people focus on)

You are correct that ability to fight off the virus doesn't depend entirely on preformed antibodies; it takes time for the body to develop them. Some people with mild cases may not develop enough antibodies to be detected with current assays and yet recover just fine.

The presence of preformed antibodies in blood helps prevent infection; this is how vaccines work (by stimulating their formation with a preparation that doesn't make you sick).

It seems clear that people with measurable antibodies are in fact protected. Serial measurements of antibodies, however, have suggested that levels drop off with time, and so how long that protection lasts (and its relationship with antibody levels) is unclear. But this is about reinfection, not recovery.

Antibodies will tell you that a person has been exposed and you can measure neutralization in vitro. But the importance in vivo is not known. For most viruses antibody deficient mice do just fine but T cell deficient mice die. For COVID the levels of neutralizing antibody are pretty tepid actually but there’s a lot of debate for how much is really needed. For a virus neutralization is the main protective function for an antibody and I’m. Or arguing that it’s not important. But the degree of importance in the larger scheme is not clearly known. But, it’s what we measure so it’s the best indicator of putative immunity.

We won’t get a good answer on this until the winter and a second wave.

In comment 14928191 Bill L said:

Quote:

In comment 14928171 Eric from BBI said: Quote: said it before and I'll say it again, people are going to be surprised at how many have it when they actually get tested. Headline I expect to see at the end of this month: "20 percent of players on team X test positive!" Even now, I never understand what they mean when they say someone has tested positive. I’ve assumed it meant that they had the virus, but it could also mean that they were tested for antibodies and were positive. Those are two different but potentially overlapping things.

The standard COVID-19 test uses something called rt-PCR to amplify and detect viral genomes in a sample. This can detect the presence of the virus before you develop any immune response, or on surfaces. The genomic methods are about to get much faster using some new methods. However, once the virus is cleared, the RNA test would tend to be negative, with an antibody test being used to detect a prior history of infection. So they measure different things.

In comment 14928207 Bill L said:

Quote:

Antibodies will tell you that a person has been exposed and you can measure neutralization in vitro. But the importance in vivo is not known. For most viruses antibody deficient mice do just fine but T cell deficient mice die. For COVID the levels of neutralizing antibody are pretty tepid actually but there’s a lot of debate for how much is really needed. For a virus neutralization is the main protective function for an antibody and I’m. Or arguing that it’s not important. But the degree of importance in the larger scheme is not clearly known. But, it’s what we measure so it’s the best indicator of putative immunity.

Bill

I know we discussed this on the other Covid thread a while back and how some people might not create antibodies, but the body fights it off using other parts of the immune system. There is a video below from someone who has been tracking the data and the tests and notes that they are flawed and how we might not be really measuring how many people were infected by just checking for antibodies.

I know I've said in my own case my doctor was shocked that I didn't test positive for antibodies but he said there was more evidence coming around that the other parts of the immune system fight off the disease from the lymphatic system and might be one of the reasons that people have that cytokine storm which does tons of damage (and can kill) and others have symptoms lingering for weeks and weeks. And based on findings it also shows that antibodies start to wane over time. I was sick at the end of Feb thru mid March. I got the antibody test at the end of May, nearly 10+ weeks later and came back negative. Bottom line, there is so much more to learn and hopefully science finds a way to find a marker outside of antibodies to see if they can track people who did have it.

I can say in speaking with a friend of mine who is a pharmacist at Holy Name Hospital in Teaneck that treatment has gotten much better. She saw some SHIT in March when Teaneck was an epicenter and she told me she was surprised at how many younger people were getting sick, not just the very old. She was saying that the information early on from France was wrong about not using steroids to help treat patients. They've since changed that, and they are treating patients with steroids, remdisavir, anti-coagulants, anti-viral medicine, and lots of vitamin C and D. Essentially a treatment cocktail. She said the COVID numbers are way down in her hospital and mainly they're seeing more overweight middle aged men coming in having trouble breathing but now they know better methods to treat it.

So what does all this mean for the NFL season? I have no idea, they learn more and more about this thing every day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pHfsmX467s - ( New Window )

I think we’re up to about 30,000 antibody tests done in my lab now (and the adjacent lab who does the blood spot seroprevalence studies has done 3-4x that number).

Almost all of the samples we test now are from people who had the disease but who want to donate blood which can be used as antibody therapy. So these are all people who were confirmed to have been infected and then recovered. They are a minimum of 21 days from being sick and many are repeat donors who we can say we have multiple samples out to about nearly 3 months from being sick.

So far, almost everyone’s levels seem stable but there is a wide range in the amount that people make (lots, medium, little). But, quite consistently, 2-3% of the people are making no detectable antibody at all. Some of that might be the level of sensitivity of the test but, having seen so many, im more confident that they truly make none. Yet, they’re convalescent (got sick, got better) and most live in the NYC area and presumably, before the last few weeks or so, would have had a reasonable chance of being re-exposed to the virus. No reported second illnesses though (afaik)

In comment 14928226 Bill L said:

Quote:

I think we’re up to about 30,000 antibody tests done in my lab now (and the adjacent lab who does the blood spot seroprevalence studies has done 3-4x that number). Almost all of the samples we test now are from people who had the disease but who want to donate blood which can be used as antibody therapy. So these are all people who were confirmed to have been infected and then recovered. They are a minimum of 21 days from being sick and many are repeat donors who we can say we have multiple samples out to about nearly 3 months from being sick. So far, almost everyone’s levels seem stable but there is a wide range in the amount that people make (lots, medium, little). But, quite consistently, 2-3% of the people are making no detectable antibody at all. Some of that might be the level of sensitivity of the test but, having seen so many, im more confident that they truly make none. Yet, they’re convalescent (got sick, got better) and most live in the NYC area and presumably, before the last few weeks or so, would have had a reasonable chance of being re-exposed to the virus. No reported second illnesses though (afaik)

Thanks Bill. I know you are one of the most knowledgeable on BBI and in the thick of everything. Here’s hoping the antibody work helps with treatment and a vaccine sooner than later!

1. Being indoors together at meetings and at meals and catching the virus, or

2. Practicing in the open air and risking injury.

I'd like to see the Giants holding as many meetings and meals as possible outside their building. Although classroom work IMO is much more effective indoors (much less distracting) than outside, al fresco dining is far superior to eating inside.

In comment 14928127 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

Good question. I ranted at dinner tonight about this (imagine an Eric from BBI rant in person!) (grin)... I said, my prediction is one of three things: (1) NFL doesn't have a season (players will test positive when they report). (2) NFL starts season, but then cancels it because players will inevitably increasingly test positive for COVID). (3) NFL ignores/downplays positive tests and has a full season. I don't see another option. Side Note: We were just told locally that high school sports will proceed. So the NFL has to also deal with optics here of kids playing and pros sitting out. Then there is the loss of $$$ billions.

With respect, I think there's another option. I guess I'd call it the "muddle through as best you can" option.

We're used to a very tightly organized league with a very carefully planned schedule. It's very tidy. But it doesn't have to be that way. It could be a little more like college football. Games on different days of the week, more bye weeks (some of them unplanned), some teams having played 2 or 3 more games than others, some teams playing later into the year, some ending earlier.

It wouldn't be the NFL we know, but as far as the league is concerned, their first order of business is to have games to televise every week. If they can put on the TV show, they salvage a fortune in revenue. And if you open up the standings and they look like baseball standings in the second week of a rainy April, well, that's life.

We're used to a precise playoff race with tiebreakers and everything being very meticulously planned. Just chuck all that and think of it more like a bunch of barnstorming teams who play when they're healthy, sit out when they have to, resume when they can, and we figure it all out in December and January. There'll almost certainly be make-up weeks and the playoffs won't be Week 18, more like Week 22, with long CFB-style layoffs for some teams.

It'd be weird and kind of ridiculous. And we would eat it up, because it's NFL football.

In comment 14928128 eric2425ny said:

Quote:

In comment 14928124 SGMen said: Quote: In comment 14928121 Eric from BBI said: Quote: Assuming there is a 55-man roster, there will be 1,760 players on rosters this year. Players are going to get COVID. It's a virus. Same thing with schools, work, subways, etc. So the NFL either has to shut down or accept players with COVID on the roster. My thing is this: you can test positive for CV19 anti-bodies, meaning you've had it and now hopefully have developed some "herd immunity" rather than be a carrier. Or am I not understanding??? Honestly...lots of people have had Covid with no symptoms or limited symptoms. Agree with both of you. Fauci even said the other day a vaccine would be no more than 70% effective. It’s inevitable, we just have to hope for the best in terms of people not being severe when they do contract it.

Other doctors have indicated his prediction of 75% is very optimistic pointing out the flu vaccine on any given year is between 35 and 50% effective.

Eventually we will have to make a choice to get on with life and protect as best as possible against the virus, allowing herd immunity to take place, or continue to put life on hold.

Some people I know, have literally stayed sheltered in place since this began, that s a tough way to live for 4 months let alone indefinitely.

The lack of efficacy there is largely due to poor predictions of strains when they make it. The biology is very different for CoV-2. A vaccine might not be highly effective (or it might) but flu is an inappropriate model here.

I wouldn't have expected so much vagina on a football site, but alas

to me.

In comment 14928259 Tim in VA said:

Quote:

I wouldn't have expected so much vagina on a football site, but alas

Is this more your speed? - ( New Window )

In comment 14928257 Bill L said:

Quote:

The lack of efficacy there is largely due to poor predictions of strains when they make it. The biology is very different for CoV-2. A vaccine might not be highly effective (or it might) but flu is an inappropriate model here.

Hesitant to start a new thread on this topic, but this was published today in Science. I'm sure it will get widespread press coverage...

"Development of an inactivated vaccine candidate for SARS-CoV-2"

Quote:

...Animals were immunized with one of two vaccine doses and then inoculated with SARS-CoV-2. Those that received the lowest dose showed signs of controlling the infection, and those receiving the highest dose appeared more protected and did not have detectable viral loads in the pharynx or lungs at 7 days after infection. The next steps will be testing for safety and efficacy in humans."

Vaccine candidate tested in monkeys - ( New Window )

Practice squad scouting will be a big thing this year.....

In comment 14928121 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

Assuming there is a 55-man roster, there will be 1,760 players on rosters this year. Players are going to get COVID. It's a virus. Same thing with schools, work, subways, etc. So the NFL either has to shut down or accept players with COVID on the roster.

I think the expanded 'taxi squad' is meant to address this

In comment 14928135 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

In comment 14928116 robbieballs2003 said: Quote: players. Between them, the coaches, the staff, etc. it's going to hit teams. Makes no fucking sense. It’s like our school system proposing having kids go for 5 hours a day instead of 7/8. THEY ARE ALREADY THERE! Once you are around everyone what’s going to happen is going to happen. If you are going to start football then start football, cutting a couple guys earlier doesn’t do anything.

Not necessarily. It's about risk management in the context of uncertainty.

So assuming precautions are taken (masks, hand-washing, distancing, selecting out the unwell etc.), it's basically about viral load which is largely about time and space.

So yes, reducing hours (and empty breaks between shifts) is a plausible strategy assuming the other stuff is done.

In comment 14928319 nzyme said:

Quote:

Practice squad scouting will be a big thing this year.....

This is definitely the year that will weed out the good scouts from the bad

In comment 14928325 Jay in Toronto said:

Quote:

In comment 14928135 UConn4523 said: Quote: In comment 14928116 robbieballs2003 said: Quote: players. Between them, the coaches, the staff, etc. it's going to hit teams. Makes no fucking sense. It’s like our school system proposing having kids go for 5 hours a day instead of 7/8. THEY ARE ALREADY THERE! Once you are around everyone what’s going to happen is going to happen. If you are going to start football then start football, cutting a couple guys earlier doesn’t do anything. Not necessarily. It's about risk management in the context of uncertainty. So assuming precautions are taken (masks, hand-washing, distancing, selecting out the unwell etc.), it's basically about viral load which is largely about time and space. So yes, reducing hours (and empty breaks between shifts) is a plausible strategy assuming the other stuff is done.

I hadn’t thought about it this way, what you explain makes sense to me now

its likely, most players are going to get infected if they go forward. Most will be perfectly fine, probably (based on statistics) not have ANY symptoms. BUT, its the guy that DOES get serious symptoms, ending up in hospitalization. This virus not only attacks the lungs, it leaves permanent debilitation behind. What if that guy is Saquon or DJ?? I want a season as much as anyone, think the Giants will be much better than expected, but of all the sports, football scares me the most. Oh and I think having High School kids playing at this point is foolish for the reasons stated above. Would you want that one player to be YOUR kid?

In comment 14928187 BigBlueNH said:

Quote:

I agree with robbieballs. Under the current situation, teams need more people in camp, not fewer. It is obvious that SOME players are gonna miss SOME time during the season due to the virus. That's on top of the usual attrition due to in injuries. We need MORE bodies in camp and MORE players on Practice Squad if the NFL hopes to get this season in.

I played this in my head again and agree with robbieballs and yourself: we should have a camp of 90 as always AND keep very large practice squads.
Or, come to camp with 75 and keep very large practice squads.
I mean, this makes no sense?

In comment 14928408 SGMen said:

Quote:

In comment 14928187 BigBlueNH said: Quote: I agree with robbieballs. Under the current situation, teams need more people in camp, not fewer. It is obvious that SOME players are gonna miss SOME time during the season due to the virus. That's on top of the usual attrition due to in injuries. We need MORE bodies in camp and MORE players on Practice Squad if the NFL hopes to get this season in. I played this in my head again and agree with robbieballs and yourself: we should have a camp of 90 as always AND keep very large practice squads. Or, come to camp with 75 and keep very large practice squads. I mean, this makes no sense?

There are very valid reasons to not have 90 players physically present at camp. By doing that you are increasing your risk that there will be a widespread outbreak.

This is a very good piece from WSJ describing, according to the learning and science thus far, how Covid is contracted. It reinforces the messages that large gatherings indoors in confined spaces for prolonged periods is the surest way to get Covid. Very much worth reading.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-exactly-do-you-catch-covid-19-there-is-a-growing-consensus-11592317650

In comment 14928105 George from PA said:

Quote:

Just a bad draw all the way around

+1

In comment 14928110 robbieballs2003 said:

Quote:

So when covid does hit and you need to add players to your roster there are now 320 less players practicing and learning systems that can help step in in a moments notice. What does that come down to? 13% of the team not being there? Don't see how that really increases the chances of players not getting it. That is basically 1 less player per position group. Stupid.

+1

If they play . . .

Is to NOT make teams cut players. Just relax the fucking roster rules for this season.

Let teams KEEP MORE GUYS (even 90) so when the starters start getting sick, teams at least have people on the roster already who know the system, playbook etc.


Of course, this is ENTIRELY too sensible of a decision to EVER be adopted by the NFL.