OldSchoolSnapper
-
Posts
12,065 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
25
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
News
2026 Milwaukee Brewers Top Prospects Ranking
Milwaukee Brewers Videos
2022 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks
Milwaukee Brewers Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
Guides & Resources
2023 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks
2024 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks
The Milwaukee Brewers Players Project
2025 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Pick Tracker
2026 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Tracker: Picks & Bonuses
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by OldSchoolSnapper
-
Well, I don't love that one. I was really hoping for defense. But OL are like good pizza, there's always room for more. They always seem to be hurt, and a lack of depth at the position can get catastrophic in a hurry. Packers must really like him to take him there and they have been very good with OL.
-
Ah, we're just doing the strawman thing now. Please link to the post in which anyone claimed the Packers were the worst, or even bad, or had no talent. I don't remember reading it, and a page or two back I have them pegged to 10-7, personally. Or is it just difficult for the fans to stomach anything besides labeling them the best team in the universe in April? I have seen the same sentiment from 3-4 people including myself: That the Packers are probably in the bottom of the top 10 teams, but have done little to convince doubters that they will be in contention with the top 5. When you recreate or just, you know, lie about the things people say, that's not a good debate tactic.
-
Agree and they probably aren't wrong. 46ish wins and 1st, maybe 2nd round exits are money in the bank. The doldrums are not. We are headed there, and as owners they should want to delay that as long as possible. The NBA has always kinda sucked in that there isn't a whole of difference between 6 and 14 when it comes to actual odds of a championship. Bill Simmons said a long time ago that the worst thing you can be in the NBA is a lower seeded playoff team. He's not wrong.
-
They ain't gonna win. I'd rather just keep Giannis as long as possible and entertain crowds, pad stats as a Buck as long as possible. It is what it is.
-
I personally think assigning random numbers to WRs is a bit meaningless. "This guy is not a 1, this guy is good, but he's a 3 at best." I just don't think any of it really matters. I also would have preferred someone bigger, but if he plays like Steve Smith I couldn't care any less. I just think the way Love plays, a big body would help. He takes a lot of risk, he will throw into traffic deep, he will take a shot into double coverage...Watson really started to become that guy right before he got hurt. But like I said, they need Golden to become their best WR, or maybe Reed takes the jump, but they need production out of him, and quickly. The group as it stands is not good enough. It's average; deep, but with average talent.
-
I am still holding out hope they have a reconciliation with Jaire and add a pass rusher today. If they really wanted to trade him I would have guessed they'd have done it by now.
-
I have ZERO issue with the pick. You can find a weakness about anyone coming out of the draft. I only mentioned it at all because someone specifically mentioned catching as what separated him from our current group, when the scouting could basically be a swap out with Doubs - makes highlight reel catches and drops gimmies. The whole turn of the last page is frankly bizarre. It was an area of need. I assumed most here were happy because they thought the Packers need a WR. I guess emphasizing that was controversial for some reason. I would have preferred someone of the 6'4, 6'5 variety, but that is not really a dealbreaker to be a great WR.
-
"Focus drops still pepper his play" "Consistency will be key for Golden at the next level, as he’s dealt with some head-scratching drops that are tough to stomach when you know the highlight-reel grabs he’s capable of at times." "Improved hands in 2024 but has a history with drops: Five over 56 targets in 2022, six over 63 targets in 2023 and technically four over 58 targets in 2024, but it's a stretch to call two of them his fault (and only one was based on concentration). So while he got better with drops in 2024, the reality is that Golden had a 9.2% drop rate at Houston and a 7.4% drop rate for his career. None of the other top receivers in the 2025 class had a career drop rate higher than 5.1%." "Concentration drops pop up more than you'd like to see – focus seems to waver when thinking about running before securing the catch" These aren't my opinions. Seemed completely relevant to bring up when discussing his selection.
-
Oh, don't worry. He's been insulting me via DM all morning too, not just on the board. I made a commentary about the Packers WR group being average. Every post I have made this morning has been completely relevant to the pick and the WR group. I am not going to pretend this is a 2-way thing. He clearly has a personal issue with me. I am on topic, he's not.
-
Correct, the guy I knew nothing about. There's this cool thing called Google in which you can type a guy's name in and read his scouting report in about a minute. To be honest I am not too concerned about his drops, just seemed odd that someone pointed out his catching as an asset when it is literally listed on the weaknesses of his scouting report. I didn't even comment on it. I posted a quote from his report, with no commentary, are you are still rambling about it a day later because you're obsessed with me.
-
Yes, and one of them was 33 years old at the time of the pick, leaving them with one very young WR (who actually had not eclipsed 1,000 yards yet, but I'll let that slide) and Jones who was a projected slot guy. Picking Nelson made complete sense. They were going to need a WR by the time he would really be ready to play. And again, Cobb was picked 64th. They had just won the Super Bowl. That was as BPA as a draft can get. But more salient point: the comparison to last night doesn't make any sense. You're suggesting they didn't really need Golden just like they didn't really need Cobb or Nelson. If Golden isn't contributing a lot next year, the Packers have a big problem. Driver was off like his 5th or 6th straight 1,000 yard season. They have nothing close to that on the current roster. I can buy that they didn't need Nelson to play immediately. They absolutely do need Golden to play.
-
Dude. Posting jokes from Twitter isn't negative. Posting jokes about being eliminated from the playoffs isn't negative. Quay Walker does suck. Try to lighten up a bit, perceive sarcasm, and some semblance of humor. My god, give this a rest already. I have said about 12 times now I don't have an issue with Golden. Posting factual data about his drops isn't negative. Someone specifically pointed out he "could catch," which didn't make sense as it is literally the opposite of his scouted weaknesses.
-
Nelson was drafted in 2008; Driver was 32 at that time, Jennings was coming out of his 2nd year and Jones was on the team but was (correctly) assessed as a depth WR but not a star. Nelson was an early pick, that was much needed on the roster with Driver's impending decline, he just had a bit more juice left than probably expected. Cobb was drafted 64th after winning the Super Bowl with the #1 ranked defense in the league. This comp doesn't make any sense anyway, because nobody the Packers have on their roster right now is even remotely comparable to Jennings or Driver especially at the point they drafted Cobb. Jennings was an established star by then. Or is the argument that because we lost a divisional playoff game last year, our WRs are good? Or are we hanging our hat on having the No. 4 ranked 4th WR in the league? Lol. My God, there's Kool-Aid, and there's green-dyed vodka. Their WR group is not anything special. It's a pool of average. Having a bunch of average guys is...just average.
-
Bud, I think it's time to give this dumbass schtick a rest. Nothing about this is "negatve" or egregious. Love doesn't have adequate targets and obviously the Packers agree, as does every roundtable commentator who said this was a statement on the Packers WR room. Time to take the Green Goggles off and look at the numbers. I'll be waiting for Wicks to turn into Adams any day now. 🤣
-
Hang on...the Packers WR group is... underrated? The Packers current top 4 WRs are two 2nds, a 4th and a 5th who in 10 combined seasons have passed 700 yards twice (Reed twice). All of them have a drops issue. One can't stay on the field to save his life and one is depressed or unhappy or something, no one seems sure. You can make a case they only had to draft Golden because they've botched the WR group to this point. But whatever, stuff happens and you can only move forward I suppose. Reed is a solid NFL player, yes. I still think he has a chance to be really good. IMO Watson is the scariest guy they have but he is just completely unreliable. Doubs, I think it's pretty much time to admit he's just a guy. Wicks is a decent 5th round pick, but that's what he is. Again, there is a reason they felt they had to pick Golden. Sorry if this is too crabby but their WR group is average or worse. Each guy is deserving of being on an NFL roster which is something, but none of them are very good. Reed has at least been productive but he completely vanished from about October to January. The WR group is the exact opposite, it's overrated by the fans and they really, really need Golden to be their best WR.
-
Actually it's just a guy making a funny joke. Maybe don't take it so seriously. You seem pretty crabby tonight.
-
https://x.com/ChuckFBass/status/1915598666687041933?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet
-
I literally haven't complained about the pick in a single utterance. I don't watch a second of college football. I couldn't care less about Campbell. I said exactly what I meant. He was just a name I threw out. That's what I said. The only thing I said was he looks a lot like a bunch of guys on the roster, which he does. The damn telecast itself described him as "not a #1". Someone points out that he can catch which completely contradicts his scouting report and it's not valid to point that out? You guys are taking this stupid crabby schtick way too far.
-
"So while he got better with drops in 2024, the reality is that Golden had a 9.2% drop rate at Houston and a 7.4% drop rate for his career. None of the other top receivers in the 2025 class had a career drop rate higher than 5.1%."
-
You guys are so crabby for pointing out the obvious.
-
Good one. Super original.
-
That stat was always kinda dumb. They spent most of that time with Jennings, Nelson and Adams who were all "lowly" second round picks. They didn't need to draft one early for most of those years. I won't pretend to know a lick about Golden. But on face alone it's another smallish tweener WR who looks a lot like the guys they already have.
-
Well we need to have an excuse for leaving the playoffs early.
-
Most of their first round picks have been a waste of resources. I'd settle for one that doesn't blow, couldn't care less what his position is.
-
I just threw a name out. Quay sucks. They say lots of things.
