HiAndTight

They both passed on SuperMax offers. LeBron has spent two seasons with the Cavs and obviously this is KD's first with Brooklyn. They both passed up Supermax contracts in the past two years.

Are you talking about that...wing-back position? HB is usually just used interchangeably with RB in today's NFL. The primary ball carrier. I assume you're talking about the Tyler Ervin, Tayvon Austin role. Sorta Melvin Gordon's role as a RS Freshmen at Wisconsin. I strongly advocated trading for John Ross and putting him in that role. Cordarrelle Patterson is absolutely the PERFECT fit for that role in this offense(and a FA). The offense just changes too much when Ervin goes down and Patterson is much more dangerous with the ball in his hand and an outstanding receiver....for that role. But I'm guessing that's a position they invest a bit more in next year as it's such a huge part of our offense. If you have someone who can really stress the defense there...and in a perfect world, return some kicks, that basically another starter and you can't treat that as a specialist. It opens up the passing game, you freeze the LB'ers in a way that using Lazard just doesn't. Maybe Austin CAN be that guy moving forward. He's versatile, he's a very good punt returner. But I really think John Ross will be cheap and is a little thicker and a little more explosive at this point. Patterson, again, the perfect man for that role, but while he'll be cheap, he'll still likely get 3-4 million. Not sure if they want to spend that. 3. I think Barnes is our best MLB right now, but Martin has the best upside. I just don't think Martin has the full defense figured out, but looks like a good pick for the future. Given Barnes barely played last week, then started taking some of Kirksey's snaps this week, I'm guessing the Packers are ramping him back into the starting spot. Next week's snaps should be pretty interesting. 4. Dude. You can stop patting yourself on the back about Tonyan. Many of us said the same thing. 5. I knew something didn't sound right when I wrote that... I meant the H-back (hybrid TE/FB) position. Deguara, Lovett, Sternberger (out of position a bit), and now Dafney. Dafeny didn't play too much but had some nice run blocks and seemed pretty sure of what he was doing out there. I still think Deguara would've added a major element to our offense with his versatility. Austin was interesting and contributed a lot early (scripted that way I'm sure). But I'm still disappointed to not see a jet sweep out of him. Looked like he still had some wheels. I don't know...maybe. He just makes a few plays a game that really pop. Plays where he'll just fly to the ball, fill a gap and take on a guard or a FB if he has to, and make a tackle. The problem appears to be he struggles to stay on the field. Yes...I know a few others were high on him as well, people who really follow the team...but c'mon, how often does one of those guys really hit like this? H-Back makes more sense...and in retrospect, I should have picked up on that when you mentioned all the guys coming off IR for next year. I think they really like Degura and Lovett is a really nice athlete. I'm excited to see those two moving around doing different things. And I was also disappointed they didn't use Austin, though maybe he's working on getting his legs back or even just waiting to break him out in a bigger spot. But if he's healthy and has fresh legs for the rest of the season, that 4.28 40 could come in handy and maybe steal us a TD via a Punt Return or on that wheel route that they love to have those guys run off that jet sweep. I don't know...if MVS keeps up what he's doing, our offense becomes a helluva lot more dangerous and now you add another thread in there? It's hard to not envision what COULD have been had the Packers gone with Gibson instead of Dillon. I don't know if it was you or who it was, but someone on here was really high on him and I thought he'd be a good fit(though I didn't think he'd be Roger Craig in his first year on a bad team). But if they are going to put a premium on that H-back position, they really should put a premium on that hybrid position.

I would guess that it would have more of an impact on those lower-rated recruits who may not have gotten a chance to perform this year. The ESPN 300 guys are noticed early on as most of them are going to camps where they first stand out and then by the time they're Seniors they've got a couple of years of film. Wouldn't surprise me though to hear more of these, "and Purdue was the only school to offer him a Division one Scholarship" type stories.

Looks like it's going to be a fun class. Got to see some of them play the last two year. I think that Woehler kid is going to be an absolute monster. I know a few guys on that staff as Muskego including the HC...that kid hits as hard as anyone I've watched at the HS level. To be fair, I didn't see Allen play much. Interesting that them adding ANOTHER OLB pushed them past A&M. That's a pretty big deal the way Jimbo's got that program going down there(and the state from which they get to recruit). Hopefully, their performance increases in the same increments that their recruiting classes have. They'll be playing for Natty's. Just gotta dive into that transfer portal this year and look for some impact talent at WR'er. If ever there was a year to really pick up a couple of transfers to get you over the top, it'd be with the young talent we've got on the way and players free to play right away. Edit-They're now ranked 15th on ESPN and Texas is ranked 16th with A&M at 12...but they definitely had the Aggies ranked below us just yesterday when I read this comment and checked to see who we'd have added that moved us up a spot.

Maybe if it wasn't a supermax...I don't think it was a formality he would sign, but about as close as it can get. A super max basically lets you outbid the competition by a huge margin...you would have to be running one heck of a garbage organization for any player to pass it up. Years down the road it will be interesting to see how many players (if any) actually decline such a deal. The rare event in all this is them originally drafting him...the contract not so much. I would bet on us drafting another Giannis before I die before we trade for another Yelich, wins MVP instantly, 2nd place next year, and then sign a massive contract to stay in baseballs smallest market for essentially the rest of his career. Several players have passed on the SuperMax. Anthony Davis just did so. LeBron...KD, Kawhi. Pretty much all the top players in the league from small-market teams. I think you'll see the same thing in the future. Giannis is the first true franchise player to sign one in a small market as far as I can tell. Steph signed one, but it was his 4th contract and he's in a big market...even if it's not technically true, the area, Oakland, SF... I really don't think the money was the reason Giannis signed. He's coming off a 100 million dollar deal. His shoe deal was worth more than that. And how much did he really cost himself? 25 million or so. I don't know what the exact number is, but it's a small enough number he could have easily made it up in a larger market.

Lew A. says "hold my beer." I remember writing that and meaning to say since Kareem, but you're obviously right. In any event, I think he's got a chance to be a more important player now. He's sticking around when Kareem bolted after winning one. I get why he did it and just as I wouldn't have blamed Giannis, hard to blame Kareem(especially since it was before I was born).

I agree on both points...but wouldn't you agree the QB play around the league is higher than it's ever been? That's a point we're missing. Used to be a lot more stud RBs, now it's QBs. QBs are such a huge part of today's game, it makes sense more will and should be in the HOF. I don't buy the argument that only X number each decade or whatever should get in. When I started this I expected some good debate, but this has been really interesting. Made me think, for sure. And after all these posts I still don't know what I would do with Ryan, Rivers, or Stafford. Probably wait a lot of years and see how they look then. It'll definitely be interesting. The thing with Ryan and Stafford, they could both still add quite a bit to their resume. Stafford could play for another decade. And there's a rumor that the Lions are going to move on from Stafford after this season...which we all KNOW is going to improve his stock! So they've got to finish their careers and then like you say, there's a good reason why you have to wait 5 years. Time provides some perspective.

Obviously, the rules are a huge advantage for QB's now, that's a given and everyone agrees, but NFL teams are also willing to break the mold and give other types of QB's a chance. It's not just that more black QB's have been given opportunities in the past 30 years, but short QBs and more mobile QB's. People questioned Drew Brees stock took a hit because he measured just 6 feet at the combine. 20 years later Kyler Murray went 1st overall at 5'10. Charlie Ward went undrafted, Lamar Jackson was an MVP at age 22. Someone else pointed out that the difference between the type of schemes you run in College and the NFL has narrowed, allowing QB's to have success earlier. But even if you just consider the length of careers due to the rule changes...wouldn't that lead to a higher level of play at the position across the league? In any other era Brady, Brees, Rodgers, Rivers, Roethlisberger, Fitzpatrick...they'd all likely be out of the league or close to it. The youngest of that group is Rodgers. So there are a lot of causes, but I think someone would be hard-pressed to find an era or year when QB play was better than it is right now.

I agree on both points...but wouldn't you agree the QB play around the league is higher than it's ever been?

I'm already making that assumption, especially since it wouldn't have to be anything written in the contract. Paul George had that with OKC--"I'll sign the max deal, but if I decide I want out, you have to trade me." It's not like Milwaukee has any leverage to say no. OKC didn't have to trade George...all the pressure was on the Clippers. They gave up a ridiculous haul for George. A ton of 1sts and probably the best player in that trade came from LA. I'd take Alexander right now. The Bucks leverage would be control of Giannis for the next 5 seasons. So the opt out after the 4th isn't a real big deal. I was thinking it'd be after year 2 or 3.

Right. I'm not saying any of them are HOF'ers, I'm saying they've done enough and they've still got enough time left that they could certainly become HOF'ers. Even Stafford is just 32 years old. IF Detroit really did want to move on from him and he went to Indy hypothetically....he couldn't do enough to become a HOF'er? Even staying in Detroit I believe he will become a HOF'er. Carr is playing with a team that's just stacking young weapons all around him. Even Matt Ryan who's top 10 in yards and 11th in TD's is just 35. The point initially was that there was only one HOF worthy QB drafted between 2006 and 2016. I don't see how you can make that statement yet. Even if you throw out the older guys...again, Dak is 27 I believe, and started every game until week 6 this year and has a QB rating of near 100(and will be returning to 3 #1 WR's). Geoff..26 with one of the best coaches. There will be QB's voted in who I don't think should be, but now you're really taking guys out before they even get a chance to prove if they should or shouldn't be.

That's not fair at all. Stafford has NEVER had one of the most talented teams in the league. Rivers regularly did.

Never said they WERE HOF worthy, I said you're dismissing them when some of them are still very young. Dak's 25 and has gotten off to a VERY good start(and plays in Dallas) and he's already not going to be a HOF'er? There are a couple in there who have won MVP's...that's doing SOMETHING HOF worthy. When guys are playing into their mid 40's, I just think writing off guys who are still in their 20's is a pretty bad idea.

The Bird rule is just an exception to allow a team to go over the salary cap to sign their own players. It didn't provide any added incentive to get a player to stay and that's been around since Bird. I think that's been in place since he signed his second contract in the early 80's...

It shouldn't be that tough. The Packers add guaranteed money and add a couple of years to his contract at...50 million in base salary. Forces the Packers to work out a contract with him at that time or let him go and the only thing that happens to Rodgers is he gets more money right now. The Pats did this with Brady, the Cowboys with Romo. There's no need to wait another year to see where the revenue's going. That's more an NBA thing where contracts are a pct of the salary cap.

Rodgers sat 3 and probably would have sat 4 if Favre didn't retire first. TT wanted him to retire but there's no telling what happens if he doesn't retire in March first. However I don't think they saw Favre playing as well as he started to in 2007 and then continued to in Minnesota and New York for half a season. I don't think there is a plan set in stone. I think they drafted a QB they really liked (biggest reason) because Rodgers is old, had shown possible signs of decline, they have no depth at the position and have seen him get hurt before. It's foolish to make a plan on Draft Day and stick with it for 3 years if your vet is still playing like an MVP. Love has to actually show something before the Packers make that kind of call. I'd hardly call this offseason any kind of real evaluation on Love, but he did not look good at all in camp according to numerous sources. Rodgers was lighting up practice by the time Favre left and it was clear to everyone on the roster he was ready to play. I agree with all of this. The idea that just because you really liked Love you're going to ignore what happens(ie, Rodgers playing at an MVP level) and just force your "plan" which we're all guessing about anyone, to happen....it's crazy. The Packers control Love for 5 years, we have no clue what the Cap is going to be, but we know that MOST teams are going to have significant cap issues next year if it does drop...and there is a new TV deal. There's no reason to blow things up just as the Packers are getting rolling under LaFleur. I've never seen a fan base advocate something like that and I think it speaks to how spoiled we've become. The Cap was projected to go up to 250 this year(as high as). No fans changed that. There's plenty of reason to believe there will be fans in the regular season in 2021. EITHER WAY, the Packers aren't giving their LT 25 million a year and then saying to their MVP QB, "you're too expensive, we're going with the unproven kid now."

Duncan, Garnett, and Dirk are the three that come to mind since 2000 who choose to stay where they were drafted...and really KG's the closest comparison as he had to play in Minnesota in the cold...and they were terrible. And no, I don't think you're exaggerating. I think Giannis could be one of the top 5-10 best to ever play and he didn't even entertain going to Miami or Dallas next year. Objectively speaking...either situation would have been sooo much better for Giannis. But he wanted to stay here and that's a real big deal.

Agreed. I'm kinda shocked at the number of people who believe this was just a formality. You had half the league positioning themselves to enter the Giannis sweepstakes next year. The biggest star in Milwaukee history since Kareem just went against the grain and actually signed the Super Max. I suspect fans aren't surprised because Giannis is a different type of guy. With regard to this current team...not sure what to think. Can Donte take the next step? Can Forbes run the point and be that spark plug as a 6th man? Will Portis be more productive in this system? I too will miss Bledsoe. He played hard and he was an elite defender...but he had three chances. His talent didn't translate to the post-season for whatever reason. Jrue's played better in the post-season and is a more complete player. Just have to hope this team fits together...but a common theme among the guy we picked up is most of them seem to be good leaders and most of them can shoot. Great time to be a Bucks fan!

This is why I can’t stand LeBron. He’s taken the path of least resistance to all of his titles. Do you think he goes back to Cleveland if the Cavaliers didn’t have 3 of the last 4 #1 overall picks? How about the Lakers if they didn’t have 3 consecutive #2 overall picks? He’s like the aliens in Independence Day. He consumes all of a teams resources in pursuit of a championship and then moves on. Here’s to Giannis winning one in Milwaukee as a true alpha. I don't understand the hatred for players building a "superteam" to win a title. Isn't that what we want out of our athletes, to win? Unless they're cheating why does it matter how they do it? It's a lot better than when in MLB when the top free agents sign a ridiculously huge contract with a crap team after talking about how much they want to play for a winner. There's no salary cap in baseball and one player has a FAR smaller impact on the game and the teams success than they do in the NBA. And no, that's not what most people want out of their athletes. Most people like to see a team rewarded for building a team the right way and developing their talent, not for being in the nicest market and buying free agents. It's why GS was a fan favorite with Steph and Klay and not so much when KD joined.

You really don't see what this changes? With him signing an extension to stay in Milwaukee for 6 more years? Who was the last star that was on Giannis level that stayed and actually signed the SuperMax? LeBron didn't, Kawhi, Kevin Durant, Anthony Davis.... He CLEARLY did not stay for the extra money. He could have waited until the next off-season and signed with the Mavericks with Luka and Porzingas and not state tax...or the Heat with Bam and Butler..and no state tax. And he could have signed WITH another max player in New York and paid more in taxes, but his contract probably would have been 1/3rd of his total income. As for the idea that he can just force his way out if/when things don't go well...what's the logic behind that? Him signing a full YEAR early just so he can demand to be traded in a year or two? Giannis signing for another 5 years is one of the most important things to happen to the Bucks in their history. It was NEVER a formality. If anything, it was considered a given by most that he'd wait until next year to decide to sign because...why not? The SuperMax would likely be worth more and there was no reason for him to sign early. But he committed to the Bucks because he wanted to be here. That's a very big deal.

Linsley's definitely out before him. Bahk already signed so he's good. Adams I would guess they'd extend this off-season so his cap hit would go down next year. They talk about Jones being a priority. I started the year thinking he was obviously gone and now I don't know. But again, I don't see how they'd bring him back on a one year deal. It'd either be a multi-year deal or nothing at all. Anything he'd get on a One year deal would be too costly. A multi-year deal, even one with an opt-out after 2 years would be a much cheaper cap hit. Again...this is with everyone operating under the assumption that the Cap will be ~175 next year. Which...frankly, I doubt they give Bahk a massive almost 25 million dollar per year deal if they believe that was the case. By the way, what a great story it'd be if they extended Rodgers for two more years without a big signing bonus so they could save 25-30 million in cap room. Unlikely, but I'd love to see Skips bead explode if that happened. He is the most obvious guy to go to. They could free up money so easily with him.

I'm not after him in the least bit. I hope he gets paid. I'm happy for Bahk. The Packers CAN afford to get around the salary cap by digging into their cash reserves. I'd like to see Jones get 60 guaranteed and 90 over 6 years. But it's not realistic. The 4 year deals end up hurting the Packers more than helping IMO. Bahk would have been a huge discount had he signed for 6. Adams the same. Jaire and Jenkins next up...but I've already kicked this rotting horse.

They don't have to spend a high pick...but they need to get a different type of back. Use a couple of your supplemental and trade into the 3rd to get that kid from Memphis. He's a helluva receiver and he's got a burst. You need someone with the quickness who can run the outside zone. Williams is a hard runner but he's not the fluid runner, he doesn't have the patience, the vision...he's a VERY nice #2. And Dillon can also be a stud. Maybe he can actually run that. He's as fast as Jones and his feet have looked really good in the few games I've seen. It is more important that you have that right fit at RB with LaFleur than it ever was under McCarthy. Not just because of the emphasis he puts on the running game, but because the whole offense is built around that one play.

I would say Favre is above Starr...and Rodgers maybe by the time he's done. Anyway, that only happens if he WINS a couple of chips. I wonder if there is an opt-out or anything to keep the pressure on the Bucks.

Why is Portis a jerk? he has an edge to him that rubs people the wrong way. I think he likes to jaw a lot on the court and get in opponents faces. he's one of those guys you hate on the other team but love on your team. Ok...you use Jerk differently than I would. Jerk to me is a PC way of saying he's an arsehole. You've used it with a couple guys where it makes sense now given this definition. Definitely what you want though. Dennis Rodman was one of the biggest Jerk's in NBA history by this logic(and most other to be fair). So I'll take that type of Jerk anyday.