Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Joe Bryant

NFL and Covid Issues - Keep it 100% NFL

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Smack Tripper said:

Any Titans Bills news?

game on as of now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, moleculo said:

Agreed.  I have nothing against Cam - he's a flamboyant dresser, but I don't recall anything from his Carolina days that would lead me to think he's higher risk for COVID than anyone else.

Still, with the number of NE cases, I don't think it's outlandish to argue they aren't doing something right. I can't say what that is, being not around the team, but something isn't working.

I don’t know I think it’s shocking they haven’t had more cases considering how much a starting QB is in contact with the rest of the coaches and team.  Plus the fact the NFL made them play a couple of days after that test it’s a bit stunning to me it’s not a Titans situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can ANYBODY tell me EXACTLY what the testing policy is for the NFL?  Is the game on between the Bills & Titans based on the testing this morning?  Or if there is 1 positive test tomorrow is the game moved?  Anybody?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AIKENS BACON said:

Can ANYBODY tell me EXACTLY what the testing policy is for the NFL?  Is the game on between the Bills & Titans based on the testing this morning?  Or if there is 1 positive test tomorrow is the game moved?  Anybody?

The way the NFL has been doing things ... two consecutive days of zero positives means that a game can take place on the third day. Titans tested all negative Sunday 10/11, and then again on Monday 10/12 -- so the Tuesday night game on 10/13 can proceed.

The NFL has not been testing teams on game days, so there should be no Tuesday morning surprise test that jeopardizes tomorrow night's game. That said, the NFL can change those protocols at the drop of a hat, so far as I'm aware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AIKENS BACON said:

Can ANYBODY tell me EXACTLY what the testing policy is for the NFL?  Is the game on between the Bills & Titans based on the testing this morning?  Or if there is 1 positive test tomorrow is the game moved?  Anybody?

Pretty simple really. Read "War and Peace" backwards,standing on your head,outside,at night,in the rain and you'll get the general idea of NFL protocols.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bummer about the Chiefs/Bills game starting at 4:00pm local time here on Monday. Game will be almost over before a lot of Chiefs fans get home from work. 

Was really looking forward to watching that one. But, the price we pay these days. Dang. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Dr. Octopus said:

Chiefs-Bills is 7:00 EST on Tuesday.

I'm talking next Monday. Not tomorrow Bills/Titans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, ChiefD said:

I'm talking next Monday. Not tomorrow Bills/Titans.

Yes my bad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, ChiefD said:

Bummer about the Chiefs/Bills game starting at 4:00pm local time here on Monday. Game will be almost over before a lot of Chiefs fans get home from work. 

Was really looking forward to watching that one. But, the price we pay these days. Dang. 

I'm lucky that my job allows me to work semi-flexible hours -- I normally get into the office around 6:30 and leave about 4:00, so this works for me just fine.  

FYI, I attended a Bills game at Arrowhead a few years ago with my son, and Chiefs fans were nothing but friendly.  Nice environment even for away fans.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if I'm reading right, as it stands now for week 6, we have:

No Thursday night game

Nine early games

Two late games

One SNF game

Two MNF games

 

 

They have to flex one or two early games to later, right? I can't believe CBS wants to subject the entire country to Jets/Dolphins.

  • Like 2
  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, shades said:

So if I'm reading right, as it stands now for week 6, we have:

No Thursday night game

Nine early games

Two late games

One SNF game

Two MNF games

 

 

They have to flex one or two early games to later, right? I can't believe CBS wants to subject the entire country to Jets/Dolphins.

They will likely move at least one early Sunday game to the late game slot.

Edited by Dr. Octopus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, shades said:

So if I'm reading right, as it stands now for week 6, we have:

No Thursday night game

Nine early games

Two late games

One SNF game

Two MNF games

 

 

They have to flex one or two early games to later, right? I can't believe CBS wants to subject the entire country to Jets/Dolphins.

And dumb that if they had acted last week or early weekend...they could have had Packers/Bucs on Thursday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

And dumb that if they had acted last week or early weekend...they could have had Packers/Bucs on Thursday.

With a game on Tuesday I'm ok with no Thursday game.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like we are getting very close to a week 18 scenario being implemented. The schedule seems a bit stressed. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dr. Octopus said:

With a game on Tuesday I'm ok with no Thursday game.

Sure, but Fox and the NFL gave up on that night of viewers.

Edited by sho nuff
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Shutout said:

I feel like we are getting very close to a week 18 scenario being implemented. The schedule seems a bit stressed. 

 

pretty much.  My understanding is the NFL will do everything they can to shuffle schedules to preserve a 17 week schedule.  They will go to 18 or even 19 weeks if absolutely necessary, and only for games with playoff implications.  forfeits and cancellations are not on the table.

ETA: all it takes to get to a 18 week schedule is for one team who has already had a bye or a team playing a team who has already had a bye to get popped.  odds are pretty good, I'd say.

Edited by moleculo
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Doug B said:

The way the NFL has been doing things ... two consecutive days of zero positives means that a game can take place on the third day. Titans tested all negative Sunday 10/11, and then again on Monday 10/12 -- so the Tuesday night game on 10/13 can proceed.

The NFL has not been testing teams on game days, so there should be no Tuesday morning surprise test that jeopardizes tomorrow night's game. That said, the NFL can change those protocols at the drop of a hat, so far as I'm aware.

The tests take 12 hours or so, right? So we may learn tomorrow AM of a test administered today turning up a positive. That's what happened with the Patriots, right? A test given on Saturday was reported on Sunday AM and so the Sunday game got moved. Same can happen again, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, moleculo said:

pretty much.  My understanding is the NFL will do everything they can to shuffle schedules to preserve a 17 week schedule.  They will go to 18 or even 19 weeks if absolutely necessary, and only for games with playoff implications.  forfeits and cancellations are not on the table.

But it's not like Moses came down with that schedule inscribed on stone tablets. They drew it up in the first place! They had every opportunity to make it as malleable as possible to maximize the amount of shuffling they could do within a 17-week time frame ... and for whatever reason, they chose not to. As a result they're already at a point where moving one game out of its current spot requires shuffling 8 other games around down the line. It's safe to say the logistics aren't gonna get easier from here.

So they can go on all they want about the sanctity of the 17-week calendar, but this is the bed they made. They're gonna find out pretty soon it isn't much fun to lie in.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mr. Irrelevant said:

But it's not like Moses came down with that schedule inscribed on stone tablets. They drew it up in the first place! They had every opportunity to make it as malleable as possible to maximize the amount of shuffling they could do within a 17-week time frame ... and for whatever reason, they chose not to. As a result they're already at a point where moving one game out of its current spot requires shuffling 8 other games around down the line. It's safe to say the logistics aren't gonna get easier from here.

So they can go on all they want about the sanctity of the 17-week calendar, but this is the bed they made. They're gonna find out pretty soon it isn't much fun to lie in.

with full benefit of hindsight, it's not how I would have done it.  

I probably would have cut the season to 14 games - 6 divisional, 4 from one division within conference, 4 from opposite conference.  Add two byes for a total of three.  Set the games up into sets of three, three, three, two, so every team gets a bye week at least every three games, and all divisions are on the same bye week schedule.  TV contract is not implicated as there will be 17 weeks of broadcastable games, and plenty of slack to re-arrange as needed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, moleculo said:

with full benefit of hindsight, it's not how I would have done it.  

I probably would have cut the season to 14 games - 6 divisional, 4 from one division within conference, 4 from opposite conference.  Add two byes for a total of three.  Set the games up into sets of three, three, three, two, so every team gets a bye week at least every three games, and all divisions are on the same bye week schedule.  TV contract is not implicated as there will be 17 weeks of broadcastable games, and plenty of slack to re-arrange as needed.

The main thing they care about with TV is:

At least something every weekend, no week with every team off, and,

Super Bowl on or before 2/28/21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, shades said:

The tests take 12 hours or so, right? So we may learn tomorrow AM of a test administered today turning up a positive. That's what happened with the Patriots, right? A test given on Saturday was reported on Sunday AM and so the Sunday game got moved. Same can happen again, right?

The initial daily tests (the ones they take when they say everyone on a team tested negative) are quick turnaround. Not sure how quick, but it looks to be less than a few hours. They test early in the a.m., and results are known to the public before noon, usually.

If they find a positive with a daily quick test, they'll do a slower test to confirm. This happened when the Saints FB Burton came up with a false positive on the Saturday before a game -- the Saints were flying to Detroit when the "positive" was announced. Burton (and several other players sitting near him) took a slower confirmation test ASAP after the plane landed. Results were known by early Sunday morning -- it was negative, and the game went on as scheduled.

I think the slower test is not a firm 12 hours ... it's not like they do a slow test and have to "let it bake" for 12 hours to see a result. Transportation and shuttling samples around is built into that 12-hour estimate. A lot depends on proximity to the NFL's testing labs (there are five (?) throughout the U.S.).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the reason they did not schedule multiple full stop bye weeks (ie, weeks when all 32 teams were off) is they didn't want people changing the channel to other options (especially other sports). Maybe there was a way to give each team 2-3 byes and keep some games on the schedule so people would at least keep tuning in. Maybe one game each on Thurs, early Sun, late Sun, SNF, and MNF. At least they could have had some added flexibility then.

In a few weeks, all teams will have gotten past their byes and the only remaining option to play all 16 games per team will be after the regular season is over. In hindsight, not having any bye weeks in traditional cold and flu season probably was not the best decision (if the talk of a second surge pans out).

I am guessing they really, really don't want a team to have to make up more than one game (as multiple playoff teams would end up having 2 weeks off before the playoffs and the 2 bye teams would end up with 3 weeks off).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, moleculo said:

pretty much.  My understanding is the NFL will do everything they can to shuffle schedules to preserve a 17 week schedule.  They will go to 18 or even 19 weeks if absolutely necessary, and only for games with playoff implications.  forfeits and cancellations are not on the table.

ETA: all it takes to get to a 18 week schedule is for one team who has already had a bye or a team playing a team who has already had a bye to get popped.  odds are pretty good, I'd say.

Yup. The Lions and Packers just had their byes this week and there will be more teams going forward now who use their bye week. If any of those teams end up involved with Covid issues there won’t be any option other than adding a week or canceling a game.

My bet is that the NFL will be more and more lax  on their care for player health and will be forcing games to happen no matter what. Guys who test positive will have to sit out and everyone else will play no matter what kind of close contact occurred or how many positives there are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2020 at 3:08 PM, Mystery Achiever said:

Spoke too soon, Vic.....
 

F L  S H

@Melvingordon25

Ain’t no way we practiced all week and they canceled our game

 

https://twitter.com/Melvingordon25/status/1315282193334243329

He has a point. The bye is in place for them to take it easy on their bodies for a week. To have that taken away when the team didn’t do anything wrong sucks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ChiefD said:

Bummer about the Chiefs/Bills game starting at 4:00pm local time here on Monday. Game will be almost over before a lot of Chiefs fans get home from work. 

Was really looking forward to watching that one. But, the price we pay these days. Dang. 

3 words!

D

V

R

 

that’s what I did yesterday when the Raiders beat the, um, I forget who they beat ;) 

luckily for me, though, was that my family and I were at the in-laws yesterday and none of them care about football at all. So it was easy to avoid the score and watch it when I got home. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, GroveDiesel said:

My bet is that the NFL will be more and more lax  on their care for player health and will be forcing games to happen no matter what. Guys who test positive will have to sit out and everyone else will play no matter what kind of close contact occurred or how many positives there are.

I thought that's what we would see from the beginning. The NFL has shown over the years that it doesn't really care about player health, and frankly many of the players don't care about their own health. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're adding gameday tests. PCR. Good, but, likely to cause more disruption on Sunday mornings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s not sexy, and wouldn’t make much money.  
 

but.  my proposal was have each division do a “bubble”, play a 6 game season, and then start the playoffs from there.  
 

:shrug:
 

they could have done an extra week between playoff games as well. 

Edited by amnesiac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, shades said:

They're adding gameday tests. PCR. Good, but, likely to cause more disruption on Sunday mornings.

PCR is the slower test. Will they have same-day results before games begin?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, amnesiac said:

It’s not sexy, and wouldn’t make much money.  
 

but.  my proposal was have each division do a “bubble”, play a 6 game season, and then start the playoffs from there.  
 

:shrug:
 

they could have done an extra week between playoff games as well. 

No chance they would do 6 games. Literally the only reason they are doing this is for the money. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Capella said:

No chance they would do 6 games. Literally the only reason they are doing this is for the money. 

I read (sorry I can't remember where or I'd link) a similar bubble idea that I loved.

Four 'regional' bubbles for the East, North, South and West. Each team plays a 10-game in-region schedule consisting of their divisional opponents 2x each and the other four teams in the bubble 1x each. Two teams qualify for the playoffs from each bubble (I'd have the #1 automatically qualify, #3 play #4 with the winner taking on #2 for the second playoff spot, but that's personal preference). Those 8 teams go to a playoff bubble in January and you hold the typical playoff schedule from there.

If you wanted to make some additional money (and heaven knows that's the NFL), you could start half the divisions off in a different regional bubble and have everyone open the schedule with a separate 4-game inter-conference slate for a 14-game total.

You could have constructed something approximating a normal schedule even in a bubble environment. Whether you'd have ever gotten the NFLPA to agree to anything approximating a normal duration season in a bubble is the bigger question IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, moleculo said:

with full benefit of hindsight, it's not how I would have done it.  

I probably would have cut the season to 14 games - 6 divisional, 4 from one division within conference, 4 from opposite conference.  Add two byes for a total of three.  Set the games up into sets of three, three, three, two, so every team gets a bye week at least every three games, and all divisions are on the same bye week schedule.  TV contract is not implicated as there will be 17 weeks of broadcastable games, and plenty of slack to re-arrange as needed.

This makes too much sense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Mr. Irrelevant said:

I read (sorry I can't remember where or I'd link) a similar bubble idea that I loved.

Four 'regional' bubbles for the East, North, South and West. Each team plays a 10-game in-region schedule consisting of their divisional opponents 2x each and the other four teams in the bubble 1x each. Two teams qualify for the playoffs from each bubble (I'd have the #1 automatically qualify, #3 play #4 with the winner taking on #2 for the second playoff spot, but that's personal preference). Those 8 teams go to a playoff bubble in January and you hold the typical playoff schedule from there.

If you wanted to make some additional money (and heaven knows that's the NFL), you could start half the divisions off in a different regional bubble and have everyone open the schedule with a separate 4-game inter-conference slate for a 14-game total.

You could have constructed something approximating a normal schedule even in a bubble environment. Whether you'd have ever gotten the NFLPA to agree to anything approximating a normal duration season in a bubble is the bigger question IMO.

IMO it also would be possible to have 32 bubbles.  There is no reason to physically co-locate multiple teams.  Instead,  each team rents out a hotel or dormitory and turn that into your bubble.  To travel, you already are chartering planes and buses; all you have to do is not spend the night.  Fly in the day of the game, fly home afterwards.  There really is no need to spend the night.  

If players/coaches/staff needed to leave the bubble for various reasons (i.e. family visitation, medical treatments, etc), you quarantine them separate from the bubble for a few days (coupled with testing every day) and they are back in.  

These are solvable problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing I don't know about "bubble" scenarios is how many games can be on a single field in a day? Do they need to recondition the turf after a game? Is there some turnaround involved? 

You'd probably need to bubble somewhere with two stadiums nearby and hold games there on different days, maybe 2 on Saturday and 2 on Sunday at each location? It would have helped if the ncaa postponed the college season. 

 

Another thing is that if you look at the stats, cases were trending down when these decisions were made. The NFL didn't grasp the second wave was coming, and didn't build in the flexibility to adjust if it did. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, moleculo said:

IMO it also would be possible to have 32 bubbles.  There is no reason to physically co-locate multiple teams.  Instead,  each team rents out a hotel or dormitory and turn that into your bubble.  To travel, you already are chartering planes and buses; all you have to do is not spend the night.  Fly in the day of the game, fly home afterwards.  There really is no need to spend the night.  

If players/coaches/staff needed to leave the bubble for various reasons (i.e. family visitation, medical treatments, etc), you quarantine them separate from the bubble for a few days (coupled with testing every day) and they are back in.  

These are solvable problems.

The chances of having 32 successful and sustainable bubbles would be exceedingly low. For starters, you would be having a ton of team related people agreeing to have to stay in only designated areas for over 6 months, which by extension would mean no contact with their families.

Beyond that, there is absolutely no way to get everyone else involved in football related operations, transportation, game day operations, etc. to conform to a bubble. You just can't. There are way too many people involved that are not employed by the NFL . . . hotel employees, bus drivers, broadcast personnel, food service companies, medical professionals, maintenance people, airport personnel, etc. The league could not demand and force them to only handle the NFL's needs (and then have them stay away from their families as well).

And once you have teams going from one bubble to another bubble, that almost defeats the purpose of having a bubble. Traveling on the same day as game day, sometimes across the country and leaving at you knows when to have to play the game would negatively impact the road team.

The broader question becomes what civil liberties should players be expected to have given the pandemic and the desire to get a full season played. Should they be able to see their families? Got to a neighboring store or mall attached to the stadium? Eat at a restaurant next to a hotel? Go to the lobby of a hotel to get a bottle of water? Go for a walk for fresh air? If the answer for any of those is no, I am betting a lot of players would say those are unreasonable expectations for a 6-month period.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Titans are having 9,000 fans at tonight’s game. I’m not sure that it’s actually dangerous or anything, but man the optics just seem awful on that.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, GroveDiesel said:

The Titans are having 9,000 fans at tonight’s game. I’m not sure that it’s actually dangerous or anything, but man the optics just seem awful on that.

I'm just basking in the knowledge that 31 other fan bases are rooting for tonight.  Usually that only happens twice a year when we play the Patriots, but they've temporarily slipped to the second most hated franchise in the major sports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was going to post about this after I heard it being discussed on local TV sports talk last night (but had not seen it posted online anywhere). Now that I can LINK to it . . .

Any individual who is identified as “high risk” for being in close contact to a player who has tested positive must be isolated and cannot return to the team for a minimum of five days.

That opens up a whole new can of worms. For players that test positive later in the week, there could (should?) be multiple teammates that fall into the "high risk" / close proximity category. The issue will be if teams will actually follow the new protocol on holding out players for 5 days (and thus missing games when they never tested positive).

This is what probably should have been happening all along (and better fits the CDC guidelines for isolating after being in close contact and exposed to someone that is positive). But it probably has a chance of teams having to sit multiple players on game day (if teams follow the rules) and impacting the outcome of games.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://twitter.com/MikeGarafolo/status/1316101714022367234
 

Quote

Speaking Tuesday, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell left open the possibility of postponed games being made up in a "Week 18." 

By definition, this would mean the Super Bowl would be moved back. “If there’s one consistent theme to our season, it’s flexibility and adapting," Goodell said. Many have expressed frustration with the lack of flexibility built into this year's schedule, while the league is quickly exhausting its options when it comes to moving games and byes. "Week 18" is probably an inevitability, while even Weeks 19 and 20 could happen. The NFL has said the Super Bowl could be played as many as three weeks later than usual. Speaking about the league's investigation into the Titans' COVID-19 protocols, Goodell tried to strike a conciliatory tone. "This is not about discipline," Goodell said. "This is about making sure we’re keeping our personnel safe, and that’s been our entire focus to date."

FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY!!!!!!

Edited by The Frankman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:

I was going to post about this after I heard it being discussed on local TV sports talk last night (but had not seen it posted online anywhere). Now that I can LINK to it . . .

Any individual who is identified as “high risk” for being in close contact to a player who has tested positive must be isolated and cannot return to the team for a minimum of five days.

That opens up a whole new can of worms. For players that test positive later in the week, there could (should?) be multiple teammates that fall into the "high risk" / close proximity category. The issue will be if teams will actually follow the new protocol on holding out players for 5 days (and thus missing games when they never tested positive).

This is what probably should have been happening all along (and better fits the CDC guidelines for isolating after being in close contact and exposed to someone that is positive). But it probably has a chance of teams having to sit multiple players on game day (if teams follow the rules) and impacting the outcome of games.

 

I wonder what their definition of “high risk” is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, GroveDiesel said:

I wonder what their definition of “high risk” is?

Therein lies the rub. Another question I have is why is this news in Greater Boston but no place else? This is the second day in a row it's been discussed pretty extensively on TV / radio / online . . . yet I literally have seen nothing on it anywhere. Is this something they approved only for NE players? Cause I can't any find information about the new protocols anywhere else (I was looking for an answer to what you just asked).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Falcons placed DE Marlon Davidson on the reserve/COVID-19 list. 

This means Davidson either has COVID-19 or is a close contact of someone else who is positive. This is the Falcons' second case after first-rounder A.J. Terrell landed on the COVID-19 list 17 days ago. Terrell was activated last week after his case did not lead to an outbreak amongst his teammates. That will hopefully happen again, though the Falcons are now a team to monitor this week ahead of Sunday's game against the Vikings. Davidson has played 69 snaps so far in 2020, notching zero sacks or pressures. 

 

Chiefs placed FB Anthony Sherman on the reserve/COVID-19 list. 

Uh oh. The Chiefs have been dodging COVID bullets after their strength and conditioning coach and practice squad QB Jordan Ta'amu came down with the virus, but Sherman presents the greatest threat so far. Clyde Edwards-Helaire's lead blocker has played 131 snaps so far this season. The next 2-3 days of testing will now be critical as the Chiefs get ready for Monday afternoon's game against the Bills.

 

Edited by The Frankman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow... huge news

Quote

The NFL has tightened its "close-contact exposure" COVID-19 rules, saying any player or staff member with close contact with a positive individual must "be isolated for at least five days, even if the person is negative and remains asymptomatic."

As NFL Network's Tom Pelissero lays out, this means "if a player tests positive for COVID-19 after Tuesday during a game week, that player and all 'high risk' close contacts would miss at least one game and potentially more based on testing, symptoms, etc." You could argue the NFL's more stringent rules should have been implemented much earlier, but the league has stopped messing around since its Titans disaster. These rules closely reflect CDC guidelines for the general public. This could come into play with the Chiefs this week after Anthony Sherman was placed on the COVID-19 list Tuesday, though Sherman himself is not positive after close contact with a positive individual. If Sherman eventually goes positive, however, all his close contacts based on contact tracing would then be ineligible for Monday's game against the Bills.  

- Tom Pelissero on Twitter

 

Edited by The Frankman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/12/2020 at 1:49 PM, ChiefD said:

Bummer about the Chiefs/Bills game starting at 4:00pm local time here on Monday. Game will be almost over before a lot of Chiefs fans get home from work. 

Was really looking forward to watching that one. But, the price we pay these days. Dang. 

Just be glad if the game is played we have KC people hitting the covid list left and right.  Not feeling confident right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, The Frankman said:

I posted something about this earlier . . . we have been trying to decipher what "close contact exposure" means and how it is defined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marlon Davidson (Atlanta Falcons) tested positive for Covid-19.  No idea if other players will have to miss the next game due to the new Covid rules regarding close contact.  I'm assuming the Falcons vs. Vikings is now something to monitor this week.

Edited by elshagon
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.