CheezWizHed

Without the blue... I was wondering the same thing. I don't click on threads that don't interest me. I'm not even sure I'd say "divorce"... marriages typically include a vow of "til death do we part", so there is an expectation of that. But this is frankly... changing jobs. I've had 3 of them over 29 years. Sometimes you need something new. I do think the way he went about it was a bit crappy... and going to the Cubs (or Cardinals if he'd have done that) was REALLY crappy. But Favre played for the Vikings and people eventually (reluctantly?) forgave him.

Interesting change from our "norm". Typically when you hear one of our affiliates getting a new ball park it means someone else coming in and we move elsewhere. Nice to actually own the pipeline this time.

I did a sudoku and now I'm so angry!...

Wow. There was so much wrong with that post, I couldn't even begin to unravel it. So, I'll just try to make one singular point. If we were to continue a 3-4, our starts and backups look like this in base defense: DE: Wyatt, Wooden NT: Slaton, Ford DE: Clark, Brooks, OLB: Gary, Ness ILB: Walker, <empty>* ILB: McDuffie, <empty>* OLB: Smith, Cox Going to a 4-3, it looks like this; DE: Gary, Ness DT: Wyatt, Wooden, Ford DT: Clark, Brooks, Slaton DE: Smith, Cox WLB: <empty>*, <empty>* MLB: Walker, <empty>* SLB: McDuffie, <empty>* * Do we have names like Banks or Mosby? Yes, But no one that seriously looks like a contributor. This also assumes Douglas is cut, which we agree on. So the point? The significant hole at LB the shift creates. It doesn't matter if they don't play significant snaps. Nor does it matter if they get a LB/S hybrid like Tariq Carpenter. The point is they still need the bodies. Four of them. Not just one backup. I found it signficant to share that in a draft-focused forum.... because I'll predict it has a big impact on what Gute does in the draft. One. Simple. Point.

Small LBers - Meaning typical 4-3 run and cover OLBs - in the 220-240lb range compared to typical 3-4 OLBers in the 250-280lb range. Unless you like P Smith covering WRs... You think we only need one 4-3 LB? Who exactly do we have for backups? For 3 starting positions, we currently have 2 capable 4-3 LBs on the roster and zero backups. That is why I'm saying we need 4 players. I didn't say we were drafting/signing 4 starters... We need one starter and 3 backups. One is probably coming from the 2-3rd round in the draft. Others could come in later rounds or middle-range FAs. It is a pretty big shift from what we were looking at in a 3-4. Where we maybe needed a backup MLB. Bringing back Wilson just provides a "floor", ST, and some experience. He isn't "needed", but I ascribe to the theory of FA vets to set the "floor" and drafting for the upside. TT would draft of upside, but when he missed, we didn't have a fall-back and often had some horrendous hole somewhere that killed the season. Gute seems to bring in a mix to ensure we don't have rookies falling on their faces and having no other options.

This is what prompted me to look... I was thinking we had too many OLB types (thinking more of a "Tim-Harris" type elephant DE position) and we'd use Wyatt at DE. But that wasn't what I see at 49ers and Jets. I see smaller DEs - basically the same as our OLBs. Nope, not my conclusion. My conclusion was that the players we had on the DL went from 3 starters to 2, so we have plenty of depth. Our OLBs walk right into the DE positions. The massive hole at 4-3 LB is what I'm highlighting. We need 3 starters but only have 2 potential starting players on the roster with really no depth. It wouldn't surprise me to see them sign Wilson, draft two LBs, and grab another FA with some upside. So for the draft, I'd be surprised if they draft a DL very high (unless someone drops in our lap). We already have 5 quality players for 2 spots on the line. And we really need more 4-3 LBs that can cover. Because we basically have no one that is great in coverage at that position. We are short at least one viable starter and three backups. The positive side is that we have less P Smith covering WRs. That happens in 3-4 base with 3DL, 2 OLB and you don't blitz 5. One OLB has to drop into coverage. But now, we need to find those 4-3 LB types (220-230 lbers that run and cover). The conclusion is that we really don't need any more DL and we REALLY need more small LBers.

Not saying we will or won't... just that he would maximize his skills (D and speed) there and minimize his weakness (power).

Well the Brewers would be the team with the most exposure to the depth of his injury...and they signed him. Everyone else is going to get a summary by comparison. The $$ will show more about what the Brewers think about his risk than who did or didn't sign him.

Its easy to find!

Frelick is probably a good fit for OF in SD, however. I can understand why they would want him. He will hit a ton of doubles there and his speed and defense is maximized on their OF.

I started poking around to see what effect the move to a 4-3 (if that is indeed what we do) would have on our roster. For comparison, I looked at the Jets and 49ers defense (which some writers feel is what Hadley will do). And both managed very similar players (from a weight point of view). DE - Unlike the old Fritz Shumur days where DEs were around 300 lbs, the current 4-3 employs players very similar to 3-4 OLBs. 250-270 lbs (with certain understandable athletic exceptions in the 280 range). I was wondering if we were going to have too many OLB types, but our OLBs are right in that range to walk right into that spot. DT - Here again, the FS days of 310+ weights have diminished a bit with all the 4-3 DTs ranging more in the 300 lbs range +/- 5 lbs or so. This probably spells the end to PS stalwart Ford and perhaps NT Slaton? Brooks and Wyatt fit this range nicely. Clark is athletic enough that I'm not worried about him. Wooden actually fits more at the DE range (273) better, but obviously played inside all year, so I doubt that changes. LB - The old school MLB was often in the 240-250 range and the outside LBs around 230-240. Again, that seems to have lightened up a bit... 215-220 lb LBs were fairly common on the roster, with 225-240 being the most common range for all. With the current roster, you could line up McDuffie, Walker, and Douglas pretty easily. Even Wilson (FA) fits that mold pretty well - maybe better for him. But I think you cut Douglas and Wilson isn't that good to bring back as a starter. That leaves the LB position perilously thin. So from a draft perspective: DE: We keep Smith and Cox steps into Enagbare's role while he recovers. Maybe a lower draft pick for depth. DL: Really nothing needed. Late round depth, but very strong rotation right now even if Slaton is cut/traded. LB: Here is where there is a bigger need, IMO. If you keep Douglas, you probably have decent bodies to fill the 3 starters spots. But you don't have any depth and need to acquire 3 backups at least. If Douglas is cut, you need a starter and 3 backups. Not to mention that McDuffie and Douglas are probably more suited for the strong side OLB (or MLB) and we could use someone on the weakside that is excellent in coverage.

Definitely loving this. Will be great to keep an eye on this in ST to see if he can sustain it and if it improved his results. A key point IMO if he makes the OD roster or gets more work at AAA. Just for reference, here is what his swing looked like last year:

Yeah, there are no absolutes... I'm speaking statistically. If you are sure someone is really going to turn out as special, you can go after them. However, all three of the safties you mentioned were second-rounders... so wasn't that my point? If we knew how a player would develop the draft would always look different. There are quality safties in the second round. I was debating DT, but the Packer's history hasn't been so great. But you are probably right when looking at the league. Conversely, the Packers have a great history of 2nd round WRs, but the league #1s seem to be more from 1st rounders. But fair point on either.

It depends... I think you have to know the health situation of Stokes and the depth of the draft at those positions. Safety is easily our biggest need. But if there are similarly ranked players in the second round (which looks like it this year), I'd defer. So I think it comes down to OT and CB. Both are in a similar situation with Valentine/Alexander vs Tom/Walker. If Stokes' recovery (actually) looks positive, I'd lean OT. If not... you normally play 3-4 CBs but only 2 OTs at one time... Frankly, your first round should be reserved to drafting CBs, OTs, Edge, QBs, or WRs. Those are the skill positions that seem to have a major edge over players in following rounds. Gs, Cs, TEs, RBs, DTs, MLBs, and Ss seem to be much easier to find in the second and following rounds that are nearly as good as their first round counterparts. Please don't waste your time listing the exceptions. We know they are there, but they are exceptions for a reason. The rarity of them proves my point.

BIG

Even if he doesn't recover, it shows the rest of the squad the Brewer's loyalty for player health.

Hooray for Big WOO! Yeah, there is little chance he pitches in 2024, but hopefully can fully recover for 2025. I'm glad for Brandon so he can use the Brewer resources to heal.

I was comparing both of their first years as starting LT; Walker's second year and Bakh's first overall. Many people felt Bakh was still better set for G (myself included), after his first year. After his second, he was well-established. Walker had an odd year his rookie year; so I give him a bit of a 'gimme'. I don't think Walker is Bakh's equal...just that there are some parallels.

A proud shout-out to LL.net! Tom at this point should be pretty obvious.. he is a player. The most valuable spot the could put him is at Tackle. Moving him to LT isn't a terrible idea. Him playing at C or G is a waste at this point (please don't go back and see my comments from last offseason). Walker really improved also. I don't know what his future is, but he clearly can be a starting OL in the league. Bahk was likewise questioned after his rookie year (please don't go back and look at my LL.net comments either 😂). Not saying Walker is going to be that good, but he is showing himself capable. But I don't think that should prevent us from drafting a tackle either. At worst, you need a capable backup. And at such a key position, you need to ensure a quality player. Competition doesn't hurt anyone. I don't think it is a lock that Walker will continue being a starting tackle. Myers did improve as the season went on (and oddly at the same time that Humphrey in KC struggled). He played well enough and remains cheap enough to start another year. But we have enough need at the interior OL to draft one. Still need depth and competition. Not doubting that, but do you have a source? I'm curious if that reduced as the season went on. He certainly didn't seem to have that much help at the end of the season.

Agreed. I mentioned that in the other thread that him starting at AAA might happen too. ST should shine a bright light on his recovery status.

Both Hall and Ashby probably will need to be innings limited, so starting Hall initially with Ashby in the pen, then swapping them later makes sense to me. Hall should have every opportunity to start so that the Brewer's pitching clinic has a chance to fix him; probably all this year and next offseason. Ashby just needs to build up innings and show he can stay healthy. Ross and Gasser will get their chances due to injuries or ineffectiveness of others... but will probably start in the BP and AAA respectively.

I predicted that.

A trade that wasn't predicted by the article, of no one mentioned in the article, nor does it resolve the "problem" mentioned in the article.

There is no evidence of a trade imminent, hence "click bait". The article itself was fine... though I tend not to agree with the main "problem". I'd prefer a title that would've tied to the problem presented.

I think it is safe to say that any pitcher off the 40 man staff is going to stay there through ST. So looking at the pitchers on our 40 man staff (excluding Junk who seems to be going to Japan?), here is what I predict: Junis gets a starting spot given the $7M price tag. Hall and Ashby go for the last SP spot... I go with Hall to limit innings for Ashby, but it is easy to swap between the two as they both could start, could come out of the BP, or be optioned to AAA. If Ashby isn't fully healthy, maybe a trip to AAA is better? Peguero faltered late last year, so I have him as the last man out of the BP. Clarke and Hudson join him. Blalock was just added to the 40 man and is slated for AA this year. Bryse Wilson had a great year last year, so I kept him in the pen. But he seems like the type of BP pitcher that would fluctuate highly from year to year. If he blows up in ST, cutting him wouldn't be a major loss. In this scenario, we potentially lose out on Vieira (a 2023 minor league FA) and Bukasuskas (late season waiver wire reclamation project). That isn't losing much. Obviously, things can change in ST. Uribe or Megill could come in wild and be sent to the minors. Injuries unfortunately happen. So I think we are constructed rather well, without any trade imminent.