(09-01-2021, 06:29 PM)p_rushing Wrote:

(09-01-2021, 04:28 PM)Mikey Wrote: correct. I don't think anyone has gotten cut over refusal to take the vaccine (and good luck proving that allegation).

Guys are getting cut because they are not talented enough to outweigh the risk, they're past their prime and too expensive or not significantly better than younger players on the squad. There's plenty of guys who haven't gotten the shot that made it through cuts unscathed.

Again, Meyer said it on video. When you say it was considered in the evaluation of which players to keep, you are guaranteed that it was used to put players on the roster and remove others.

Saying they are not talented enough to outweigh the risk is cutting them because they are unvaccinated. When you have 2 players you are deciding between them, they will use all of the analysis to decide who to keep, if vaccinated status was listed or known, that became an issue when Meyer opened his mouth.

The analysis is subjective and it is hard to prove bias normally. You usually don't have people making hiring decisions openly breaking hiring laws. If Meyer keeps his mouth shut, you can't prove much. Meyer saying it was a factor, a player pulls up the depth chart at his position and says the bottom player is vaccinated and I'm not, plays Meyer on video, and case is over.

These are not criminal cases, they don't have to provide 100% proof that they were cut because they were unvaccinated while the other player was. They just have to show that it was used in the analysis and Meyer already admitted to it.

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

but that's just it. There is a HUGE difference between "it is a factor" vs. "we cut anyone who didn't get stuck". The statement to which I responded was "A player should not get cut for refusing to take the shot" (paraphrased), and my contention was that they specifically were not cut solely for that one reason. Their lack of performance (not outplaying the guy who didn't get cut) is justification enough when culling to 53. We see it all the time, factors like age, contract, effort, discipline all factor into the coach or GM's choice. Had the player outperformed the others, their shot status would have weighed less in the overall evaluation.

So you're a boss, looking to hire a team lead. You have two internal candidates with whom you've worked with in the past. Both perform at about the same level, have similar experience, interviewed well, and get along with their coworkers just fine. One of the candidates, though, has a history of showing up late or calling out of shifts on short notice, while the other has been more dependable. Which would you hire? Why?

---

(09-01-2021, 07:26 PM)Eric1 Wrote: Out of the 24 players let go by the Jags yesterday, only 1 was unvacc'd.. The other 23 were vacc'd.. The Jags are in the top 5 of unvacc'd players in the league.. So again, this "investigation" is a big fat nothing burger.

https://twitter.com/JeffDarlington/statu...7265748994

BUT MAH OUTRAEG

---