HiAndTight

What on Earth are you talking about? First of all, what's the difference? Second, where are you getting these "projections" from if not mock drafts and finally, the part in bold, just an absolute lie. They have stated clearly they did not know they were going to do this. Yet you somehow are able to not only speak for them but contradict what they have said? I really don't even understand your point anymore. Now it's not just that he was AS good as several other players, it's that he's too dumb to play OLB'er because of a Wonderlic test...which is just truly, truly ridiculous, or suggesting he'll attack the wrong gap. I find it laughable that you correlate a "test making correct answers under timed pressure" with biting on the play action. You realize he was an extremely productive player vs the run in the Big 10 as an Edge player who moved down inside to play? So what exactly is it that Hockenson and Fant are going to do if he "bites on the play action" that's going to hurt him? Also, what exactly did you previously think a test was? A "test making correct answers under timed pressure." That's just a test and another definition of the worst test. Unless you know of tests that the goal is to "making" the wrong answers. Finally, it doesn't matter if when the 12th pick came, YOU pointed out 3 other players with similar value. Again, this is again you conflating opinion with FACT. Just like you did when you stated as a FACT that Gary wasn't "projected" to go in the top 10. By who? He was projected by many as a top 10 pick. Not that it particularly matters as he we didn't have a top 10 pick. He was most certainly "PRO-JEC-TED," to be picked in the top half of the first round. Just because YOU BELIEVE those players had similar values does.....not......mean.....the......professional.....scouts....agreed. Equally important, let us assume what you're saying is in fact true. Why the heck would a team trade up 4 spots then if there were 4 players with equal value? You're arguing both sides of the argument, just without the facts. The only difference is, you're the only one pretending you have the facts while everyone else is fully acknowledging we don't know what would have happened, IF someone would have been willing to trade down(it doesn't sound like it, but the GM isn't going to come out and declare one way or the other right after the draft). So stop complaining that someone attacked your "opinion." What I for one vehemently disagreed with was you presenting your opinion as fact as you did again in this very post.

Stop it. You have repeatedly stated your numbers as FACT and not opinion. You have gone out of your way to stress this while almost everyone else has gone out of THEIR way to stress they have an opinion and you can't know for a fact. That's what makes your last sentence all the more annoying. My argument absolutely is you don't know what is going on...at ALL. None of us did. Only you pretended you did by claiming the selection of Gary at 12 was like losing a 2nd round draft pick because of the value we absolutely-factually gave up because we definitively could have traded down with any number of teams and taken him at that point. That's you guessing while everyone else has said, A-We have absolutely zero clues that is true and no indication it's true and B-The side that hasn't been complaining about the Packers losing this imaginary draft pick or all this imaginary value has been the one that's actually posted mock drafts in which he was mocked to be gone in the top 10. You consistently keep telling us how far he definitely would have fallen without presenting any evidence. So please, look back and re-read if you need to. Only one person is stating what would have hypothetically happened as fact, almost everyone else is saying, "we have no clue what these teams would have done," BUT there is enough anecdotal evidence to dismiss your theory that he absolutely would have been available at 18 as you've suggested as being nothing more than just guessing.

That used to be called a Grey Shirt. It was a way of delaying enrollment, especially in football for potential preferred walk on's hoping to get a scholarship as someone will inevitably lose one. So I'm not convinced he loses that year. Not yet anyway. I'm also not even sure a Grey Shirt is still a thing. I do know the Badgers were still using it about 6-7 years ago. A greyshirt still exists but you aren’t on scholarship the first semester/year. Joey would have been on scholarship, so not a greyshirt. Again, are we just assuming this? A private school like Marquette can do so much without giving him an athletic scholarship for the spring semester. If he's a halfway decent student they can give him an academic scholarship. I find it hard to believe he burnt a year so he could to Marquette a half a season early and burn a year of eligibility. Football players routinely start school early so they can get a jump on spring practices and get the playbook down without burning any eligibility. You have 8 eligible semesters to complete within 5 years of enrolling....except in about a dozen different scenario's. I guess I don't really care until I know where he's planning on going anyway. If he goes to UVA, who cares how many years he has. If he goes to Madison, then I care a lot more.

Thompson announced today that he's suffering from some illness that's affected his speech and motor skills. I think his legacy in Green Bay has to be considered pretty secure. Wolf will always be more fondly remembered, but Thompson built some pretty damn good teams. He was just sooo obstinant when it came to free agency or any other form of player acquisition, but he had a good young core, he drafted at least one HOF'er, he signed another in free agency who played his best years in GB and he got us to a SB and on the doorstep several other times.

I don't really see what he adds to this team. You're right, we need a slot guy. He's not that. If we're not going to get an impactful player, why not go with the young guys? They've shown enough. It's not like other positions where you're really thin. You don't have game proven players, but you have players you know are talented. Allison looked to be on his way to a big year last year with 350 yards in the first 4+ games before getting hurt. Adams is a true #1 WR'er. MVS and St. Brown have shown they can make plays in the NFL. And who knows who's going to end up emerging from Camp. Kumerow, Davis, a couple UDFA's? I do have to say, it sure would be nice is Micheal Clark decided he was going to follow Cole Madison back...that guy looked like he could be a really good player..and I've love to see us go 5 wide with Adams, Clark, St. Brown, MVS and Graham. Adams would be the shortest guy out there at 6'1...and by a couple of inches.

Right, Shaw does not need to be benched, he needs to be getting ABs in AAA...maybe not yet but were getting close. Agreeing to disagree. I’m one that doesn’t jump the gun on proven players. I agree. Shaw's had back to back 4 WAR seasons for the Brewers. Not directing this at anyone in particular, but if it's too early to call up Hiura, why is it time to send Shaw down or to the bench? We'd have made a mistake if we did that a week-10 days ago with Aguilar. He's too good to not get going. That said, IF Thames would have been hurt, I do think it would have made sense to bring Hiura up. No reason to bring up someone you know is an inferior player for a short stint vs one of your main competitors. Especially when he'd have the platoon advantage in the first 3 games. It's not like it's unprecedented to bring up an advanced hitter for a short stint. You usually don't plan on doing that, but we did bring up Prince when we played interleague games when he was 21 years old and then sent him back down. But the kids creeping up near .350 with an OPS over 1.170. It wouldn't really be a stretch to think he could help us out vs a couple of lefties.

I don't like seeing Smart when healthy. He impacts the game like very few backcourt guys do. But I think this is a sign the Celts are getting a little desperate. The way they've described his workouts vs Brogdon, there seems to be an abundance of caution on one side so one player is available for the rest of the playoffs and panic on the other so there is a "rest of the playoffs." They were just talking 10 days ago about how gingerly he was moving and then right before game 3 about how he wasn't even practicing with the team, but playing a little bit after practice and he looked slow. A groin injury and guarding a guy like Bledsoe is not a good combination. It's like when Randall was playing WR'er with a pulled groin a few years ago. You could see in real time the imact.

He's not bad, just a little guy(5'8) and doesn't get a lot of K's, injury history... We could certainly do worse.

I started looking at what could be realistic possibilities about a week ago, and those two things are a major problem. Attanasio was surprisingly open about his desire to add Kimbrel, and since he is not yet signed, IMO it's pretty solid evidence that the Brewers are not going to be adding another 15-20 million dollars in salary. So right now, guys like Kimbrel, Keuchel, Greinke or maybe even someone like Samardzija just aren't real good possibilities. Add in that the Brewers two best candidates to include to provide some salary relief (Anderson and Thames), are looking more and more like they could evolve into necessary pieces for this year's team. And prospect capital, there just isn't that much of that if the Brewers take Hiura off the board. Not to mention that a big chunk of last year's prospect capital was the <1 year players (Burnes, Woodruff, Peralta), and we can't say anything other than the value of those three players has dropped significantly in the last few months. They could take a real big gamble on someone like Aaron Sanchez, who the Blue Jays probably would trade because of health and some really ugly peripherals, but top guys are certainly looking out of reach at this point. I think they end up playing with what they got and do a couple of the minor Swarzak/Soria deals in July. Can you refresh my memory, other than saying, "we're trying" or something to that effect at Miler Park, what did Mark A say about Kimbrel? Anyway, there are way too many unknowns here for me to come to the conclusion you did for the reasons you did. Do we have any idea yet if Kimbrel is willing to take a one year deal? Do we know if Stearns even wants Kimbrel? It could be Mark A has learned his lesson and is letting the GM make the decisions instead of "doing him favors" and signing checks for pitchers.

Well, one of the realistic options is off the table as Zach Brown signs a one year deal for 3 million with a 1.5 million dollar signing bonus. A LB'er with better ability in pass coverage who can run and tackle signs for 3 million dollars. I sure hope the Packers at least kicked the tires. Obviously, Eric Berry is not going to sign in GB, nor is Suh most likely. But right now we don't even have a Jake Ryan to back up Blake Martinez. What if he gets hurt?

No, of COURSE not! That's just one of the things that's so annoying about this. It's a GUIDE. And it's from 1990-something... It's basically just his informed OPINION. It does NOT take into account how much you and your front office values a player. . No it's not. It was based on something one of the minority owners developed after a career in oil. I think he was a math and econ guy. Now given salary changes one could argue it needs to be changed or at least revisited. I am hoping some advanced stat person takes that on at some point. I don't think the Johnson scale takes into account future draft picks. Maybe it does though. Ok, I thought it was Johnson's, but that doesn't change the fundamental point here. It does serve as a guide to tell you what those draft picks are worth in a vacuum. But that's not how the draft actually works. When you're drafting, you're talking about real human beings....players you have strong opinions on. And if you believe a guy is a really good player, you're not going to decline to trade a couple picks because you come out 12 points behind in the trade. And it most definitely was NEVER meant to be used to assign a value to the players after the picks were made.

I had a little breakdown of the remaining free agents(and arguably mental) between spending about 10 hours going through resumes the other night. I even suggested the Packers sign Suh to play the 5 tech! Realistically though, I would like to see a guy like Morris Claiborne brought in on a cheap deal. I also mentioned Zach Brown as our MLB'ers are so thin. We could use help in both areas and both are veterans. Though Brown is a pretty damn good player, so I'm not sure why he has to keep going year to year.

First of all, Bills fans do a LOT of really stupid, really dangerous crap in the pre-games. Guys are regularly going to the hospital and they have to spend quite a bit on security for the parking lots. But second, and most importantly....why NOT do this if you're the Bills? The fans are going to pay for it. I doubt they have any drop off in attendance and if they have fewer people tailgating, they probably won't be too upset given how obnoxious they are. I get the idea, it sucks that they keep trying to take more money from the fans, but that's corporate America. The biggest corporations pay very little in taxes, CEO's break the law and the company gets fined 500 million and he gets a 250 million dollar bonus on his way out because they still made a few billion on the deal. Just the way of the world.

I don't really think it's an "insult" to Giannis to say he's behind LeBron and Durant. Both are top 20 players and Giannis is still jus 24. There are still a couple areas he can improve(and given how he has done so every year, I have little doubt he will. As for Lillard vs Kyrie, it's a little unfair to say this was Kyries first playoff series win without LeBron. He came to a TERRIBLE team and then LeBron came back shortly after. Then he leaves and he suffers a very painful injury. As far as being a leader, I don't really have an opinion on that. Boston is gonna get covered and each comment is going to get analyzed SOOO much more than those in Portland. I thought Kyrie showed leadership stepping up and calling LeBron. I don't really know if he was being a good leader or a bad leader when he was calling out the younger guys while the Celts were up and down this year, but that's what LeBron did(and it's one of the things that made Kyrie want to leave). Both players are great and my point really isn't EXACTLY were to rank either as I said Irving was "in that next group." The group right behind the superstars, and two-way studs like LeBron, KD, Giannis, Kawhi, George, Harden.... I do think there MIGHT be a little recency bias with Lillard. He's been a great player for years, but hitting a 38 footer or whatever it was over George to win the series is the last thing in everyone's mind. It makes people forget about Kyries game-winning 3 that brought Cleveland a title. My larger overall point though is....Irvin is really good. He's an elite PG. If you want to say he's 12th, fine, but over 3 years he's pretty close to hitting that 90/50/40 threshold that's extremely rare for one season. He's a 40 pct 3 point shooter, he's got a versatile mid-range game and he can finish...plus, he may be one of the few guys in the game who has a better handle than Lillard. I'll just say this...in a close game...dudes a problem. He can get a clean look against almost anyone and with their shooters, you can't really collapse on him. Best we can hope for is that we keep getting solid D from Bled, Hill and a little from Patty C and keep making him take contested shots. He won't go 4/18 again most likely, but as long as he doesn't go off, and we don't let one of the young studs who's been erratic in this series go off, we should be going into game 4 up 2-1.

With regard to Giannis passing up Durant and LeBron(you didn't actually say LeBron, so maybe I'm assuming here, but I think a lot of people saw this as the year that Durant kinda stepped out of James shadow)-I just don't agree. I think MAYBE you're talking about which player was more productive from Sept on, but in a series, a big game, hell, I don't think Giannis is on Durant's level yet. There is NOTHING Durant can't do. He's outstanding in the open court, he can take his man off the dribble, shoot over anyone and do so at a ridiculously high clip...oh, and he's shown he can be one of the better defensive players in the league when called upon to do so, rare as that may be. You talk about him having the advantage of playing with Golden State, but he's still the best player on that team and when he was in OKC with Westbrook's poor shot selection and playing out of control at times, he had Golden State up 3-1 and on the verge of knocking them off and playing like Sidney Moncrief in Kareem's body defensively as he just dominated that series and contested shots against guys he wasn't even playing! Durant may be the most unguardable offensive player in NBA history and he's a very good defensive player as well when needed. Now obviously Giannis being 24 and on a team that hadn't won an NBA series since the wrong Ervin Johnson was logging minutes for them, Giannis was statistically the better player over the course of a season. But do you HONESTLY think that in a 7 game series or even just in a must win that Giannis has passed up Durant and LeBron as the best player in the world? I think you're about a year or two short on that...if not 3. I'm trying to only argue in the affirmative for both players since they're so great, but you have to look at Giannis and his shot and his FT shooting. Durant is a sniper and can do anything, He's also an underrated defender who is very good when the team needs him to be. He's not playing 100 miles an hour in a Feb game vs Washington like Giannis because...well, he doesn't have as much to prove and he's won a few titles already, so like virtually every great who enters their mid to late 20's, they learn to pace themselves. So I'll grant you that Giannis may have been better in the regular season than him, but do you honestly believe that in a 7 game series, Giannis is a better player than KD already? Especially as the game slows, and half court offense becomes exponentially more important? KD's a 7 footer who's near that 90/50/40 range year in and year out and probably the most skilled and versatile scorer in the history of the game, as well as a damn good defender. He can take almost anyone off the dribble and get to the rim...unless you're going to put a smaller guy on him with elite quickness, and then it's just like a shoot around for him. He can shoot over the top of virtually anyone. I just can't see the argument that Giannis has surpassed Durant. That's almost like saying Betts is a better player than Trout because he was better during the year last year(would work better if Trout was on a team on a historic run while Betts was the guy on an upstart team, but my point remains. If you're playing a game or a series, I just vehemently disagree that Giannis has ascended to the very top spot in the NBA. I feel like you're jumping the gun a bit here. For as great as Giannis is, he's still not a great shooter, doesn't shoot a great pct on FT's and we've at least seen how you can force Giannis to give up the ball and make other people beat you. Shy of trapping Durant every play with a Capella and Tucker, how do you stop him? And in that case, he'd just pass to anyone and the Warriors end up with an easy shot. As for Kyrie, I said he was in that next group around 10. You listed 10 guys. There were one or two I disagreed with, but that's fine. I'd still take him over Lillard as that strikes me a bit as a recency bias after that huge game winning shot over OKC(which was a bad shot for him to take, PG13 was absolutely right about that). But I'm not that interested in finding an EXACT number of where he ranks among NBA players. The last 3 years- 200 Games Played- 89/48/40 while putting up 24.5/6/4, very few turnovers and that includes the chunk of time he missed for a very painful knee injury that he has surgery on and got infected. Aside from just the pure numbers, he may be the most skilled PG in the NBA when it comes to his handle, and finishing in the paint. And then he comes back AFTER a painful knee injury and he puts up better numbers. His OBPM was 6.0 to Giannis' 5.7. Obviously, Giannis was a far-far better defensive player, offensively, they're at least comparable and you're underestimating how much better of a passer he's become. 24/7/5 while shooting over 40 from 3 again and turning the ball over far less than Giannis despite being their primary ball handler while Giannis is one of many we have who handle the ball? The regular season numbers don't bear out that he's anything but a great offensive player and his post-season history in the biggest games tell you that he's not just putting up stats in the regulare season. He's played in multiple finals, hit huge shots, including the game-winning to win a championship....and while he's not a good defensive player, with the Celts length and big guys behind him, and especially when Smart is out there with them, he's a dangerous help defender who plays the passing lanes and gets yo out in transition. So rank him ahead of Lillard, a spot behind Lillard, he's an elite offensive player. I do know I'd definitely have him ahead of Embid right now. Despite his big game last night, and I hope he has a couple more in that series because I don't think the Sixers can beat us and I think the Raptors are a much better team, the guy constantly looks like he's laboring out there. He's probably about 15 pounds overweight. He doesn't scare me in a matchup with this Bucks team. As for Lopez, I don't know if you were just clarifying, but I agree. Lopez has been an enormous part of this team this year. He fits Buds system perfectly. He's an incredibly unselfish player, he's smart. I remember reading(can't source it)that he used to get criticized for his rebounding, or lack thereof, the advanced analytics actually showed how much better his teams where at rebounding when he was on the floor, due in large part because he's smart enough and physical enough o take a guy like Drummond for example, get a body on him and allow someone else to get the rebound. Doesn't go in his stat line, but it's a rebound we may have otherwise not gotten.

Sanchez has to be one of the next up when it comes to giving guys a shot to see if they can get big league hitters out in the pen. Also, Hiura had a solid day, 1 for 6 1 BB, 1 HR, but the game he was 1-3 in, 2K's and a bomb. I saw that the team struck out 13 times, so maybe they were facing a good staff, but without actually watching him play, it really seems like he's selling out a bit for more power. 8 Hr's is great, but I'd sacrifice a couple to get the BB rate to 10 pct and the K rate down in the 20's at least. Of course, maybe that's just what and the org decided they wanted him to try to achieve at AAA this year. Or maybe he tried to change the launch angle to become more of a power hitter? Just speculation if anyone can speak on any of these issues from seeing him.

I'm not all that convinced that two Tommy John surgeries is as catastrophic as others believe. At least when it comes to younger guys who have it, they never really get back to 100 pct and they need to have it again. That suggests to me a problem with the replaced ligament or rehab, rushing back too quickly. I think it's a lot different if you have one when you're 28 and then another, when you're 36 like Capuano, did for example(I'm just throwing out hypothetical ages). The rest of your arm has a lot more wear and tear on it, the pitchers older and you're less likely at that point to come back. Anyway, if they keep him at a 3 IP or 50 pitch max this year, that's fine. He can do that in Milwaukee. I'd probably shorten that up a bit and watch him closer as he's likely to exert more effort throwing in the big leagues than the minors. But even if he just throws 4 innings a week. That's 6 more outs by a quality pitcher at the end of the year.

JJ didn't get much Spring Training. I think concern is warranted, but he's looked fine in his other outings, and was hitting 93-94. I want to see if he bounces back before getting worried. I know this isn't popular, but I just don't think he's that good. He's certainly dealing with a shoulder issue, but I've said all off-season, and I think others have agreed(maybe?) that last year was an outlier. He was never going to be THAT pitcher again. So if you're expecting him to dominate like that, you're going to be disappointed no matter what. Seeing him coming back, getting his velocity back up slowly and getting his movement has me encouraged that he's going to be more like the pitcher he's normally been for the Brewers. A pretty good high leverage reliever, but not a dominant, among the best in the league type.

Well, when you're struggling, you seldom see it. We didn't see Knebel, Jeffress, Burnes, Woodruff and Perealta all coming up last year and making enormous contributions at times. The young guys you never expect to come and pitch in the playoffs like that, Knebel looked awful and was sent down to AAA at one point... But Aguilar walked...what, 3 or 4 times last night? That's following a 3 hit game and 2 HR's the previous two games. Walks are usually the first indication someone's coming out of a slump. So right theree for one. Braun-Last year he was one of the most unlikely hitters in the game. I'm not giving up on him providing a great deal of improvement yet. Burnes, Peralta, Woodruff, Nelson- First of all, Nelson is throwing. He was scheduled to start in AAA, but I believe the birth of his child got in the way. But he's up to 90 pitches. Probably a benchmark they wanted to get to with him feeling good before they put him in AAA. Not hard at all to see Burnes, Peralta and Woodruff throwing the ball MUCH better than they have since we've seen it before. Shaw's put up back to back ~4 WAR seasons. I see every reason he'll improve. Yelich is out. He's...Yelich. Hirura(last I checked) was hitting ~.330 with an OPS around 1.100. He could certainly help. Gio just got here. I'd expect him to be a stabilizing force in the rotation. It's plausible that Zach Brown, Daniel Brown, Rasmussen get called up at some point this year, the Brewers could sign a Kuechel or Kimbrel. Oh yeah, and then there's the part where they're still just finishing up their toughest month and they're right in playoff contention. And yes, while it's hard to jump over 4 teams in the playoff race with a week or two to go down only a couple games, I could absolutely envision this team selling off some players at the deadline. I could see them being 5-6 games out, a looking really bad and concluding that selling Grandal for a couple of young relievers(I'm talking a couple of really talented guys in AAA and maybe AA) or getting a nice lotto ticket for Moose, much more if he continues to perform as he is, and then Chacin, Anderson, maybe even Davies depending on the prospects. But I don't know how you look at how this team is performing now and can't see how they could improve just from within the 25 man, the 40 man or the farm system. I will say I don't want to see the Brewers trade away Cain. I don't think a big dropoff is imminent and lets say they did decide to sell. Well, then they'd put Burnes, Peralta and Woodruff right back in the pen, possibly with Zach Brown for a while, Keston would be playing everyday, any number of young prospects could come up and get time in the big leagues. Next year you'd be looking at a formidable lineup with Hirura and possibly a couple of other pieces, the BP would have Wahl, Knebel at some point, Hader, hopefully, Rasmussen, but almost certainly a few guys we have in the system right now. You'd have to hope that the Brewers young arms would have grown from pitching out of the rotation for half a year. We'd have slashed our payroll, so we'd have some money to make some additions. Those would likely be on the pitching side as the position player field is scarce next off-season, but after being in on Kuechel, Kimbrel and pushing our payroll to 130 and willing to go higher, maybe they pick up a starting pitcher. They already look like they have a good pen and a lineup with Aguilar, Hirura, Arcia, Shaw, Yelich, Cain, Braun/Taylor/Gamel/Ray/FA/Trade-whatever. The point is it's easy to envision a lot of different scenario's. One I certainly did NOT envision at this point last year was watching game 7 of the NLCS vs the Dodgers with the Brewers arguably out playing the Dodgers in the series for a shot at only the 2nd World Series in franchise history and 1st in my lifetime. So I'm sure Stearns will takewhat comes, he probably has contingencies for his contingencies-contingencies. So...we'll all just take it as it comes, we what happens and hopefully if it doesn't go well, regroup next year stronger. Stearns has proven he'll adjust on the fly and figure it out.

The only thing going over anyone's head is you just making these wild claims about players values. You assign a negative value to the selection of Rashan Gary...and then when you're asked where on Earth you're getting these from, you come back with Jimmy Johnson's formula telling people how to google it. The problem there.....you're making everything else up. Let me ask you this, how much value does Lukas Denis, S, Boston College* have? He was mocked to go 14th overall, yet he fell out of the first round. Come to think of it...he fell out of the draft! MY GOD, TAMPA BAY GOT +1100 POINTS!!! That's incredible. If that doesn't impress you, how about the Kiper draft that had David Edwards and Ben Benzschawel going 19th and 20th? Do you NOT see the utter futility in trying to assign a value on the actual PLAYERS...not the picks, the ACTUAL human beings associated with the picks because in your mind...and that's really all we have to go off of as you've done NOTHING to show us that Rashan Gary was projected to be there 5 picks after the Packers picked other than just say so while others have pointed out several that had him going in the top 10(in fact, I just saw one that had him going 3rd). YOU-DON'T-KNOW-ANYTHING about these players, you don't know anything about the front office and more importantly, you don't have a clue as to what they were THINKING regarding these players. You're just guessing. And it's not even an educated guess. And I don't say that as an insult, I say that as someone who's self-aware enough to know what I don't know. And as I've said repeatedly, we have no idea where these guys are going to be picked, we don't know hardly anything about them other than what we see in the 5 minutes we've spent looking into them as opposed to the thousands and thousands of hours these scouting staffs spent meticulously putting together their board and the hundreds of hours after that they discussed the thousands of hours of tape and interviews and conversations they had. But you think you can boil ALL that down to, "I saw mock drafts where Gary went 17th," and then claim the Packers essentially gave away certain draft picks because of mock drafts YOU'VE seen that don't match the ones that have actually been posted on here? This is insane. I just can't fathom why we're taking some guy at Bleacher reports mock draft that he probably threw together with little thought because...well, mock drafts get hits, as gospel and just ignoring the fact that the PROFESSIONALS who do this know more than you. Also, when we get confirmation that teams wanted Gary and or Savage...like the Raiders who were going to take Savage, and then the speculation that the Giants were trying to trade UP from 17 to get Gary at 10, doesn't that right there nullify your entire argument? It's all null and void now. You created this fictional narrative that these players would have been available AND not only would they have been available, but that there were teams who wanted to trade with us...and presumably give us exactly equal compensation for doing so on Jimmy Johnson's draft guide......but that's since been dispelled. So the question now is, have you just dug your heels in too far, or are you still sticking with this concept that Rashan Gary's selecetion was worth -112 points(or however many you assigned to it?

I think they are, believe teams use it to judge what is fair for each pick. Packers gave up 744 to get 800 by trading 30 & 2 4s. If they didn’t trade the two 4s... they would have found way to give up 124- 180 in another way. 2nd round value was 460 3rd round value was 215 4th round value was 66 4th round value was 58 5th round value was 31 6th round value was 17 6th round value was 14 7th round value was 2 We could have overpaid by a lot for those 9 spots by trading #30 & our 3rd pick 620+ 215 = 835 vs 800 Could have went #30, 1st 4th, 5th, and 2nd 6th 620+66+31+14= 731 vs 800 where we still win trade. Don’t thinks an end all be all but helps guide decisions of what each pick is worth. Keep #30 & Trade 2nd, 3rd, 2nd 4th round 675+58= 738 Overall our 3rd round pick held much more value than both our 4ths. 215 to 124 But you just said it. He asked if it was gospel and concrete value. You're right, it's a guide, it's a helpful guide to help GM's make quick decisions while in the war room and on the clock.

No, of COURSE not! That's just one of the things that's so annoying about this. It's a GUIDE. And it's from 1990-something... It's basically just his informed OPINION. It does NOT take into account how much you and your front office values a player. Gute said he wasn't happy about having to give up 2 1st round picks. Guess what? I bet TT didn't like giving up the picks he did to get Clay Matthews. But he and his front office made an EVALUATION based on thousands of hours, maybe tens of thousands cumulatively(actually, cumulatively, it was definitely tens of thousands of hours) and they were just a LITTLE it more informed! Do you think...just for a hypothetical, that if the Chiefs lost Patrick Mahomes for a season, Ty Hill was booted off the team, they ended up going the way of the Colts when Manning went down, or the Spurs when David Robinson was out for a year and there was this transcendent superstar available, a player like Trevor Lawrence, someone who's already being talked about along the likes of John Elway and Peyton Manning as having the highest grade since they started grading prospects....do you think a team like the Dolphins, a team that craves celebrity, and also likes winning is going to sit there and say, "no, we're not going to give up multiple 1st round picks for a once in a generational talent. We'll give you our 1st, 2nd, next years 1st, but we're not giving you another 3rd to move up 5 spots because Jimmy Johnson's chart says we'd be losing 10 points! It's just so laughable(not your question, the asinine assigning of points to a player and then just arbitrarily adding or subtracting based on where you thought they should go without actually knowing.

I'd be surprised if we don't sign a vet like we did last year with Breeland. Brown had actually slipped my mind as well. He definitely showed flashes, he's got some swagger, and he's got elite speed. Still, I don't want to have to count on him...or really even Tramon this year. I wonder if there's been any consideration given to signing a guy like Morris Claiborne. He's certainly not a special player and would likely be a modest upgrade on Breeland if one at all, but he's a dependable CB who was a elite prospect coming out. He suffered injuries early after being unfairly compared to Patrick Peterson because they went to LSU together, but he's become a reliable starter, though a bit penalty prone. He's gone on back to back 1 year deals. He's been solid, but not spectacular. Another guy is Jamie Collins. He's got more talent than showed up in Cleveland. The Browns traded for him IN-SEASON from the Pats when the Pats were on their way to a SB. Some said it was because they weren't going to be able to re-sign him, others because he liked to freelance too much. That'd be problematic in Pettine's Defense, but if he can make plays... Either way, we're thin at MLB'er and he is a guy who can definitely rush the passer up the middle, but who's also very solid vs the run and pass...which brings me to, Zach Brown. A LB'er for the team that plays in Washington. Combine times mean very little, but he was a 4.50 40 with a 36 in vertical when he came out, plus he plays in a system similar to Pettines(or rather he has while playing for Greg Williams). He has 3 seasons with 4 or more sacks, he is tackling machine, and he's also serviceable if not slightly above average in pass coverage. Now is when things are gonna get a little stupid... Then there is ERIC BERRY! Ok, stay with me, while we don't' need him, and he'll likely pick the best team in need of a safety, but you have to wonder if money is going to be a driving force. The guy already got paid a ridiculous amount for a safety, he's gone through cancer, he's missed most of the last two years, but he's still 29 and was on a HOF trajectory when he suffered unspeakably bad luck. Obviously, this one is incredibly far fetched and probably should be in light shade of blue, but man, the reports are that he's 100 pct healthy, he's come back before(after cancer) and been an elite player. And we certainly play a big nickel with 3 safeties fairly often. Plus, there is probably not a better guy in the world to learn from while still playing for Savage(and Amos...and King, Alexander and probably LeFleur. I mean...if he'd take a one year 5 million dollar deal, this is one of those signings you absolutely have to make, isn't it? Savage then can play nickel as well? If it doesn't work out, oh well? His character is unimpeachable and I'd have to imagine he'd have a Charles Woodson-esque impact in the locker room. And while I can't see him having that impact on the field, he could definitely prove to still be an above average safety now that the injuries that plagued his last two seasons, the Achilles tear and then the subsequent bone spurs as a result of said injury are all cleaned up, he's ready to go! And if you thought THAT was unlikely, let me set the entire Packers fan base on fire with three simple letters. SUH. Again, bear with me.... I'd bring Suh in for a meeting. Try to gauge what he's looking for. If he's willing to come back and play for ~8-9 million, I think I'd start looking into that trade with whoever is interested regarding Mike Daniels and go with Suh. Suh played NT last year, DEFINITELY not his ideal position while with the Rams. He played a significant role in helping Aaron Donald win the DPOY award whlie they transitioned from a 4-3 to a 3-4, a much tougher position to get big sack numbers from(unless you're from Pewaukee Wisconsin and then NFL linemen are minor impediments to tackling the man with the ball). With Kenny Clark in GB, there's little need for him to play there. Still, even as a 3-4 NT whose job it was to eat up blocks, he dominated at times last year. The fact that he's not yet signed says 1-There's simply not much interest, 2-He's looking for more money, 3-Teams were waiting until after the draft to inquire, to see if they filled their holes on the DL or 4-he's in no hurry to sign and wants to wait and find the best situation possible. I would think that'd be in GB or NE. In both places, he'd be able to play a 5 technique, he'd be asked to shoot gaps instead of eating up linemen and he'd be able to go back to the disruptive style of play that made him one of the elite interior DL in the NFL. That's not to say he would be one of the top interior DL, but I do believe on a one year deal, he's still got a lot of value. Heck, I'd even give him a Jimmy Graham type of deal if we moved on from Mike Daniels. And while Daniels is a self-anointed tough guy(And don't get me wrong, he certainly has played like one) who has talked about bringing a measure of toughness back to this defense, I don't know if there is a better guy out there right now who could do that than Donkey Kong-Suh! Now is this getting a little unrealistic? Sure...but it's 12:30, I have but one meeting set for the entire day and little else to pass the time at work. So I'm letting it all hang out! So my list of FA's- 1-Suh Almost zero chance we sign him, but I'd kick the tires. I think with Clark playing over the Center, Lowry playing the 3, Suh could potentially get double-digit sacks as a 5, though 7-8 would be more likely. And I'd only do this if the financial difference was inconsequential after moving on from Daniels. 2-Eric Berry Better chance we sign Suh, but it's not zero. Not sure how he fits in with this team, but after tearing his Achilles and then having to rehab and have another surgery for bone spurs as a result, he's finally healthy, he's one of the best leaders in the NFL, he was on track to become a HOF'er, and he's just 30 and made an All Pro team the previous 4 years prior to his achilies injury. 3-Jamie Collins- I'd put the pct here at about 5. Higher than the first two, but he's talented, young enough and likely cheap enough. 4-Zach Brown I'm going to get really confident and say the chances here are a whopping 10 pct. Gute has to see the hole we have at MLB'er and more importantly, he has to see how that hole becomes the Marianna Trench if anything happens to Blake Martinez. Owen Burks, a 7th round pick with speed, and then what? A safety and some UDFA's? 5-Morris Claiborne 10 pct. We need another reliable if only average low-cost option to provide depth at CB. You cant' spend 115 million dollars, use your #1 pick as well as your 5th round pick acquiring pass rushers and then watch as Kevin King gets hurt and you have to trot out a woefully unproven group of CB's. Realistically, Claiborne or Zach Brown is the simplest and most likely signing. I'd go 2 years 9 million on either with a SB of 2.5 million and a base of 2 million this year. This way you can cut ties with them next year and you're left with just 1.25 in dead money, an easily manageable number. Eric Berry is a fantasy like suggestion and I doubt he's even crossed Gute's mind....but I'm just throwing it out there. Signing Suh would be the consummate "all in" move and it would give our defense quite a bit more gravitas, however, you'd need a deep rotation as Suh was just "solid" last year until the late season and playoffs rolled around. I do think he can still dominate when he feels the need to, and perhaps his uneven performance was the result of him being slightly mis-cast as a 34 NT and playing a new position. I know there will likely be less than zero support for this idea, but the more I write, the more I talk myself into what an impact Suh could provide for us if he played 30-35 snaps a game.

A few differences of opinion....which is a given at this point in the NFL season given all the unknowns. I'm a bit more optimistic than you I think on some players. I love Tonyan as I said....so he'll probably end up getting cut. I was a big fan of Geoff Grey last year as a project at tackle. I think he ended up latching on elsewhere but was not close to making it here. And we have a very different opinion of the OL. I think the pressures are more Rodgers problem as a whole. But there are quite a few things that could happen between then and now(then being final 53 man). I'd guess we cut at least one player to save money, be it Daniels, Taylor....or whoever(cut or trade). And I still think we could add an impact player.

Hill and Bledsoe have been great defenders all year. Absolutely great. And Kyrie is a little overrated. Makes some sensational shots, but you can't count on regular efficiency from him and he's a liability on defense. For all the talk about Giannis's struggles, he's still clearly way ahead of Kyrie in the star pecking order. I don't like to do the overrated or underrated thing because people have varying opinions. I think he's a top 10 player in the NBA right now(I could be talked down a few spots, but he's so valuable late in close games and he's one of the most skilled players we've ever seen that I have him in that range). Giannis is clearly not on Durant's level just yet. I think that's fair to say and everyone would agree with that. I think a focused LeBron is still just a shade behind, though not during an 82 game schedule. After that, it's Kawhi, Giannis, a healthy Anthony Davis, Steph and Harden. Among that group, I think I'd put Giannis atop it, but Leonard could easily change my mind. Then..while I'm probably missing someone, I'd put Kyrie in that next group. It'll be fun to see how Brogdon looks when he gets back on the floor. Kyrie is too quick for him in the open court, but Kyrie does like to post up and I like that match up as well. Brogdon's a good, physical defender(though I think we differ on how good). I think the keys the rest of the way are- 1-Giannis has to be a little more efficient. I don't think he'll continue to hit 3's, but that hasn't been a big deal either way. They're very good at shutting him down in the half court, so he needs to keep attacking and especially in transition. That's clearly where the Bucks are at their best. 2-Keep Tatum down. Brown's played pretty well, but hasn't been much of a difference maker. I don't think we can afford to see those two go off like they did last year. 3-Keep making it tough on Kyrie. Bledsoe played him physically and can match his quickness as well as just about any other PG. And just keep throwing guys at him. Hill, Brogdon and even Pat Cannaughton can play him tough(in that order obviously). Make him work, be ready to rotate when he drives, and just keep contesting. He'll play much better, but we can afford that. He's good enough that he's going to make tough shots even when he's guarded well. But you can't give him the easy ones. 4-Continue to close out on their shooters. Heyward is also going to play better, but Brown is just 21 and an up and down player, Tatum has been awful and it looks to me like he's been less active defensively as a result(which was one of the things I was concerned with, he's capable with his length of being a very good defensive player with deflections and what not. 5-This is actually just behind the 1st one, but keep hitting the open shots. With Brogdon hopefully coming back, you've got shooters everywhere. If you can keep playing tough D, getting those deflections, getting out and increasing the pace. Both teams played at a high pace all year(I'd imagine we were among the top 3-4 teams in the NBA with GSW, Houston(when healthy and Harden isn't playing ISO on 60 pct of the possessions). And Boston was likely just behind that, but they definitely do NOT want to play to our pace in this series. They cannot win doing so. So it's up to us to push the ball, to do what we do defensively, get in the passing lanes, anticipate, get some deflections and get Giannis or Blesoe the ball with a full head of steam and get your shooters where they need to be. Mirotic, Brogdon, Middleton are all deadly in that scenario, and that keeps the pressure on Boston. You get into a halfcourt game, and this is where I get worried about matchup's. They can throw out Kyrie, Brown, Tatum, Morris and Horford and that's a ton of length and as greate as Giannis is, when they have 2 bigs standing just above the restricted area just waiting for him in the half court game, especially when one is Horford, that makes it really tough for him to do what he has to do. So to sum it all up, Lopez hurts them because they can exploit him and hit open 3's or even mid range shots, but they have plenty of bigs who can play, who can rotate and as long as they're playing good D and able to get out and run, they're going to outclass this team every time. If the Celts slow this game down a bit like they want to, things will be much harder.