Jump to content

Ravens/Steelers postponed till Tuesday now


Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, wackywabbit said:

I hear that people are saying that it was inconsistent with the Packers-49ers decision. That was 1 positive and no other positives that week. The Ravens are up to 7 players positive and more staff testing positive every day since Sunday. If the Ravens just had the 2 on Sunday and no new positives after that, they would have played the game like they did the 49ers.

This delay is not about buying time for the players to clear the protocol and come back. It's waiting for new positives coming on. It's very possible there may be more people out by Sunday.

We lost all the close contact players as well in that game. Trent Williams, Bourne, Aiyuk, and Deebo Samuel were all ineligible to play because of what appears to be a false positive on Bourne, and all were cleared the very next morning. So that's our top LT and top three receivers. Don't get me wrong, we still aren't winning that game, but saying it was "1 positive" as its only impact is false (thought should also be mentioned that Deebo was unlikely to play anyway). 

Now, you can say that it's not comparable to the Ravens situation still, and that's fair. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

^ FYI for those comparing this situation to others. Those players are NOT coming back by Sunday or even next week. 

Starting center, backup center, starting running back, backup running back... yea, there is no case to be made that Lamar shouldn't be considered a close contact.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Forge said:

We lost all the close contact players as well in that game. Trent Williams, Bourne, Aiyuk, and Deebo Samuel were all ineligible to play because of what appears to be a false positive on Bourne, and all were cleared the very next morning. So that's our top LT and top three receivers. Don't get me wrong, we still aren't winning that game, but saying it was "1 positive" as its only impact is false. 

By impact you mean football impact. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the spread impact. The Ravens had 2 positive tests Sunday and have been getting more each day, up to 7 players (and more staff in the building) now. 

If they could safely say that it's these X positive tests and these Y close contacts, then they would play the game with the Ravens short-handed. As I said above the Ravens are going to be down 7+ players on Sunday anyway. The hope is that the new positives stop by then.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, wackywabbit said:

By impact you mean football impact. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the spread impact. The Ravens had 2 positive tests Sunday and have been getting more each day, up to 7 players (and more staff in the building) now. 

If they could safely say that it's these X positive tests and these Y close contacts, then they would play the game with the Ravens short-handed. As I said above the Ravens are going to be down 7+ players on Sunday anyway. The hope is that the new positives stop by then.

Gotcha, that makes more sense. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

i know MY employer has a checkbox for "have you placed your hands on an infected person's bottom?"

Well you see, the Ravens use a pistol formation, so social distancing is built into the offense...

and that's why our star QB should be allowed to play on Sunday.

Edited by wackywabbit
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, minutemancl said:

As much as it sucks that we are now losing the only Thanksgiving game featuring actually good teams this year, I planned on being close to blackout drunk by 8pm anyway, so it doesn't matter too much to me.

I have a similar strategy. When all else fails, drink until the games look entertaining. 🍻

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, brooks1957 said:

7 players with Covid? Still leaves 46 on an active roster, and you play with 11.

That decision is pure fertilizer.

 

wut? Those 7 still wont play sunday... so if that's why you dont like this decision than you need to rethink your position. 

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

Sorry but this is a bad take. It's literally the same as "well don't play football if you don't want a chance at CTE." I get your general sentiment, but this is an absolutely terrible take

nah, it really isn't like that. players do not get to complain about the nfl taking measures to stop breakouts from occurring. they knew this season would have it's issues, they could have opted out. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Deadpulse said:

wut? Those 7 still wont play sunday... so if that's why you dont like this decision than you need to rethink your position. 

Hey, they only play with 11. The NFL is purely Ironman, no subs, everyone plays everything. There's no room for rest, injuries, substitutions, or any of that fancy nonsense.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TheKillerNacho said:

Kinda embarrassing that people are this upset about this. Get your priorities straight tbh.

I mean! - ...Keep the discussion to football!

Yeah that.

 

1 hour ago, squire12 said:

If the NFL owners actually cared about player safety, they would dissolve the league.

Money >>>>>> player safety

That's a bit extreme... and I'm certain virtually every player would be angered at this.

Obviously there's risk involved playing football but the players in the league have been playing the sport out of love most of their lives, and even without the NFL, the sport is popular enough that many would still be playing/watching it even if there were no NFL.

This is a tricky issue. The NFL needs to make the game as safe as it can for players while compensating them fairly for the risk, without changing what the game is fundamentally, if they wish the game to survive the century.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...