CheezWizHed

One of the first vaccine related study was just released today. The Pfizer and Modern vaccines are showing to be 80% of preventing infections after the first shot, 90% after the second. The study is one of the first to estimate vaccine effectiveness amongst the participants against infections - rather than just monitor for symptomatic cases. 2,479 people in the study were fully vaccinated. 477 in the study had one shot. the participants were healthcare workers, police, teachers and firefighters and other essential workers. So it was working people who had contact with people in an everyday capacity. I'm curious how they come up with a percent with the element of time being a factor. Is it 90% effective for the first month? Second month? What happens at 6 months (which isn't known as they aren't that old yet)? Seems like the number should come with a qualifier for time. I also wonder how they normalize this for exposure risks. Some people will be doing riskier activities than others. Things I wonder... The clinical trials had shown 905 effectiveness after 2 doses - and the new studies supports this. There is some speculation that the vaccine helps make getting COVID less severe - but that's not part of the study, and there are no hard numbers I know of regarding this.

A couple months ago I read an article about people who work at a bunch of online dating companies whose job it is was to make fake female profiles so they could weed out all the creeps, sexual predators, and people looking for prostitutes. According to the article the vast majority of female profiles on these sites are these fake ones and very few women actually use online dating sites. So, you're saying you could make a job at this?

[sarcasm]Yeah, just what WI needed... more alcohol options... [/sarcasm]

My last game was at the Target Center last season just before Covid and it was two of my sons' first games. The backboard had an issue and it took over an hour for them to figure out how to replace it. And since they had a backup, I have no idea why they didn't just swap it out in the first place. Timberwolves were 4-2 (or something similar) and while we wait the PA announcer was trumping them up as a championship contender. The Bucks clobbered the Timberwolves by 30 points or so with Giannis sitting out the whole 4th quarter. The Timberwolves went on to lose the next 10 or so games and ended up in their usual bottom feeder location.

This June, I'll be married for 26 years. But as a mid-40s guy, I've been hit on twice in stores in the last couple of years. In Target, I had paid and was leaving when I passed a woman. As she passed, she looked at me, smiled, and said, "Nice". To which I replied, "Thank you" and kept walking. The other time, I was standing in the spice aisle looking for something and a woman asked what I was making. I replied "chili" and she commented it was nice to have a guy cook. I replied, "My wife thinks so too". So I guess it still happens. CheezWizHed after the lady said "nice." I'm back!!! I hope to think I was a little more composed (at least externally), but it was a nice ego stroke. In fact, it was so out of the ordinary, I thought for sure she was a wife/friend of one of my co-workers and I was being setup. But if it was, no one ever fessed up (and yes, I asked).

If you don't mind, how much difference was it between what they listed and what they gave you for it? $5k, gave me $20k and listed for $25k. That being said the highest a dealer offered me was about $16.5k. When I appraised it online through Edmunds the private party value was about $22.5k. Hardly more for the hassle/risk in selling it privately so I was pretty happy. Carmax was super easy to deal with though. They barely look over the car and they just drive it around the block for a quick test drive. No in depth mechanical inspection to uncover the original brakes with 58k miles on them for example. They just handed me a check for exactly what Edmunds appraised it for online (they must have some agreement) and I left. It that a straight sale then and not a trade-in? Sounds like a pretty good deal. Granted, like you said, used cars are pretty hot right now. New cars have been having COVID-related supplier issues which has increased their cost and lowered supply.

I think their "schtick" is the fresh donut sign. When they are warm, they are pretty good, but I don't care for them otherwise.

[sarcasm]You expected people to be Pro-Cubs on a Brewer's forum?[/sarcasm] 3-4 years ago, that lineup and pitching rotation looked much better. I think there are just some weaknesses in the "armor" exposed now. Granted, it isn't like we don't have the same. But what fun is it to speculate we are going to be a one or 10 games behind the sCrubs? I'll take the: Brewers at 88 Cardinals - 86 Cubs - 81 Reds - 81 Pitt - 61

True, but if he looks bad in pre-season that gives Rodgers more leash, IMO. A Rodgers injury would also make things complicated.... Maybe the best outcome is for Rodgers to throw 5500 yards, 56 TD, 0INTs, win MVP, SuperBowl, Super Bowl MVP and then retire on top.

Plus, the "flopping" rule was put in place so he had to be more careful about that too. I haven't watched much Badger ball since Bo left, so I never knew much about Davison. But he certainly had his games when he was on - though he had games where he disappeared too.

Besides getting rid of the Augustin contract, they essentially made that trade because Tucker has the ability to defend at a very high level against #1's. If you're looking at box scores he probably won't show up much besides an occasional 3. I haven't seen enough of him to know how well he's defended since joining the Bucks, but my guess is once he settles into the system he will be very useful in the playoffs. Even if it's only 12-15 minutes per game. I'm guessing he and Brooks will swap out the majority duties depending on their opponent - play big against big teams and small against small teams.. That might help Brooks stay fresher too.

Yeah, I'd agree with this. Both pieces need to be there. Love has to look good and Rodgers has to look bad to cut-bait. In 2018/2019, his QBR was still strong 90+, but his completion percentage was low for him (~62%). And I remember a bunch of VERY uncharacteristic throws (5 yards over a WR's head). Since his has worked on his footing and core last offseason, I really doubt much regression.

But are they sharks smelling blood in the water? Teams might try to find a major bargain with Houston with the hope that Watson clears the accusations and they get a HOF level QB for dirt cheap. If I were Houston, I'd hold onto Watson for a year - even if he refuses to play for them this year.

If you don't mind, how much difference was it between what they listed and what they gave you for it?

That is nice if you live in the Milwaukee... None, in the rest of WI or MN.

Somewhere in another thread and another time, I posted that I felt like signing JBJ was 80% Cain insurance for this year. He is 35 years old and hit .697 OPS in 2019 (looking very much NOT himself). So was it age or a bad year? Will a year off help him recover or make it harder to recover his swing timing? Big questions that only the first month or two of the season will answer... You hope for 800 OPS Cain, but sign JBJ to prepare for sub-700 OPS Cain. Frankly, good to have him back in the dugout either way.

I'd be upset with King's signing if that is all they do with the CB position, but I'd put money that we will see a CB drafted and probably a top 3 round pick. Still wouldn't shock me to see a double CB draft too. I mentioned before, King patches a gaping hole at starting CB, but doesn't mean they can't still improve it.

This June, I'll be married for 26 years. But as a mid-40s guy, I've been hit on twice in stores in the last couple of years. In Target, I had paid and was leaving when I passed a woman. As she passed, she looked at me, smiled, and said, "Nice". To which I replied, "Thank you" and kept walking. The other time, I was standing in the spice aisle looking for something and a woman asked what I was making. I replied "chili" and she commented it was nice to have a guy cook. I replied, "My wife thinks so too". So I guess it still happens.

I think that King's resigning is a decent band-aid solution. With him and Sullivan (well, potentially) returning, it closes the glaring hole of a need. It is interesting that it levels the playing field a bit between which position is our greatest need: CB: Jaire/King/Sullivan - Both King and Sullivan had down years compared to 2019, so there is some upside available, but precious little in depth behind the three. Long term starter still needed WR: Adams/MVS/Lazard - MVS and Lazard continued to develop (with another Lazard injury holding him back). MVS has high reward, but with high risk. Similar to CB, very little depth behind these three. OT: Bahk/Turner/Nijman - If Bahk was healthy, there'd be less concern. But right now, we probably need a week 1 starter at Tackle. We could move Jenkins over, but that would just move a hole around. Again, depth is a need even if Bahk is healthy. DE: Lowry/Keke - Lowry is solid if he gets decent play around him. Keke is coming on, but some questions remain about his run support or if he is more of a role player. Depth needed. OT is probably the biggest need with Bahk's injury, but all four positions have average/below average starters that could be upgraded or at least first-level depth needed.

Sorry, I must disagree. Just since 2000, you've got guys like Dilfer, Brad Johnson, Joe Flacco, and Nick Foles as average guys. and Russell Wilson/Patrick Maholmes on rookie contracts. That's six super Bowls of the last 21 or 30%. There'll be a lot of debate about the level of play out of guys like Eli Manning or Roethlisberger, but they're NOT elite-level QBs, so that's another 4. Basically, 48%, or half of the recent Super Bowls have been won by either young QB's or non-elite level guys. It's all about the team you put around the guy most of the time, and being on a rookie contract gives you a better chance to put a championship-caliber team on the field. Your group of QB that got you to 30% confuses me. Dilfer, Johnson, and Foles were all past their rookie contract and would be considered average QBs at best. Wilson and Maholmes were on rookie contracts and are HOF probable QBs. Flacco was a rookie and an average QB overall. So are you looking for inexpensive contracts here? You also missed 2x when Tom won on his rookie contract. If you want to look at low cost QBs vs high cost, I think that comes down to 10 of 22 (Brady 2x, Rothlisberger, Wilson, E Manning, Mahomes, Flacco as rookies and Dilfer, Johnson, and Foles/Wencz as "inexpensive"). So that is 45%, which is still less likely than winning with a high priced, HOF level QB (55%). I'd agree that neither Eli Manning or Ben are elite QBs, but that wasn't my qualifier. I had to draw a line and HOF (while not great) does show delineation of skill sets from other QBs; especially when compared to Foles, Johnson and Dilfer. So I'll stick to my mantra - if you don't have a HOF level QB, go get one; if you have one, build around him as much as possible. Since dumping a HOF level QB in hopes that Love or some one else will reach that level (or just luck out...) seems like a foolish choice given how difficult it is to find excellent QBs. BTW, the numbers came from one very boring day when I sat down and made a spreadsheet of the SB winning/losing QBs and looked up when they finished their rookie contracts, so I'm not just WAG-ing numbers.

If your point is that Manning's sudden, complete dropoff was more predictable due to his health history, that's a fair enough point. But my larger point is that guys like Manning, Brees, even Favre clip along at a high level, then suddenly the wheels fall off. Maybe it won't be as sudden for Rodgers. Or maybe it will be. The point is that the Packers are keeping a second option open in the event that he makes the choice easy for them, as I mentioned several posts ago. Yes, even with Rodgers' revival in 2020, I think drafting Love was the right thing to do; even if he never amounts to anything but a backup QB. You still need options when things go poorly.

A team with an average QB rarely wins the SB. A team with an average QB on a rookie contract rarely, rarely wins the SB. For the last 20 years, 80+% of the time, you needed a HOF level QB to win the SB. The other 20% were older vets that were good game managers. I didn't break down how many non-HOF-level QBs (by my estimation of them getting to the HOF) were on their rookie contract, but there were very few if any. Not that it can't be done, but I'm going with probabilities. Get a HOF level QB and deal with the talent around him. I'll stick with Rodgers until he shows he can't. He had two poor years (2018/2019) followed by a VERY good year in 2020. What will 2021 or 2022 bring? I'm not sure, but I'd prefer my chances with him until it is clear he can't play at a high level anymore. EDIT: I had to fact check myself. The spit isn't 80/20, but 70/30. And only 1 time in the last 20 years has a non-HOF level QB won the SB on a rookie contract: Flacco.

[sarcasm]You're trusting a Steelers site? Even my work firewall blocks it![/sarcasm] I'm wondering if the 2020 numbers were skewed by people not attending due to COVID? I could see a single year at 6.93 if NFL Savant's number is an average over several years (which is inferred, but not stated). 7s just seems very high. Regardless, if Wildgoose is trying to get into the top 3 rounds of the draft, that won't help him.

Previously, I said that a 2 year window on Rodgers should be the goal. 4-5 is very optimistic, but if you open the 2 year window, you still have options of extending it further if he continues to play at a high level. As adambr2 mentioned, you may have a down year once Rodgers retires/leaves because you are in cap jail, but I think it is our best opportunity to winning another SB in the near future.

Asante Samuel came in at 6.95 on the three-cone drill. I have to imagine it makes it worse given he is also undersized. Makes it even more impressive that King was so low at his size. And right, it is one number in many, but for me, probably the most important number for a CB. That must be balanced with instincts and gameplay of course.