Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

PIT-TEN To Be Postponed


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 294
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I talked to my guy at Yahoo and he said the PIT TEN bye week designation was just a pre-emptive thing until the league makes a decision. 

All the myriad COVID scenarios is why our Yahoo league just gave everyone 5 extra bench spots and called it a day. It's going to be an unfair year. It just is. Commissioner interventions wil

Let's not if that's ok. Joe has told us countless times not to get into these things. Maybe we can all agree to say there is some kind of delay in time associated with this thing and that they're (Ten

49 minutes ago, bcnfinance said:

What could a reschedule even look like if teams have separate bye weeks?

Possibly what was described above: Steelers/Ravens game moved to Week 8, Steelers/Titans play Week 7.

Edited by apalmer
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SpruceGoose said:

Now they are saying game is postponed till later in the season?  

Basically anyone w/ players on these teams is screwed.   I have both RBs 😑.

Cant even put them on the IR on ESPN.

Yeah ESPN posted a message on the one page basically saying that it should be treated as a bye week for those players. It very well might be their bye week but still sucks to have this sneak up on you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what CBS Sportsline has on the matter: 

The NFL as recently as Wednesday was planning on playing the Pittsburgh Steelers-Tennessee Titans game Monday night from Nashville after nine members (four players) of the Titans tested positive for COVID-19 earlier this week and forced the postponement from Sunday. However, there reportedly were two more positive Titans tests Thursday (one player), and now that game will be postponed completely from Week 4 and pushed to later in the season.

The league may have to seriously juggle when these teams play considering the Titans have a bye in Week 7 and the Steelers in Week 8. There is one potential simple solution as the Steelers are scheduled to play the Ravens in Week 7 – Baltimore also has a Week 8 bye. The NFL could choose to move the Steelers-Titans matchup to Week 7, and the Steelers-Ravens matchup to Week 8. Baltimore's bye would then be moved to Week 7.

 

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

Here's what CBS Sportsline has on the matter: 

The NFL as recently as Wednesday was planning on playing the Pittsburgh Steelers-Tennessee Titans game Monday night from Nashville after nine members (four players) of the Titans tested positive for COVID-19 earlier this week and forced the postponement from Sunday. However, there reportedly were two more positive Titans tests Thursday (one player), and now that game will be postponed completely from Week 4 and pushed to later in the season.

The league may have to seriously juggle when these teams play considering the Titans have a bye in Week 7 and the Steelers in Week 8. There is one potential simple solution as the Steelers are scheduled to play the Ravens in Week 7 – Baltimore also has a Week 8 bye. The NFL could choose to move the Steelers-Titans matchup to Week 7, and the Steelers-Ravens matchup to Week 8. Baltimore's bye would then be moved to Week 7.

 

TBH i wouldn’t plan anything more than week to week at this point.  i think this is a reason the nfl has no stated policy.  they are gonna just adjust accordingly as they go along.  i wonder if there are more positives requiring cancellations if 2 teams wind up playing this year that otherwise weren’t scheduled, just to get 16 games in for each.....

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

TBH i wouldn’t plan anything more than week to week at this point.  i think this is a reason the nfl has no stated policy.  they are gonna just adjust accordingly as they go along.  i wonder if there are more positives requiring cancellations if 2 teams wind up playing this year that otherwise weren’t scheduled, just to get 16 games in for each.....

There is no requirement for all teams to play an even number of games. We are just accustomed to a unified schedule. Back in the early years of the league, some teams played 5 games and some played 12 (and all points in between). Standings, playoff births, and seeding is based on winning percentage (not total wins).  The league has monetary incentive to play as many games as possible, but it has no obligation to try to get teams to play the same number of games. 

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

The NFL is rescheduling the #Steelers-#Titans game to later in the season after an additional Titans player and one personnel tested positive for COVID-19. It will not be played Week 4.

Maybe I'm missing something, but this feels like an overreaction to me. Couldn't they just remove those people, and then if everyone else tests negative, on say Friday/Saturday, then proceed as normal just without those guys. 

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

Maybe I'm missing something, but this feels like an overreaction to me. Couldn't they just remove those people, and then if everyone else tests negative, on say Friday/Saturday, then proceed as normal just without those guys. 

It is potentially a season killer unless they clamp this down pronto.

The tests have a lag time of up to 7 days which would mean a positive result 'could' pop-up during the game that was scheduled 'potentially' infective more players on both TEN and PIT.

A 'late' positive result just happened yesterday with another TEN player who was no listed as positive earlier in the week so we don't know how many other 'potential' TEN players will be labeled positive.

I think you would agree that a late 'positive' would be a disaster especially if another team, Pittsburgh had a number of players test positive had they played this Sunday.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, travdogg said:

Maybe I'm missing something, but this feels like an overreaction to me. Couldn't they just remove those people, and then if everyone else tests negative, on say Friday/Saturday, then proceed as normal just without those guys. 

Not really and/or it isn’t that simple. It takes 3-7 days for people to test positive after being exposed and they are contagious in that time. So players that tested negative that would later test positive would potentially be spreading it. As the league is finding out, testing players too soon can be a problem and is resulting in more players testing positive across multiple days. 

That’s why people have to quarantine. If there is one person that ends up testing positive that plays in a game, that could derail another franchise. As the article someone posted showed, the league’s default was that anyone that was exposed would test positive in the least amount of time possible.

The league will have to re-evaluate what their protocols are moving forward, but they had hoped that it would be as simple as anyone positive would sit and anyone negative would play. But science may have something different to say about that. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Joe Summer said:

Fantasy sites are really dropping the ball by not allowing these players to be placed on the IR slots. This isn't the same as a BYE week (which is something that we know about and plan around from day one).

Except Texans and Steelers will end up having this week as their bye week. So technically they are on a bye. Admittedly, fantasy owners could not plan for it and are left scrambling to find replacements with only a couple of days until the game was scheduled.

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

Maybe I'm missing something, but this feels like an overreaction to me. Couldn't they just remove those people, and then if everyone else tests negative, on say Friday/Saturday, then proceed as normal just without those guys. 

No. One can be exposed and test negative for many days and then test positive. I think on average it takes 5 days or less; but my understanding is that it can take up to 14 days to test positive after an exposure.  As far as I’m concerned I’m a little surprised that the Vikings Texans game hasn’t gotten postponed to Monday or Tuesday 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Doug B said:

In retrospect, the league probably should have given each team two bye weeks this season.

The problem in this is that unless ALL TEAMS had the SAME bye weeks, rescheduling would be a logistical nightmare. And there’s no way that the league would want two weeks without football. The networks would have screamed bloody murder. 

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

It is potentially a season killer unless they clamp this down pronto.

The tests have a lag time of up to 7 days ...

I agree with you, but I thought that all the NFL tests were virtually insta-tests (results within a few hours, at worst).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Doug B said:

I agree with you, but I thought that all the NFL tests were virtually insta-tests (results within a few hours, at worst).

The speed of the test results does not account for the lag it takes for people to test positive. Most people test negative for 3-7 days before they would test positive (it could take even longer).  You could test people every hour for 3 days and they would still test negative even though they were infected and contagious. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Joe Summer said:

Fantasy sites are really dropping the ball by not allowing these players to be placed on the IR slots.

It will be some overhead for commissioners ... but if increasing IR spots mid-season is not an option, commissioners can allow teams to temporarily waive a player and simultaneously prevent those temporarily-waived players from being picked up by other owners. Then going into Week 5, the original owner can perform a free transaction to bring back their temporarily-waived player. If necessary, the commissioners themselves can execute these roster changes.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Bracie Smathers said:

The tests have a lag time of up to 7 days which would mean a positive result 'could' pop-up during the game that was scheduled 'potentially' infective more players on both TEN and PIT.

 

The test results are back within 12 hours. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:
6 minutes ago, Doug B said:

In retrospect, the league probably should have given each team two bye weeks this season.

The problem in this is that unless ALL TEAMS had the SAME bye weeks, rescheduling would be a logistical nightmare. And there’s no way that the league would want two weeks without football. The networks would have screamed bloody murder. 

I hear you. Could've been something like two "Free Parking" weeks -- one for each conference -- in addition to the regular byes teams already had.

To really cover all bases, there could be four "Free Parking weeks -- one for NFC-only matchups (only AFC teams play), one for AFC-only matchups (only NFC teams play), and the two for cross-conference matchups (16 teams play one of these weeks or the other). That would lead to a 20-week regular season, though ... maybe that's overkill.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Doug B said:

It will be some overhead for commissioners ... but if increasing IR spots mid-season is not an option, commissioners can allow teams to temporarily waive a player and simultaneously prevent those temporarily-waived players from being picked up by other owners. Then going into Week 5, the original owner can perform a free transaction to bring back their temporarily-waived player. If necessary, the commissioners themselves can execute these roster changes.

I disagree with allowing players of cancelled games to go on IR.  I think that is too much.  All of my leagues are already allowing extra IR spots for Individual players who have COVID or opted out.  Baseball leagues have postponements all the time and no one complains when they submitted a weekly lineup and they lose out on that player's production.  Plan accordingly, or in some cases, tough luck if you don't have bench players to replace them.

Edited by JohnnyU
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bigboy10182000 said:

The test results are back within 12 hours. 

You are missing the point. It takes 3-7 days or more from the time someone is exposed until they test positive. Testing them before they are able to test positive will yield a negative result in 15 minutes or 12 hours (or however long it takes to get the result). But that doesn’t mean they are not infected, but they would still be contagious. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, PennStater77 said:

Neither team won't be in the playoff hunt, will the game be made up?

They have a work around to switch another game and a bye week to be able to reschedule this one. It really is a simple fix. If this happens in another game involving other teams, though, there may not be an easy in season fix. 

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

I disagree with allowing players of cancelled games to go on IR.  I think that is too much.  All of my leagues are already allowing extra IR spots for Individual players who have COVID or opted out.  Baseball leagues have postponements all the time and no one complains when they submitted a weekly lineup and they lose out on that player's production.  Plan accordingly, or in some cases, tough luck if you don't have bench players to replace them.

Depends on individual league parameters. In deep-bench leagues, I agree with you. Many leagues, however, like to increase owner involvement by running with shallow benches and necessitating frequent waiver-wire moves. In those leagues -- and especially with the 2020 injuries -- it's not always possible to maintain a stocked bench.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:
16 minutes ago, Doug B said:

I agree with you, but I thought that all the NFL tests were virtually insta-tests (results within a few hours, at worst).

The speed of the test results does not account for the lag it takes for people to test positive. Most people test negative for 3-7 days before they would test positive (it could take even longer).  You could test people every hour for 3 days and they would still test negative even though they were infected and contagious. 

I follow you. You're not talking about the limitations of the rapid COVID-19 test itself -- you're talking about the time delay between (a) infection/contagiousness and (b) the ability for the virus to be picked up on a test.

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

Depends on individual league parameters. In deep-bench leagues, I agree with you. Many leagues, however, like to increase owner involvement by running with shallow benches and necessitating frequent waiver-wire moves. In those leagues -- and especially with the 2020 injuries -- it's not always possible to maintain a stocked bench.

What is your definition of a shallow league?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JohnnyU said:

What is your definition of a shallow league?

As an example:

Start - 9 players: QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, FLEX (RB, WER, TE), DEF, K
Bench - 5 players

...

When I first started playing FF, the league founders agreed on a "smart stashing" method of building a squad, even in redraft. Accordingly, they ran a deep-bench league like so:

Start - 7 players: QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, K
Bench - 13 players

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This game should be very easy to reschedule so long as players union is not problematic. And what I mean by that is I believe the union will work the league but if they start making a big deal about stuff like all players are afforded a whole bye week and Steelers and Titans players did not really get that this week since they spent part of the week preparing. That's only issue I see on rescheduling this game.

However, and since I hate absolutes I'm going to say 99% sure instead of 100%, we will see cancellations of games this year when moving bye weeks are no longer able to be used.

If we see cancellation of games I wonder if they will be no W-L record or would the team whose positive tests led to the cancellation be the team that takes the forfeit and the L?

Link to post
Share on other sites

My fantasy league just voted to add one additional bench spot due to the postponment and it ended at 10 out of 12 ownerss voting yes. Being that we require unanimous--it didn't pass. We only have 4 bench spots and I think it was the wrong thing to do to not add the spot.   The NFL and fantasy community got very lucky that the vikings/texans did not get postponed as well.   Imagine if you have a team with positive tests on a week where there are already 4 teams with bye weeks.  Its very possible to have weeks where 25% of the NFL teams could be not playing.  The competitive balance of a lot of leagues will be effected by owners that will have to drop good players just to fill starting lineups.  I really wish our league would have had better foresight and had 7 or 8 bench spots. 

Edited by jvdesigns2002
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, menobrown said:

This game should be very easy to reschedule so long as players union is not problematic. And what I mean by that is I believe the union will work the league but if they start making a big deal about stuff like all players are afforded a whole bye week and Steelers and Titans players did not really get that this week since they spent part of the week preparing. That's only issue I see on rescheduling this game.

However, and since I hate absolutes I'm going to say 99% sure instead of 100%, we will see cancellations of games this year when moving bye weeks are no longer able to be used.

If we see cancellation of games I wonder if they will be no W-L record or would the team whose positive tests led to the cancellation be the team that takes the forfeit and the L?

The NFLPA agreed that this year would have land mines and agreed to be paid based on number of games actually played. Normally salaries would be guaranteed. Not this year. The league will say play or everyone will lose a game check. Complaints about bye weeks or having to play too many road games in a row will go nowhere. 

If the game is not played, neither team would forfeit. They would just play 15 games. Standings and playoff determination is based on winning percentage (not total wins).

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

Dunno if it's true, but I think I remember reading before the season that it's possible some teams wouldn't play all 16 games, winning percentage would determine playoff spots.

Yes. There is no rule that requires teams to play the same number of games. All standings and playoff spots are based on winning percentage. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jvdesigns2002 said:

My fantasy league just voted to add one additional bench spot due to the postponment and it ended at 10 out of 12 ownerss voting yes. Being that we require unanimous--it didn't pass. We only have 4 bench spots and I think it was the wrong thing to do to not add the spot.   The NFL and fantasy community got very lucky that the vikings/texans did not get postponed as well.   Imagine if you have a team with positive tests on a week where there are already 4 teams with bye weeks.  Its very possible to have weeks where 25% of the NFL teams could be not playing.  The competitive balance of a lot of leagues will be effected by owners that will have to drop good players just to fill starting lineups.  I really wish our league would have had better foresight and had 7 or 8 bench spots. 

Yeesh, I don't know how you deal with only 4 bench spots in a normal season.

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Skoo said:

Yeesh, I don't know how you deal with only 4 bench spots in a normal season.

I have always asked to vote for 6 bench spots in any year--but honestly--this season--I think everybody was soo thirsty to just have a league that nobody really thought it through.   The way our league is set up now with just the 4 spots will literally make things a crapshoot.   Just hope your players stay healthy and you arent forced to drop anybody good to make a complete lineup.   I generally like fantasy leagues more when they have systems/rosters that tend to benefit better team management.  Ours is the opposite.  Its like you just have to cross your fingers and hope you don't get too unlucky. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, travdogg said:

Maybe I'm missing something, but this feels like an overreaction to me. Couldn't they just remove those people, and then if everyone else tests negative, on say Friday/Saturday, then proceed as normal just without those guys. 

No...because there is a window where someone can test negative and still have it AND be able to spread it. It's not a huge window, but it exists. That's exactly how this many guys on one team got it to begin with even with super frequent testing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's how we're handling it in my 12-team IDP with 16-player active rosters (9 bench)

IF you have holes in your lineup because of the PIT/TEN cancellation, AND you have no other options on your current roster, THEN you may move a (1) player from the PIT/TEN game to the IR (COVID-19) spot. If there's an alternative on their roster who they can plug in, they must use that player instead. 

I'd love to park JuJu on my IR and pick up a better option than  Tee Higgins, but that's not how we're doing it. I can still add someone to start at WR instead of Higgins, but I need to drop someone to do it just like any other week. 

Example/reasoning: Team  X has 2 DL with the same BYE and a DL who's got a strained [insert body part here] and is out.  For a normal BYE that manager will have to make some very difficult calls on who to drop. But for a normal BYE that manager would have had time to plan for it. His top 2 DL's BYEs were poor planning on draft day, but they weren't until later in the season. In IDP players get hurt all the time, so planning for BYEs isn't as critical as D/ST leagues because between injuries & under performing players there's usually an easy drop when the time comes. 

They still have to make the add a player, but they don't have to drop anyone to do it. We all discussed on a Zoom this morning, and we had unanimous agreement that this was best for our league. It still counts as an add ($4) because they would have had to add someone to cover the BYE regardless. 

Maybe this is instructive for some commishes out there. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jvdesigns2002 said:

I generally like fantasy leagues more when they have systems/rosters that tend to benefit better team management.  Ours is the opposite.  Its like you just have to cross your fingers and hope you don't get too unlucky. 

If a league has a mix of experience levels -- a lot of work leagues are this way -- then shallow benches can help the greener owners stay competitive. Kind of a parity measure. As stacked teams have to shave off startable depth to handle injuries, byes, etc., other teams can depend on picking up usable players off of waivers.

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Doug B said:

For a lot of leagues, this is a feature not a bug.

Agreed...I've played in a few like this and active WW management is a big deal. That said.....I wouldn't want to be in any like this THIS year....too messy with COVID

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jvdesigns2002 said:

I have always asked to vote for 6 bench spots in any year--but honestly--this season--I think everybody was soo thirsty to just have a league that nobody really thought it through.   The way our league is set up now with just the 4 spots will literally make things a crapshoot.  

My leagues have always felt that you had to have bench capacity for 1 backup at every position except K or D/ST (when I played in D/ST leagues). I hate the crapshoot aspect. In relation to this topic, the 4-man bench really makes this a difficult scenario for these kinds of leagues. It really limits the options a commish has to work with. The easy, low-hanging fruit is to expand benches to 6 or even 7-8 players. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, renesauz said:

Agreed...I've played in a few like this and active WW management is a big deal. That said.....I wouldn't want to be in any like this THIS year....too messy with COVID

Exactly. Just brutal for any team that drafted Roethlisburger, Juju, Henry & the PIT D/ST, for example. Unless thier 4 backups happen to be a QB, WR, RB & D/ST that team would be hosed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, menobrown said:

If we see cancellation of games I wonder if they will be no W-L record or would the team whose positive tests led to the cancellation be the team that takes the forfeit and the L?

They're not going to make any team forfeit over this. That sort of thing would just encourage players to hide symptoms, or, worse, it would incentivize germ warfare.

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, jvdesigns2002 said:

No. One can be exposed and test negative for many days and then test positive. I think on average it takes 5 days or less; but my understanding is that it can take up to 14 days to test positive after an exposure.  As far as I’m concerned I’m a little surprised that the Vikings Texans game hasn’t gotten postponed to Monday or Tuesday 

So why is it that the NFL didn’t apply this postponement strategy last week when the Atlanta player tested positive prior to the game? 
 

What makes this situation different? Is there a hidden threshold on how many positive tests are allowed?  If two patriots test positive Saturday, will they postpone the KC/NE game? 

  • Thanks 1
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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...