OldSchoolSnapper

See, I think bad unit is a stretch. Could they be better at WR2/3, yeah for sure. But lots of teams would take those 3 guys with Rodgers and ride it out. Team has way bigger problems than there.

For all the talk of it I don't think the Packers have a real issue at WR. Despite MVS having a bad moment he'd been playing pretty well. Between he and Lazard and the best WR in the league it's not the reason they won't go far.

Way too much hand-wringing about January, here in November. Just take care of the task at hand. You don't have to beat KC or NO today. Worry about January in January. NFL teams look completely different from month to month. While I would like to see a scheme that is capable of winning against another certain type of scheme, I have no interest in trying to be paper champions against every other team in the league after game #11. I appreciate this and I'm usually the person saying it, I just would really like to see the defense undergo some sort of in-season metamorphosis and I just haven't seen it.

I just feel like this team is what it is and I've seen this show before. They're going to win this game and pound another crappy squad, but even giving up that TD at the end of the half is concerning. There are still spots in this game that have you scratching your head. It's not that I'm disappointed how this specific game is going. I just don't see this as a team that can take out the Chiefs or Saints. I know they beat the Saints. I don't think they could beat them now. Is my attitude the result of a team that's always good? Yes, absolutely. But. I also think there's a legitimacy to the frustration of watching them crush crappy teams and just never beat the top ones. Beat Tennessee and serve me crow.

I just can't make sense of this post so hopefully you can help me understand. You are saying their depth sucked last year so we should upgrade the starting lineup to make the bench even worse? I feel like the general consensus is that the Bucks had a deep team that allowed them to do well during the regular season, so they should sacrifice there for the starting 5- which helps come playoff time. I'm saying that their bench depth doesn't matter. Being 10 contributors deep doesn't matter. The playoffs are 7-8 man rotations and having your 9th best player put 18 minutes in doesn't help. So I don't really care about that putting nearly all their eggs in the starting lineup basket. I feel like your last sentence is the exact same thing so I'm not sure what you couldn't make sense of.

Value insurance was a term I made up to imply you can be as unhealthy as you want and your insurance is subsidized by healthy people. I disagree completely with what you say here though. With every issue, Welfare, unemployment, whatever, a large segment of the population is convinced that every person on it loves it and is a mooch. A large segment of the population thinks fat people are all lazy. If you think "hardly anyone" believes that you then you need to talk to more people.

The Bucks depth sucked last year. This isn't being said enough. Any upgrade to the starting 5 is worth it at the sacrifice of that bench. It wasn't good.

Right, and this is a big one. Like lots of these sorts of issues it gets whittled down a black and white thing where half the population starts believing obese people want to be obese because they get free stuff or something and just love the value insurance while eating whatever they want. Epidemic is the correct word to describe obesity in the USA. Most people want to help themselves. They often lack the knowledge, access or understanding of how to do so. If you're obese by 8 you are fighting an immensely difficult battle to ever snap out of that.

In a way I can't articulate, this sounds just so wrong to me. Why? You get discounts on car insurance for a high grade point average (students), safe driving record (everyone else), hell, don't females get cheaper car insuramce than males just because they are female? (males have less accidents but the accidents they have typically cause more damage because of our risk taking stupidity....or so I have heard) Why must we tiptoe around obesity? There are discounts for certain companies if you don't smoke, why not discounts for being at a healthy weight? Why should discounts for certain behaviors not be a factor in health insurance? While I generally agree, you get into dangerous territory once a person or people is deciding what's a healthy weight and what isn't. It's awfully easy for the insurance company to decide this arbitrarily. At 6'1 and 205 I believe I'm overweight BMI but I've been weight training for 20 years and run races. Some form I fill out online doesn't care about that. The insurance company isn't concerned with doing this honestly, they are concerned with remaining profitable while being forced to pay out claims for high-risk individuals. They do this by raising rates on people who they know likely won't have to pay claims on. Obviously, all forms of insurance need lots of people who never file claims. Using this flat approach where everyone pays the same rate is one of the ways they're able to make it work. They need a pool of healthy people paying in. So letting very healthy people pay very low rates and crushing unhealthy people just isn't a viable way of doing it. The latter would be more inclined to just not have coverage. So it has to be a very regulated and equitable way of administering these kinds of "penalties."

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.

We can't change our age at all but it is an explicitly stated risk factor and leverage is given to older employees at many companies that they should stay home. I know of several personal bankers in their 60s who were given clearance to work at home before the rest of the staff. Of course, saying, "you're fat, you should work at home" is a quite a can of worms but I don't see pretending that it isn't a factor as a better course of action. If it were any other quality less socially sensitive it would be included in the game plan. I think some kind of weight loss campaign using Covid as the motivator is a joke and a waste of everyone's time, but clearly stating it repeatedly as a major risk factor, like we have with many other things, should be done and hasn't been done. We are not talking about a fringe influence here. There is evidence it triples your risk of hospitalization. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-with-medical-conditions.html There's plenty of discussion about risk groups when it comes to age and different diseases. I have seen very little in regard to obesity. I've probably seen more people questioning and sympathizing with pregnancy as a risk factor despite there being no increased risk for that group that I'm aware of.

The NCAA is a clown show. This is dumber than no season. It's a waste of everyone's time.

No way Pettine holds onto his job. If he were an MLF hire I'd say you never know, but he isn't.

Obesity is a cause of things far more deadly than Covid and that doesn't scare people into being more healthy so I don't think it would be effective at all as some large scale weight loss motivator. Fat people know they're fat and contrary to the narrative a lot of folks like to push, the vast majority of them know it is very bad and would like to be smaller. It is very, very hard to go from obese to healthy weight. Some doctor saying 'lose weight' on TV isn't going to be the impetus. It would present healthy people with a more realistic assessment of their actual risk of dying however, but that's boring. Again, people, when polled, drastically overstate their risk of death by Covid. I wonder why that could be.

Being obese isn't good. It's a driver of a million different health problems. It shouldn't be embraced. It leaves one more susceptible to complications that accompany a host of other health problems. You're tired of that, and I'm tired of it being swept under the rug as though it's not the huge factor that it is here. Obese people had it coming? Talk about a straw man. Stop doing THAT. Obesity is a completely relevant part of the Covid conversation. While we're on the subject of incomplete numbers. How many health care workers are there in the US? Give it context. Like the news should. Nobody ever said everyone that dies is obese. It's about painting an accurate picture of risk. Something the news doesn't do. The whole culture war is about fabric over our face and everyone immediately uses that as the reason the US has done so poorly. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the general population's terrible pre-existing health. The average Japanese male is 140 pounds, give me a break.

Rationing wasn't the rose bed history has made it out to be. They had tons of problems with it in the 40s.

I guess I don't see how scientists and doctors aren't talking about the obesity epidemic. Is there anyone that doesn't know that the US has an extreme problem with obesity? Something like 300,000 deaths per year are due to obesity, independent of COVID. I don't know about doctors and scientists, but the news certainly isn't, or is at best drastically understating the role of obesity for some reason I can't quite understand. There was a popular link going around a couple weeks ago about the "healthcare workers claimed by COVID." Literally all 10 of them were not just pudgy, but huge. No mention of it anywhere in the article. The news is in the fear game. Always have been, always will be. They present numbers without any context, like hospital capacity, and leave out what regular capacity is. They're in love with case counts, but largely ignore the mortality, or obsess over death counts, but provide limited data on the breakdown of those deaths. Most people here I would say are of above average intelligence and can figure this stuff out on their own, but most people don't take that extra step. There is a reason each of the demographics under 50 drastically overestimates the chance of death by COVID when asked.

I'm not sure where the confidence is coming from that they'll finish 3-3 or worse. The Packers have the Bears twice, Eagles, Lions, Panthers and Titans. The Bears have looked terrible of late after peaking early, the Eagles are 3-6-1 and look bad, and the Lions got shut out by a 3-7 Panthers team missing their starting QB and all-world RB. The Titans are a bad matchup for the Packers, but even if you chalk up that as a loss, the Packers are likely to be heavily favored in the other 5. I dunno if I'd call it confidence but finishing 3-3 is a very plausible scenario to me. This team has looked beatable to any opponent for a month. They just crapped out a win against the Jaguars and lost to Minnesota. They started out of the gate looking really good and have fizzled since then. Neither 3-3 or 5-1 would surprise me. Depends if the September version or the November version plays in December.

That would mean they went 9-1 playing the Rams, Steelers, Ravens and Browns, so, maybe, but seeing their struggles with Minnesota and Jacksonville, I would guess probably not. 'You are what your record is' is just an empty sports cliche that dismisses reality. The schedule matters and everybody knew the Packers had an easy path last year and it was reflected when they played SF, twice. I think it's more than fair to say the Packers resume of wins under MLF is pretty suspect especially when juxtaposed with signature wins. They have very few of the latter. Their rep is quite apparent at present. They have a 'soft' reputation and can crush mediocre teams with offense, and really struggle with the top ones, which IMO Indy is not. Indy is a pretty similar team to GB on opposite sides of the ball. But the Packers lack of ability to put pressure on the most statue QB in football was shocking. I think we all knew they would suck against the run, but the guys they have on defense should be getting to the QB. I cannot understand how they've been so bad at it this year. Just a longer way of saying what I've already said. They're good but not great, a playoff team but not an elite one.

Stick this team in the NFC West and they are 8-8 is the point I'm making. This division has mostly sucked and the Packers have benefited from it for decades. Similar to how, despite being a great dynasty, part of New England's path was always easier because their division was arguably the worst in football throughout it. Pittsburgh made the playoffs for like a decade straight, which is lovely, but a lot easier when you play Cincinnati and Cleveland twice. You may want to pump the brakes on the Packers winning 11 games though. Not sure where the confidence is stemming from on the Packers finishing 4-2.

I think this is a 9-10 win team that benefits from playing in a bad division (and they lost one of those gimmes already). They have been pretty bad for several weeks now. A drubbing in Tampa, a loss to the Vikings, Covid joke, a nail-biter against a team with one win and another loss. They are pretty much what they've been most of the last 15 years. I shudder to think about Derrick Henry running against that defense. The most frustrating part of it all is that they did nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, to improve upon last year. I'd probably have them somewhere around 10-12 in a Power Ranking. They're not bad, just not that good.

Family dinners are take it or leave it to me. Just another thing. I enjoy them, but just part of a schedule. For my mom that was hooked up to an oxygen tank, unable to drive, and in the last couple years could not walk, they were the entire reason she kept going. There are a lot of people out there like that, and unfortunately they are the most likely to die from this. But many of them know they are not going to be here in 2022 anyway. So the sacrifice is something they aren't willing to make.

Saying things like "be a decent human being" is as virtue signaling as a thing gets. You're (not you, specifically) framing the topic in such a way that to oppose it suggests a person is indecent. Who can possibly argue with that? We are again isolating at Thanksgiving. I am by no means going out to bars and just throwing caution to the wind. I just have a problem with this kind of mentality. What I am saying though is that if my Mom were still around and said "I know one of you could bring this to me, but this is my last Thanksgiving," I would be deferring to my elders and taking the chance.

Agreed ... but apparently it is very hard. But, then, everyone has different priorities. They've been saying this since day 1. It's always a "few more months." There were ridiculous initial claims we could have a vaccine to people by September. We cancelled St. Patty's Day dinner because of Covid. My Mom died 2 days later, somewhat unexpectedly. She was sick, but nobody thought it was that imminent. I wish we'd just had the dinner, as does my entire family, because we still haven't had a funeral. I'm not going to fault any older people that let their families know they want to take the risk and see their grandkids. Not after 10 months. And I'm tired of people like you whittling things down to black and white. Isolate = good, gather = bad. There are a whole bunch of variables that determine a person's actions. Some are just obnoxious and reckless. But there is a whole bunch of virtue signaling going on. There is an actual cost to isolation that about half the population won't acknowledge, most of these people are introverted or homebodies and don't really care, so they feel no one else should either. The cost just rises with each passing week. People who are fairly young don't really consider it at all. If you're 78, punting on a year of holidays is a really big deal. Some will do it anyway for a multitude of reasons but suggesting it makes them a better class of human being is ridiculous.

Just want to clarify something I messed up. The actual text of the email only says this: "Brewers have a new GM; sorry can't say more, will be announced later." I'm glad I didn't make a new thread because that is quite a potentially big difference from what I said. Sorry for whiffing on the interpretation.