What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

NFL and Covid Issues - Initially Asked in Shark Pool To Keep it 100% NFL (3 Viewers)

Wildcat said:
I disagree with much of what you wrote. We all could’ve foreseen this prior to the season starting so mid-season rule changes shouldn’t be needed. Just poor planning on the part of leagues that didn’t think of this. There was potential for this to happen to every/any NFL team, hence the bad luck.  There isn’t an agenda to target specific teams
Click to expand...
So again; using a bad thing to set a bad precedent so that bad things keep happening.

the epitome of bad management.

I prefer to be proactive with my league & fix a problem so it doesn't keep hurting folks.

and we voted for it, then implemented it when a game was first announced as being in jeopardy, long before it was cancelled last week. Since nothing had happened prior to that, we collectively had no idea this was how the league would handle it.

no one knew that, so contrary to your assertion that we should all be psychic, we didn’t implement it in the preseason. You simply cannot anticipate everything. We planned for cancellations (extra roster moves, 2 IR spots, etc). We did not plan for games being moved from Sunday to Monday to possibly Tuesday to maybe being cancelled.

To suggest this was a failure of our league’s planning is beyond preposterous. 

 
Bri said:
Not one of them has been positive so it's solely about rule breaking and informing of rules. 

The Titans (as you quoted me) probs have been asymptomatic people spreading and (if we ignore docs n tests and all the NFL offers) in real life we'd just be calling that bad luck. Your wife has no symptoms but gives you coronavirus you're probably thinking bad luck because you would of course have your guard down around her while out in public you're all cognizant of every potential way. Similarly, the Titans were (started before workout) following protocols and getting negative tests so they felt safe in their controlled environment on the team plane. 

I couldn't be more in favor of using that 15 minute Quidel test. Test em every hour, morning noon and night....go nuts. This 24 hour test is not cutting it
Click to expand...
Thanks for the insight.  

BTW-if it's true that the positive test from this morning hasn't been in the building, do you think the Tuesday game will happen?

 
Navin Johnson said:
Because those 1 or 2 guys have been in close contact with the 60 other guys?
Click to expand...
And in college 1-2 players come in contact with a ton more then NFL players do. Va Tech played on, Florida is asking to have 90k fans next week. 
College is moving on and time to the NFL to do the same. If a player tests positive he don’t play. WTF we shutting everything down for a 1 PS player testing positive? 

 
KingPrawn said:
I had read on Twitter that Gilmore and Newton had dinner together during the week
Click to expand...
Just curious if eating dinner should be considered a violation of league protocols. I brought this up in other threads. Neither player had tested positive at that point. If the league does not want folks doing daily activities of living, then force them to all live in hotels and make bubbles. There is a huge difference in what NE has done to contain things compared to TEN. They have been hosting players at a hotel at the stadium. They have canceled in person practices when they haven’t had to. They tried to warn the league that forcing them to play against KC could make The situation worse. They have been consistently wearing masks and taking things seriously. They split up their personnel into different planes when they went to KC to keep people that had been in close proximity to Cam away from the others. There is no fool proof way to keep the virus from spreading, no matter what the protocols are.  

 
Hot Sauce Guy said:
So again; using a bad thing to set a bad precedent so that bad things keep happening.

the epitome of bad management.

I prefer to be proactive with my league & fix a problem so it doesn't keep hurting folks.

and we voted for it, then implemented it when a game was first announced as being in jeopardy, long before it was cancelled last week. Since nothing had happened prior to that, we collectively had no idea this was how the league would handle it.

no one knew that, so contrary to your assertion that we should all be psychic, we didn’t implement it in the preseason. You simply cannot anticipate everything. We planned for cancellations (extra roster moves, 2 IR spots, etc). We did not plan for games being moved from Sunday to Monday to possibly Tuesday to maybe being cancelled.

To suggest this was a failure of our league’s planning is beyond preposterous. 
Click to expand...
What is your league’s plan if a positive test or two happen and the Chargers/Saints game gets postponed. I guess owners of players in that game are SOL?

 
PennStater77 said:
And in college 1-2 players come in contact with a ton more then NFL players do. Va Tech played on, Florida is asking to have 90k fans next week. 
College is moving on and time to the NFL to do the same. If a player tests positive he don’t play. WTF we shutting everything down for a 1 PS player testing positive? 
Click to expand...
And?  You actually think this is an acceptable solution?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Man In The Box said:
What is your league’s plan if a positive test or two happen and the Chargers/Saints game gets postponed. I guess owners of players in that game are SOL?
Click to expand...
Same contingency plan. They have to post up what their subs are before the subs play. 

It’s a PITA for me to make the swaps after the fact, but it’s a pretty simple solution. 

 
I think there's too many people who are of the opinion that "well we didn't have this rule last week so I'm against having that kind of rule change now". That's a very odd sentiment during a time where the NFL is changing everything (remember: every comment from NFL higher ups has started with "It's a fluid situation"), why do we as fantasy commishes have to be rigid? The best leagues are the ones that are hands off but when there's an issue move quickly and decisively to address it and close off loopholes; flexibility is the key. If the commish doesn't want to do the work have him anoint a co-commish to track that stuff.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hot Sauce Guy said:
Same contingency plan. They have to post up what their subs are before the subs play. 

It’s a PITA for me to make the swaps after the fact, but it’s a pretty simple solution. 
Click to expand...
Even if the news of positive tests breaks after all the other games are done? You are allowing owners of players in that game to send you a list even though it’s not currently in jeopardy?

 
Man In The Box said:
Even if the news of positive tests breaks after all the other games are done? You are allowing owners of players in that game to send you a list even though it’s not currently in jeopardy?
Click to expand...
How is that possible now? Again, if I understand HSG, you'd have the sub request only for games on Monday or Tuesday/games that had been rescheduled and are in danger of being postponed off that week. The request would be before kickoff Sunday.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Man In The Box said:
Even if the news of positive tests breaks after all the other games are done? You are allowing owners of players in that game to send you a list even though it’s not currently in jeopardy?
Click to expand...
No. Teams have to post contingency players before kickoffs. 

so we have started doing it for SNF/MNF games preemptively just in case. 

 
The Frankman said:
How is that possible now?
Click to expand...
It’s not, because testing is done early in the day, but I get what they’re saying. It is theoretically possible a player falls ill before kickoff resulting in a last min cancellation. 

Like I said, my leaguemates are just posting up contingencies for prime time.

 
The Frankman said:
I think there's too many people who are of the opinion that "well we didn't have this rule last week so I'm against having that kind of rule change now". That's a very odd sentiment during a time where the NFL is changing everything (remember: every comment from NFL higher ups has started with "It's a fluid situation"), why do we as fantasy commishes have to be rigid? The best leagues are the ones that are hands off but when there's an issue move quickly and decisively to address it and close off loopholes. 
Click to expand...
I agree with this completely.  Only thing I would be obstinate about is no changing the rules for Week 5 - if not already implemented then no mid stream changes.  But for Week 6 and going forward I would have no problem with making a change like most have proposed as long as a majority of the league approved.

 
icehouse said:
Y’all still taking the risk on Buf/Ten players this week or moving on?
Click to expand...
After extensive thought, I have Henry in one spot where I *really* don't have anything else that's going to help me get a win, and I really need one. I'm leaving him in my lineup. I think the news about the staffer being out of the building is actually quite encouraging. Plus the risk of having a 2nd bye for Ten is going to be very high priority for the NFL. 

But, in several other spots with Henry I do have other options and I'm rolling with them. Could be talked out of it in the next 1.5 hours, but I have Slayton in a couple flex spots over him, Gibson in one (at RB2), debating hard on Henderson vs Henry in another, D Freeman another, and yet one more I'm going Jefferson in a flex. 

 
The Frankman said:
I think there's too many people who are of the opinion that "well we didn't have this rule last week so I'm against having that kind of rule change now". That's a very odd sentiment during a time where the NFL is changing everything (remember: every comment from NFL higher ups has started with "It's a fluid situation"), why do we as fantasy commishes have to be rigid? The best leagues are the ones that are hands off but when there's an issue move quickly and decisively to address it and close off loopholes. If the commish doesn't want to do the work have him anoint a co-commish to track that stuff.
Click to expand...
This is the classic project manager approach. Flexibility is key. When an unforeseen circumstance happens, take proactive measures to resolve before it becomes a bigger problem: 

It’s a little more work for me, but my league is happy as a result.

As you said, the league is changing the rules on us weekly - we can’t anticipate their unprecedented changes and I refused to let a bad situation become precedent for future bad situations. That’s a lazy approach IMO. 

 
themeistersinger said:
I agree with this completely.  Only thing I would be obstinate about is no changing the rules for Week 5 - if not already implemented then no mid stream changes.  But for Week 6 and going forward I would have no problem with making a change like most have proposed as long as a majority of the league approved.
Click to expand...
Couldn't disagree more. Anything less than unanimous vote for any in-season changes is just wrong.

Chances are  the "majority" approving the change are ones being directly affected by postponed/delayed games. That's a skewed incentive to vote for an adjustment.

Beyond that you are punishing "no change" members for honoring what they agreed to at the beginning of the season.

 
Man In The Box said:
Even if the news of positive tests breaks after all the other games are done? You are allowing owners of players in that game to send you a list even though it’s not currently in jeopardy?
Click to expand...
We are on CBS so everyone is defaulting to Eisenberg's weekly ranking as a default.  If you want to prioritize differently, you need to do so via dm to your opponent and the commish.  If a game is canceled/rescheduled then next man up is taken and inserted.

 
The Frankman said:
I think there's too many people who are of the opinion that "well we didn't have this rule last week so I'm against having that kind of rule change now".
Click to expand...
That's been my observation for many, many years. As HSG has said a couple times in this thread, I don't understand why making a change to mitigate a problem is so hard for some people to get on board with. Selfishness, I guess.

 
Have a feeling that the players are going to have enough of this. Vibe I feel is that they are feeling used and it's unsafe.

Would not surprise me if there is a player strike on this.

 
I am thinking I may pick up Bridgewater and play him over Josh Allen.  Only reason I am tempted to keep Allen in is because my opponent currently has Henry in.

 
icehouse said:
Y’all still taking the risk on Buf/Ten players this week or moving on?
Click to expand...
In my Superflex league where we have provisional lineups, I have Allen in the lineup but posted a contingency in case that game doesn't happen.

In my league where we don't have provisional lineups, I have benched Diggs. 

 
moleculo said:
I think it's possible that the Tenn coach didn't catch it from his team, but from the community.  Without getting political, some people take this more serious than others.  Feels to me like there may be an organizational culture with the Titans to downplay. That's all I'm going to say about that.
Click to expand...
People that take it serious can catch the virus too.

 
Stoneworker said:
Couldn't disagree more. Anything less than unanimous vote for any in-season changes is just wrong.

Chances are  the "majority" approving the change are ones being directly affected by postponed/delayed games. That's a skewed incentive to vote for an adjustment.

Beyond that you are punishing "no change" members for honoring what they agreed to at the beginning of the season.
Click to expand...
Chances are the owners voting against it are doing so only because they are not immediately affected, which is even more short sighted.

 
icehouse said:
Y’all still taking the risk on Buf/Ten players this week or moving on?
Click to expand...
Moved Henry to Flex and dropped a patriots player for a WR in the NO/SD game on MNF. If there is news officially moving BUF/TEN out of this week before the second slate of games today, I can flex in a guy playing later today. If there is news tomorrow, I'll flex in the NO/SD player. 

My other RB was Melvin Gordon, so, it's a dance.

 
I had to sit AJ Brown in a smash spot because I have no sub rule in my league. Funny thing... the opponent I'm playing this week stacked GB players on Byes this week so if one of his guys had a postponement he couldn't even use the rule (he has no playable bench). Guess how he voted on the sub replacement rule... :whistle:

People can be so short-shortsightedly selfish...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bri said:
Not one of them has been positive so it's solely about rule breaking and informing of rules. 

The Titans (as you quoted me) probs have been asymptomatic people spreading and (if we ignore docs n tests and all the NFL offers) in real life we'd just be calling that bad luck. Your wife has no symptoms but gives you coronavirus you're probably thinking bad luck because you would of course have your guard down around her while out in public you're all cognizant of every potential way. Similarly, the Titans were (started before workout) following protocols and getting negative tests so they felt safe in their controlled environment on the team plane. 

I couldn't be more in favor of using that 15 minute Quidel test. Test em every hour, morning noon and night....go nuts. This 24 hour test is not cutting it
Click to expand...
24 positive tests in one organization isn’t bad luck or testing issues, it’s a failure to establish and follow good protocols.

Testing was never meant to be a replacement for distancing, mask use, contact tracing and quarantining. But from the Titans actions and Tannehill’s latest statement it sure seems that they thought that testing DID replace those things and now everyone is paying the price for that.

 
Scheffter indicating the league is "optimistic" that the TN/BUF game will be played.

How can you be optimistic?

Were they optimistic that NE/DEN would be played?

Don't see how these situations are that different.

 
I can easily replace Smith at TE with Schultz.

The problem is at flex: I have Henry. Do I risk starting him, or go with Chark (need to make that decision soon) or Jefferson (at least I'd have until tonight). I'll probably go with Chark.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Insein
Moderna working on new therapeutic to treat Heart Issues
Replies
26
Views
571
The Z Machine
The Z Machine
Joe Bryant
Please Read - Big Change For The Forum - Asking For Your Grace - Forum Offline 8/1
2
Replies
73
Views
2K
eoMMan
E
LawFitz
COVID UPDATE: What is the truth?
5 6 7
Replies
307
Views
9K
LawFitz
LawFitz

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top