FVBrewerFan

Elway with only 300 is absolutely mind blowing to me. Rare to throw inside the 5 back then, it was "ram it home" days. Look at how many 1 or2 yd TD passes Rogers has. It's a ton.

I watched Man City match, and looked like there weren't any fans yet. If there were any at all they were few and well-hidden.

No talent at the skill positions. How can UW not have one or two stud RBs?

Yea, credit to OSU. But it wasn't necessarily shot making, they didn't move the ball at ALL. How many times did Carton or whoever just stand there and dribble down to 2 seconds on the shot clock. Just no attacking the gaps in the zone, passing quickly around the horn, etc. Yea, they don't have knock down shooters but move the ball to get good looks and they would have had a chance at least. I just don't think Wojo is a good coach, but I've been saying that for a while. College teams should play zone more often, everyone struggles against it since these guys grew up in AAU and may have never seen a zone once.

You guys are getting old. I know the feeling. I was the first person to have wifi in my home. When I explained it to people, they had no idea what I was talking about at first. I could troubleshoot Windows computers, figure out phones...all that stuff. And I have no IT training or background whatsoever. Now I would love to have a bunch of stuff integrated with Alexa. I just don't feel like taking the time to figure out how to set-up a hub, buy devices, etc. Mostly, I would love to control my thermostat when I'm not home and I just don't feel like learning the easiest way to do that.

This might be a stupid question... assuming the games are carried on a streaming app, knowing there's a delay from live action, how do you effectively integrate in-game betting as part of it? Regardless, I have YTTV and really hope they work a deal out before the Bucks start up. I love the platform and would hate to give it up for ATT Now or cable. YTTV is on a delay for live sports as well, since it is streaming as well. Sometimes a fairly significant delay depending on the game.

Any statistic needs to be considered with a certain degree of context, some moreso than others. Which do you think are meaningless? All of them. An NFL season is such a small sample to begin with. Then you have games where the other team is real banged up, plays their best game, plays their worst game, etc. Extreme example is playing a team without a QB. But even a situation like playing the Bears without Hicks skews your offensive numbers, especially rushing. Most of all the though, game situation dictates so much. That entire 2nd half inflated the Beards offense and hammered the Packers defensive numbers. All because they were smart and sat some people. So you had Lancaster and Lowry in there rushing the passer. Due to the sample size of 16, all these things don't even out the way they do over the course of an NBA or MLB season.

I think that's a safe bet. Also a safe bet a lot of people freak out about that, not wanting anyone infringing on their privacy. I'm curious if this will extend to employers or restaurants, medical facilities, etc. I have a feeling this type of thing snowballs, and everyone will require it, or at least a lot of states will.

Packers can beat any team in a shoot-out when their offense is playing at this level. Not saying they WILL, but they can.

This is why team stats are so meaningless in the NFL.

It's also weird considering you have no control of the result of a coin flip.

35-40 yards from a reasonable FG attempt, but yea, still agree worth taking a shot.

Yup, Bears get the ball to start 2nd half. 27-17 and it's a game.

Both safeties were lined up over there pre-snap too. I have no idea.

Wow. I’ll admit, I’m probably more disillusioned with the Bucks than any other fan on BF, but that’s great news. He’s so darn likable, I can’t help but root for him. Like I've been saying, there's no reason NOT to sign the supermax. $38MM more, chance to win with the team he loves, and if it doesn't work he can get traded in 3 years when he still has prime years left.

That would be really fun AND fair! Everyone goes no huddle with quick snaps as they can't let the other team score first! Replay to see who crossed the goal line first! I love it. Not OT realted, bu there was a rule change proposed in the competition committee that gained no traction, but I love it. Instead of Onside kick at the end of games, give team the ball at the 25, 4th and 15....I think. Convert and regular rules apply until the end of game.

This is hilarious and so true. My 19 month old likes to watch and listen to the kids songs on Netflix... the other day there was some show on and she threw me the remote when a commercial came on and was saying, 'oh no, oh no'. I think she watches too much at grandmas during the week. Ha. Isn’t that nuts? Last year, we let him ‘stay up late’ to watch a Peanuts Christmas special that started at 7:00 pm. Around 6:45 pm, he kept asking us to ‘put Snoopy on.’ He didn’t understand why we couldn’t watch it right away. To be fair, I'm not much better than a 4 year old. Hard for me to watch anything other than sports with commercials.

That was the worst decision I've seen in a longgggg time. First, you're on your own 24. It's not 4th and 1, it's 4th and 10! Then the play itself was horrible. Long developing double reverse 15 yards behind LOS. Wow.

Flip to Marquette to see them for a bit, and can't seem to go back to UW. I know it's Pine Bluff but 66-24 as I'm writing this. Garcia is the real deal, and man they just have waives of athletes shuttling on the court.

I don't think hardly anyone believes obese people want to be obese to get free stuff and love "the value insurance" (Not even sure what that means.) Everyone has knowledge of how to do so- eat less. Motivation is a big part of it, just like quitting smoking. I'm not implying in any way it's easy. That's why it's worth trying different ways to motivate people. I wouldn't expect this to work on everyone, maybe it helps 10 or 15% of people. That's a big number. HIPAA isn't an issue, it's just another factor being used for health insurance. Employer already has access to medical conditions, age, smoking, etc. I also don't think it's a disincentive to see a doctor. In fact, it would be an incentive, because you would have to go once a year to maintain your insurance. I also wouldn't consider it a regressive tax. Obesity is an epidemic that extends to all races and economic status. When you use actuarial data, the numbers are the numbers. It's why insurance costs more for smokers, even though that affects low income and minorities more.

This year doesn't count for eligibility for anybody, no matter how many games the team or player plays. How does that work for draft eligibility though? I'm assuming Mertz or any other freshman would be draft eligible after two more seasons?

I don't think NOT signing the super-max was ever an option. Just too much money left on the table. He gets the best of both worlds, give it a couple more years with the Bucks and if he is unhappy you ask (demand) to be traded. Or, wait until contract is done, he'll still be young enough. I think the delay is all about forcing the Bucks to make moves and spend money on the roster, and I have no problem with that.

In a way I can't articulate, this sounds just so wrong to me. It already exists. Lots of employers use health screenings and offer reduced premiums if you pass them. Mine has one but it is pretty easy to pass, you can fail 2/5 criteria and still get the full $700 credit. So you can fail BMI and waistline and still get the full premium. If you fail 3/5, you get a $350 credit. You can fail them all and still get some credit just for doing the screen. All other forms of insurance are billed on risk. That there's a social sensitivity toward categorizing obesity as high risk is just silly; obesity is incredibly high risk and it's reasonable for the insurance company to bill it higher. It's important to point out that this is obesity, not merely being overweight or out of shape. I don't see a ethical dilemma about insurance being more costly for someone at a 30 BMI. With that said, obesity really isn't a MAJOR health risk until later in life. There's not a high risk of death in the current calendar year for an obese 30 year old so the usual year-to-year employer plans don't put a lot of emphasis on it. The complications from it explode once you cross into the late 40s, 50s and 60s, though. The point of contention seems to be that some think obesity should fall under the same category as something like a tobacco surcharge and others seem to think it should be treated as something like Type 2 diabetes, a pre-existing condition more or less beyond your control. It's probably somewhere in between. Right, I said it's already being done on the incentive side- just not the penalty side of things yet. It would be relatively easy, as obese has a definition and parameters. Difference between obese and overweight. I don't see a problem with it, as it's a choice just like smoking. I'm not real familiar with life insurance, but I know it's standard to have higher rates for smokers. So having higher health insurance rates for obese people isn't much a stretch. It's nt forcing anyone to change their lifestyle. You just pay more, that's all.

I think using the carrot and stick approach with health insurance is worth trying. The carrot is already more common. Wellness is being promoted, and in some cases you get a reduction in premium. My guess is most people who need that the most are not taking advantage. Which brings me to the stick. You should pay more if you're obese. Health insurance already factors in age and other criteria, why not weight? If you're obese, you pay $100 more a month for insurance, or whatever the amount. Not the whole answer obviously, but it may have some effect.

Good article in the Ringer bout the Bucks off-season, sorry I don't have the link.