Jump to content
Brewer Fanatic

OldSchoolSnapper

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    12,945

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    29

 Content Type 

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Milwaukee Brewers News, Rumors & Analysis

2026 Milwaukee Brewers Top Prospect Rankings

Milwaukee Brewers Videos

2022 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Milwaukee Brewers Trade & Free Agent Rumors

Milwaukee Brewers Fan Guides & Resources

2023 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2024 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

The Milwaukee Brewers Players Project

2025 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2026 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by OldSchoolSnapper

  1. OldSchoolSnapper
    He throws a ton down field into a sea of like 8 guys, where pick 6s are less likely to happen. They're usually quick hits to the sideline where there is nobody in front of a defender to make a tackle.
  2. OldSchoolSnapper
    It would be nice to see the Packers get home field by just rolling over a team fighting for a playoff spot. It could be a close one. I wouldn't be surprised if they win by 25 or it comes down to a final possession.
  3. OldSchoolSnapper
    76 of Dillon's 124 came after contact.
  4. OldSchoolSnapper
    Packers are class of the NFC. Nothing is automatic but they are clearly the best in the conference.
  5. OldSchoolSnapper
    Great punt and coverage. Usually you get one or neither, and end up getting 20 yards to punt from there. I'd still have gone for it with Rodgers.
  6. OldSchoolSnapper
    Really should go for it here.
  7. OldSchoolSnapper
    Rodgers sat 3 and probably would have sat 4 if Favre didn't retire first. TT wanted him to retire but there's no telling what happens if he doesn't retire in March first. However I don't think they saw Favre playing as well as he started to in 2007 and then continued to in Minnesota and New York for half a season. I don't think there is a plan set in stone. I think they drafted a QB they really liked (biggest reason) because Rodgers is old, had shown possible signs of decline, they have no depth at the position and have seen him get hurt before. It's foolish to make a plan on Draft Day and stick with it for 3 years if your vet is still playing like an MVP. Love has to actually show something before the Packers make that kind of call. I'd hardly call this offseason any kind of real evaluation on Love, but he did not look good at all in camp according to numerous sources. Rodgers was lighting up practice by the time Favre left and it was clear to everyone on the roster he was ready to play.
  8. OldSchoolSnapper
    Yeah...I'm not, though I don't think you're crazy since most people I talk to seem to agree with you on this. This "window" stuff is always just an eye roll to me. The 49ers were going to dominate the NFC for years to come...the Packers just won the Super Bowl and "haven't peaked yet, there will be more." There's an endless list of stuff that was supposed to happen and never did. "Moving on" from a 39-year-old QB that's still throwing 40 TDs and a handful of picks is just insane, there's no other word for it. You don't need a long-term plan when you are winning 13 games. It doesn't take 7 years to rebuild in the NFL, there isn't a need to accelerate a rebuild. Many of the same teams pick high year after year and suck anyway. Why fans always seem to be in a hurry to get Tom Brady to retire or the Packers to move on from the one guy that's held up some atrocious teams just always surprises me. I watched the Brett Hundley season and I'd rather postpone that as long as possible. If Rodgers is playing like this in 2 years then make it work. The guy is probably going to be good into his 40s, and I hope it's here. 2-year window is completely debatable. Your window is open when you have a QB like Rodgers. But it doesn't mean you can just suck in all other forms of player development. However I have no reason to believe he's falling off a cliff in 2 years.
  9. OldSchoolSnapper
    No fixed bracket. 1 plays lowest seed left in round 2.
  10. OldSchoolSnapper
    ^seems a bit overboard. If I told you when he was 28 that Brees would be considered one of the best ever, you'd laugh. All of his monster years came after that once he settled into NO. I've actually thought Carr has always been underrated. Just playing for a team never has a plan, but statistically he's always been pretty good. Goff is 26. Wentz looked like the next superstar before some injuries.
  11. OldSchoolSnapper
    There's always a day (well, year) of reckoning at some point. The Packers kicked the can a couple of times recently, and there's not much room for movement left without cutting players. Exactly, because they've done this before, and that year was 2005. The let both pro bowl guards walk in FA and released Darren Sharper, then proceeded to go 4-12. Ted Thompson knew they were in a cap hell and likely knew they had to suck to get out of it. It's a consequence of being consistently good with a ton of money tied up in one very important guy.
  12. OldSchoolSnapper
    You're right, I think I mixed Shaq and Wade with the pile-on LA team that lost to Detroit, I think it was.
  13. OldSchoolSnapper
    Kinda hard to call LeBron that when his "super team" lost their first attempt and he disbanded it to go play in Cleveland and beat the Warriors once. Lebron's first teams in Cleveland were a joke. It's not shameful that he left, it was the right thing to do. They were trying to get him over the hump with Mo Williams. They didn't deserve to have him. I dunno why people still act like James was the first guy to do it. What was Kobe and Shaq exactly? And their pile-on attempt with Payton and Malone? And KG-Allen-Pierce?
  14. OldSchoolSnapper
    I don't think $38 million made him stay. He could make that up easily with endorsements in any of like 8 huge NBA cities. He's a rare guy that wanted to stay here because he liked it, and because it seems to mean more to him to win a title here vs. with Steph Curry or Kevin Durant some place else. 99% of the time I'm the person calling this naive, but with Giannis I actually believe it. He's been very consistent on it for years. Another player who wanted out would have done so, $38 million of contract or not.
  15. OldSchoolSnapper
    I went from 90% sure he'd stay to about 50%. Thought he'd stay, but made me sweat the last month or so.
  16. OldSchoolSnapper
    The Packers are among the league's worst in takeaways. They're bunched at the bottom (they have 13) with a bunch teams that suck. Yet they're in the top half in differential because Rodgers never loses the ball. Just another way he is a great equalizer for them. I don't think it bodes well for playing against the best teams though.
  17. OldSchoolSnapper
    Idk that coordinators or coaches get fired from #1 seeds in Week 14. Not saying it's a terrible idea as the guy has been terrible, but I can't think of a time it's happened.
  18. OldSchoolSnapper
    It stinks there are no fans, because the Packers have really needed to get home field for a long time now, as Rodgers himself has said. It feels lame that they may finally do it (not a given) and there aren't fans. That said, the NFC is totally wide open. The Packers can beat any of these teams, and they are not beyond losing to the Rams, Cards, Saints, Bucs, and I was getting a little nervous about them having to play Minnesota again. Washington has won 4 in a row. The Packers have just had such bad lows that they're not beyond losing to anybody. But there is absolutely not a SF this year that looks beyond them. Not scared of Pitt, not as scared of Tennessee after watching Mayfield play that secondary. KC is the clear best, nobody after them really scares me.
  19. OldSchoolSnapper
    Pittsburgh isn't that good. They have played nobody and it shows.
  20. OldSchoolSnapper
    Nothing to do with this but wondering if you have any insight as a Google search turns up nobody asking this question: Why were expected CDC estimates for deaths so low for 2020? https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Excess-Deaths-Associated-with-COVID-19/xkkf-xrst/?fbclid=IwAR1e1oWLHcnxjsizAJWxB4hV-5P_qVW_LFkOXLII3EehBGWyM3vJ2t4MzMQ The CDC's estimated death toll, before Covid, was lower than 2017, 2018 and 2019. The actual "excess death" compared to a reasonable estimate that's in line with those years currently stands around 108,000. In other words the "excess death" figure the news keeps reporting appears, to me, to be a bloated figure based on a weird, and low, estimate of expected death for 2020. I haven't found one news article that explains why the estimate was so low. There was a bad flu season in 2018 but that doesn't really help explaining it. I don't doubt that the CDC had a reason for that initial low figure, I just haven't seen it explained anywhere what the reason is.
  21. OldSchoolSnapper
    Remote learning widens the achievement gap which is directly counterproductive to the entire purpose of public education. Everyone struggles when schools close but it is exacerbated by lower income areas which are predominantly students of color. They lack internet, quiet study spaces, parental assistance, etc., at a much higher rate than affluent areas. If people of access get frustrated, they can just say adios and go to private school as well. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-and-social-sector/our-insights/covid-19-and-learning-loss-disparities-grow-and-students-need-help You seem to be asking for something that couldn't exist as far as some peer reviewed, massive study on US education as we are sitting on Dec. 9 and the fall semester isn't even over yet. I guess we can wait for that study but I highly, highly doubt it's going to provide a glowing endorsement of remote learning. I know you don't want anecdotal evidence but I've yet to come across a first-grade family that says it's going incredibly well and is an adequate replacement for in-person school...and I live in an affluent suburb that has a huge advantage. I will say that it was better than the spring but that isn't saying a whole lot because that really was a trainwreck.
  22. OldSchoolSnapper
    You're not finding widespread infections at school because kids don't spread COVID at the rate adults do. There's as close to universal agreement on this as can be expected this early in the process. https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/kids-school-and-covid-19-what-we-know-and-what-we-don-t This doesn't mean there's zero spread at school and in communities where is more infection there will be more spread at school. But school isn't a root source of spread, which it was feared to be at the start. More importantly though, there's been plenty of rage about the economics of more closures but far less about the disaster remote learning has been in low-income areas, something predicted by just about everyone. The absentee rates are through the roof, and there is more or less no ability to ID and help kids who are falling behind.
  23. OldSchoolSnapper
    I'm not aware of evidence of widespread secondary transmission at school. If a school is closed, every case of this I have seen (as far as schools that opened, then closed) is because they do not have staff to operate, and there are no subs - anywhere. It is generally not because of widespread student body infection. If they do have staff, schools are open for the most part. And there is lots of support for keeping them open among medical professionals. As far as daycare goes I am not sure what other policy is reasonable. If a teacher tested positive at a daycare, the safest thing possible would be to close the school for 2-3 weeks. It's simply not a feasible solution as they are among the most essential businesses there are, and they would all be closed under these guidelines. Daycares operate on very thin margins, they can't just send teachers home as a precaution without also telling a bunch of kids they no longer have the required staff to teach them. Their T:S ratio is strictly mandated by law. As far as I know they've followed the schools. They close once they have to, because they do not have healthy staff.
  24. OldSchoolSnapper
    Being 8th all time in passing at this point is like saying you're 8th of the last 10 years. I'm exaggerating but the passing stats are getting pretty useless as a means comparing generations. I remember Favre hitting 420 and thinking it would be this crazy unbreakable number. LOL.
  25. OldSchoolSnapper
    You're consistently the only person that has to talk with this tone throughout this thread.
×
×
  • Create New...