OldSchoolSnapper

In all but one of his championship seasons, winning the championship meant either winning 1 or 2 games. In a bunch of them, you were the champion of 14 teams.

He's not close to either Favre or Rodgers but ok. Personally, don't believe Favre to be in Rodgers's orbit either.

I have Manning lower than most because I simply watched the guy play a lot of awful games and throw a lot of really bad interceptions. Brady is pretty underwhelming to me on the eye test but the results are so ridiculous there is no point even trying to suggest an alternative. If Rodgers had a 2nd title he would be my #2, I still consider him the most physically gifted to play, but it's same deal with Brady where his shortcomings in the postseason have just become too common to ignore any longer. I would go 1. Brady 2. Marino, I'm with you here, a truly transcendent talent, just way beyond his peer group 3. Rodgers 4. Montana 5. Manning

Not even remotely close. And in fact, probably not even in his top 5. He was pretty much career median this season. These seasons are either a lot better or a bit better: 2007 2010 2011 2012 2016 2017 Then there are a few others that are probably slightly better, or about the same. I don't mean this to be as condescending as it may come off, but you really have to learn to see beyond volume stats and look at efficiency. The vote wasn't close because he wasn't all that close to Rodgers, which I tried telling you 6 weeks ago, but you are hung up on volume stats. His quality of play the last 2 years, while really, really good, was magnified by the fact that his last one in NE was arguably the worst of his career. They had a good defense that season and he just looked old, and appeared to be holding them back. The narrative was that he was fading fast. Of course, that wasn't entirely true, and I'm not sure what he found in Tampa but obviously he was still productive. The best year of his career though? That's absurd.

A pretty hollow award when the 4x MVP can't seem to win super bowls, or get to them for that matter. Meh. It is what it is. QB success can be measured in different ways. I personally think he has a good case to be considered a Top 10 QB of all-time, but would leave him out of the Top 5 due to the lack of championships. That doesn’t change the fact that he’s been an absolute joy to watch in the regular season. A chance to be top 10? He is 100% top 10 and more like unanimously top 6. There are people out there who already thought he was #2, but unfortunately for him, losing NFCCGs will hurt his legacy in that regard more than simply going 7-9 would have. I think most pundits will end up putting around #4-6 at the end, behind Brady, Manning and Montana and then him right there or a couple random guys. If he is able to get a second at some point, he would probably be a unanimous top 3.

Would be a pretty depressing way to go out with his final game being that embarrassment. I still have a hard time accepting they actually lost that game and how they did. Just a totally uneventful 3hr dud. That was probably the most surprising loss I've seen as a Packers fan in the playoffs. SB32 is right there, but even the 2011 loss, some folks had a feeling they were in a bit of trouble. I thought this year's team was really, really good, which just makes it that much worse.

I couldn't care less about "dirty" players as long as they're not obviously trying to severely injure guys, but Dunleavy Jr. has his own reputation in the league, it's not like Giannis came out of nowhere with that.

LeBron James sitting in a post-game presser the other night saying "We're not on Milwaukee's level" was something for the ages.

Maybe I'll eat my words but I'm in favor of Harden going anywhere and tearing a team apart from the inside. Probably not a fair criticism but I couldn't care less about where he goes. The guy goes from city to city and supposedly elevates them to champions and then proceeds to never win a championship.

A pretty hollow award when the 4x MVP can't seem to win super bowls, or get to them for that matter. It's almost like the Super Bowl is a team achievement and the MVP is an individual award. The only other plausible candidate was Brady who didn't advance any further. Unless you are suggesting he get the MVP for winning the Super Bowl last year, which, yeah, no. I think Rodgers would have to throw 75 touchdowns to win it next year though. He will get hit hard with fatigue now that they've continued losing. I have to laugh a bit though. You were all over these parts calling people homers because they said it was obvious Rodgers was going to win and it would not be all that close. That is exactly what happened and, well, you were being a homer.

The NFL combine is must watch TV for many football fans - and that event's biggest draw is watching guys in underwear run 40 yards by themselves and 2 tenths of a second often separates 1st round talent from 3rd day draftees at certain position groupings. To each his or her own - but navigating the course itself in ski races IMO is more entertaining to watch than 8 people swimming or running at the same time in a pool or on a track to see who does it the fastest. Seeing the effect of skiers taking slightly different lines or approaches to parts of the course is pretty cool when they layer leaders' or other competitors' lines through various splits. If you need to see snow events that actively have people racing together, there are various ski/snowboard cross events and cross country skiing where people are racing at the same time - and those are typically very cool to watch. Alpine skiing/bobsled/luge are just not events where you line up a bunch of people at the same time and send them racing down it for safety reasons. For those events, the uniqueness of the course and sheer speed factors are the entertainment. Well yeah, but folks are watching that because the guys will be on their favorite teams and football is king. It's not really a standalone event.

Swimming works because it is very short and they are all in the pool at the same time. It is really easy to be exciting because you can see how close together everybody is. It is also an activity most people have at least some experience with. A bunch of people going down the same track separately is just not that great to watch. Imagine a 100m where each guy does the 100m separately. You can tweak the snowy hill a bit or throw more stuff on it but at some point it just all feels the same to a casual observer (me).

The only real value I thought Westbrook might bring was helping keep them afloat when LeBron inevitably got hurt so they don't fall into 9th place again. The fit itself never made any sense to me. Another ISO guy who can't shoot. If the Bucks are semi healthy they will roll right through the East. Then it's probably another really good finals, imo against Phoenix again. I think Golden State can maybe beat Phoenix but is a much better matchup for the Bucks (from our Bucks fan perspective anyway). GS will have a really hard time with Giannis.

It's the last time I'll bring it up, because clearly you're quick to criticize without bothering to first read carefully. I think every single post I've written said, luxury box leases, lower bowl season ticket packages, group outings will still happen regardless of any labor dispute. It's not as if the stadium is going to sit empty. The point is the fans who pout and say a labor dispute turns them off, will be relatively insignificant to the owners in the grand scheme of things. [ The Brewers per game attendance dropped about a third in 1995 (per game attendance was approx 15,000) from where it was in '94 before the strike (approx 22,000 per game). By 1998 things had returned to normal and the Brewers had their biggest year for total attendance since '89] Moreover, the fans who decide to "stay away" are not likely to abandon baseball, or Brewers baseball all together, and as such will continue pouring money directly, or indirectly, into the team's pocket thereby making any temporary drop in paid attendance even less of a detriment. Call them baseless, crazy, or whatever that's your prerogative, there's plenty of information available for anyone who wants to look establishing them as fact. The players' proposals for a new CBA increasing minimum salaries, players qualifying for arbitration sooner, changes to revenue sharing, raising the luxury tax level and penalizing teams for rebuilding/tanking, will only make it harder for teams like Milwaukee to compete with the big boys. I'm fine with the owners losing games if it means the Brewers won't become even more of a second class organization. I'll just find something else to occupy my time until the season eventually starts up. There is a mountain of info proving you wrong and you continue sticking to your guns so yes, it is pointless to run in circles. You also keep moving the goal post. Originally, fans going to games wasn't a significant source of income. False, so you moved to "broadcast revenue rules the day." They just turn on the radio instead and Mark A. is all smiles (lol). False, for anyone not in NYC or LA. Oh, ok, what you meant was PURE ticket revenue, which you distinguished halfway through the conversation. So yeah, by the arbitrary rules you keep shifting around to make attendance insignificant, I guess you can be correct. There's no point arguing with a guy who sees all examples of "consumption" (watching, listening, attending) as equal. And yes I will continue to call them baseless because you have nothing concrete whatsoever, just vague generalities about the "owners don't care" and the "proof is there for anyone willing to look." You made an exaggerated claim and when shown to be off the mark just kept doubling down.

I've always found the winter games particularly snoozy. It always sort of felt like a bunch of things that are all the same with a minor variation. There are only so many ways I can care about going down a slope. Summer isn't a whole lot better but there's usually some good swimming and the gymnastics can be kinda fun to track. I'm with you overall though. I stopped caring after high school. I will say I am really looking forward to the World Cup running over the holidays this year. That will be cool.

The captive spend doesn't matter because it hurts the ridiculous argument he is attempting to make. Who the hell cares if it is pure ticket sales? It is most likely a $160-$190mm gameday revenue stream. Who cares where it is coming from? The fewer fans there are, the less money there is. But sure, they don't care about attendance. The sales staff, the millions reinvested for ballpark improvements year after year, that is all just done for fun. The millions spent on marketing and promo has never provided worthwhile ROI, they just keep doing it for some reason. This is honestly taking the cake for one of the most baseless takes I've seen put forward here.

No 10-second runoff on Arizona play because the foul happened during a play. No run off there. As far as the 2-pt goes, recently I read, might have even been this year, it was considered and I believe was going to be the call. But Janis was hurt and had to come off the field for the 2pt. They didn't have WRs to run a play they would have wanted to. I also would always go for 2 there.

Perhaps you should re-read my post... I pointed out that that type of special team specialist wouldn't fix the top three ST and listed them specifically. And I actually listed coverage as the 4th largest problem on ST. Sadly, as bad as they were on coverage... they had much bigger problems, IMO. If you read one single sentence out of that post, it could be misinterpreted as literally signing Janis or Bush. If you read the context of the post, it was pretty clear I was referring to that type of player. Then I would disagree, strongly. The coverage team was a problem more often than anything else. Having more than one blocked kick is always bad, but that really didn't cost the Packers too badly until the final game of the year. The Packers lose the field position game week in and week out. Getting a kick blocked is a lot more memorable than giving up a 15 yard return but that is something the Packers do all the time. That and they can't catch. And even when they had a guy who could do it, they decided to deactivate him in the biggest game of the year. We will see what happens, but I'd like to think blocking long enough to kick a ball is one of the easiest things imaginable to fix at the professional level.

[sarcasm]Yeah, thanks for the help... [/sarcasm] I'm pretty sure I understood he didn't want to sign Bush or Janis specifically. They represented special teams specialists that mainly were useful as gunners on coverage teams. I'm also pretty sure that my point was that our biggest problems wouldn't have been solved by specialists LIKE Janis or Bush. And I realize you didn't think that, but you responded to him as though that was his point. A bit odd. Second, I disagree completely. The coverage team was a huge problem all year, people shouldn't just be zeroing in on the blocking mishaps because they dominate the final loss of the season. The coverage team has been bad for years. They even gave up a 45-yard return in the SF loss. They don't care about ST. They can keep saying they do, but the truth is they've done next to nothing to improve those units outside of firing the coordinator and crossing their fingers. Who knows, maybe AJ Dillon could have made up the difference in the game if he weren't hurt blocking on a kickoff.

This happened 6.5 years ago...?

If the Big 3 play the entire series, Toronto wouldn't beat the Bucks once.

Neither Bush nor Janis would've helped our top 3 issues. 1) Can't block for 3 seconds so the kicker/punter can kick the ball. - I was amazed to see how often people just knifed through or where one person had to block two people. Just seemed like people were not on the same page here. 2) Fumbles when catching the ball - Finding a legit specialist would help here. 3) Missed FGs - I attribute this mostly to changing up the punter (holder) and LS (mid-season no less). But it got better. 4) Coverage holes - They had one return for a TD and gave up some longer returns. They seemed to resolve this toward the end of the season, however. Looked like we often would have some guys downfield on kickoffs way ahead of others, creating big holes in the line. Solutions: 1) New long-snapper. He had numerous poor snaps and blocking issues. 2) Find a legit return specialist. We stuck with Rodgers far too long. 3) A special teams coach that actually will train the players how to block and cover. 4) Replace Crosby? I'm not sure how many of the FG misses I place on Crosby, but it is clear that his leg is starting to age. We obviously kept a PK on the practice squad for a reason. ...I'm pretty sure the point of the post wasn't to sign Jarrett Bush or Jeff Janis. It was that they deemed ST players useful in and of themselves. They don't do that anymore. As evidenced by leaving Moore off the playoff roster when he was the clear top choice to field kicks. On one of the SF blocks, the Packers lined up 4 people to block 6 rushers. There was a timeout or something, and then a regroup, and they came out with the exact same 4v6 blocking scheme. That alone is grounds for firing.

Bucks are sitting in a great spot to push forward and get a top seed. As long as the Big 3 are healthy I really don't see a lot standing in their way in the East. I think Miami would make them work and it would be nice to have HCA against them. The rest of the field is a pretty big meh to me.

No tickets = no parking = no beer = no team store = no food, the margins on all of which are enormous. Based on the post a coupe before mine, $150 million sounds like I undershot it probably by $30-$40 million in a good season. Biz Insider projected lost revenue at $178 million. https://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/news/2020/10/07/mlb-projected-gameday-revenue-lost.html So yeah, I guess "there is a way." Seriously dude, just admit you were WAY off on this. I'm sorry, but there is no way you believe it. Advertisers use formulas to price out the value of a listener and for a 620 broadcast it is likely pennies on the dollar. And you continually have made this ridiculous comparison that it somehow equates to a a guy taking 4 people to the park and spending $130 directly with the club. They may as well close the stadium forever and save on the massive operating costs because everyone will just watch on TV or buy shirts at Kohl's. After all it makes no difference if they come and the money isn't significant. We could also just go directly to the source, but I mean, we do have Jopal's vague analysis completely devoid of any real numbers. “Without getting into specifics, it’s significant dollars that we are losing this year,” Brewers President of Business Operations Rick Schlesinger said during a press conference held outside of Miller Park on Monday morning.

$12 to park, ummm, that is light... An average person doesn't get in and out of that stadium for less than $75. Most will exceed that by quite a bit just because they are there and want to have a good time. It's $15 to park for a non-marquee, quite a bit less if you buy a pass with season tickets. But even at the $15 price Milwaukee fans don't seem to know how good they have it with parking fees. Not every fan in attendance drives there alone and parks so the numbers will always be flubbed here and there. I'm not sure what the average person gets out of there for but there are ways to see a game for very, very little. So much of the parking is groups splitting cost with large numbers of people. The carry-in policy is extremely generous and really for most of the season, second-hand tickets can be had for next to nothing. I went throughout my 20s for WAY less than $75, sometimes not spending $20.