6.30.20 Your Guess On Chances The NFL Gets In 10 Regular Season Games

[Mingooch 164]

9 hours ago, BoltBacker said:

I wonder how long it will take to get the results back from "rapid testing". The CHI/ATL game was scheduled to be one of the early games so it seems like it would be fairly easy to push it back if need be.

Not sure what the NFL uses for rapid tests, but I got mine back in less than 45 mins.

[JerkyJoker 39]

The hospital that  I'm employed with, it takes about two hours for the rapid test results. 

Edited September 27, 2020 by JerkyJoker

[Just Win Baby 2,611]

On 7/3/2020 at 7:03 PM, Just Win Baby said:

Voted 90% for a few reasons:

1. So much money at stake. Money for the owners and money for the players.

2. I think most players will see it as a risk worth taking, not unlike the risks they already take to play football (e.g., concussions). I expect most would be willing to sign a waiver to play.

3. The NFL has the resources and should ultimately have the motivation to make appropriate adjustments (e.g., no fans in the stands, possibly isolating players and staff from their families, etc.). 

4. It is possible that new, effective treatments emerge at some point over the next several months.

Reason #1 is by far the most important here IMO. 

Seems like it has played out this way. I think 10+ games is a lock at this point.

[Joe Bryant 10,388]

4 hours ago, Just Win Baby said:

Seems like it has played out this way. I think 10+ games is a lock at this point.

If I've learned anything this year, it's nothing is a lock. I just want us to stay vigilant on this. They've obviously been great so far. We just need to keep it up. 

[Stompin' Tom Connors 4,244]

23 hours ago, BoltBacker said:

That was my thought as well. It was my understanding that "false positives" weren't really all that uncommon which is why sports leagues required multiple negative tests before returning. In the FFA NFL/Covid thread someone mentioned that there 14k+ negative tests between week1 and week2. If that's the case then in the first three weeks there were something like 39,999/40,000 negative Covid tests. It's just kind of amazing that there haven't been any false positives when you are talking about testing in those numbers.

The PCR test the NFL is using has shown to have a variable rate of false negatives between 2% and over 30%, with higher false negative rates occurring earlier in infection.

The rate of false positives is nearly zero, and likely only occurs due to things like sample contamination at the lab.

[Just Win Baby 2,611]

On 9/27/2020 at 6:48 PM, Joe Bryant said:

If I've learned anything this year, it's nothing is a lock. I just want us to stay vigilant on this. They've obviously been great so far. We just need to keep it up. 

Respect your take, but I am confident in my take of 10+ games being a lock.

[I-ROK 432]

1 hour ago, Just Win Baby said:

Respect your take, but I am confident in my take of 10+ games being a lock.

Same

[humpback 1,142]

Ruh-roh:

Tom Pelissero

@TomPelissero

The #Titans had three new player positives and five new personnel positives for COVID-19, sources tell me and @MikeGarafolo. Both Titans and Vikings, who hosted them Sunday, will suspend in person club activities starting today.

[FreeBaGeL 9,198]

No 2020!  Bad 2020!  You do NOT take this away from us!

[VikingFrog 774]

1 minute ago, humpback said:

Ruh-roh:

 

 

And here we go. :joker gif:

[Joe Bryant 10,388]

Just a headsup - Keep this 100% civil and cool here with zero snark or shots or victory laps. 

 

[Ministry of Pain 5,596]

1st of all the NFL and specifically the players should be applauded for having to try and provide entertainment for all of us as well as do the right thing and when asked to do so, shut down operations even if that's painful for may "Fans"

But you want to know who has it really tough? I think I don't need to answer that and it should echo exactly what JB was saying, so buckle up and just let things unfold and roll with it because thank God we are all here and all alive and can still debate Xs and Os, no reason to get upset because players, personnel and NFL Execs step in and do the right thing this week. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy 9,036]

Ugh. Was just getting really invested in having a season, too.

3-0, 2-1, (relatively) healthy rosters.

Sigh. 
 

My fingers & toes will be crossed. If there’s no Titans/Steelers game this week I’m probably hosed without my WR2. 

 

[CalBear 903]

Certainly it seems much more likely to get to 10 games than it did a few months ago. But it's going to be rocky. 

At least the NFL is explicitly a business. What college football is doing is shameful. It's ridiculous, in any year, that Notre Dame finds it important to paste South Florida 52-0, but to expose students and their families to risk, for the opportunity of getting pasted 52-0, is horrible.

The NCAA doesn't have as much in place with contact tracing and probably spottier testing; we'll see how this incident with the Titans plays out. What I'm still worried about, and expecting, is that a Sunday morning detection will get suppressed in order to avoid calling off a game. That already happened in MLB, and the stakes are higher in football.

[Dr. Octopus 16,371]

It would have been impossible for no player to get sick this season. As long as teams can control and contain it it will be fine. 

[Hot Sauce Guy 9,036]

26 minutes ago, Ministry of Pain said:

1st of all the NFL and specifically the players should be applauded for having to try and provide entertainment for all of us as well as do the right thing and when asked to do so, shut down operations even if that's painful for may "Fans"

But you want to know who has it really tough? I think I don't need to answer that and it should echo exactly what JB was saying, so buckle up and just let things unfold and roll with it because thank God we are all here and all alive and can still debate Xs and Os, no reason to get upset because players, personnel and NFL Execs step in and do the right thing this week. 

I agree with much of this.

However it should also be stated that the NFL had the better part of a year to figure out a way to have an uninterrupted season, and instead of doing some sort of bubble like the NBA, NHL & Soccer, they opted to follow the model of MLB, which has had several outbreaks & interruptions of play. They don’t have 60 games, nor could they do a double header if they had to. Yet that’s the model they chose to follow. To me, that’s a poor decision. 

They impressed upon teams the seriousness so poorly that millions in fines have been levied for failing to follow mask protocol. 

So yes - credit where due. They are doing the right thing. It’s probably due to liability concerns, but it’s the right thing. That said, C- for allowing fans in some stadiums knowing full well that this is airborne/aerosolized, and for attempting to execute the season without isolation of players and personnel. 

Just MHO. Keeping it cool, per Joe.

:kicks jukebox. blueberry hill starts playing: 

aaaaayye 

Edited September 29, 2020 by Hot Sauce Guy

[IHEARTFF 1,118]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Octopus said:

It would have been impossible for no player to get sick this season. As long as teams can control and contain it it will be fine. 

Hope so. We'll see how bad this situation is from Tenn/Minny.

[Anarchy99 6,157]

If the league decides to postpone the game between the Steelers and Titans on Sunday . . .

- The Titans have a Week 7 bye
- The Steelers play the Ravens in Week 7
- The Steelers and Ravens have Week 8 byes.
- The league could  move the Steelers-Titans game to Week 7 and the Steelers-Ravens game to Week 8.
- The Ravens would end up with a Week 7 bye instead of Week 8.
- Both the Titans and Steelers end up having a Week 4 bye.

[Mr. Know-It-All 662]

2 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:

If the league decides to postpone the game between the Steelers and Titans on Sunday . . .

- The Titans have a Week 7 bye
- The Steelers play the Ravens in Week 7
- The Steelers and Ravens have Week 8 byes.
- The league could  move the Steelers-Titans game to Week 7 and the Steelers-Ravens game to Week 8.
- The Ravens would end up with a Week 7 bye instead of Week 8.
- Both the Titans and Steelers end up having a Week 4 bye.

Makes way to much sense in this crazy Covid world.  I hope that is what they do.  What about the Vikings though - are they also shut down due to contact tracing?

[Titans_fan 118]

1 minute ago, Mr. Know-It-All said:

Makes way to much sense in this crazy Covid world.  I hope that is what they do.  What about the Vikings though - are they also shut down due to contact tracing?

This is my question as well.  I can only assume this means a player involved in the Tennessee-Minnesota game tested positive?  Or is it just precautionary until testing is complete?

[Tool 1,588]

Well was fun while it lasted...

obviously peoples health more important but fantasy leagues could turn into a sh!t show

[Hot Sauce Guy 9,036]

3 minutes ago, Tool said:

Well was fun while it lasted...

obviously peoples health more important but fantasy leagues could turn into a sh!t show

My league came to a consensus: if the season isn’t finished or becomes a complete 🙂 show, no one owes anything beyond the website fees.

That said, we have in-season awards. Naturally a team in my league scored so outrageously high that they set the mark for both “AWB” (butt whoopin bonus) and Single Game High Score. As both marks were the highest in league history, this should have secured him $50 for each. 

Instead he may get $0, which sucks. 

[Titans_fan 118]

2 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

My league came to a consensus: if the season isn’t finished or becomes a complete 🙂 show, no one owes anything beyond the website fees.

That said, we have in-season awards. Naturally a team in my league scored so outrageously high that they set the mark for both “AWB” (butt whoopin bonus) and Single Game High Score. As both marks were the highest in league history, this should have secured him $50 for each. 

Instead he may get $0, which sucks. 

My league had 7 weeks as the minimum, so as long as that many weeks get completed we'll still pay out 100% of the prize fund.  We have weekly awards as well, and I feel the pain of possibly losing some of that money.

[Gally 4,858]

4 minutes ago, Titans_fan said:

My league had 7 weeks as the minimum, so as long as that many weeks get completed we'll still pay out 100% of the prize fund.  We have weekly awards as well, and I feel the pain of possibly losing some of that money.

We did the same but the cutoff is 10 weeks or more.  As long as leagues had a plan in place there should be no issues at all.  Everyone knew upfront what the rules would be so it should be clear. 

[Tool 1,588]

Yeah my leagues have a plan just gonna kinda suck when games are cancelled and gonna come down to who misses that week. But that’s the way it goes I guess.

[SoBeDad 2,293]

Was it feasible to quarantine all players and staff from outside contact during a 17 week season? My friend worked in the West Texas oil fields during the recession and didn't see his family for many months. 

[Anarchy99 6,157]

30 minutes ago, Titans_fan said:

This is my question as well.  I can only assume this means a player involved in the Tennessee-Minnesota game tested positive?  Or is it just precautionary until testing is complete?

Minnesota is also shut down as a precautionary measure but they have not had any positive tests as of yet. The work around would have to be:

- Minnesota vs. Houston moved from Week 4 to Week 8.
- Green Bay vs. Houston moved from Week 8 to Week 7.
- Minnesota bye moved from Week 7 to Week 4.
- Houston bye moved from Week 8 to Week 4.

But between the Tennessee vs. Pittsburgh and Minnesota vs. Houston games, there are relatively easy fixes.

[Hot Sauce Guy 9,036]

Now they’re reporting that games may be rescheduled to a later date -or- pushed out to MNF.

the latter would be a disaster for FF since they could push them to MN, then decide to reschedule to a later date leaving managers stranded with 0 point players in the lineup.  

[Hot Sauce Guy 9,036]

17 minutes ago, SoBeDad said:

Was it feasible to quarantine all players and staff from outside contact during a 17 week season?

Of course it was. But this is the NFL. Billionaire owners make their own rules. They aren’t going to do a bubble if they can make more $ by not doing a bubble. 

And not to make this into a political topic,  but most owners lean right. So it’s possible they were “influenced” to not do a bubble for appearance sake, since the pandemic was still being downplayed when a lot of these decisions were made. 

And of course theres arrogance. Everyone believes they can pull something off, no matter how complex, right up until they can’t. If 20 years of project management taught me anything it’s that you simply can’t plan for everything to go right. That’s why budgets are overestimated & timelines buffered with “fudge factor”. Then if you deliver on time and on-budget, even with delays you’re a hero. 

just speculating but I see no reason they couldn’t have done a bubble. 

[Payne 562]

9 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

Now they’re reporting that games may be rescheduled to a later date -or- pushed out to MNF.

the latter would be a disaster for FF since they could push them to MN, then decide to reschedule to a later date leaving managers stranded with 0 point players in the lineup.  

With no practice until Saturday, I don't see how they can play a game this week at all.

[Hot Sauce Guy 9,036]

Just now, Payne said:

With no practice until Saturday, I don't see how they can play a game this week at all.

It’s possible. Players play after more practicing all week. 

It wouldn’t be any sloppier than that Jags/Dolphins game.

[zeeshan2 350]

Quote

CBS Sports' Jason La Canfora reports the league notified the Titans, Steelers, Vikings, and Texans that it may be forced to reschedule both contests for Week 4.

The league reportedly told the Steelers to proceed with game preparations against the Titans, which were forced to shut down its facilities until Saturday following eight new positive tests among the organization. Minnesota's facitilites, which provided 0 positive tests as of Tuesday afternoon, were also evacuated until further notice. The NFL is still discussing plans for postponement which include pushing both games to Monday/Tuesday night or rescheduling bye weeks to assist with games in Weeks 7 and 8. 

https://twitter.com/JasonLaCanfora/status/1310970100451889152

[Anarchy99 6,157]

1 minute ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

Of course it was. But this is the NFL. Billionaire owners make their own rules. They aren’t going to do a bubble if they can make more $ by not doing a bubble. 

And not to make this into a political topic,  but most owners lean right. So it’s possible they were “influenced” to not do a bubble for appearance sake, since the pandemic was still being downplayed when a lot of these decisions were made. 

And of course theres arrogance. Everyone believes they can pull something off, no matter how complex, right up until they can’t. If 20 years of project management taught me anything it’s that you simply can’t plan for everything to go right. That’s why budgets are overestimated & timelines buffered with “fudge factor”. Then if you deliver on time and on-budget, even with delays you’re a hero. 

just speculating but I see no reason they couldn’t have done a bubble. 

There's a big difference in having a bubble for the NBA for 2-3 months at a single location with a decreasing number of teams (with way smaller rosters) than having multiple bubbles to support more total teams, way more team personnel, and for twice as long. I felt all along having a bubble or bubbles would be the best route to take for football, but apparently that really wasn't discussed all that much and ruled out as an option by the league and the owners. They also would have had a hard time trying to schedule the games the same way they do in a regular season (would have to play teams in your bubble and not keep switching locations).

[IHEARTFF 1,118]

2 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

It’s possible. Players play after more practicing all week. 

It wouldn’t be any sloppier than that Jags/Dolphins game.

The broncos and Jets are going to practice, but I predict it won't be evident that they did so on Thursday.

[FreeBaGeL 9,198]

Doesn't the NFL have plenty of fast, accurate tests at their disposal?

This thing is such a problem for us out in the wild because we may become infected without knowing it, and it's not like we are all getting tested before we go out in public every time because we don't have access to that ease of testing.  If all the NFL players are getting tested every day, presumably couldn't the ones that test negative still play?

[Anarchy99 6,157]

1 minute ago, FreeBaGeL said:

Doesn't the NFL have plenty of fast, accurate tests at their disposal?

This thing is such a problem for us out in the wild because we may become infected without knowing it, and it's not like we are all getting tested before we go out in public every time because we don't have access to that ease of testing.  If all the NFL players are getting tested every day, presumably couldn't the ones that test negative still play?

Just because someone tests negative today doesn't mean that person wasn't exposed and won't test positive tomorrow or the next day or the next day. The problem is, the medical community hasn't figured out how long it takes for someone to be considered contagious, how long it takes to show symptoms, and how long someone has to quarantine (and that has been varied between 7 and 14 days depending on a variety of factors and what the desired outcome is). The point being, it is probably too soon for Vikings players to test positive and a number of them could still test positive down the road.

[FreeBaGeL 9,198]

1 minute ago, Anarchy99 said:

Just because someone tests negative today doesn't mean that person wasn't exposed and won't test positive tomorrow or the next day or the next day. The problem is, the medical community hasn't figured out how long it takes for someone to be considered contagious, how long it takes to show symptoms, and how long someone has to quarantine (and that has been varied between 7 and 14 days depending on a variety of factors and what the desired outcome is). The point being, it is probably too soon for Vikings players to test positive and a number of them could still test positive down the road.

I'm aware that it could take 14+ days for symptoms to show up, if they even show up at all, and how that was one of the biggest problems with this thing spreading so quickly.

I wasn't aware of anything saying it would take time for a positive test to show up.

IE could someone get the virus on Tuesday, test negative for it on Sunday, but still be contagious on Sunday?  I hadn't seen anything out there implying that.

[Anarchy99 6,157]

1 minute ago, FreeBaGeL said:

I'm aware that it could take 14+ days for symptoms to show up, if they even show up at all, and how that was one of the biggest problems with this thing spreading so quickly.

I wasn't aware of anything saying it would take time for a positive test to show up.

IE could someone get the virus on Tuesday, test negative for it on Sunday, but still be contagious on Sunday?  I hadn't seen anything out there implying that.

I don't think anyone knows with 100% certainty what the parameters are. But I believe the league set things up in the manner which you described. The "show must go on" with whomever tested negative on Sunday suiting up and those that tested positive (or who were exposed) getting added to the COVID list and sitting out. At least that was the stance they appeared to take whenever the topic came up. I suppose it might be possible to test negative in the morning and positive in the evening, but that is above my pay grade and something I have no medical knowledge of at all.

I do remember with the baseball COVID cases that several teams had players test negative one day and positive the next and more positives the next few days. I don't think they were tested twice in the same day, though.

It may be difficult to force teams not to practice and then figure out who is available the day of the game. If teams have 6 offensive lineman test positive, are teams expected to play people out of position? I guess we'll find out . . .

[Payne 562]

I always thought if you had it, you tested positive. Symptom took days to appear.

IF it takes days for the virus to show up in your system (and test positive), then I have misunderstood this virus all along. 

[Anarchy99 6,157]

1 minute ago, Payne said:

I always thought if you had it, you tested positive. Symptom took days to appear.

IF it takes days for the virus to show up in your system (and test positive), then I have misunderstood this virus all along. 

This article is from June and says it takes 3-5 days after exposure to test positive. I don't know if there is new / better / more accurate information since then.

[Payne 562]

Just now, Anarchy99 said:

This article is from June and says it takes 3-5 days after exposure to test positive. I don't know if there is new / better / more accurate information since then.

I took my daughter to get tested the day after another lifeguard tested positive earlier this summer and she was back at work a few days later. They all were.

 

[Anarchy99 6,157]

3 minutes ago, Payne said:

I took my daughter to get tested the day after another lifeguard tested positive earlier this summer and she was back at work a few days later. They all were.

 

I am not an infectious disease expert and am just an average joe, but it sounds like your daughter tested negative and didn't catch it. But things might have been different if she ended up catching it . . . so who knows at what point she would have tested positive.

My son is at college and they are tested twice a week. Someone in one of his classes tested positive. Oddly enough, they didn't quarantine everyone, only people that sat within so many feet of that student (who then were isolated for 2 weeks). He didn't sit near enough to be quarantined. No one ended up testing positive. It seems like every organization has a different plan and policy. The NFL hasn't really made public their master plan (only providing a basic overview without much detail). Maybe they will outline more of their approach this week.

[Payne 562]

8 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:

I am not an infectious disease expert and am just an average joe, but it sounds like your daughter tested negative and didn't catch it. But things might have been different if she ended up catching it . . . so who knows at what point she would have tested positive.

My son is at college and they are tested twice a week. Someone in one of his classes tested positive. Oddly enough, they didn't quarantine everyone, only people that sat within so many feet of that student (who then were isolated for 2 weeks). He didn't sit near enough to be quarantined. No one ended up testing positive. It seems like every organization has a different plan and policy. The NFL hasn't really made public their master plan (only providing a basic overview without much detail). Maybe they will outline more of their approach this week.

My wife reminded me there was 5 days between when she was in contact and when she was tested. My mistake. Still didn't realize that was the case. I assumed wrong. 

[CalBear 903]

2 minutes ago, Payne said:

My wife reminded me there was 5 days between when she was in contact and when she was tested. My mistake. Still didn't realize that was the case. I assumed wrong. 

The false negative rate on tests is pretty high, and extremely high early in the infection. One study showed that the false negative rate was as high as 60% 1-2 days after exposure, and still 20% five days after exposure. 

Testing every day improves the chances of catching something before it's very infectious. Even 60%*40%*20% is 4.8% which is not a terrible false negative rate. But there will be things that slip through regardless of how often you test and how good your contact tracing is. You just hope to minimize it.

My fear is that the incentives are so strong to ignore the problem that owners will find ways to suppress or skirt testing or results. Look at how they've treated head injuries over the years.

[Hot Sauce Guy 9,036]

8 minutes ago, CalBear said:

The false negative rate on tests is pretty high, and extremely high early in the infection. One study showed that the false negative rate was as high as 60% 1-2 days after exposure, and still 20% five days after exposure. 

Testing every day improves the chances of catching something before it's very infectious. Even 60%*40%*20% is 4.8% which is not a terrible false negative rate. But there will be things that slip through regardless of how often you test and how good your contact tracing is. You just hope to minimize it.

My fear is that the incentives are so strong to ignore the problem that owners will find ways to suppress or skirt testing or results. Look at how they've treated head injuries over the years.

Also with false positives - after one has had it, they test to determine when you no longer have to isolate. 

And the early testing was picking up dead virus.

as I understand it the testing is much improved since. it’s a process.

that said, never underestimate simple human selfishness and stupidity. At the farmers market on Sunday, a market regular was telling my neighbor (a juice vendor) that he had to get tested on Monday (today) because he’d learned he had become exposed to someone who had it. 

He proceeded to purchase a juice, take off his 🤬 mask in front of my booth, and start drinking it. 

I had to ask him to please move along to an area away from people if he’s going to take his mask off as masks are required everywhere in the farmers market. 

but it begs the question of WHAT THE HELL he was doing out and about at a populated place like a farmers market when he’d been exposed, knew he’d been exposed, and was waiting to get tested? 

His need to go shopping at his favorite market outweighed his concern for humanity. Which is a big part of why we’re in the position we are in as a country.  

[Dr. Octopus 16,371]

How man times will Joe need to ask people to keep this 100% on football before people listen?

[Hot Sauce Guy 9,036]

8 minutes ago, Dr. Octopus said:

How man times will Joe need to ask people to keep this 100% on football before people listen?

I was typing my response before he posted that. When I clicked “submit” his post was there. 

I thought the topic was about COVID & the NFL. It’s hard to separate the NFL from the rest of it sometimes especially when discussing testing & efficacy which isn’t strictly NFL, but is NFL-related as they do testing.

but I will do my best. 

I certainly was not ignoring @Joe Bryant - just crossed posts. When you’re typing you’re not refreshing. 

ETA: his post was actually in another topic, too, so there’s that. 

Edited September 29, 2020 by Hot Sauce Guy

[Anarchy99 6,157]

5 minutes ago, Dr. Octopus said:

How man times will Joe need to ask people to keep this 100% on football before people listen?

He said to keep it 100% civil and cool with zero snark or shots or victory laps. I missed the part where he said to keep it 100% on football.

[Hot Sauce Guy 9,036]

2 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:

He said to keep it 100% civil and cool with zero snark or shots or victory laps. I missed the part where he said to keep it 100% on football.

Exactly. I thought it was going pretty well in here. A very respectful discussion.  
 

@Anarchy99 - just saw he asked that in a different topic. 

Edited September 29, 2020 by Hot Sauce Guy

[Dr. Octopus 16,371]

On 7/29/2020 at 9:53 AM, Joe Bryant said:

Agreed. Please keep this thread 100% NFL. We have an entire forum for the political stuff. Thanks. 

Here for one.

ETA: and the other was in the Titans post but is applicable here as well since this is the Shark Pool. 

Edited September 29, 2020 by Dr. Octopus