HiAndTight

What system? Belichick IS the system. He's the GM, he's the coach. He's the organization. Who has left that front office and done anything? Scott Pioli was the big guy. Isn't he back in New England now? And a good majority of those guys have been sitting under him for years. McDaniels has been sitting under him almost the entire time. It isn't crazy to think they can be a good organization after them. Especially when they could probably pay Belichick to be some coach potato advisor for them even after he retires. Belichick is brilliant and Brady is really good, but it takes a lot more than that to win every Super Bowl. Most of them have left and come back. McDaniels was the guy who thought Tebow was a franchise QB. So he also left and failed and went back. And I really don't think it does take more than that to win a Super Bowl. The guy who is literally making all the decisions off the field and the HOF QB who's making the decisions on the field? No, I think that's pretty much all it takes. And they've proven that because they've won when those other guys left to try to win somewhere else. But you also slipped that other line in there. "It isn't crazy to think they can be a good organization after them." Nobody said it was "crazy" to think that. I'm just pointing out what I think most people know. If you're going to detract from Brady and say he's a system QB, well, the "system" is Belicheck's and none of the guys under him have been able to do it like he has. IN fact they've famously failed to have success elsewhere. Romeo, Weiss, Mangini, Pioli, McDaniels….who's succeeded outside of New England from his coaching tree? When you go to 8 and win 6 titles and you don't have one coach who's come from that coaching tree to have significant success, I think it's pretty fair then to say it's about Belichick. He's the guy that makes it run. He's also the guy who was hell bent against giving up his backup QB in a trade with the 49'ers but the owner forced his hand. That QB is now what...27-1 as a starter? So yeah, they could be good when Belichick leaves...but it's not going to be because they've got this system in place. The system is whatever the angry hooded genius cooks up. That's pretty much the extent of it.

Yeah, that's a move the Patriots can make, because they will just go out and acquire another Josh Gordon at some point. Because they're the Patriots. The Packers don't have the luxury. The Packers can make the same moves at the Pats. Most of these moves that the Pats make, everyone freaks out about them and then they end up being busts. Is this serious? Are you just sharing your opinion and presenting it as fact? They're a good team, but how exactly are you determining that this I their best? They've probably played 6 teams that will end up drafting in the top 10 including probably the 4 worst teams in the NFL. Their opponents record laughable. They've beaten the Bills. That's the good team they've beat. They've got a really good defense and a marginal offense. This seems like a Skip Bayless comment. There's absolutely no way to compare this team to any of the other teams they've played. Not when the 2nd best team they've played is the New York Giants.

What system? Belichick IS the system. He's the GM, he's the coach. He's the organization. Who has left that front office and done anything? Scott Pioli was the big guy. Isn't he back in New England now?

Ok, guessing would others would have guessed Ramsey might be traded for if we would have guessed before the trade...that seems unnecessarily complicated. But I don't agree. I think everyone would have predicted it'd take at least a 1st+ other picks. If the Steelers are gonna give up a 1st for Minkah Fitzpatrick, you would then turn around and say, "yeah, then a 2nd and a 5th makes total sense for Ramsey?" I don't see how that jives unless people just haven't really watched him play much because he's playing in Jacksonville. I think there's a bit too much made though of how bad the Rams are. They're 4-3. They've lost to the Seahawks by a point, the 49'ers in a close game. They were the only team to beat the Saints. They're fine. They have a couple young guys on the inside of their OL. They tried to address that, but there weren't any All Pro linemen available for trade, though they did trade for a center. There was however a All Pro Corner who's still just entering his prime. But...I really don't care about the Rams or Ramsey beyond the fact that one of the best teams in the NFC just got one of the best players in the NFL.

And they were in the Super Bowl last year. So it worked. And they're not signing guys who are at the end of their careers. I don't see how they're like the Redskins with Deion and Bruce Smith at all. They're signing guys in their prime. I can't think of an old player they've given up a lot for. And they have almost the same offense back as they did last year. They have a couple new guys on the inside of that line, but they just traded for a center. The offensive issues are exaggerated though. Teams ebb and flow in the NFL. This isn't new information to you I'm sure. But what they don't have a chance to do very often is trade for a future HOF type talent who's still just 24. Then maybe once they get Johnson and a couple other guys back, they can put a dominant defense out there and they won't need an offense to put up 45 a game.

Not quite trading a probable high #1 for Minkah level stupid, but getting there. Rams legit trying to buy a Super Bowl by bringing in established high-priced talent. That team is eventually gonna hit salary cap hell. You really think this was stupid? Ramsey could be a more athletic/better man corner than Richard Sherman over the next 5-6 years. I don't think he's like all these corners...Norman, Bouye....I don't know, just keep going. Nnamdi, Revis, all these guys who were the best for a year or two or three. I think he's one of those true transformation type players. When those guys come along and you're trying to win a SB, I can't ever look at a legitimate contender and say that's a stupid move. And even the rest of those moves, they traded 1sts to get Geoff and Cooks and then last year they traded down from 31 to get the 45th and 79th picks...really good value for them. So I think the "Mortgaging the future for the present," deal is a little overplayed. All of those moves are justified. Sure, they need help on the OL, but it's kinda hard to argue with any of those. A QB who took you to a SB last year and helped you go..what 15-4 with a 1st round bye. I don't think Ramsey's as valuable as Mack, but he's a similar caliber player at a slightly less valuable position. Are you gonna be able to get better value picking ~20th this year and then probably late 1st again next year? As for the Cap Hell, there are so many ways around that. I don't like when teams do that with young QB's as you want to build a team like Thompson WAS on his way to building in GB, one that was competitive every year(especially before Collins, Finley had career ending injuries and BJ walked) but your cap was always under control....but you're in the LA market and they think they're good enough to win it now. The Rams and Packers were in similar situations here. The Packers weren't willing to do so, presumably because they know they need to get Rodgers some help. Specifically at Tackle(Bulaga is a FA and playing at a level that's gonna see teams willing to pay him 15 million for multiple years right now) and WR'er. The Rams have offensive issues, but...still, I'll take my chances and count on the Front Office to get those 2nd, 3rd's they've got right and to massage these cap figures. It costs a lot of cash and usually long deals, but you can almost always get around it year to year.

Since 2000, OSU has won about 83% of their games overall but only about 73% against UW. Since 2000, PSU has won about 65% of their games overall but only about 61% against UW. While they, or at least OSU, will definitely be in the way of UW making the playoffs, UW has played better than average against them since 2000. Those percentages seem awfully close considering those teams probably have 3 cupcakes out of the conference per year and then the cupcakes of the BIG Ten. I would be much more interested in the percentages at least taking out the cupcake non conference games...preferably taking out Big Ten cupcakes too (Illinois/Rutgers for the most part). On a different note, I often wonder what the best and most realistic case for the Badgers is. I would imagine it would be losing to Ohio State on the road, Penn State beating Ohio State for their only loss, and then us getting to face Penn State in a battle of one loss teams. Worst case is probably beating Ohio State and then having to face Ohio State in Indianapolis...beating Ohio State twice in a year is probably a pipe dream. I won't cheer for them to lose obviously, but it is really hard to imagine beating them twice. Yeah, we're Wisconsin. We're not the average team Ohio State or Penn State play. We're firmly in that 2nd tier or teams. The teams that are consistently in the top 15-20 and in a given year will finish in the top 10. So our record SHOULD be better than the average teams against both OSU and Penn State. Penn State, in particular, doesn't scare me. Ohio State, however, is a juggernaut and we have to play that game at our pace. Slow them down by keeping the offense on the field, get rid of the ball early. They jump out to a lead and Fields gets into a rhythm and Dobbins gets going, and Young can pin his ears back and come after us, things could get ugly. I think the ability of our Corners to contain the OSU passing game is the biggest factor. We lined up and played a lot of man vs Michigan and despite them having a lot of talent at WR'er, we were able to get to the QB's and slow them down. If we can do that again, keep the game close, we can definitely win. As far as the scenario you laid out, losing to OSU and then facing Penn State in the B10 Title game, I don't think that earns us a playoff spot over a 1 loss LSU, 'Bama or UGA team. So I think we've got to beat them in Columbus and then if we play PSU in the B10 Championship game, that's our shot to get into the playoffs.

Yeah, I saw that this afternoon. Makes me wish we'd have kept Davis. I really do hope they don't scrap Shepard after that game or Rodgers doesn't lose trust in him. The muffed punt was bad, but it happens with young guys. The pick though, that's just a bad break. Shepard's a guy who appears as though he can get open early in routes. Grant's been around for a while, but he's not very good at anything. Definitely not the type of move some people were calling for.

Isn't that exactly what he was trying to do when evaluating the value of the players' future performance relative to the dollars that would be paid to them in the future, though? Speaking just towards the Packers signings, not exactly. I think he was more going for the notion we overpaid greatly based on comparable contracts and their production to that point. I'm not saying it is the world greatest article etc....but it had some thought put into it at least. Which is getting very rare. I agree...and I think he was right. I think we wanted to jump out and make sure we got two good pass rushers and we probably overpaid a bit in terms of total dollars. I like Za'Darius Smith, but thought Preston Smith was kinda reaching his ceiling. And I am very happy to be wrong. And of course as Packers fans, we start hearing about the number of pressures they got and some of those other stats that are frankly more important to me than sacks and I was getting more and more excited to sign them. But it did feel like a lot for two guys who looked like merely good starters. It's given Gary time to develop without getting bashed too much and it's changed the whole defense. For the record, I also thought Turner was overpaid(still think that one) and Amos was signed for a really fair deal for a smart, reliable but not elite safety. Also, not on point, but how is Tramon Williams still doing what he's doing? He's been incredible this year. I just feel like someone needs to say that. He looks like he's playing with better anticipation than he did the first time around and nearly as fast/quick. That's been amazing as well as we've had to move some pieces around. But I think the fact that they wanted to keep Tramon at CB when Savage and Greene went down tells you they don't believe they have someone else who can cover quite like Tramon can after the two outside guys.

That and there's almost no cost to it. He plays one of the most replaceable positions in the game. He's been a good LB'er and he'd more likely be cheap to pick up. Also...BJ Goodson.

I don't think that's what people are saying. I think the general gist is that the Lions got screwed...and it's pretty tough to argue against that. But that happens sometimes. I was upset about the Eagles game and it wasn't nearly as bad as the number of calls that went against the Lions. Even some of the calls being technically correct...I just think it's bad officiating to make such borderline calls at the point in the games they did. And for SO many either questionable calls or obvious calls go one way in the last 10 minutes, that's pretty egregious. But....oh well. It happened and it's over.

I didn't think 2 refs said no TD. There are only 2 Refs who should be making that call. In that case, the ref who didn't call a TD and then seemed to wait and then signaled the runner was down, he was plainly blocked from viewing the play. The ref on the other side had a better look at it. So I don't have a problem with one ref coming in and making the call there.

Hilarious that you cite PFF to boost your case but leave out his ranking THIS year. FYI, he's ranked 60th out of 88 by PFF. Philadelphia is extremely thin, if not desperate at LB and they released him going into a season-tilting matchup against their rival. That should tell you something. Yeah, it's hilarious. Ignore the guys entire body of work, his Pro-Bowl appearances and instead focus on 1/3rd of one season and then say there's "literally," no upside. Still waiting for that LENGTHY list of disqualifying offenses that Brown has committed during his career as well. You keep seeming to just ignore that. I guess it's easier to just keep saying you're right. But yeah, lets use the small sample sizes. Anyone prefer Chandon Sullivan to Jaire Alexander?

And this would have changed zero calls from last night. Neither hands to the face was egregious, in fact the first one was correct. The roughing call with Allison wasn't remotely egregious -- remember what Matthews got flagged for early last season? The PI non call was so "egregious" that it wasn't even deemed worthy of a challenge by Petricia. None of those 4 plays would have been overturned on review. I don't say that to pick on you at all, I'm just pointing out that for all the uproar over last night, there isn't a single play that anyone can watch, point to, and say, "Wow, see? That was bad. That would be reversed." It all started with Booger using his platform to get the entire nation riled up and like people are these days, most are happy to just buy right in without any real deeper analysis than that. The only reason the PI doesn't get overturned is because they're not overturning any of them. But that was pretty bad. It looked like a good play in real time, but Redmond clearly gets there early on replay. So maybe it wasn't deemed worthy because nobody knows what the hell the refs are gonna overturn anymore. They gave us a gift in Week 2 with that OPI on Cook actually overturning a call, then vs the Eagles, they ate their flags and didn't overturn a blatant DPI. And I think the helmet to helmet on Allison gets overturned in this scenario in which you're using a college like system. Again, the DB was trying to catch the ball, he wasn't even making a play on Allison. He's got every right to do that. That Matthews got hit with some bad calls(in a very different circumstance) last year doesn't really change that. This is not just a issue because of last nights game. The Cowboys-Jets game had flags on 8 straight games late in the 4th on Sunday I believe? The Packers game is just being talked about because of A-Booger and B-MNF.

I have been subject to a lot of KC watching due to family...their run defense is BAD. Indianapolis ran them over like they were ants and I don’t know last weeks stats, but it sure felt bad. Felt like every run was a minimum 5 yards. Not to mention both those losses were at home. 49ers kinda look legit...as crazy as that is. They're definitely built to play with the lead and the Colts are built to run the ball, so that was a matchup with one of the best OL's and one of the worst run D's.

I have been subject to a lot of KC watching due to family...their run defense is BAD. Indianapolis ran them over like they were ants and I don’t know last weeks stats, but it sure felt bad. Felt like every run was a minimum 5 yards. Not to mention both those losses were at home. 49ers kinda look legit...as crazy as that is. Jimmy G has a ridiculous record as a starter. That KC game doesn't look at daunting, but the Packers are gonna need to get some guys health(particularly Savage, maybe Greene, not sure where he is in the healing process of if he'll have been out long enough). Adams. King has to be 100 pct. The Packers still don't look great, but they're 5-1 and Rodgers started to look more like Vintage Rodgers last week with some of those throws and that ball placement. They cannot afford to drop a game with KC and SD coming up.

I really don't think we're going to trade for a WR'er. It's just not an easy position to fit into your offense mid-season. The Packers obviously needed defensive help last year and that's where they spent most of their draft capital and FA money. They also needed a couple guys on offense, but you can't get everything done in one off-season. I think the Packers have to wait for the draft before they add a WR'er of consequence. It's not just the complexity of the scheme, it's how long it takes for Rodgers to develop chemistry with his WR'ers. To be honest though, despite the ball off Shepard's face-mask when he lost his footing, he's shifty and if he hasn't lost Rodgers trust, he looks like a guy who can get open. And of course when you get Adams back, the WR'ers as a whole slide down. And while he's only shown fleeting moments thus far, Tonyan definitely has the ability to make an impact. So it's a weak spot, but there's not a team in the NFL without one and it's one I think we can compensate for provided we don't get hit with any more injuries.

Not quite trading a probable high #1 for Minkah level stupid, but getting there. Rams legit trying to buy a Super Bowl by bringing in established high-priced talent. That team is eventually gonna hit salary cap hell. Yeah, that really doesn't look any better a few weeks later, does it?

If you want to play "armchair GM" you should probably take the time to familiarize yourself with the human beings you're wheeling and dealing for in "hypothetical-land". Brown has a well-known history. A 5 second google search would be of great assistance to you. And taking another 20-30 seconds would tell you how poor his play has been this year. There's literally no upside to this guy. "Literally no upside," to signing guy who PFF graded out as a top 3 LB'er just last season. Really? None? Zach Brown 2018 Grade 89.2 BJ Goodson 2018 Grade 66.5 You absolutely sure there's "literally" no upside? Or is that more, "I don't agree, so I'll exaggerate the point without offering any reason why," type of argument? And it's so easy to find these endless examples, but you can't be bothered to give me any? I want to see your lengthy list of all the awful thing he's done that'd result in signing a guy who graded out higher than Blake last year in season a guy with "literally no upside." This feels like another throw away line.

I honestly cannot stand the justification that the Lions missed opportunities and blew the game themselves. Both these teams are really good, one or two bad calls can and did swing the outcome. No different than in baseball, the ump incorrectly calling a 2-1 pitch can definitely swing the outcome of the atbat and even the game. To not blame the officiating here...that's the type of thing the Lions coach will tell his players to get them not to dwell on it and try harder next time...but it's simply not reality and is just a horrible horrible take. Probably one of the worst takes I've seen on these boards in a while...and I just got done thoroughly reading through clancy's offseason plan for the brewers. This was condescending the first time you posted it. It's still condescending. Yeah, but one part of it is also really funny.

Yes...all of this. A grown-ass man who still calls himself "Booger," is annoying enough, but not all the whining about these calls? I'd be really annoyed if I was Detroit today, zero question about it, but that clown McFarland just kept whining and now they're acting like it's different than any other game. Is this any different than the Eagles game? As I said, only Dennis Miller and his what can best be described as rambling about 50-year-old pop culture references has been worse than "Booger." This year. He's like a punch drunk caricature from the Simsons.

I'd rather get one elite prospect the Brewers love than getting 4 or 5 that they don't. I didn't see Lux playing SS so I don't know. He can certainly hit though. Would people go run out of town to bring Stearns back if he had traded Hader for Fernando Tatis Jr this past off-season? I think they'd have been fine with that.

There are other smart teams as well. I would be thrilled if we had the success the Dodgers have had recently. They are also incredibly setup for years as well. Gotta be honest number of championships means nothing when it comes to how a franchise is ran. The postseason is a total fluke. It’s really hard to see how anyone could run the Dodgers better. I think the fact they go into every season with a strong farm and are the favorites to win the NL every year is more reflective of how they are ran. People always seem to think someone who runs a small market well could take a large market and make it the greatest thing to ever walk the earth. Honestly I don’t think that is the case. If it was that easy the Dodgers would come take Stearns for a small sliver of their overall payroll. I think it takes a completely different mindset and set of skills to run a large market. This is pretty much exactly what the Dodgers did. They went out and got the best small market GM out there. He's the guy that's been in charge of how well run you believe the Dodgers have been.

And what is "everything else that comes with having this guy?" What other problems has he had? As far as I can tell, he basically just said what everyone else had said about Cousins and it happened to be when Cousins got hot. As for this perceived level of play and the "fantasy football," insult, well, that's just ridiculous and baseless. https://www.pff.com/news/pro-washington-cut-ties-with-lb-zach-brown-making-him-one-of-the-best-lb-options-available I don't know, you kinda drop it and make a snide comment and then never really back it up. I don't know who's talking about fantasy football here other than you. I'm talking about signing a cheap LB'er who was one of the best in the league last year to help strengthen our worst position.

Yeah, it absolutely makes sense depending on the position and player. People want us to add a WR'er, not sure that'd help much given how long it'd take to incorporate them into the offense and get some chemistry with Rodgers. A CB, LB'er, RB...those make more sense. I don't think it'd take much.