Tim Benz: Health complaints from NFL players are mix of spot on and ridiculous

National Football League players have recently expressed some concerns about a return to play. In some cases, they have a point.

And, in some cases, they absolutely do not.

In the coronavirus era, the analysis on every level is about risk versus reward. And in the NFL’s attempt to launch a season during the country’s battle against covid-19, one thing is clear.

There’s no such thing as being risk-free.

The only option to avoid risk entirely for the league — and for the player’s union — is to avoid playing entirely. At least for the time being, that doesn’t appear to be part of the conversation.

So let’s see where the players have a point in some of the concerns they have highlighted in advance of training camps.

Preseason games: The owners still seem to want at least two preseason games. The players want none.

I’m with the players here.

Normally, I’m one who thinks the NFL preseason is overrated anyway. This year, I do see an increased need for it, given the lack of hands-on offseason workouts due to the coronavirus.

That’s a significant component to the argument.

However, let’s keep our eyes on the prize — getting to the start of the regular season intact. Then, actually completing it.

So why expose players to such extreme risk on game days twice when the results don’t count?

Even if the NFL gets to the point that it can find a way to test every player and coach and get immediate results, game days pose a greater threat. Because players will then be in an arena occupied by hundreds of people who haven’t had that same frequency of testing.

We’re talking about on-field officials, sideline crews, camera operators, gameday security, some executives, etc.

Why run the risk?

Especially since — as ESPN.com reported over the weekend — the NFL is likely going to limit training camp roster sizes to less than 90 in the first place. And, if practice squads are potentially extended to 20 players, we might only be talking about cutting 10-15 guys anyway.

I know the owners want the local broadcast preseason revenue. And maybe even limited fans in the stands, if some places can make that happen. But shouldn’t they prioritize the certainty of making it to Week 1 and the national television revenue starting on time?

Let’s also keep in mind that the incubation period of the disease is roughly two weeks. So do you want the first test of exposure during games to potentially manifest in a spike right before the first week of real games, after tempting fate with the first preseason contest approximately 14 days earlier?

That seems like a silly gamble to me.

Helmets and face shields: I’m 100% behind any player who is reluctant to see headgear changes become mandatory.

After so many years of attempting to get concussions out of the game, it feels awfully shortsighted to rush through any sort of changes in the helmet design or structure in the name of stopping covid-19 spread.

That extends to talk of potentially making face shields larger and mandatory. Players are already at risk for hits they can’t see in time. Their first line of defense is their eyes.

Forget the ability to throw and catch the ball for players who don’t feel comfortable with a face shield or a new helmet. The bigger deal is being able to brace themselves for a hit with an extra split second of peripheral vision.

Although there is the chance Antonio Brown finally signs with a team. What if he waits through his suspension and finally reports for a practice, only to melt down again over another helmet change?

That may become the first time I laugh out loud during this entire pandemic.

Full 11-on-11 practices: The players have to let this one go.

At some point, they have to be able to practice as a team. This is a worthy example of risk versus reward, where the risk is understandable.

Plus, even in limited contact drills the players are coming in close contact with one another. They are covering each other. Blocking and pass rushing. Huddling. Handing off the football.

A few 11-on-11 drills after that in most cases won’t be the difference between the virus spreading or completely being blocked from doing so.

That’s stupid. And, frankly, just sounds like players not wanting to practice.

Limited meetings and participation: ProFootballTalk.com says, the players are also reportedly asking that activities be restricted to having no meetings in the team facilities. And they want to limit the number of players in the facility at any time to 20 for the first three weeks of camp.

Well, if you have 20 players or less, you can’t go 11-on-11. You see where the players are going with this one, huh?

So, see the above entry for my reaction to this point.

And as far as the meetings go … c’mon. You can breathe all over each other in close contact practices, but you can’t sit in a meeting room with each other wearing masks? That’s ridiculous. Again, that just seems to me that the players are trying to limit their required time at the facilities.

Which — theoretically — should be as clean and sanitary as any place in America.

But, hey, at this rate, 90% of the world is just going to be interacting on Zoom by the year 2025 anyway.

Maybe they’ll be playing the games that way by then, too.