hugecanoli
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 1, 2009
- Messages
- 1,163
- Reaction score
- 1,193
scutterhawk":1ah9h8vc said:They didn't postpone the Green Bay Packers game when Erin Rodgers tested positive for COVID, he just wasn't allowed to play.
IF there are just too many L.A. Rams players that's testing positive for COVID, the League Boss says that everybody will just have to WAIT until my boys are ready to go, cause they ain't forfeit'n nuthin'. :17:
Maelstrom787":3oq34s3b said:scutterhawk":3oq34s3b said:They didn't postpone the Green Bay Packers game when Erin Rodgers tested positive for COVID, he just wasn't allowed to play.
IF there are just too many L.A. Rams players that's testing positive for COVID, the League Boss says that everybody will just have to WAIT until my boys are ready to go, cause they ain't forfeit'n nuthin'. :17:
This isn't all about competitive disadvantage. This is about player safety.
The Rams can barely field a team. Every other player is at significantly more risk due to the lack of sufficient backups.
One quarterback being out is a lot different than literally 23 active roster players being barred from playing.
Not even close to the same situations.
If there's something to complain about, it's the fact that Seattle now faces a short week. That's a concern.
BamKam":131olm4q said:Lol It's always about "player safety" until its your team who is getting screwed. Classic.
The NFL Covid protocols are terrible but it's still fun to watch how people defend them to the death until it screws them over then "its not fair".
SoulfishHawk":20fhoc58 said:Actually, it is. I'm not in to conspiracy stuff at all, but this is pretty damn obvious.
Also, how about all those Hawks fans who bought tickets, flights, hotels, rental cars etc?? You think the league will help them and/or reimburse them? Nope, not at all.
SantaClaraHawk":17xyt7b6 said:Anyone think that if the roles were reversed that the same would happen? I don't. I think the NFL would just say, well, you have 53 on your squad and 16 PS squad guys, so field your team.
BamKam":37kqwx3v said:SantaClaraHawk":37kqwx3v said:Anyone think that if the roles were reversed that the same would happen? I don't. I think the NFL would just say, well, you have 53 on your squad and 16 PS squad guys, so field your team.
Rigggghhhttttttt
3 games got moved but the Seahawks game is the one where if the roles were reversed they would have been forced to play.
Lol
SantaClaraHawk":3ltmebs4 said:Anyone think that if the roles were reversed that the same would happen? I don't. I think the NFL would just say, well, you have 53 on your squad and 16 PS squad guys, so field your team.
scutterhawk":1cmacm09 said:Maelstrom787":1cmacm09 said:scutterhawk":1cmacm09 said:They didn't postpone the Green Bay Packers game when Erin Rodgers tested positive for COVID, he just wasn't allowed to play.
IF there are just too many L.A. Rams players that's testing positive for COVID, the League Boss says that everybody will just have to WAIT until my boys are ready to go, cause they ain't forfeit'n nuthin'. :17:
This isn't all about competitive disadvantage. This is about player safety.
The Rams can barely field a team. Every other player is at significantly more risk due to the lack of sufficient backups.
One quarterback being out is a lot different than literally 23 active roster players being barred from playing.
Not even close to the same situations.
If there's something to complain about, it's the fact that Seattle now faces a short week. That's a concern.
Yes, after having played on a Monday Night game, it's going to be an EXTENTION of rest & 'GETTING RIGHT' for the Rams, but a 'Who Gives a Crap' about a shortened by 2 days of prep for the Seahawks next game? Oh yeah, that sounds fair.
Wasn't there talk BEFORE the beginning of the season about teams maybe having to "Forfeit" if they couldn't make numbers, come game day?