2020 Pats: DT Byron Cowart Tests Positive

Hobson's Choice

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2003
1,878
Deep South
I am unable to turn ESPN on and not get bad news. This is breaking, and is unconfirmed but Rapoport Schefter is the source.
I am probably violating protocol but since I don't know protocol I am simply posting. Dopes, clear it up.

Edited to add that obv this is overnight test results.
 
Last edited:

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
54,891
New York City
Him and Devin probably wishing they opted out at this point. The league doesn’t give a shit about any of them.
They didn't need 2020 to realize this. Plus, I would imagine most of the players want to play, because money.

So can we stop talking like the NFL is taking the players hostage and beating them? The players could have opted out. It was an option. The moralizing is absolutely exhausting.

"The league doesn't give a shit about any of them."

What gave it away, chief?
 

RorschachsMask

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2011
3,115
Lynn
They didn't need 2020 to realize this. Plus, I would imagine most of the players want to play, because money.

So can we stop talking like the NFL is taking the players hostage and beating them? The players could have opted out. It was an option. The moralizing is absolutely exhausting.

"The league doesn't give a shit about any of them."

What gave it away, chief?
Damn, I thought those rants from you were reserved for Trump. Though this wasn’t nearly as fiery lol.

I never said any of what you said wasn’t the case, just that I’m guessing the twins wish they opted out.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
54,891
New York City
Damn, I thought those rants from you were reserved for Trump. Though this wasn’t nearly as fiery lol.

I never said any of what you said wasn’t the case, just that I’m guessing the twins wish they opted out.
I mean, it depends, no? One year of earnings versus the small risk that they will catch the virus and the very small risk it will make them sick. I mean, how many players and coaches are there in the NFL? How many people have caught the virus?

This virus is not a death sentence, especially for people who are under the age of 35. So the twins are very very likely going to be ok, even if they catch the viru. I have been saying since August that the NFL was just going to plow ahead, for the money. And now, with these positive tests, the NFL is still plowing ahead. Because of the money.

I just don't think it's new knowledge that the NFL is going to care about money first and foremost and not the players. They haven't cared about the players since the dawn of the league. This year is no different.
 

RorschachsMask

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2011
3,115
Lynn
I mean, it depends, no? One year of earnings versus the small risk that they will catch the virus and the very small risk it will make them sick. I mean, how many players and coaches are there in the NFL? How many people have caught the virus?

This virus is not a death sentence, especially for people who are under the age of 35. So the twins are very very likely going to be ok, even if they catch the viru. I have been saying since August that the NFL was just going to plow ahead, for the money. And now, with these positive tests, the NFL is still plowing ahead. Because of the money.

I just don't think it's new knowledge that the NFL is going to care about money first and foremost and not the players. They haven't cared about the players since the dawn of the league. This year is no different.
I agree with what you’re saying here, my comment was more offhand than anything. Just this combined with J-Mac blasting the league the other day, of course people are going up bring up the league not giving a fuck, even if that’s old news.
 

Mooch

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,978
How many actual full practices have the Pats had since Cam tested positive?

Two?
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
18,177
The players should boycott at this point. The league simply does not care
They didn't care when they suppressed concussion data even when they knew about CTE and that never stopped the players from playing. Why should this?
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
54,891
New York City
I agree with what you’re saying here, my comment was more offhand than anything. Just this combined with J-Mac blasting the league the other day, of course people are going up bring up the league not giving a fuck, even if that’s old news.
In my opinion, I think the players want to play. Despite the risks and with the full knowledge that the NFL doesn't care about them.

Look at the college games. There are hundreds of players suiting up, less than .1% of them have any aspirational NFL prospects. Why are they bothering, considering Covid? Because they like to play. They want to play.

I don't think it's an indefensible position. People have to manage the risk of infection from the risk of opting out of their life. Football players cannot WFH.

Acting like the players are being treated like meat packing plant workers is laughable, in my opinion. The NFL players have the luxury of choice in a way millions do not.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
54,891
New York City
They didn't care when they suppressed concussion data even when they knew about CTE and that never stopped the players from playing. Why should this?
Yes. I mean, this moralizing is really over the top.

"The league simply does not care"

Really? Heh. Who knew?
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
18,177
In my opinion, I think the players want to play. Despite the risks and with the full knowledge that the NFL doesn't care about them.

Look at the college games. There are hundreds of players suiting up, less than .1% of them have any aspirational NFL prospects. Why are they bothering, considering Covid? Because they like to play. They want to play.

I don't think it's an indefensible position. People have to manage the risk of infection from the risk of opting out of their life. Football players cannot WFH.

Acting like the players are being treated like meat packing plant workers is laughable, in my opinion. The NFL players have the luxury of choice in a way millions do not.
Players had the chance to opt out and make $350,000 for doing nothing. I've never come CLOSE to making $350,000 in a year. That's years' worth of work for me (and probably most of us here), and they could have taken that for *opting out*.

I'm not saying the league actually cares about the players. I'm just agreeing with you that the players want to play. They could have made a substantial amount of money for NOT working, but the vast majority, despite knowing the risks, are choosing to play anyway. Maybe it's because instead of $350,000, they want to make $14 million. Or maybe they just want to play the game they love. Who knows. But they're choosing to play.

Of course, this doesn't exonerate the NFL at all, because quite obviously they're a bunch of greedy bastards.
 

RorschachsMask

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2011
3,115
Lynn
In my opinion, I think the players want to play. Despite the risks and with the full knowledge that the NFL doesn't care about them.

Look at the college games. There are hundreds of players suiting up, less than .1% of them have any aspirational NFL prospects. Why are they bothering, considering Covid? Because they like to play. They want to play.

I don't think it's an indefensible position. People have to manage the risk of infection from the risk of opting out of their life. Football players cannot WFH.

Acting like the players are being treated like meat packing plant workers is laughable, in my opinion. The NFL players have the luxury of choice in a way millions do not.
I’m not disagreeing, and I’ve never posted or said that I feel bad for the players. I run a meat department in a supermarket, and have had to work 6 or 7 days every week since early March. So I am fully on board with you saying that they have a luxury that myself, and millions of other do not.

Obviously the league only caring about money isn’t exactly breaking news, but you have to expect people will continue to blast them about it.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
24,790
"wanting to play" and "not choosing the opt out" is not the same as being pissed that the league seems to be handling the inevitable positive tests in the shittiest way possible.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
54,891
New York City
"wanting to play" and "not choosing the opt out" is not the same as being pissed that the league seems to be handling the inevitable positive tests in the shittiest way possible.
Not really. The shittiest way possible is to bury the positive tests.

Again, the moralizing is just a little much. We're not talking about grade school kids here. I just think people want to rip on the NFL because it's a cabal interested in itself at the expense of everything and everyone else. And it is. But that has been true for decades and Covid is just another example of the NFL not caring. How are people surprised the NFL is just plowing ahead?

The only way out for the NFL is through. That has always been the case. If it disgusts you, don't watch. I don't watch MMA and Horse Racing, for a variety of reasons. But I'm not in the MMA thread blaring about the brutality and dangers of it all. It exists and people enjoy it quite a bit. I respect that.
 

Phil Plantier

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Mar 7, 2002
3,241
Players had the chance to opt out and make $350,000 for doing nothing. I've never come CLOSE to making $350,000 in a year. That's years' worth of work for me (and probably most of us here), and they could have taken that for *opting out*.
350k only if they were high risk. Otherwise a 150k advance on future salary. Your tag is apropos here.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
18,177
350k only if they were high risk. Otherwise a 150k advance on future salary. Your tag is apropos here.
No that wouldn't be moving the goalposts, that would be making an error (I didn't realize that was only for high-risk players). Nice try though.
 

j44thor

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
9,863
"wanting to play" and "not choosing the opt out" is not the same as being pissed that the league seems to be handling the inevitable positive tests in the shittiest way possible.
What are the alternatives? The players would have been pissed if they went the bubble route as well for 4 months. I don't know what the NFL can do at this point if they want to have anything resembling a season. They close facilities and contact trace. Vast majority of teams have not had any positives which is quite remarkable really.

As has been already noted players had the chance to opt out and get paid a generous stipend so I'm having a hard time feeling bad for them.
 

Phil Plantier

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Mar 7, 2002
3,241
Not really. The shittiest way possible is to bury the positive tests.

Again, the moralizing is just a little much. We're not talking about grade school kids here. I just think people want to rip on the NFL because it's a cabal interested in itself at the expense of everything and everyone else. And it is. But that has been true for decades and Covid is just another example of the NFL not caring. How are people surprised the NFL is just plowing ahead?

The only way out for the NFL is through. That has always been the case. If it disgusts you, don't watch. I don't watch MMA and Horse Racing, for a variety of reasons. But I'm not in the MMA thread blaring about the brutality and dangers of it all. It exists and people enjoy it quite a bit. I respect that.
There's a part of the Covid megathread where a poster complained that his company was letting a woman who tested positive back into his work environment before he and his co-workers thought it was safe. I don't remember anyone responding "too bad, that's what you agreed to by having a job." Workers are entitled to a reasonable idea of safety, even if it's not enumerated in their bargaining agreement. It shouldn't be up to Belichick to close the facility in these cases.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
28,174
I understand there’s some risk assumption in playing. But the NFL decisions on when to play games don’t correspond to public health rules. That to me is the inexcusable part here. They are treating “no positive tests” as equal to “no possible exposure” and we know better than that.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
28,174
This is a great chance for BB and Kraft to build their cred with players and say “screw you” to Goodell. I hope they announce they aren’t confident in NFL protocols and aren’t playing until they are.

But that isn’t going to happen....
 

Silverdude2167

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 9, 2006
3,842
Amstredam
This is a great chance for BB and Kraft to build their cred with players and say “screw you” to Goodell. I hope they announce they aren’t confident in NFL protocols and aren’t playing until they are.

But that isn’t going to happen....
I really hope the game got moved because BB and/or Kraft were just like fuck you we are not playing...The fact that they closed the facilities after Gilmore under their own guidance and not the leagues, makes me think this is a real possibility.
 

Time to Mo Vaughn

RIP Dernell
SoSH Member
Mar 24, 2008
6,034
Honestly the fact that it's only a single new positive after the cross country flight and game is actually quite encouraging.

If they had cancelled last game and let all the positives come out, they probably could have played this week and be practicing all next week. As is, it's unclear when the Patriots will be able to get back into they're facilities.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
24,790
What are the alternatives? The players would have been pissed if they went the bubble route as well for 4 months. I don't know what the NFL can do at this point if they want to have anything resembling a season. They close facilities and contact trace. Vast majority of teams have not had any positives which is quite remarkable really.

As has been already noted players had the chance to opt out and get paid a generous stipend so I'm having a hard time feeling bad for them.
Alternatives? Announce that the Super bowl will be played 3 weeks later so the "ability to have a normal season" is preserved via scheduling flexibility.
The opt out argument is ridiculous. "We're gonna play" comes with at least an implied obligation of the nfl to at least pretend to give a shit.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
54,891
New York City
Alternatives? Announce that the Super bowl will be played 3 weeks later so the "ability to have a normal season" is preserved via scheduling flexibility.
The opt out argument is ridiculous. "We're gonna play" comes with at least an implied obligation of the nfl to at least pretend to give a shit.
When has the nfl pretended to give a shit?

And you are expecting perfection relative to a situation that by definition is not perfect. The league is trying to navigate playing while working around positive tests.

Why are you so angry?
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
24,790
When has the nfl pretended to give a shit?

And you are expecting perfection relative to a situation that by definition is not perfect. The league is trying to navigate playing while working around positive tests.

Why are you so angry?
I was responding to jthors "what are the alternatives" point and the "tough shit they should have opted out" points that others have made. I'm not angry at all. I find the suggestion that "this is what they signed up for" to be wildly off base.

I'm not expecting perfection. But there are obvious things the league could do better.

No, the the nfl typically does not give a shit about players. But as even Bb pointed out this affects their families as well. Opting in meant the usual nfl risks and a covid risk. "Giving a shit about the players" is probably the wrong phrase to use. The league office seems to be the least flexible stakeholder here. No practice? No problem.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
54,891
New York City
I was responding to jthors "what are the alternatives" point and the "tough shit they should have opted out" points that others have made. I'm not angry at all. I find the suggestion that "this is what they signed up for" to be wildly off base.

I'm not expecting perfection. But there are obvious things the league could do better.

No, the the nfl typically does not give a shit about players. But as even Bb pointed out this affects their families as well. Opting in meant the usual nfl risks and a covid risk. "Giving a shit about the players" is probably the wrong phrase to use. The league office seems to be the least flexible stakeholder here. No practice? No problem.
I agree that it's crazy the NFL doesn't just push back the season by two weeks. Frankly, this will mean MORE money for the NFL, as it would be 19 regular season weeks and 4 playoff weeks. But the NFL has never been the best run operation.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
42,486
I agree that it's crazy the NFL doesn't just push back the season by two weeks. Frankly, this will mean MORE money for the NFL, as it would be 19 regular season weeks and 4 playoff weeks. But the NFL has never been the best run operation.
Was there a reason given why more flexibility wasn’t built into the schedule? I think someone in another thread mentioned TV contracts may be playing a role but it seems like the NFL has unnecessarily put itself into a tougher position.

We all knew positive tests were coming. Shutting down facilities was inevitable. But it doesn’t look like the NFL built in enough flexibility or “float” in the schedule. And now they seem to be scrambling.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
54,891
New York City
Was there a reason given why more flexibility wasn’t built into the schedule? I think someone in another thread mentioned TV contracts may be playing a role but it seems like the NFL has unnecessarily put itself into a tougher position.

We all knew positive tests were coming. Shutting down facilities was inevitable. But it doesn’t look like the NFL built in enough flexibility or “float” in the schedule. And now they seem to be scrambling.
It's gotta be a money reason, or a contractural reason, but it is hard to imagine both the networks and the NFL wouldn't make more money with more weekends of football.

What are people going to watch in late February, a regular season NBA game or a playoff football game?
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
42,486
It's gotta be a money reason, or a contractural reason, but it is hard to imagine both the networks and the NFL wouldn't make more money with more weekends of football.

What are people going to watch in late February, a regular season NBA game or a playoff football game?
Precisely. And Tuesday night football? Sign me up for that. When has America ever complained about more football? Seems like a golden opportunity to expand your footprint and normalize football on non-traditional days.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
54,891
New York City
Precisely. And Tuesday night football? Sign me up for that. When has America ever complained about more football? Seems like a golden opportunity to expand your footprint and normalize football on non-traditional days.
Is it possible the NFL doesn't want to do the work? Roger Godell is not Adam Silver. He's not a great thinker, executive, worker, or planner. All he is is a guy who doesn't mind that everyone calls him and idiot and an asshole, which takes heat off the owners, who are almost universally assholes, it not idiots.

Because it's hard to understand why the NFL wouldn't want to increase the number of weekends they could make money.
 

TFisNEXT

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
11,795
Is it possible the NFL doesn't want to do the work? Roger Godell is not Adam Silver. He's not a great thinker, executive, worker, or planner. All he is is a guy who doesn't mind that everyone calls him and idiot and an asshole, which takes heat off the owners, who are almost universally assholes, it not idiots.

Because it's hard to understand why the NFL wouldn't want to increase the number of weekends they could make money.
Did the NFLPA have any comments on a longer season? I’m wondering if there was union pushback on a longer season.

I tend to think not but it does seem strange that the NFL/TV networks wouldn’t be all for an additional 2-3 weeks of football. So wondering if there is another factor at play here.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
54,891
New York City
Did the NFLPA have any comments on a longer season? I’m wondering if there was union pushback on a longer season.

I tend to think not but it does seem strange that the NFL/TV networks wouldn’t be all for an additional 2-3 weeks of football. So wondering if there is another factor at play here.
A longer season is far different than the NFL adding 2 more games to the schedule for each team. If it's still 16 games per team, spread out over 19 weeks instead of 17, doesn't everyone make more money despite the fact that each team still plays the same number of games they always have?

But you might be right that it's the NFLPA not lovin' this for some reason that I cannot think of.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
23,118
Newton
The part about not building tons of flexibility into the schedule that makes no sense to me is that there are no fans – the only major things that require changing are TV scheduling (which is already routinely flexed) and opponents.

Putting aside the need for teams to prepare to play against specific opponents for a minute, networks are already bending over backwards to show live football – so the notion that they have other (and possibly more) games to show seems like a win-win.

I don’t get it.