What do we do if there is no NFL 2020 season?

[Prison_Mike]

I know someone mentioned buying 2021 picks.

On the opposite end, are there specific players/positions you're trading away or avoiding based on more incoming rookies? (assuming no NFL season)

For example: I have to imagine the current RB landscape would change drastically if we added in 2021 incoming rookies and all the current starters would be a year older

With that in mind, are you absolutely out on mid-tier backs that are getting up there in age like: Bell, Gordon, Ingram, Drake(?)
What about younger guys that have their fair share of question marks like Conner, Gurley, Henry, Fournette, Jones

The same question could be asked about any position but I think RB tends to have the quickest turnover and could be impacted the most

[YouMightDieTryin]

I'd gotta assume it's almost a lateral move in most situations. Henry on the tag is still the same gamble. Exclusions might be Ingram/other older backs that are pushing 30+, but even so that's 1 less year of wear/tear on the body so they could in theory pull off the AP. If there's no season do contracts progress or do they carry over?

[Prison_Mike]

I'd gotta assume it's almost a lateral move in most situations. Henry on the tag is still the same gamble. Exclusions might be Ingram/other older backs that are pushing 30+, but even so that's 1 less year of wear/tear on the body so they could in theory pull off the AP. If there's no season do contracts progress or do they carry over?

This is an important question that I forgot to mention. That could shake things up even further

[jenkins.math]

People care more about money and the economy than the pandemic though.

That is largely accurate. Every risk has a perceived value that makes the risk tolerable. Drinking, smoking, and driving will all continue to kill more than this virus, yet we still sell alcohol and cigarettes at an alarming rate while our entire economy hinges largely on automotive travel. I personally still enjoy alcohol on a regular basis and drive to work daily knowing that both of these things can kill me. I don't expect the government to tell me I can't do these activities, but I adhere to their risk reducing guidelines - age limits, speed limits, etc.

This virus is no different. There is a chance you will get it any time you go into a public space. For a 65yo+ the risk can be high for serious symptoms. For a 25yo, it's extremely low. Everyone is going to have to decide how much risk they are willing to take and adjust accordingly, while adhering to guidelines and recommendations laid out by the experts (likely not the politicians.)

The NFL will likely have to come up with guidelines and rules to reduce their overall risk to a point it's acceptable for the perceived value (in this case lots of money). I imagine this will include games with no fans as well as preventative equipment, frequent testing and contact tracing.

Agree, this virus is no biggie. Like, if I visit my Mom she might die if anyone in my family is unwittingly spreading the virus. But no big deal. Playing with her grandchild is clearly on the same level as smoking her entire life or drinking while driving. Risk v reward guys, it's science.

Every 2% increase in unemployment has a direct correlation to a 1% increase in suicide rate in this country. While death at any age should never be minimized, we are talking about shutting down the entire economy to protect the same general population (elderly and those with underlying ailments) that is at a higher risk every flu season or anytime they get a bad cold. Some of the scientists think we would literally have to completely shut down and social distance for a year (or until a vaccine is found) to rid ourselves of this thing. Well that would lead to a 20% or more unemployment rate for sure which at 20% for a year would give us an additional 77,000 deaths via suicide.

So yeah, it is very much a risk vs reward thing. Except the stakes are deaths across an already at risk population vs deaths across all age ranges all while closing a lot of small businesses for good and wrecking our economy for a good while. It's just not as simple as protecting everyone's grandparents.

[CGW]

People care more about money and the economy than the pandemic though.

That is largely accurate. Every risk has a perceived value that makes the risk tolerable. Drinking, smoking, and driving will all continue to kill more than this virus, yet we still sell alcohol and cigarettes at an alarming rate while our entire economy hinges largely on automotive travel. I personally still enjoy alcohol on a regular basis and drive to work daily knowing that both of these things can kill me. I don't expect the government to tell me I can't do these activities, but I adhere to their risk reducing guidelines - age limits, speed limits, etc.

This virus is no different. There is a chance you will get it any time you go into a public space. For a 65yo+ the risk can be high for serious symptoms. For a 25yo, it's extremely low. Everyone is going to have to decide how much risk they are willing to take and adjust accordingly, while adhering to guidelines and recommendations laid out by the experts (likely not the politicians.)

The NFL will likely have to come up with guidelines and rules to reduce their overall risk to a point it's acceptable for the perceived value (in this case lots of money). I imagine this will include games with no fans as well as preventative equipment, frequent testing and contact tracing.

Agree, this virus is no biggie. Like, if I visit my Mom she might die if anyone in my family is unwittingly spreading the virus. But no big deal. Playing with her grandchild is clearly on the same level as smoking her entire life or drinking while driving. Risk v reward guys, it's science.

So let's close the entire world until there is zero risk for anyone to contract an illness. What happens when there is no cure in a year or two? What happens if there never is?

Look I get it, this virus is a big deal for at risk individuals. If I was in that group, you better believe I would think awfully hard about every person I came in contact with, even my own family. But I still have to pay the bills, so I still have to go to work to make money despite the risks. All I can do is minimize the risk as much as possible.

We aren't talking about 65 year old grandparents here though, we are talking about generally very healthy 25year olds in exceptional athletic shape, making a lot of money playing a sport as their job. Pretty sure many of them are willing to take precautions and perform. Just look at how many of them are running self practice sessions with teammates in unsanctioned workouts (which is a massive risk in itself if they get injurred).

[wickerkat1212]

While 80% of US coronavirus deaths are among people 65 and up, the other 20% (under 65) amounts to 24,000+ deaths. That's still A LOT OF PEOPLE. I'm 52. While it's a very low death rate (.1%) for this age group, of those 1,696 players you tell me who the (1.6) 2 players are in the NFL that get to die this year? That doesn't include teams, staff, etc. There are about 3,739 people employed by the NFL. Now THOSE ages are going up. Would be more like .67% which I have at about 44 deaths. So, it's very risky.

[OhCruelestRanter]

While 80% of US coronavirus deaths are among people 65 and up, the other 20% (under 65) amounts to 24,000+ deaths. That's still A LOT OF PEOPLE. I'm 52. While it's a very low death rate (.1%) for this age group, of those 1,696 players you tell me who the (1.6) 2 players are in the NFL that get to die this year? That doesn't include teams, staff, etc. There are about 3,739 people employed by the NFL. Now THOSE ages are going up. Would be more like .67% which I have at about 44 deaths. So, it's very risky.

One thing I’ve noticed among those who want to treat this virus as though it’s “no big deal” is that their discussion of risk focuses entirely, 100% on mortality, and completely ignores the possibility of any morbidity that doesn’t result in death. Some of these people are going to experience lasting pulmonary, renal, cardiac, or other organ system dysfunction, and it will take a long time to quantify this risk.

It would be great if we could have a season. It might be possible if the NFL accepts that changes are going to need to be made and players will need to isolate in addition to being tested. Right now I don’t see it.

[wickerkat1212]

While 80% of US coronavirus deaths are among people 65 and up, the other 20% (under 65) amounts to 24,000+ deaths. That's still A LOT OF PEOPLE. I'm 52. While it's a very low death rate (.1%) for this age group, of those 1,696 players you tell me who the (1.6) 2 players are in the NFL that get to die this year? That doesn't include teams, staff, etc. There are about 3,739 people employed by the NFL. Now THOSE ages are going up. Would be more like .67% which I have at about 44 deaths. So, it's very risky.

One thing I’ve noticed among those who want to treat this virus as though it’s “no big deal” is that their discussion of risk focuses entirely, 100% on mortality, and completely ignores the possibility of any morbidity that doesn’t result in death. Some of these people are going to experience lasting pulmonary, renal, cardiac, or other organ system dysfunction, and it will take a long time to quantify this risk.

It would be great if we could have a season. It might be possible if the NFL accepts that changes are going to need to be made and players will need to isolate in addition to being tested. Right now I don’t see it.

Excellent point, forgot about that.

[Shoreline Steamers]

One thing I’ve noticed among those who want to treat this virus as though it’s “no big deal” is that their discussion of risk focuses entirely, 100% on mortality, and completely ignores the possibility of any morbidity that doesn’t result in death. Some of these people are going to experience lasting pulmonary, renal, cardiac, or other organ system dysfunction, and it will take a long time to quantify this risk.

This right here is why I'm doing my best to avoid getting this virus in the first place. Once you've got it, all you can do at this point is hope for a good outcome. That just doesn't feel like a winning strategy to me. We need some pharmaceuticals, and hopefully someday a vaccine or two that prove effective.

[FantasyFreak]

One thing I’ve noticed among those who want to treat this virus as though it’s “no big deal” is that their discussion of risk focuses entirely, 100% on mortality, and completely ignores the possibility of any morbidity that doesn’t result in death. Some of these people are going to experience lasting pulmonary, renal, cardiac, or other organ system dysfunction, and it will take a long time to quantify this risk.

This right here is why I'm doing my best to avoid getting this virus in the first place. Once you've got it, all you can do at this point is hope for a good outcome. That just doesn't feel like a winning strategy to me. We need some pharmaceuticals, and hopefully someday a vaccine or two that prove effective.

No doubt. The USA are doing far, far worse than all of the EU and Canada currently. They also took a different approach, which appears to have not yielded great results. So I really have no idea how they will approach anything moving forward, as they haven't really taken the same precautions in general, as other countries. I would certainly not count out sports happening, even if it isn't the "right" move.

[Csl312]

It's not just the people directly employed by the NFL either. It's also the immediate families - so I guess it's also acceptable that maybe the wives of a few coaches die? The rate is nowhere near that of alcohol. But either way every individual can eliminate their risk of dying from smoking and minimize the risk from alcohol by not drinking or smoking. You don't get to choose to not catch an infectious disease. I'd like to see actual hard data indicating that the suicide rate is increasing that dramatically though I don't deny it has increased.

This all misses the whole point though. We aren't trying to reduce the number of people who get sick and die from SARS CoV 2 infections. We are trying to avoid overwhelming hospitals with sick people. It's the number of people at once that would lead to hospital beds being beyond capacity. Then people who have chronic liver disease from drinking or lung disease from smoking or diabetes or cancer or heart failure will also not have a bed and so some of those people will die too. Overwhelming the health care system has massive downstream consequences. If we hsd not done the already mediocre job we did in this country to slow the spread we would have far more virus related deaths but also far more deaths from heart attacks and diabetic ketoacidosis. I'm not sure how massive numbers of people dying is good for the economy either. I'm also not sure how much money is worth it to allow avoidable deaths but maybe some are more comfortable making that calculation than I am.

[FantasyFreak]

It's not just the people directly employed by the NFL either. It's also the immediate families - so I guess it's also acceptable that maybe the wives of a few coaches die? The rate is nowhere near that of alcohol. But either way every individual can eliminate their risk of dying from smoking and minimize the risk from alcohol by not drinking or smoking. You don't get to choose to not catch an infectious disease. I'd like to see actual hard data indicating that the suicide rate is increasing that dramatically though I don't deny it has increased.

This all misses the whole point though. We aren't trying to reduce the number of people who get sick and die from SARS CoV 2 infections. We are trying to avoid overwhelming hospitals with sick people. It's the number of people at once that would lead to hospital beds being beyond capacity. Then people who have chronic liver disease from drinking or lung disease from smoking or diabetes or cancer or heart failure will also not have a bed and so some of those people will die too. Overwhelming the health care system has massive downstream consequences. If we hsd not done the already mediocre job we did in this country to slow the spread we would have far more virus related deaths but also far more deaths from heart attacks and diabetic ketoacidosis. I'm not sure how massive numbers of people dying is good for the economy either. I'm also not sure how much money is worth it to allow avoidable deaths but maybe some are more comfortable making that calculation than I am.

I'm certainly not. I live in Canada, so as bad as it has been, we don't have the mess you have in the States. We also got more than 1 stimulus check to deal with this, though. We are getting compensated continuously, and and as the COVID restrictions get prolonged, so does the compensation. The USA seems to be handling this completely differently to then entire EU, and Canada for that matter, and it does not appear to be working as well, to be quite honest. We really don't know how this thing will go, if a vaccine will work, or if it will be something that is just part of our new reality.

[esloan35]

While 80% of US coronavirus deaths are among people 65 and up, the other 20% (under 65) amounts to 24,000+ deaths. That's still A LOT OF PEOPLE. I'm 52. While it's a very low death rate (.1%) for this age group, of those 1,696 players you tell me who the (1.6) 2 players are in the NFL that get to die this year? That doesn't include teams, staff, etc. There are about 3,739 people employed by the NFL. Now THOSE ages are going up. Would be more like .67% which I have at about 44 deaths. So, it's very risky.

One thing I’ve noticed among those who want to treat this virus as though it’s “no big deal” is that their discussion of risk focuses entirely, 100% on mortality, and completely ignores the possibility of any morbidity that doesn’t result in death. Some of these people are going to experience lasting pulmonary, renal, cardiac, or other organ system dysfunction, and it will take a long time to quantify this risk.

It would be great if we could have a season. It might be possible if the NFL accepts that changes are going to need to be made and players will need to isolate in addition to being tested. Right now I don’t see it.

Excellent point, forgot about that.

Diabetics have a very bad outcome with this virus, players will get shook when some 300 pound lineman doesn't pull through or the random healthy person stroke from the clots that this creates. Additionally, coaching staff members have many at an advanced age. These guys will get shook and a number of them will want to shut it down, making it a real mess. Once a vaccine comes forward they will be one of the first to get it, I would imagine. Maybe a late start season playing into Spring is in order. I don't see anything happening the first Thursday after Labor Day.

[John Paul]

I am a commissioner in two leagues. I've had preliminary conversations with most of the other GMs in both. Here is my plan for 2020:

- Only charge dues to cover the league site fees. If the site refunds the money because the season doesn't go forward, then fees can be used for 2021 site charges.

- Continue with the draft. We've already had one. People had traded picks and it would be a lot of work to try to combine those trades with 2021 picks and have a double-draft of sorts. So we went forward with our draft as-is.

- Stop trading of future draft picks in the meantime. There are too many unknowns right now. Player-for-player trades will be allowed.

- Play lineups as best we can for as long as we can to try to get some sort of draft order set up for 2021 based on standings.

- No payout prizes this year.

[MFundercover]

The long term effects of covid are unknown at this point, so the arguments here are anecdotal and probably sensationalized. Typical fantasy football fans acting like epidemiologists.