(08-31-2021, 09:52 PM)SeldomRite Wrote: [ -> ] (08-31-2021, 09:40 PM)The_Franchise_QB Wrote: [ -> ]Every single team is going to take this into account, you just aren’t “supposed” to say it. The reality is, “the close contact rules” are very very strict, and holding too many unvaccinated players who can potentially be out for 2 weeks (like Josh Allen) while testing negative is just too much risk to carry on the roster. It’s just the reality. Wild times!
I don't even understand what they're investigating. The team can cut a player without cause. If they chose to use vaccination status as part of their decision process for cutting the roster I don't think there's anything in the cba that says they can't.
No clue. Here’s the memo:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nfl.com...elled-game
It’s quite clear the rules, if an unvaccinated player causes an outbreak and the game can’t be rescheduled during the 18 week season then 1. Forfeit 2. Your players/staff aren’t paid 3. Your team has to pay for the opposite teams players and staff.
(08-31-2021, 09:18 PM)Protozoa Wrote: [ -> ] (08-31-2021, 09:13 PM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ]"NFLPA opens investigation regarding Urban Meyer's comments as to considering vaccination status in roster cuts - ProFootballTalk" https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20...-cuts/amp/
If the NFLPA has a problem with it then they should work it out with the NFL because how are teams not supposed to take that into account when there's talk of forfeited games.
I agree. The NFL's stance on vaccines caused this mess. Coaches have no choice but to take it in to consideration.
(08-31-2021, 07:04 PM)Eric1 Wrote: [ -> ]They have 8 picks in rounds 5th-7th. They should flip at least half of those and try to move back up into the 2nd-4th rounds for guys. They have no business making all 8 selections in those later rounds. Sure as hell aren't going to keep all of them on the roster and if they do, something went terribly wrong and this roster would prove to be awful if that was the case.
Who would be stupid enough to trade a 2-4th round pick even for all the Jags 5th-7th round picks? They are worthless picks.
(08-31-2021, 09:13 PM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ]"NFLPA opens investigation regarding Urban Meyer's comments as to considering vaccination status in roster cuts - ProFootballTalk" https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20...-cuts/amp/
(08-31-2021, 09:18 PM)Protozoa Wrote: [ -> ]If the NFLPA has a problem with it then they should work it out with the NFL because how are teams not supposed to take that into account when there's talk of forfeited games.
(08-31-2021, 09:52 PM)SeldomRite Wrote: [ -> ]I don't even understand what they're investigating. The team can cut a player without cause. If they chose to use vaccination status as part of their decision process for cutting the roster I don't think there's anything in the cba that says they can't.
He shouldn't have opened his mouth as it is against the rules and laws to fire someone because of medical choices. The NFLPA has a problem because some of the players have pushed back and they have to cover their players even if they don't agree. The bigger issue is some higher profile players are against it and have money to take the league to court and win.
(08-31-2021, 09:52 PM)SeldomRite Wrote: [ -> ] (08-31-2021, 09:40 PM)The_Franchise_QB Wrote: [ -> ]Every single team is going to take this into account, you just aren’t “supposed” to say it. The reality is, “the close contact rules” are very very strict, and holding too many unvaccinated players who can potentially be out for 2 weeks (like Josh Allen) while testing negative is just too much risk to carry on the roster. It’s just the reality. Wild times!
I don't even understand what they're investigating. The team can cut a player without cause. If they chose to use vaccination status as part of their decision process for cutting the roster I don't think there's anything in the cba that says they can't.
They can investigate it all they want, but nothing is going to come from it. Should he have said "it went into consideration" no he shouldn't have, but all 32 teams are taking it into consideration and the NFL and NFLPA knows it. Meyer just made the mistake of saying it out loud.
Regardless of their useless investigation, there's no way they can prove anything. The roster had to be cut down to 53 regardless, as the rules state. It's not like he just randomly cut a bunch of guys mid season, then there might have been something to look into.
NFL needs to change it's covid policy. Was probably designed months ago and predicated on the idea vaccinated people are extremely unlikely to spread the virus and that vaccination immunity would last much longer than it appears to. But the facts on the ground have changed. Vaccinated people can spread covid and based on some studies can spread fairly easily in some cases. As we've seen in Israel the benefits of vaccinations are wearing off more quickly than originally hoped for. And most important of all, numerous studies now showing unvaxxed people that have had covid have much stronger and longer lasting immunity than a vaxxed person that never had covid. Why put such a burden on unvaxxed players that have had covid when they are much less of a danger. I think people in general are too stubborn in changing their mind or opinion on a topic. But I think the NFL has an easy out. Our understanding of covid is ever evolving and their current policy may have made sense when they crafted it but we now have more data and information. No reason they can't change course with the new evidence. Changing the policy wouldn't have to be a sign that they were wrong or had poor judgment. It just means they are making an educated change based on current information.
(08-31-2021, 09:10 PM)TheDuke007 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-31-2021, 07:16 PM)Firesky Wrote: [ -> ]My wording was "average at best" earlier in this thread. You can find an average backup safety with any of the million 6th rounders we've acquired. the other backup safety's like Wingard & Ford are both ST's aces. Jenkins, Cisco, Daniel Thomas are all superior at playing safety. Given that Wilson can't contribute on ST's and it would take 2-3 injuries to actually get him meaningful snaps on Defense (if you have that many injuries, you're not competing if your 4th safety is forced into meaningful action) that alone is a reason not to keep him, his higher cap hit is another reason to not keep him, his negative attitude and contribution to the dismal culture of the Jaguars is just the icing on the cake.
I disagree on many levels. First, those sixth rounders are next year. We play games this year. Second, assuming we can find an average safety in the sixth round is wishful thinking. Our sixth round wide receiver this year didn't even make our 53 man roster. Third, it's false that Wilson can't play on special teams. He has more career snaps on special teams than Wingard. He almost has twice as many. He just played little there last year because he was the starting free safety. Fourth, I see Wilson as only being one injury away from playing. Jenkins and Cisco are our starters. If there's an injury to Jenkins, Jarrod Wilson is clearly the most reliable option at free safety. He has 28 starts over the last two years. I'd keep Thomas for development, but he has little experience and is unproven at this point. If you want a special teamer and emergency backup, fine, keep Ford. Our special teams will be fine without Wingard and he is horrible at playing defense. It probably doesn't mater too much though. I think there's a very good chance Wingard is no longer on the roster two days from now.
So you can't trade a pick next year for a player this year? Lol. So you can't package multiple picks (we have 4 6th's & 2 7th's) to move up to the 5th etc.? Our 5th round Safety from 2020 (Daniel Thomas) made the team, is a better safety than Wilson and is a ST's ace. That part of your disagreement has 0 logic to it. What does a WR have to do with a Safety? I get that he's a 6th round pick, but that has 0 relevance to the Safety position group, also not every pick hits but as I mentioned with Daniel Thomas, a player of Wilson's caliber or better can be found in the late rounds pretty easily.
Wilson has been in the league since 2016, Wingard has only played 2 seasons; obviously Wilson has more career snaps ... Wingard is a markedly superior ST's player, even on half the total snaps anyone who watches football can see that. Not sure Wingard survives the waiver claims in the next few days I agree with you there, not really all that enamored with Wingard either.
Wilson has 28 career starts at Safety and really hasn't shown much. I liked what I saw out of Daniel Thomas both last year and in preseason, but that's a moot point as Rudy Ford is the 3rd safety/big nickel and likely next man up in case of injury. Cisco can play both FS & SS, if Jenkins goes down I'd kick Cisco to FS and have Ford play SS.
Wilson isn't better than Cisco or Jenkins. His cap hit is the highest among the rest of the backup safeties, and he's the worst ST's player of that bunch. This really isn't rocket science.
(08-31-2021, 11:52 PM)Dimson Wrote: [ -> ]![[Image: 240899247_4991973930817032_7542873995237...e=61337C62]](https://scontent-atl3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/fr/cp0/e15/q65/240899247_4991973930817032_7542873995237342057_n.jpg?_nc_cat=103&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=ca434c&efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&_nc_ohc=IRa1YyaDn_EAX9B0CKo&_nc_ht=scontent-atl3-2.xx&oh=2268f893a3f1b07793f4f4ec544316fb&oe=61337C62)
Yup, pretty much what it boils down to is...
This team was going to cut/waive him either way and the Seahawks wanted him. They assumed they weren't going to get him on the waiver wire and made a trade to make sure they got him. Just like the other dozens of transactions we've seen throughout the league in the past couple days that included late round picks for players. It happens every year.
I would have liked to have kept Jones on the roster depth, but it is what it is.
(08-31-2021, 10:27 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ] (08-31-2021, 07:04 PM)Eric1 Wrote: [ -> ]They have 8 picks in rounds 5th-7th. They should flip at least half of those and try to move back up into the 2nd-4th rounds for guys. They have no business making all 8 selections in those later rounds. Sure as hell aren't going to keep all of them on the roster and if they do, something went terribly wrong and this roster would prove to be awful if that was the case.
Who would be stupid enough to trade a 2-4th round pick even for all the Jags 5th-7th round picks? They are worthless picks.
(08-31-2021, 09:13 PM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ]"NFLPA opens investigation regarding Urban Meyer's comments as to considering vaccination status in roster cuts - ProFootballTalk" https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20...-cuts/amp/
(08-31-2021, 09:18 PM)Protozoa Wrote: [ -> ]If the NFLPA has a problem with it then they should work it out with the NFL because how are teams not supposed to take that into account when there's talk of forfeited games.
(08-31-2021, 09:52 PM)SeldomRite Wrote: [ -> ]I don't even understand what they're investigating. The team can cut a player without cause. If they chose to use vaccination status as part of their decision process for cutting the roster I don't think there's anything in the cba that says they can't.
He shouldn't have opened his mouth as it is against the rules and laws to fire someone because of medical choices. The NFLPA has a problem because some of the players have pushed back and they have to cover their players even if they don't agree. The bigger issue is some higher profile players are against it and have money to take the league to court and win.
Can you cite the law surrounding this? I've never heard of such a law and your assertion doesn't match with recent case law. If anything is protecting the players it's the cba, and as far as I know the cba doesn't say someone can't be cut for refusing medical help.
(09-01-2021, 05:58 AM)SeldomRite Wrote: [ -> ] (08-31-2021, 10:27 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ]Who would be stupid enough to trade a 2-4th round pick even for all the Jags 5th-7th round picks? They are worthless picks.
He shouldn't have opened his mouth as it is against the rules and laws to fire someone because of medical choices. The NFLPA has a problem because some of the players have pushed back and they have to cover their players even if they don't agree. The bigger issue is some higher profile players are against it and have money to take the league to court and win.
Can you cite the law surrounding this? I've never heard of such a law and your assertion doesn't match with recent case law. If anything is protecting the players it's the cba, and as far as I know the cba doesn't say someone can't be cut for refusing medical help.
I doubt he can cite that opinion. I'm currently preparing to terminate employees who refuse the vaccine and it's legal. I doubt this is covered as a protection in their CBA, and players get cut for health reasons all the time.
(09-01-2021, 06:31 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (09-01-2021, 05:58 AM)SeldomRite Wrote: [ -> ]Can you cite the law surrounding this? I've never heard of such a law and your assertion doesn't match with recent case law. If anything is protecting the players it's the cba, and as far as I know the cba doesn't say someone can't be cut for refusing medical help.
I doubt he can cite that opinion. I'm currently preparing to terminate employees who refuse the vaccine and it's legal. I doubt this is covered as a protection in their CBA, and players get cut for health reasons all the time.
He's talking out of his rear end, for sure. Anyone can download the CBA at NFLPA.com/CBA. The word vaccine is not contained within the document.
(08-31-2021, 03:59 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]How are Bryan and Wingard still part of the team? They are like STD's. You just can't get rid of them, no matter how bad they are.
Sneaky suspicion that our ST coach sees a lot of himself in Andy Wingard
Taven is probably the most shocking retention, although my eyebrow raised at Ogbunwale over Ozigbo.
(08-31-2021, 09:18 PM)Protozoa Wrote: [ -> ] (08-31-2021, 09:13 PM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ]"NFLPA opens investigation regarding Urban Meyer's comments as to considering vaccination status in roster cuts - ProFootballTalk" https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20...-cuts/amp/
If the NFLPA has a problem with it then they should work it out with the NFL because how are teams not supposed to take that into account when there's talk of forfeited games.
...or the coach can keep his yap shut and just utter some stupid coachspeak about keeping the players who give us the best chance to win each week of the season. Says the same thing without sounding discriminatory (not that I disagree with his methods here).
(09-01-2021, 08:48 AM)Mikey Wrote: [ -> ] (08-31-2021, 09:18 PM)Protozoa Wrote: [ -> ]If the NFLPA has a problem with it then they should work it out with the NFL because how are teams not supposed to take that into account when there's talk of forfeited games.
...or the coach can keep his yap shut and just utter some stupid coachspeak about keeping the players who give us the best chance to win each week of the season. Says the same thing without sounding discriminatory (not that I disagree with his methods here).
All cuts are discriminatory.
The powers that be have ruined the word vaccination. None of the COVID stuff are anything but generally therapy and or therapeutics. Policy has been set that is founded on faulty information. Unfortunately no one can be wrong or admit anything so the doubling down and misinformation will continue. People will lose jobs and the continual sniping back and forth will keep going.
It is made worse because anyone that is impacted instantly becomes an ardent warrior for the cause.
NFL put out a dumb policy and now there are consequences. The league and players are stuck defending this bad policy now.
(09-01-2021, 06:31 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (09-01-2021, 05:58 AM)SeldomRite Wrote: [ -> ]Can you cite the law surrounding this? I've never heard of such a law and your assertion doesn't match with recent case law. If anything is protecting the players it's the cba, and as far as I know the cba doesn't say someone can't be cut for refusing medical help.
I doubt he can cite that opinion. I'm currently preparing to terminate employees who refuse the vaccine and it's legal. I doubt this is covered as a protection in their CBA, and players get cut for health reasons all the time.
How do you feel about taking away someone's livelihood because they refuse to take an experimental vaccine?
(09-01-2021, 09:45 AM)Dimson Wrote: [ -> ] (09-01-2021, 06:31 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]I doubt he can cite that opinion. I'm currently preparing to terminate employees who refuse the vaccine and it's legal. I doubt this is covered as a protection in their CBA, and players get cut for health reasons all the time.
How do you feel about taking away someone's livelihood because they refuse to take an experimental vaccine?
Just fine if the lack of vaccination doesn’t make the player the best chance to win. Best ability is availability, if you’re not vaccinated with the current set of rules put forth by the NFL you’re not doing everything you can to win. Right, wrong, or indifferent that’s the facts of the current NFL policy
(09-01-2021, 09:59 AM)NoShoes Wrote: [ -> ] (09-01-2021, 09:45 AM)Dimson Wrote: [ -> ]How do you feel about taking away someone's livelihood because they refuse to take an experimental vaccine?
Just fine if the lack of vaccination doesn’t make the player the best chance to win. Best ability is availability, if you’re not vaccinated with the current set of rules put forth by the NFL you’re not doing everything you can to win. Right, wrong, or indifferent that’s the facts of the current NFL policy
Agreed. Additionally, if an unvaccinated player is contact traced to other players or personnel in the organization who are unvaccinated, they’re quarantined as well.
(09-01-2021, 09:59 AM)NoShoes Wrote: [ -> ] (09-01-2021, 09:45 AM)Dimson Wrote: [ -> ]How do you feel about taking away someone's livelihood because they refuse to take an experimental vaccine?
Just fine if the lack of vaccination doesn’t make the player the best chance to win. Best ability is availability, if you’re not vaccinated with the current set of rules put forth by the NFL you’re not doing everything you can to win. Right, wrong, or indifferent that’s the facts of the current NFL policy
I was actually referring to him about to fire people for not getting vaccinated with an experimental vaccine that he has admitted could actually kill you if you take it. The NFL on the other hand has to realize you can still get covid and infect others even if you have had the vaccine. In fact, it has already happened multiple times.
(09-01-2021, 10:17 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (09-01-2021, 09:45 AM)Dimson Wrote: [ -> ]How do you feel about taking away someone's livelihood because they refuse to take an experimental vaccine?
*FDA approved*
How many other things have been FDA approved that were proven to not be good for you. Get out of here with that. And miraculously only one company is FDA approved. Also, screw the FDA. if you have enough money, you can get anything approved by the FDA.