Sounds like teams may cut 10-15 players soon

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.