OldSchoolSnapper

I think the vast majority of people are fully aware of this gimmick. But for $200 or whatever you get voting rights, shareholders meeting and access to special merch. For someone that loves the Packers I don't think it's all that horrific. I know you weren't saying this, but I get more tired of sleuths thinking they've uncovered the next Bernie Madoff by alerting everyone that the stock is worthless. Like, yeah, we know. We all know. It's not much of a scam if the "victims" are willing participants.

The more things on FM radio, the better.

You guys are taking this in a way I never intended it to be. This has nothing to do with evil corporate America or "fat cats that I despise." It is simply the reality of the situation and a set of conditions that employers fostered for decades. You're assigning all kinds of bitterness to me that I don't harbor toward anyone. I just find the whole experience "cold," so I don't think companies have a leg to stand on when whining about this sort of thing. And I dunno why you're telling me it isn't possible. I've witnessed hundreds of people get fired from my company without notice on the same afternoon, more than once. Sure it's a "layoff," I don't think the people losing their job care much about the semantics. The point is the same. They wash their hands of you the second it is convenient to do so. To clutch pearls over some no-show interviews, lol, please. As far as this goes: "Sometimes it is simply about being a nice person and treating others they way you want to be treated." Precisely. The vast majority of companies haven't treated candidates this way, so they can sleep in the bed they made. Of course, they get to do under the guise of "doing their jobs" so that makes it OK. This isn't about some ax I have to grind. I've never been fired, I've been at the same company for a decade. These are all just things I've watched happen from the sidelines, witnessed friends and family do this silly interview game. There are few things more sad to me than an unemployed person desperately seeking work, and getting their hopes up by a recruiter who Houdinis half-way through the process. And while I can't question your personal experience...I REALLY doubt that candidates ghost more than recruiters...but I digress.

I very rarely bet anymore but I am really going to think about the Packers straight up. I think it's a long shot, but definitely an intriguing one. You always have a chance with someone like Rodgers.

They got a better offer and don't want to bother with pleasantries. You know, sort of exactly what employers have done for 40 years. Who cares about screwing corporate America. They can do what they want. My whole point is that employers created this dynamic. They are to blame, so I laugh at them crying about it now. They can dock your pay if you show up late once, fire you this afternoon and tell you to get bent, schedule an interview and then just not pick up the phone, but expect 2 weeks notice if you quit and cry foul if you ghost an interview. Childish? Please. The amount of leeway you guys are giving these places is frankly surprising. I have to wonder how extensive some of your interviewing experience is if none of these things have ever happened to you. And these aren't one-off things either. I've literally had Google Calendar invites that HR people simply don't show up to and I never hear from them again.

I guess I don't see the point in a "strategic loss." Those guys are already out of the game, right? So what is the point of trying to lose? Avoiding another player getting hurt? Half of them are out because of a virus and a few of them may not play another down this year. I'm just not following the logic. It's football. More players are getting hurt this season yet. They'd very likely still get hurt if we strategically lost. This all just sounds extremely fantasy footballish to me, I just can't get behind it any other time than Week 17 (18). Benching Rodgers and Aaron Jones or something to just willfully go 3 games behind AZ in a league where random outcomes happen weekly sounds like getting WAY too cute to me. We have Aaron freakin' Rodgers. We're not the Jets.

I know where you’re coming from, but many NBA stars sit out 6% of their schedule (~5 games) in the name of load management. If the NFL is going to keep adding games to the schedule and making the 17th (and 18th) game un-balanced (good teams playing good teams), I wouldn’t be surprised if you start seeing teams take strategic losses. It’s never been easier to make the playoffs. This week is a perfect case - the Packers are beat up, short-handed due to COVID, and traveling across the country to play an undefeated team on 4 days rest. I don’t think it will happen, but I can’t think of a more appropriate situation to strategically take an L. Of course, I will (deservedly) take some arrows if they win on TNF (and I hope they do - Go Pack!), but I just don’t see it happening. The NFL has 6 days built into every week for load management. They're not playing 82 games every other night for 8 months. And over half the league makes the postseason. Sorry, but the idea that the Packers should surrender a game against a team they could beat and potentially grab pole position for a bye, because they're down a couple of WRs, is absurd. The Packers are a virtual lock for the playoffs whether they win or lose by 30 tomorrow. But using that rationale we should win 10 games and then bench everyone. But, please, for the sake of my sanity, can we get a group agreement that if the Packers lose, we don't have 3 people here saying we should have load managed the game.

I want the Braves I guess, Hank Aaron or something, whatever. I'll turn it on in the 9th in a clinch game. I wish I could sit back and enjoy but I just want to see us play in it once.

They were a drive away from being in the Super Bowl last year. You are talking about them like they suck. The #2 passing target being a really good RB isn't all that uncommon. This is starting to sound a lot like the Bucks are doomed because they don't have the will to win...

^That is a lot to take in. Begrudging the WR group is...odd, coming off a season where Rodgers tossed like 50 TDs. MVS hasn't played in a month. Their WRs are fine. I believe Tampa is the best team, but there is no clear-cut favorite, and it's not as simple as the top 2 meet in the NFCCG because the seeding doesn't always work out. For all we know right now, Tampa and AZ will play each other in the first round. The West is almost certainly going to cause some odd 1st round matchups. They also don't need a clear-cut #2. People way get way too caught up in this kind of thing. You can win with an ensemble of Tonyan-Jones-Dillon-Lazard-Cobb-MVS. It's fine. In any case...there are far more random outcomes in thee NFL than Rodgers beating the Cardinals. This team should be playing for a 1st round bye, not white flagging because Adams can't play. C'mon man. You have to know that is silly sounding.

Yeah...I'm with igor here, I don't really see this pro-active hiring you speak of. Even at the huge company I work for, the vast majority of recent grads are on-boarded via a huge internship program and dismissed at the end of summer if they aren't hired. They don't get fired, just don't get offers and that basically means you aren't good. But they are crappily paid hourly employees for a summer so the company can avoid some risk. One thing I'm happy to see is the unpaid intern slavery trend that was huge when I graduated from college appears to gone. It should be illegal. If you couldn't tell, I find many aspects of the corporate hiring process pretty gross, but no, I'm not really disgruntled. I'm fine and feel treated fairly; I work at home...it is a pretty good gig, but in the end, personally speaking, all corporate jobs are just jobs to me. I never cared for the work, I just found more interesting pursuits far less lucrative and was always a pragmatist. My goal very early on was to take as much money as I could from Corporate America and quit in my 40s. That's still my plan. I still believe you owe your employer some basic decency and a certain standard of quality, but the relationship has always been strictly business to me. I'd shrug my shoulders and hold no grudges if I were fired tomorrow...but as I said, nope, I won't do trial projects for free to "impress" you. I know I do probably sound disgruntled, but I just don't have any delusions about the working world. I'm a cog that would be sent off to increase EPS by a 1/100 of a cent, and that's something people should always remember.

It's a GM job. They're all appealing to a huge pool of people so there is always a good candidate out there. Picking the one is harder. There are a thousand wonderboy scouts and special counsel/assistant coffee runners who could be great GMs and would kill to be with the Brewers. You don't have to hire an established GM to hire a good one.

You can't just white flag 6% of your schedule when only 7 teams make the postseason and like 5 are undefeated or have one loss. If Rodgers plays, I think it's a competitive game no matter who plays WR. The Packers once took a 14-2 Patriots team to the brink...without Rodgers. You try to win every game in the NFL, save for maybe the last week of the year if it really doesn't matter.

You sort of hit one of the biggest flaws I find with employers hiring processes. What is the biggest thing 95% of them seek? Experience. What do they want? Someone who has already done the job for which they are hiring. The flaw with this should be obvious, but somehow, employers haven't caught on: Why is someone interviewing for a job they already have? Because they hate it. Yes, there can be relationship conflicts or geographical considerations, but in my experience, most of the reasons people leave a job really do boil down to a person not liking the work, but inventing a list of other reasons. So employers hire someone to do a job they clearly already hate, and what happens? After the honeymoon, surprise, surprise! A new list of contrived grievances arises. And they still can't figure it out. You got a crappy employee because you hired them to do the job they were escaping from.

It's not a big deal anymore now that some do remote interviews. But all those steps aren't just 3.5 hours. It can be commuting 50 minutes to Milwaukee to do 3-4 different sit-downs...on your current employer's time. Which in many cases means multiple portions of days using PTO to interview for a job you have no assurance of getting. At my first god-awful job out of college, I was an hourly employee and I burned through nearly all of my PTO just scheduling interviews to get out of that job. It was absolutely awful. Unless you're miserable or unemployed, it just not worth that kind of stress for a mid-career person. All this is to say that candidate ghosting makes me smile from ear to ear. I'm glad employers are having their time wasted by folks for a change.

The Bucks had a really nice deal going for Wednesday night. $21 for an upper level seat including a $10 food and bev voucher. They were't all bad either. Was able to get 4 tix in a center court section +$40 food and bev for $95 total.

I don't do homework for free. My wife had an interview like this, got hired, and the hiring manager used her fake project for a real assignment. He was using the interviews to mine his own work. I assume this happens a lot. She no longer works there. I'm late to the party here but I second all the frustrations with interviews. It's so bad that I don't even bother anymore and just opt to stay put. I'm not doing a phone screen with HR, a phone screen with a manager and then 2 on-sites. You're not that special guys. You don't get 6 un-billed hours of my time. As soon as they mention multiple stages I just decline the whole thing and get off the phone. I realize if you're unemployed you don't have that luxury though.

Joe Barry has it too.

Fine, they need to get other guys involved.

I still feel pretty uncertain as to what the Packers are. I don't think their offense is at full speed yet. I'm just not sure what the ceiling is defensively. Don't know how healthy they will be at the end, and it's hard to gauge that with so many guys you hope to see in December/January not playing this week. I'll be really happy if they just don't get laughed out of AZ. At least make it competitive and fun to watch. No shame in losing a good game there. As of today I think Tampa is still the best team.

Can't wait until the day the Packers have bigger problems than not drafting the RIGHT good pass rusher early enough. Lol.

That's a pretty unreasonable standard. Is it? Unless you’re taking a QB, you should at least be getting a Day 1 starter at #12. The book on Gary is incomplete, but I don’t think I’m wrong in questioning whether that pick was the best use of draft capital. You didn't say starter, you said stud, which to me means you're getting a true impact pass rusher. That is the ideal scenario and we can go down the line and pick out random guys that do a lot as rookies, but generally pass rushers are like receivers; they usually do take some time to find a groove. In his second year, Gary was an impact player. Not the kind of every down player people want him to be apparently but it was clear he could play. I don't really care about his snap totals either tbh. He was drafted to be a rusher and with the depth chart they had he just fit naturally into the PRS role. Now he's taking another step up and looks like a really good player. Of course there's always the argument the pick could have used somewhere else, but to me you can always use pass rushers and if they liked him I have no issue with the pick. The Draft is the ultimate crapshoot anyway so I'm more than happy to have the league's leading pressure-guy in the middle of his 3rd season. Anyone still bemoaning the pick at this point...just feels a bit like digging one's heels in on a poorly aged take. A bit of goal post moving from "this guy sucks" to "OK, so he looks good, but we needed a CB more 3 years ago!"

I still see some angst around Gary on here and I don't really get it... He doesn't sack totals and most people just Google a guy's name and check the number of sacks.

That's a pretty unreasonable standard.

The Brewers have now lost to the NL Champ in each of their last 6 playoff appearances (well, 7, if you count '82!). Only the '18 Dodgers lost the World Series. The '81 Yankees also went on to win the AL after beating the Brewers, but they also lost the WS. We seem to be the good luck charm for everyone else.