HiAndTight

This was pretty much the Bears of the 80's. Elite defensive talent but they didn't have a very good QB. Last year if that kick doesn't hit the uprights twice against Philly, maybe that's the year. And obviously having a QB is important in the NFL, but the year the Bronco's won it, Manning could barely throw a ball. They won because of an elite pass rush and a great defense. I think the Bears will put together a team like that while they've got Mack(and Hicks, Jackson, Smith, Fuller, Floyd, etc...)

I've probably mentioned Hicks about a dozen times when talking about the Beers this year. It's funny given how much of an interest you've taken in my posts you'd miss that. Perhaps Mack isn't on his own the difference maker many want to proclaim him to be. Ok, so you're saying what exactly about Mack? You never seem to come out and actually make your point. The Bears are 17-7 since they traded for Mack. They were 5-11 and 3-13 the previous two seasons. Seems like Mack has had a little bit of an impact on their team. He hasn't performed well in Chicago? Please explain. He's played much better than Eddie Jackson according to PFF. I seem to remember you arguing that was a good way to evaluate a player. In fact, he's got a higher grade than anyone on the Packers defense other than Za'Darius Smith..."LOL." The rest of your post is just a long way of saying, "nuh-uh." Which is fine. You don't have to agree. But keep in mind, the Bears won 12 games last year, lost a playoff game on a chip shot FG that hit the uprights. And this year they've played a much more difficult schedule.

The Badgers have had 3 trip ups in the last 19 games. Trips ups happen when well coached teams meet predictable, rudimentary schemes. The Illinois defense played fast and above their talent level because they had a former NFL head coach who had no trouble deciphering UWs tendencies. Give Ohio State that kind of advantage and the results are predictably even uglier. UW doesn't need to change their recruiting, DC or head coach to take the next step. They just need to add sophistication to their offense and in turn not be so easy to defend. Ok, so Ohio State getting blown out by Iowa and Purdue? You keep pointing to the great mind that is Urban Meyer. So...how'd those trip up's happen? No, "trip up's," happen because the PLAYERS don't play with enough energy more than any other reason. There's obviously no single reason for them, but that's far and away the biggest culprit. And no, UW doesn't NEED to change their recruiting. They really can't improve it much. They just don't come from an area with much talent. Of all the B10 schools, Wisconsin is probably the worst talent wise with the possible exception of Iowa. It's really not that complicated. You can draw up more sophisticated schemes all you want, but throwing the ball downfield takes time...and if you can't even give your QB at least 2.5 seconds to throw the ball because the other teams have pass rushers year after year after year like the ONE we look back at from almost 10 years ago, it's not going to matter.

This is fun...and easier through 8 games, but it's really kinda shocking that this team is sitting at 7-1 at this point. I really thought they would struggle through the brutal schedule they had over the first half of the season. We SHOULD be able to win the next two games and push that to 9-1. Of course given how close NFL teams are, we could lose either(though I really have a hard time seeing us lose to the Giants...I think a second straight trip to the West Coast is a more likely loss). After that, those 3 division games are toss up's, the SF game is a toss up. The Redskins should be a win. I'll say 13-3....but to be honest, this doesn't seem like a real 13-3 team to me. On the bright side, only two guys on the injury report as of now, Adams and Tonyan. Obviously they will get Adams worked into the offense, but I'd rather see him just sit through the bye TBH. He's too important. And Tonyan, I think they really need to work him into the offense the 2nd half of the season. He's such an athletic TE and he's got great hands. Not saying he's ever gonna be Kittle, but he could really be a game changer for our offense with the matchup problems he creates.

I don't think it's as good as it was from...~09 to 15, but it's a lot better than the last couple years. He hit MVS again on that deep post, but just like the one vs the Beers, if he puts more on it, MVS probably scores easily. But he's throwing the ball great again. Hell, even when Rodgers was "struggling," he was still at worst the 4th or 5th best QB in the NFL. It just looked like a massive drop off because he played at a level I don't think anyone else ever has.

I'm not advocating that Ramsey will struggle. I actually think he'll be ok. I just think that the acquisition cost was WAY too high ... to the point where he pretty much has to operate at an All-Pro, defensive MVP level to justify it. But I wouldn't have done the Mack deal, either. The Bears in my opinion are even further away than the Rams, and while stars win regular season games, teams with solid depth typically win championships. I guess overall I'm just not a fan of the Rams philosophy on team-building. Yeah, we just see it 100 pct differently. Teams with "solid depth," typically do well in the regular season, teams with Superstars who are among the best in the NFL at their position if not THEE best win Championships. The Bronco's won the Super Bowl because they had a dominant pass rusher in Von. The Bears went 12-4 because they had a dominant pass rusher in Mack. The Seahawks have won because of their secondary and ground game. They've had rather poor depth and OL play. The Rams now have arguably the best WR'ing core in the NFL, the best interior pass rusher in the NFL and reigning DPOY and the best shutdown corner in the NFL. Doesn't mean I think all their moves have been smart, but you have to search pretty hard to find two players the Bears could have drafted that could have elevated their defense the way Mack has. Now Eddie Jackson is one of the best Safeties in the NFL. Hell, Clinton-Dix is an elite safety now playing in their downhill style. Fuller...these guys all broke out once Mack got there. I am absolutely confident if the Bears stick with Mack, they'll have ONE year in the next 6-7 where they have a season like '85 in which their defense is so good, it carries them with a average QB and a couple of good skill players. Ramsey being a CB is a little bit different, Corner is probably 4th on the list of most important positions behind QB, Edge/Tackle and then CB. But a great one can have such a rippling impact on your defense...you can leave him on a guy like Hopkins all game long and then shade your coverage to other positions. But yeah, I guess we just fundamentally disagree. I think teams with great players, even if they have less depth are much-much better in the biggest games while the deeper teams with depth but not the front line talent are far more suited for the regular season.

Seems extremely odd if true. He held out for all of 2018 because the Steelers wouldn’t give him a long term deal. But now the Steelers would be willing to pick up the 3/$38 million or so left on his deal, plus the rest of his salary for this season while also trading away draft capital and/or players to get him back? Add to it that James Conner is arguably better anyway, and WAY cheaper. I guess...in the same way that Dee Ford is "arguably," better than Mack maybe. It you're just playing devils advocate. But it actually makes perfect sense. The Steelers don't have to pay the guaranteed money and they get him for far less than he was demanding before holding out last year. The Steelers were TRYING to sign him. He wanted to be paid like a WR'er and a RB...and to be fair, he's such a unique talent, he was being undervalued. And then he went out and signed a really head scratching contract when you'd have thought he'd get at least 1 more year and 20 million more total. But the Steelers get him for relatively cheap compared to what they were reportedly prepared to offer him with a chunk of that money already paid, and the Jets get a pick for a player that their Head Coach didn't think made sense for them anyway since he wasn't likely to be part of their rebuilding schedule. The Packers make sense also in that you see how good this team is with a versatile back in this offense, one who can run the zone stretch and catch the ball out of the backfield, something nobody does better than Bell(maybe more often, but he does almost run routes like a WR'er). But not at that price. But while on the topic of RB's, this has made me think about the Packers and Taylor. I definitely want to see a OT picked early as well as a quicker, more sudden WR'er, but if there isn't a great one available, or Taylor fell to the 2nd round, he'd be a PERFECT fit in this offense and the type of guy who you could rotate in and not miss a beat for if Jones went down. Williams does not have great vision(and Dexter Williams is even worse). That's pretty huge in this scheme. So being able to keep guys healthy out there at RB would be enormous. But I wouldn't be spending more than 4-5 million per on a back and I would definitely prefer to find one in rounds 3-5.

I think there were three 20+ point favorites that lost on consecutive weeks. It happens. It does and I'm realizing that much of the complaining/frustration on these forums comes from unrealistic expectations or opinions of the team we're rooting for. It happens when the Packers struggle even though they're in their first year with a new coach and they're still lacking talent in key places, it happens when the Brewers win 89 games with a team that's probably closer to a 75 win team talent wise and they get upset at a sequence and call the season a lost season or missed opportunity because they lose, it happens with the Bucks when they're playing against a great team and get out to an early head start. And it's happening here(again, all my opinion, but one I'm pretty confident in) when they look at a School like Madison that puts a significant emphasis on Football, but one that doesn't even approach what the powerhouse schools do and they lose to a great team and they trip up in the game before that and lose to a talented, but underachieving team. Just taking one of the arguments, that the Badgers talent is closer to OSU's than we think. The FEW positions we're as good or better, we're MARGINALLY better. Tayor for instance. There's a real argument to be made he wasn't even the best RB in that game. Dobbins is a projected 1st rounder as well. So even where we had the advantage, we have a nominal edge. Now where THEY had the edge, it was massive. Justin Fields, an elite recruit who left Georgia because they had a great QB in place. They've got the top edge rusher in this years draft class. We've got a good player in Baun, but he'd likely be the 5th or 6th guy on their team. We've got good young corners that might make an NFL roster one day...they have 1st round picks consistently and this year they might have the best DB in the draft again. So I think arguing talent level is just silly. We produce good players in the NFL(though not as good as True Blue seems to think(3 of the top 5 OL from UW? Is Nelson from UW? Martin? Bahk? Anyway...) but we produce them at only a number of positions. If we can somehow find a way to grab a Parris Campbell every once in a while(as opposed to OSU who has one every year) and just a few very good, 3rd-4th round corners like Nick Nelson on occasion, again, as opposed to having a couple guys who'll come out early, go in the first round, and then replace them with players who will be picked the following year in the 1st round, and spread out the talent we're sending to the NFL, then I'd understand the complaining and the calling for Chysts head. But you can only do so much. I mean....really, the calls for the "shots down the field." Urban Meyer can point out that's what we're going to do and be right because...we don't have a choice. We can't take 'em. Not can't even get 2.5 seconds to get the ball out. And even if you can, you're still talking about guys who'll be top 10 picks playing corner from the other side locking up our best WR'ers. And again, on the other side of the ball, we don't have those WR'ers who can press your defense and force you to HAVE to give help on virtually every play. We have good "Wisconsin," WR'ers. OSU has the #1 Edge rusher-highest grade given on a pass rusher since 2014=better COLLEGE player than Watt one year after they had an edge rusher go #2 overall. They have the #1 CB. Last year in a DOWN year(a great year for UW) they had a CB who went all the way in the 4th round. The year before they had Ward who went 4th and the year before that IIRC, they had Lattimore, Conley and among others. Oh, and last year they had a QB go in the 1st round and they'll almost certainly have one go in the 1st round again next year. So just stacking up number of players on a roster....it's a ludicrous way of comparing college talent. JJ and TJ Watt were great players at Wisconsin. Neither was as good in College as they became in the Pro's and they weren't as good as Young. Nick Nelson is the last CB I can think of and OSU has had more players drafted in the top 10 and then selected to the pro bowl since then at CB. And then when they DON'T have a great NFL prospect....and really, we all know a College player can be great and not be a great prospect....Take Broxton Miller, a guy who was a Heisman Finalist AND HE LOST HIS JOB and was arguably the 3rd best QB they had in a very short period of time. www.nfl.com/draft/history/fulldraft?abb ... ype=school Just look at that? 3 members of their secondary who are starting in the NFL drafted in the 1st round in ONE draft class and on that team they STILL had a guy who'd end up going 4th overall, who's on pace to go in the top 10 this year and as high as 4-5 among others. Football's a TEAM game, you can't just look at how many OL we've put into the league(and by the way, OSU pretty damn good at that as well) and say, "see, we have a lot of NFL players as well." When one team has elite QB player year after year and elite skill players to, getting offensive linemen drafted doesn't mean quite as much. http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/fulldraft?abbr=W&collegeName=Wisconsin&abbrFlag=0&type=school throw the ball to I've LOVE to see UW Football put together the type of run the Mens BB team did a few years ago and I sincerely hold out hope that we can actually do that. We're CLOSE ENOUGH that it is definitely possible. But when looking at the actual facts, you can't build a intellectually honest argument about how many players we have in the NFL, therefore "scheme," is the problem. I'll guarantee you if the Badgers had elite QB player year in and year out, a defense that had edge rushers who could get to the QB in 2 seconds or 2.5 seconds consistently(along with having many interior linemen going high in the draft) AND you had the elite, freakishly talented receivers running sub 4.35 40's out there and you just needed to get the ball in their hands, we'd scheme differently. But the bottom line, because of the players that Badgers have, they can't "change their scheme," anything CLOSE to what people on here expect. The only REAL chance they have is to hope they can win at the LOS, wear down the more talented players and then TRY to build off of that. But if you can't run the ball-EVEN AGAINST 9 man boxes when the athletes on the outside are so vastly superior....you can't just drop back and "stretch the field." You have to hope that you can keep it close(like we did I the first half) and hope you can make enough plays to swing the game like Iowa did when Jackson had a couple of Pick 6's for example. So not only do I not think this season is in any way a disappointment, especially after throttling a far more talented Michigan team and despite a bad loss to an Illinois team, I think the people who are expecting more than what this program is producing at the moment are just not being realistic. Maybe Graham Mertz comes in and we have a few great years recruiting and we get some great impact recruits(something that I think will be tougher with the new ruling about athletes making money off their name). Maybe Mertz success coincides with a legit #1 WR'er, Ferguson who could be a 1st/2nd rounder at TE and a great defense that's not JUST smart, but also supremely athletic and we'll be able to scheme differently. But the general theme, that we're "predictable," it's pointless. We're limited in what we're able to do and how we're able to scheme. I think some people understand the nuances of the game whereas I don't think others do. You want to go deep and run some double moves, you need 7 step drops and you need time for that play to develop, a athletic WR'er to be able to beat the top cover man in the country and you need to be able to slow down the best pass rusher in CFB in the last several years. If you can't do that, changing the "scheme" doesn't do a damn thing. The Badgers are a program that's bringing in recruiting classes that are usually OUTSIDE of the top 40, OSU is getting top 4 classes(#2 in '17, the best players on the team right now) AND they're adding a former #1 recruit AHEAD of Clemson QB Lawrence in the transfer portal. So while I feel lucky that they're able to turn that into a team that consistently wins 10 games and beats a good team in the Bowl Games, I don't feel the need to "demand that they not 'settle' for mediocrity," while finishing ~15th year in and year out. PARTICULARLY in a year when everyone thought we'd have at least 5 losses and some thought we'd not end up in a bowl game. All this is to say, maybe adjust your expectations. If you have a inaccurate opinion of the talent on the team, it's easy to blame it on "scheme," but if you look at it honestly, not just cherry picking positions or looking back 10 years ago when we got lucky enough to get a QB to transfer here who's OWN SCHOOL didn't want him back and we picked up a TE from Central Michigan who was a non-scholarship player who broke out in College and then REALLY broke out into an all-time great in the NFL, you just simply see, WE-DO-NOT have anywhere NEAR the horses to run with OSU in this new "drop back and stretch the field," scheme that people are complaining about. You want the scheme changed, change the talent. You want the talent changed....you lower you're requirements substantially, start paying players, doing all the things that OSU with exponentially more talent already at their disposal does that's shady and you'll STILL likely end up with less talent. So we will NEVER be a program that is able to compete with Ohio State year year. And if you find watching CFB boring once the chance to win a Title is gone, that's gonna suck to hear. But we ARE a program that's good enough that if we can manage to snag a couple truly elite recruits that pan out to be as good as hoped AND continue to develop the other guys, maybe we'll go from consistently good to great every so often and put ourselves in a POSITION to maybe get into a CFP. Expecting ANY more than that is going to lead to you bemoaning how everyone is "fine with mediocrity," and expecting something that's just not coming. The Badgers will NOT have a Clemson like run(again, an area with SOOO much more talent than what Wisconsin is capable of bringing in). They COULD have a run like Auburn had that one year with Newton if everything goes right or the year they NEARLY had if JJ had decided to come back early with Wilson. But the fact of the matter is, OCCASSIONALLY, maybe 1 game in 20, we'll trip up vs an inferior team while beating the majority of the rest easily. When we face everyone else, many of whom recruit better than us(Nebraska) we usually beat them soundly and put us in contention for yet another top 15 finish. There should be a bit of disappointment, but the people who want coaching chances or other ridiculous things like that, they need to go back to the 80's when they were a bottom feeder and having wingless seasons. Barry has gotten us to JUST ABOUT the highest rung we're capable of going and Chryst has kept us there for the most part. Again, two years ago, 13-1, 6 point loss to OSU. It likely won't get better than that, AND Paul Chyst is the PERFECT coach for this team while Jim Leonard is the PERFECT DC for this team. Or he would be if he was happy staying here and wanted to be a DC for the next 10-15 years.

This is the worst year to take a chance on a guy like Ryu. Last year would have made sense and not because he had a great year this year, but because you probably could have gotten him for 3/45. I have no idea what the 2nd tier pitchers are going to get this year though. For a while this year I thought MLB teams may continue the trend of being unwilling to go 7 years on a FA deal. Now it's pretty obvious Plush was right, he's likely going to be the highest paid pitcher every without the deffered money. Strausburg is going to probably get 30 million a year as well given the season he's had. I'd like to see a guy like Hamels for 2 years and then a couple fliers. Something like Gallardo and Miley...and hope you hit and hope you can get Burnes, Peralta and Woodruff going next year with what should be a deep-deep BP. And if you're not spending big on pitchers...you can re-sign Mouse and just maybe Grandal. Then just hope things fall into place and that the late season surge is something CC can figure out year to year.

That was the context. Argument being that it was a terrible play call to pass there because they're in cover 2(something you don't know when you're making the call) and that they should have run. Difficult to argue with in retrospect, but I thought it was the right call at the time. I even said I THOUGHT as the play developed that Coan actually looked poised and didn't just try to fire it in there, but it looked like he got it over the backer. Bottom line, looking at this teams youth and the ceiling they face in terms of talent, I'm not as down on them as others. Illinois was a bad loss, but people were saying this was the year they might not make a bowl game. They lost a bad game to Illinois and then lost to a stacked OSU team.

Or maybe with Eli he has those two good years instead of Rivers who's been good every year and he helps the Chargers win a couple SB's. I don't understand what is wrong with this organization. They've gone through so many coaches, good coaches in many cases, they just always seem to struggle and then have to go on a crazy run to get into the playoffs. And occasionally they'll go 12-4 like last year or 4-12 like when they drafted Bosa. But they SEEM really well run from a distance in terms of the talent they're able to churn out. They also seem like one of the most injured teams every single year. The one area they've never really been great at is their OL. It seems like they've been good everywhere else during Rivers tenure but never a great OL. I guess it helps he has a Marino-esque release and is able to get that ball out quickly and in traffic.

My first thought is this is going to make it a lot easier for schools like Texas and A&M, Arkansas, the schools with boosters just throwing money at the Football program to pay players for promotional events. I think this is just the first step to a pretty significant change to college athletics and I don't think it's going to end up producing more parity(there can't be much less). And it'll likely hurt other athletics. But it's happening. We'll have to see how it works out.

All cover 2 is telling you is what the safeties are doing... No the linebackers specifically the outside ones cover the seam hook on a pass play. Which is where the ball went Coan had to throw it higher and the receiver had to run further out for that play to work. Really a run against the cover two is what you want to do on a short yardage situation. Throwing short and medium is playing into the strength of the cover two unless you can run a rub route or a slant but Wisconsin doesn't have the WR to run a slant route. No Nate, they don't. Literally, ALL Cover 2 or Cover 3, Cover 4, Cover 0(no safety help at all), Cover 1.. is telling you is what the safeties are doing. It tells you absolutely NOTHING about the LB'ers. And to me, it looked like the safeties were playing up and they were playing the flats and. But again, I only saw the TV version which only shows you a portion of the defense. But JUST saying Cover 2, the only thing that tells you is you are playing 2 safeties who are responsible for defending their half of the field. That's absolutely it. There's nothing in just cover 2 that tells you how the LB'ers are playing it.

And at some positions it can be devastating. You trade for a OL and you don't get the blocking scheme down and you can end your QB's season. Even at a position like CB, they move around so much and they have so many different plays and looks, you're often left changing up your entire scheme in order to simplify it until the guy gets up to speed. And if you have a QB like Rodgers, you add a whole other level of complications to it. I knew after Shepard slipped and that ball went off his facemask he was pretty much done in GB. It seems like a real battle for him to gain a WR'ers trust and next to impossible to get it back if you lose it. So bringing in a skill position player other than RB in-season for players like that...that's tough. With Favre, it was much easier. So I'm sure teams factor that in.

I don't get why you're comparing trading a 24 year elite Corner for multiple 1sts with a 32 year old corner that they traded for a 5th? Just two totally different scenario's. Talib and Peters were hyped as a shutdown CB duo for them after they acquired both via trade last year. Now both are gone, and they actually had to pay a team to take Talib's contract. All I'm saying is that is not good management. And that I believe the huge haul they are giving up for ramsey is going to turn out poor for them as well. Ok...but they did end up in the Super Bowl last year and it certainly wasn't because of their Super Bowl that they lost. I think everyone can agree on that, right? It's pretty hard to argue with those results. Arguing that Ramsey isn't going to work out is too vague for me. What means it hasn't worked out? Did the Bears trade for Mack not work out because a year after the Bears went 12-4, they're not struggling? I don't know what people would expect him to suddenly start to struggle, but it does seem like that's what you're hinting at by conflating the Talib acquisition and the Ramsey one. Again, 32(now nearly 34) vs a just turned 25 year old 1st Team AP.

Now he's not good.... boy this board can flip on a guy. It isn't that he isn't good. He's a fine pitching coach. He was put on a extremely lofty pedestal last year, though, and when he left to go to the Reds, more than a few posters used it as an excuse to attack the team's front office while predicting doom and gloom for the Brewers' 2019 pitching staff. As we know now, while the there were some bumps in the road pitching-wise, Johnson's perceived value, and coincidently Hook's lack of perceived value, was grandly overinflated. We do? I thought he elevated the Reds pitching quite a bit and the Brewers, particularly some of their young guys were pretty disappointing. This is another time, how do people accurately evaluate pitching/hitting coaches? You're stating it as fact that Johnson's value was inflated. Based on what?

I think Brown has made it clear he plans on retaining Green. If nothing else they have either or both the franchise and transition tags they can use this year. They tag him and they can potentially get more without having to wait a year or just bring him back at 15-17 million per year.

Maybe we get Raven Greene back for that one? Kittle, Coleman, another game with a very good offensive mind and a lot of athletic ability. Jamal Adams would have been awesome since the Jets for some random reason were willing to trade a young.

They've got a ton of talent. I don't know how they can be so bad again. I thought this was the toughest two game stretch of the season. @KC and @LAC. Playing without Mahomes helped, but the Chargers just aren't very good for some reason, yet I still wouldn't be surprised to see them beat us.

NFL GMs are playing checkers for the most part, while smart MLB GMs are playing chess. It's just two different sports. In one of them, you have to know what the other 10 guys are doing on every single play. Chemistry actually is important. The other sport is just basically a team sports comprised from individual matchup's. So it's a lot easier to throw a guy into LF in the middle of the year than it is to throw a guy out there at Tackle for instance in the middle of the year. I really don't think it's because people in baseball are just smarter than those in football.

I don't get why you're comparing trading a 24 year elite Corner for multiple 1sts with a 32 year old corner that they traded for a 5th? Just two totally different scenario's.

All cover 2 is telling you is what the safeties are doing...

It's easier because it's true. Yeah, the Badgers put talent into the NFL. How many of those have been top talent? Some, but they are the exception, not the rule. By contrast, here are OSU's last few drafts: 2016: 5(!) first rounders, 2 second rounders 2017: 3 first rounders, 2 second rounders 2018: 2 first rounders, 1 second rounder 2019: 2 first rounders, 1 second rounder. The Badgers' numbers for those same four drafts? Two first rounders. Earlier, you countered the Bosas with the Watts, and Gordon and White with Elliott, but those are just three of the 18(!) top picks OSU has put into the draft. More than just how many players OSU gets picked early, it's the spread. They can have elite pass rushers, corners, a QB go in the first round. The Badgers can't recruit the premiere corners, they can get a roster that has 3 elite QB's on it, they can't just keep churning out those JJ Watt type collegiate athletes. Also, JJ Watt is a monster. But just because he's from Wisconsin, lets not pretend he or the Watt's had the same impact as the Bosa's did or Young is having. I'm pretty sure if we have WR'ers who ran 4.27 40's, we'd use them more. But we don't. I can't believe it's this big of a shock to find that we don't have the talent(or anywhere near it) that OSU does. As for repeating that Clemson line over and over(And over and over) again, it's the same thing. They have more talent and they have it all over the roster. Not just at OL, FB, LB'er, TE.

Yeah, the problem is Bridgewater is making 7.5 million. And he took a discount for that. Moore though...Chiefs didn't sign him until after Henne went down and he wasn't making much in Miami before that. With their weapons and YAC ability he could definitely lead them to a win. I don't really think it would have made a difference though before this year. This Packers team could win without great QB play. They should definitely look at a veteran QB next year. As for Mahomes, I'm not saying it makes sense or that I'd even consider it, but if there's no real structural damage and he is feeling good, who knows. I just have a feeling this will be one of those games that people talk about with him..."One week after dislocating his knee on the field, Mahomes started in a prime time game against the 6-1 Green Bay Packers...." I'm sure I'll end up being wrong, but just the news that he's not ruled out, he's practicing. It's not like it's RGIII and Cousins or Lamar Jackson vs Joe Flacco, it's Mahomes who's mobile, but not someone who completely changes the plays they're likely to call.

Meh, that's his job. To make grant statements at the start of the season about how things will play out in 6 months. And as of right now, without seeing an improved Giannis with a better shot(even just a better mid range shot, something he can hit from just outside the restricted area) I would say it's unlikely that THIS Bucks team beats the Clippers team with their defense which could be all time level good. Especially with that coaching staff and elite on ball defenders on the wings and at the point. But...pretty sure nobody had Toronto winning going away vs Golden State last year. George is already injured. So Barkley is just like everyone else. They state things with far too much confidence far too early.