minnesotacubsfan

Not surprised it would be JR

i feel like this is the tip of the iceberg for a sport like football

that hair!!!!

all true. but still

That could be fun

Happy Bobby Bonilla Day; I guess someone did get rich from Madoff after all !!

So what? I love hockey

So I take it we won't be hearing from Jake for awhile. if randomness strikes and the Pirates go on a 40 game surge, boy howdy we may never hear the end of it from that man

I felt this one in my soles Gross

Can he be average? That's all it take for the Bears to make the playoffs, with average QB play they would have won at 11 games last year. Ok. Lets define average and if he hits higher then that I’ll write I hate Foles on a sub and eat it on video, face obscured for security of course 3000 yrds, 2:1 td/int w/min 20 tds and 90 passer rating?

The concern is not the actual athletes spreading the virus. They get tested too much for that to matter at all. Its the audience spreading the virus (which, in case you didn't know, is a MUCH larger population than the athletes, much more at risk to die from the virus, and does not have access to testing to tack and prevent the virus's spread) and how they make money off of actually playing the games that matters. But yeah, if you want to handicap things you are obviously free to. I'm also free to say that's ridiculously wrong, right? What audience? Nobody is playing sports in fronts of fans this year. that's not true. In the red states where social gathering is "totally fiiiiiiiiine" they will gather at bars, casinos, etc to watch hence a higher risk.

when you look at stats like "time of possession", they show you how long certain players are likely to be next to other players. Its generally around 20-40 minutes. I know guys move around on the field, get covered by other defenders, etc, that limits that time to some extent, but that may only INCREASE the likelihood of spread by putting players in close contact to more people even if for short times. Well to start with you can cut that in half because there aren't two-way players. But the whole thing about duration is that while it is possible for a single person to exhale once and that has droplets that end up infecting someone, it doesn't reach a reasonable standard of high risk for transmission. And again, these players are getting constantly tested which shrinks the risk further. I would say football and basketball are the most risky, but the exact degree of risk pales in comparison to risk of exposure off the field, to Judas' point. No, 20-40 minutes per game is the time an offense or defense is on the field meaning (barring substitutions) a player is likely to be in close contact with another player for that time period. And a player may slip past the testing protocol unless they are testing the morning of a game and have results immediately available. It could become too retroactive to be purposeful. I agree about the nba vs football, but I give nba fans more credit in terms of intelligence. maybe I'm wrong

nfl players spend most of the game in huddles, in formation close to another player, even during the play they are generally running with the same player over and over and over and.... I'd call that significant duration Possibly, 15 minutes is a long time when you're getting it in short bursts. I also haven't seen if there's been any official word on ways the rules might change to promote distancing. Also screw football I hope it never comes back but that's neither here nor there. when you look at stats like "time of possession", they show you how long certain players are likely to be next to other players. Its generally around 20-40 minutes. I know guys move around on the field, get covered by other defenders, etc, that limits that time to some extent, but that may only INCREASE the likelihood of spread by putting players in close contact to more people even if for short times.

I wont bore you with the site but: COVID-19 is believed to spread mainly from person-to-person, between people who are in close contact with one another (within about 6 feet) or through respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs or sneezes. https://covid19.wustl.edu/health-safety/ how does that not happen in, say, the nfl? The concern is not the actual athletes spreading the virus. They get tested too much for that to matter at all. Its the audience spreading the virus (which, in case you didn't know, is a MUCH larger population than the athletes, much more at risk to die from the virus, and does not have access to testing to tack and prevent the virus's spread) and how they make money off of actually playing the games that matters. But yeah, if you want to handicap things you are obviously free to. I'm also free to say that's ridiculously wrong, right?[/quote] 1) which is the concern on the timing of their seasons and where the teams call home 2) you are free to do so.

I wont bore you with the site but: COVID-19 is believed to spread mainly from person-to-person, between people who are in close contact with one another (within about 6 feet) or through respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs or sneezes. https://covid19.wustl.edu/health-safety/ how does that not happen in, say, the nfl? Duration. it's not that you ever get within 6 feet of someone, it's that you need 15+ minutes of that proximity. Yes, transmission is still possible without sustained exposure, but non-zero risk isn't the same as significant risk. nfl players spend most of the game in huddles, in formation close to another player, even during the play they are generally running with the same player over and over and over and.... I'd call that significant duration

I wont bore you with the site but: COVID-19 is believed to spread mainly from person-to-person, between people who are in close contact with one another (within about 6 feet) or through respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs or sneezes. https://covid19.wustl.edu/health-safety/ how does that not happen in, say, the nfl? but also, timing with the first or second or third wave of infections also plays a part. And I would add what states are taking the most stringent matters. Since the southern states tend to ignore protocol as prescribed by the cdc and be heavier nfl cities then hockey cities, the nfl is more likely to be affected.

The NFL is the most likely sport to happen, so don't go into handicapping for a profession. I think hockey is the most likely to happen. But in general what I mean to say which sport is most likely to be the worst vs best in terms of infection control, or should happen. mlb is struggling with it but only because of owner greed besides, its a message board. I'll handicap what I want

I'd say there's a good chance MLS happens this year. NBA could happen but suddenly Orlando is the worst place to have it. NHL should be fine overall. MLB would be fine if the owners cared about anything other than their bottom line. NFL is probably going to happen but shouldn't. the contact sports are likely the ones to be most in jeopardy in terms of infection, so nfl, nba, hockey, maybe soccer in that order from wrost to best. mlb is pretty safe in comparison. in terms of timing, mlb, nfl,(when is the soccer season??) and nba/ nhl in terms of worst timing to best. i'd say its a pretty mixed bag really eta : but if I handicapped them the way I outlined them I'd say worst chances to best are nfl nba hockey mlb depending on mls's schedule, they are in the nba/hockey group I believe, but lower on the scale

guys we have the BEST QB room in the nfl.....

I'll happily eat my words if the future proves otherwise, but Foles is going to suck if/when he gets on the field this year

it's an old article, but I don't remember seeing it posted here. I don't know if it was here or not but I saw it before and thought it was a dumb story regardless. Maybe he didn't want to play for the Bears, which has a history of being a terrible place for QBs to play. But if he was getting 3/60 he wasn't going to be worried about competing with Mitch Freaking Trubisky. That just reads like a story leaked by a guy working for the Bears who really wanted to fluff up Mitch's ego after the trade for Foles. maybe, but I would have much rather had Bridgewater then Foles, who has yet to actually play 16 games in a season and who can run red hot, but plays mostly dead. I also don't know where the Bears were going to hide $20 million in the salary cap to pay Bridgewater, however

Breaking news alert. it's an old article, but I don't remember seeing it posted here.

"strong in comparison" still isn't that strong. They may not fold but the owners will always play a media war accusing the players of being spoiled little rich kids playing a game everyone wants to play. Meanwhile, the union repeatedly fails to convey the same "rich person" war against the owners. As someone who, for the most -part, supports unions its frustrating.

TB didnt want to compete with Mitch