Tell, Milligan Opt Out

[WoolMagnet]

9 hours ago, jskinnz said:

Why anyone would be frustrated by a player opting out is a mystery to me, and frankly just mind-numbing.  They are making a personal decision based on their own health or perhaps their families health.  This has nothing to do with his drive to play.  That is a comical.

I think most are just frustrated.... period.  I agree with what All that you  said.  Personally, it doesn't frustrate me that they are opting out, more that i see the season slipping away.  
  We brought in Rivers and Buckner.  Added exciting weapons in Pittman and Taylor and i think most here were excited about our chances.  Its emotional.  I think some are voicing frustration toward players only because who else are you gonna yell at?  The “invisible“ enemy?

  In the end , i personally dont think it will matter.  I see the league shutting things down after  2 or 3 weeks.  At most.  Training camp is gonna create cases, then more will wanna sit out, paid or not.  Then , just like baseball and Georgia schools, things will shut down.  I just dont see how the NFL steers clear of the virus.  Near impossible in my estimation..

[John Waylon]

14 hours ago, dgambill said:

That’s the players fault. MLB wanted to do the bubble thing in Florida and Arizona at the spring training venues and the players nixed it. I don’t even know if the Blue Jays have even found a place to play their games yet because they aren’t allowed into Canada without quarantining. MLB players union is pretty strong...but I don’t think they were totally looking out for their players as much as the money.

I mean we’re pretty well seeing that in the NFL as well. The players want an answer and a plan, but they aren’t exactly committing to it the way that NBA players have, and they don’t seem particularly interested in collectively doing so, either. 
 

And the league (NFL) has done very little other than shrug and say “we have time”. Now they are quickly running out of that time and they still don’t really have a plan. At least not anything that suggests any chance of success. 
 

Football’s back was against the wall from the moment this started. It only takes less than 1/3 of the teams in the NFL to have more players than the entire NBA. The numbers coupled with the way the virus spreads is a perfect recipe for disaster. 
 

Even if the NFL ripped off every aspect of the NBA’s bubble the outlook would still be pretty bleak. 
 

And maybe the league knows that. Maybe that’s why they haven’t seemingly put any effort into figuring something out. They understand that with the current circumstances there’s just nothing they can really do to work around it. Obviously revenue is going to be down this season, and rather than just cancel and take a total loss the whole plan is to just squeeze out as many games as they can and get as much revenue as they can before the inevitable. 
 

Football was dealt a losing hand in this pandemic and it doesn’t matter how many cards they draw, until this virus is treatable and/or preventable that’s just the way it is.   

[WoolMagnet]

I think today is deadline.  Any more opt  out?

anyone know of a good overall list for the whole nfl?

[Dogg63]

22 minutes ago, WoolMagnet said:

I think today is deadline.  Any more opt  out?

anyone know of a good overall list for the whole nfl?

 

23 minutes ago, WoolMagnet said:

anyone know of a good overall list for the whole nfl?

https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nfl/news/nfl-opt-out-players-2020-deadline/cr1pgi9ju4si114b3xsbhtpve

 

[PrincetonTiger]

@dgambill

 Toronto is playing their home games at their AAA stadium in Buffalo 

[austriancolt]

On 8/5/2020 at 5:59 PM, John Waylon said:

Per Mike Chappell. 
 

 

 

 

I respect there decision but don't understand it. Why? Athletes get tested on a regular basis, they can wear helmets with a faceshield, we know that u need to spend considerable time very close to a infected person to get infected yourself and they play outside where the risk isn't that big anyway. So athletes are probably the most safe persons in this pandemic. If others can do their daily work athletes can do it too. 

[NewColtsFan]

34 minutes ago, austriancolt said:

 

I respect there decision but don't understand it. Why? Athletes get tested on a regular basis, they can wear helmets with a faceshield, we know that u need to spend considerable time very close to a infected person to get infected yourself and they play outside where the risk isn't that big anyway. So athletes are probably the most safe persons in this pandemic. If others can do their daily work athletes can do it too. 

First, I’m not sure it’s known just how much time you have to be near an infected to actually become infected yourself.   
 

Second,  think of football this way...  every huddle, and there roughly 65-70 of them each side, each game is an opportunity.  Each play and tackle is an opportunity.   Every time a player goes in the team complex is an opportunity.   Every time you’re in the locker room, the weight room, the team meeting room, the positional meeting room, you name it, they are all opportunities. 

 

There are so many different opportunities to get infected.  

 

Plus, you talk about young people...   those people have their entire career in front of them.  The longer this drags out the more we learn that we don’t know as much as we thought we did.  That even when you’re Covid free many still report issues with their heart and lungs.  That’s not good for anyone,  especially athletes.  Young athletes are trying to protect their careers. 

 

These decisions are complex, but you have to respect and support every decision,  no matter which way it goes. 

[austriancolt]

And I do respect and support it, doesn't mean I have to understand it because we have to face the fact that we can't isolate ourselves for months or years and that we can't avoid the risk of getting infected. Regardless of whether you are going to the supermarket or meeting with your family there are things you have to do and there is no 100% safety out there. You said it yourself: So many opportunities to get infected. Not only on the field or the football bubble but in real life that we simply can't avoid. 

 

And If Joe Nobody can go to the office every day I think a football player can go on the field. And as I mentioned a football field is a much safer environment than an office with tests on a regular basis it's probably one of the safest places especially if they play the games without spectators. They say that it takes at least 15 minutes of realy close contact to an infected person to infect yourself in a closed room. And there are a lot of measures to minimize the risk like a max number of people in the training room etc.

And yes Corona is a serious virus I don't doubt that but it's not the killer virus that is threatening to exterminate humanity. What we are facing now and that is noboby talking about is that we are dying a slow and steady economic and social death! But thats just my two cents.

[braveheartcolt]

On 8/5/2020 at 8:50 PM, Four2itus said:

More jskinnz is a better thing. 

I wouldn't go that far.....

 

[John Waylon]

13 hours ago, austriancolt said:

 

I respect there decision but don't understand it. Why? Athletes get tested on a regular basis, they can wear helmets with a faceshield, we know that u need to spend considerable time very close to a infected person to get infected yourself and they play outside where the risk isn't that big anyway. So athletes are probably the most safe persons in this pandemic. If others can do their daily work athletes can do it too. 

This is why this thing is so out of hand. 
 

A helmet isn’t going to stop the spread. A face shield will lower the chances of spread, but it doesn’t eliminate it. 
 

You don’t have to spend a “considerable amount of time around someone” to catch the virus. You can literally contract it passing someone on a sidewalk if they have recently spouted the virus into the air. 
 

And football players spend the whole game, literally the whole game, running around making contact with others. Breathing heavy. Yelling. Spitting. Slobbering. It’s a wonderful breeding ground for the virus to spread. 
 

Beyond that there are already plenty of high-risk groups who have a chance to suffer from complications of the virus. Maybe they have an elderly family member who lives in-home. Maybe a diabetic or asthmatic child. Maybe they are diabetic. 
 

The kind of narrow and uninformed rhetoric above is exactly why this thing has, and continues to burn through the planet, especially here in the US. 

[PrincetonTiger]

@John Waylon

 great statement 

[crazycolt1]

13 hours ago, austriancolt said:

And yes Corona is a serious virus I don't doubt that but it's not the killer virus that is threatening to exterminate humanity. What we are facing now and that is noboby talking about is that we are dying a slow and steady economic and social death! But thats just my two cents.

It may not be a threat to exterminate all of humanity, just the venerable ones. 

Your nonchalant view is not shared by those who are in the high risk category. 

[jvan1973]

20 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

It may not be a threat to exterminate all of humanity, just the venerable ones. 

Your nonchalant view is not shared by those who are in the high risk category. 

If you're high risk,   you probably shouldn't be around crowds and the like. 

[jvan1973]

23 hours ago, John Waylon said:

This is why this thing is so out of hand. 
 

A helmet isn’t going to stop the spread. A face shield will lower the chances of spread, but it doesn’t eliminate it. 
 

You don’t have to spend a “considerable amount of time around someone” to catch the virus. You can literally contract it passing someone on a sidewalk if they have recently spouted the virus into the air. 
 

And football players spend the whole game, literally the whole game, running around making contact with others. Breathing heavy. Yelling. Spitting. Slobbering. It’s a wonderful breeding ground for the virus to spread. 
 

Beyond that there are already plenty of high-risk groups who have a chance to suffer from complications of the virus. Maybe they have an elderly family member who lives in-home. Maybe a diabetic or asthmatic child. Maybe they are diabetic. 
 

The kind of narrow and uninformed rhetoric above is exactly why this thing has, and continues to burn through the planet, especially here in the US. 

The cdc said you need to be within 6 feet of an infected person for 15 minutes

[w87r]

24 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

The cdc said you need to be within 6 feet of an infected person for 15 minutes

[jvan1973]

1 hour ago, w87r said:

Yeah  what does the CDC know. 

 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/contact-tracing/contact-tracing-plan/contact-tracing.html

[NewColtsFan]

17 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

Yeah  what does the CDC know. 

 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/contact-tracing/contact-tracing-plan/contact-tracing.html

Thanks for the link.  Honestly, it’s the first time I’ve seen this.   Good link. 

 

That said...   to be clear, the link you provided had another link.  And it says that while prolonged contact (15 minutes) is the most likely, it does NOT at all rule out being able to contract the virus in instances of shorter time length, or in instances where the breath of an infected person comes directly into contact with an I infected person, such as coughing, breathing heavy, or, I suspect, with singing.  That’s why so many church events turn into Super Spreader events.

[w87r]

47 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

Yeah  what does the CDC know. 

 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/contact-tracing/contact-tracing-plan/contact-tracing.html

Yeah, that says it is contact tracing plan that will occur when someone was within 6' for 15 minutes. Not that, that is how you catch it.

 

Good way to spin it.

 

You can catch it by touching a door knob and touching your face, not even being around the person. Hence not able to contact trace those cases.

 

 

So thanks, might want to pay attention to what you post, maybe quote it for what it is.

 

Then  come back and provide a link that has nothing to do with what you said.

 

TBH, not surprised by your post though.

[w87r]

16 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Thanks for the link.  Honestly, it’s the first time I’ve seen this.   Good link. 

 

That said...   to be clear, the link you provided had another link.  And it says that while prolonged contact (15 minutes) is the most likely, it does NOT at all rule out being able to contract the virus in instances of shorter time length, or in instances where the breath of an infected person comes directly into contact with an I infected person, such as coughing, breathing heavy, or, I suspect, with singing.  That’s why so many church events turn into Super Spreader events.

That was a contact tracing plan, has nothing to do with the spread, just people they can easily identify as a potential case because they were in close contact with.

 

You can't give them names of people to contact tracers, that may have followed you into a room or passed you walking down a sidewalk, that you might not know.

[Scott Pennock]

Post Opting Out Depth Chart

 

FS - Hooker and Odum

SS - Willis and Rutledge and Wilson

CB - Ya Sin and Carrie

CB - Rhodes and Porter

 

Nickel - Moore and Rodgers

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Has Clayton Geathers signed with a  team yet.  Wonder if he could be a possibility to bring back with Milligan opting out.

[Freenyfan102]

Cut him

[John Waylon]

On 8/8/2020 at 1:19 PM, jvan1973 said:

The cdc said you need to be within 6 feet of an infected person for 15 minutes

So someone infected coughs in your face but you can’t catch the virus from them because they didn’t cough in your face for the contractually obligated 15 minutes it takes to infect... 

[rock8591]

2 hours ago, John Waylon said:

So someone infected coughs in your face but you can’t catch the virus from them because they didn’t cough in your face for the contractually obligated 15 minutes it takes to infect... 

 

As funny as it may sound, it is very true.

 

Just like 1 time sexual intercourse very very very rarely brings about pregnancy on the first try like you see in the movies, though of course it *can* happen.

[jameszeigler834]

On 8/5/2020 at 12:34 PM, PeterBowman said:

Tell opting out kind of hurts team wise.....I also think what you're seeing, with some exceptions of course, are lots of fringe roster players opting out...taking some guaranteed money and staying around for at least this year and taking their chances next year. 

Some of these guys on the roster bubble opting out is was a smart decision...

[jskinnz]

13 hours ago, jameszeigler834 said:

Some of these guys on the roster bubble opting out is was a smart decision...

 

Why do you say?

[Myles]

11 minutes ago, jskinnz said:

 

Why do you say?

Not sure why James feels it was smart.   Protecting your family could be considered smart.   For some, the financial and future playing time can make the decision NOT smart.

Skai Moores decision to opt out could be the end of his career.  Granted he was probably headed to the practice squad, but he may not even make a practice squad next season.  

[jskinnz]

1 hour ago, Myles said:

Not sure why James feels it was smart.   Protecting your family could be considered smart.   For some, the financial and future playing time can make the decision NOT smart.

Skai Moores decision to opt out could be the end of his career.  Granted he was probably headed to the practice squad, but he may not even make a practice squad next season.  

 

I have my suspicions why James thinks it was smart.  And like most of his posts, it is not grounded in reality.  

[Myles]

15 hours ago, jameszeigler834 said:

Some of these guys on the roster bubble opting out is was a smart decision...

Actually the players on the bubble are the ones where maybe it was not a smart decision.   With more and more starters opting out, there is going to be playing time available for players who normally would not see any.  

[jameszeigler834]

On 8/10/2020 at 8:17 AM, jskinnz said:

 

Why do you say?

Well im talking across the league some of these guys were not gonna make a team and if they are a higher risk then they get 350,000 if they are not its 150,000 so one way or the other they get atleast 150,000 to ride it out and not play. Also for some of them they get next to nothing when your cut so for the ones that wouldnt make a roster they did what they thought they had to do then there were the notable players that the experts some how have convinced that if they play they will catch Covid.

[w87r]

19 minutes ago, jameszeigler834 said:

Well im talking across the league some of these guys were not gonna make a team and if they are a higher risk then they get 350,000 if they are not its 150,000 so one way or the other they get atleast 150,000 to ride it out and not play. Also for some of them they get next to nothing when your cut so for the ones that wouldnt make a roster they did what they thought they had to do then there were the notable players that the experts some how have convinced that if they play they will catch Covid.

Yeah but if not high risk, you have to pay the $150,000 back. What if those players dont make a team next year? Then they basically took out a huge loan they may not be able to pay back.

[NewColtsFan]

28 minutes ago, w87r said:

Yeah but if not high risk, you have to pay the $150,000 back. What if those players dont make a team next year? Then they basically took out a huge loan they may not be able to pay back.

Do we know for sure that a player who opts out but doesn’t make a team next year actually has to layback the $150k?

 

Just asking.   Inquiring minds and all that. 

[jameszeigler834]

1 hour ago, w87r said:

Yeah but if not high risk, you have to pay the $150,000 back. What if those players dont make a team next year? Then they basically took out a huge loan they may not be able to pay back.

Well that part i didnt see if thats the case then the decision some of these guys made is high risk low reward.

[w87r]

41 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Do we know for sure that a player who opts out but doesn’t make a team next year actually has to layback the $150k?

 

Just asking.   Inquiring minds and all that. 

I read a couple articles earlier. It just stated it is taken off of 2021 salary. I would think they would want the money back either way? Guess it's not conclusive, that's how I read it. 

 Will check and see what else I find.

[w87r]

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2020/08/04/opt-out-stipend-must-be-repaid-even-if-player-is-cut-in-2021/

 

The league’s position is that the money, if the player takes the base level $150,000 stipend, is owed to the team in 2021, if the player doesn’t make the team.

“Yes,” NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy told PFT regarding whether the money would be owed by a 2020 opt out who is cut after he returns in 2021. “It’s a salary advance.”

 

For players who opt out without the higher-risk designation and fail to make the team in 2021, the question then becomes whether the team will enforce the debt. Some teams may, some may not. It could become a P.R. problem for a team to chase a player around for reimbursement, when the team simply could have given the player a roster spot and allowed him to earn the money that he already had been paid. Indeed, for some teams, the undrafted rookie who opts out at the $150,000 level this year could end up being more likely to earn a bottom-of-roster position in 2021, since that’s the only way the team can get its money back without getting its hands dirty.

 

 

So it appears it is owed back, whether a team elects to try and recover funds seems to be up in the air.

[Dogg63]

3 hours ago, jameszeigler834 said:

Well that part i didnt see if thats the case then the decision some of these guys made is high risk low reward.

 

[jameszeigler834]

17 hours ago, Dogg63 said:

 

Well in light of seeing that then i change my mind and say thats pretty dumb to opt out when this virus isnt a big deal.

[crazycolt1]

23 hours ago, w87r said:

So it appears it is owed back, whether a team elects to try and recover funds seems to be up in the air.

I would think it would be up to the team on how to recover the funds. 

If there is a case where the money has an effect on the salary cap I wonder how that would work? 

I know $150,000 is not a lot of money compared to a regular NFL contract but the money still has to be accounted for.