HiAndTight

I think you're wildly understating just how good Fitzpatrick is. Had the Packers traded for him, I think a pretty strong argument could be made that he would step in and be the best player in that secondary right out of the gate. I don't think the Hyde comp is even close. He's a stud at corner, FS, he can play in the box, though that was something he didn't like in Miami. I'm sure the prospect of being on a win-less team and taking a beating for that bad of a team played into that at least a little bit. But he played outside last year when Howard went down and was very good. At 4.46, his speed really isn't an issue playing corner, then you add his instincts and length and physicality and I think he'd excel there. But he's so versatile, he can play anywhere. The issue I have is the same as yours. If they end up with a top 5 pick, which looks like a very real possibility given how badly the Steelers have looked this year. Even when Big Ben was in there, they looked bad. JuJu hasn't shown he can be a #1 WR'er, they haven't had that #2 option step up. The Steelers are just not that talented a team. You're absolutely right though, this absolutely has the potential to be just an absolute train wreck and the type of trade that they lament for years if they end up finishing where they're not projected to. Imagine the Colts trading their 1st round pick the year Manning went down with an injury? This obviously isn't the same thing, but it could still end up being a terrible decision.

What do you expect them to say? "No, we don't have any confidence in our QB, we're just gonna quit?" I wasn't referring to their "public voice". Thought I made that clear enough. Behind the scenes there were people in the organization starting to push Mason above Ben. The injury may help them avoid the awkwardness of a Favre / Rodgers dilemma. If Rudolph takes the reigns and runs with it the way they're expecting him to, it will make it easier for them to justify not going back to Big Ben. The fact that Pitt gave up their 2020 1st rounder should be a pretty good clue as to just how high they are on Rudolph. Actions speak louder than words. Yeah, I don't know where or why you thought that you "made it clear." I'm curious though how you know what's going on behind the scenes? Honest question. And if so, what happened to the Dolphins asking price dropping? And the "actions speak louder than words," yeah, I don't know what to say to that. Teams do stupid things sometimes. I'll refer you to the Raiders trading Mack last year because Gruden's little ego trip when Mack wanted a new deal.

Anyway, my shoe is covered in blood, the horse has long ago stopped moaning. I saw Ramsey brought up; I dismissed this out of hand initially, but would anyone else be in favor of this? I remember reading Bucky Brooks....who I'm not a particular fan of, but he wrote about 7 generational talents under 25 in the NFL right now. Mahomes, Vander Esch, Q. Nelson, Myles Garrett, Sanquon Barkley, Derwin James AND.....Jalen Ramsey. Here's the write up on him...... Now I wouldn't be against this because of his personality...or the 1st round pick, I just don't know if it makes sense to hand this guy that'll almost certainly end up being NEAR 100 million dollar contract with 55+ million probably guaranteed. I'm just guessing at the numbers here, but if Xavier Howard got a 5 years 75.6 million dollar extension with 46 guaranteed and, then I think Ramsey's gonna try to and probably will blow that number away. I'm kinda on the fence about this. The Packers can certainly create more cap space and Jimmy Graham is going to save some, but they've got Kenny Clark coming up, the Smiths get more expensive, making this deal would mean that you've gotta replace Blake Martinez and Linsley as you'd probably not be able to spend the money to extend them... But you'd add the best player in the game at one of the most important positions.

What do you expect them to say? "No, we don't have any confidence in our QB, we're just gonna quit?"

Well...are not exactly talking about the same things then. I'm not saying that when Big Ben goes down they should try to lose. I'm saying when Big Ben goes down for the year AND you're 0-2 AND Connors goes down with an injury AND you lose a couple other players for the year and you just don't look like a very good team, the value of that 1st round pick increases to the point where it no longer makes sense to make that trade. Lets say that last year when Rodgers went down with that injury and we had question marks all over the place, lets say hypothetically we were in these trade talks and it had turned out that Rodgers was out for the year with a torn ACL as we suspected at the time. Then throw into the equation that Rodgers was another 3 years along in his career and you're HOPING that he'd come back for maybe 2 more years, but you're not sure. Except for in this hypothetical, you've already lost 2 games, you've lost a couple starters already to season ending injuries, you might have lost your running back....and it's looking like you might end up with a top 5 pick. Do you still want to trade that first PLUS a couple other picks away? ---So I'm not saying that I'd be rooting for the Packers to lose in that situation, it's just now you're taking away your chance to get that franchise QB who could make it so you go from Manning to Luck. Imagine the Colts trading away their 1st round pick when Peyton Manning went down? That'd be one of the all time worst moves ever....and that Colts team was coming off an 11-5 season and lost in the playoffs by ONE point. I think you're arguing, just because you're starting QB goes down, you don't give up. And I'm with you on that. I'm arguing if your starting QB goes down....and you're as potentially bad as the Steelers are going to be this year, you don't trade away what COULD be the face of your franchise for the next 10-15 years for a safety. AND AGAIN, there's going to be a safety in this draft that's a generational talent. The kid from LSU looks like he's going to be a freak. 6'3, he can cover...

Yeah, I get that. But, of course in both those situations you had a 1st rounder QB on the bench, the guy you went after to take over(especially Mahomes, Rodgers just fell to us, though TT apparently did consider trading up to get him and liked him the whole time). In the Packers situation, you were backed into a corner. Rodgers was 1 year away from being a Free Agent and you told him he'd be the starter and then Favre decided to come back. The Chiefs, again, traded 3 picks, two 1sts and a 2nd I believe to trade up and get Mahomes and then let him sit for a year. So you were CHOOSING to go with your first round pick. You made that choice. That's different than going with a guy you picked a few years ago in the 3rd round due to injury. And I just reject the "it's just a draft pick, you never know," argument in the NFL. No, there's so much less room for error. That's a throw away line. And didn't you just say, the Steelers have earned the benefit of the doubt? Now you're throwing out the, "it's just a draft pick, not a real player," line? No, it's the most valuable commodity in the NFL. A top 5-10 draft pick potentially for a team that may very well NEED a QB. Yeah, but the Colts only got Luck BECAUSE THEY HAD THEIR DRAFT PICK!! I mean, that's the perfect argument for NOT trading him. And in Green Bay, again, we had the 2nd QB picked and a 1st rounder we'd groomed to take over. Maybe Mason Rudolph is going to be that dude....but you're betting the future of your franchise on Rudolph being that good. Good enough to compete with him as your QB. And I bet they do think that Big Ben is coming back. He said he was. But he'll be 39 when he comes back and there are a lot of questions on that team. And even then, how long is he coming back for? He's already said that he "will fulfill his contractual obligation." That's a very different tone than Tom Brady's I want to play until I'm 45 and now it's as long as I can, Rodgers saying he wants to play into his 40's, etc...etc..you still need a QB and you MIGHT have just given away your oppurtunity to go out and get your future QB who you could have let sit behind Big Ben for a year or two like Arod did. Jake Herbert top Comp is to Big Ben. Yes, exactly. I wanted Fitzpatrick because he's a perfect fit for the Packers and if you add him to THIS defense with Rodgers who should have 4 years left(the amount of time left on Fitzpatrick's rookie deal)....well, you're only giving up a pick that's in the 20's. Hopefully mid 20's. But the best case for the Steelers is still most likely picking around 10. And that brings me back to Delpit, the safety in this draft that's just an absolute monster. The type of guy the Packers have ZERO chance of drafting unless they lose out! The Steelers would be in a position to still draft him even if Rudolph proves to be the future in Pitt. Also, Snapper was talking about how we need a backup and how we need to invest some draft capital into a QB. To me, drafting Rudolph, a big, slower pocket passer...ie, a similar style to Big Ben, you're drafting what you HOPE will be a good backup, but probably not a future starter, the type of guy who can lead the team to the Super Bowl. But you were dead on when you made that comment about Mahomes. I've said a few times how I thought it was crazy for the Chiefs to give that much up to draft him at 10. That he was a guy with a strong arm and a little mobility who would throw 25 picks.....and the dude is just super human. He's the best pure talent at QB I've ever seen. He's notNOW passed up Rodgers in that regard in my opinion. ----I love the debates though. This is what makes sports great. 3 people can look at a scenario and see it 3 different ways. Snapper thinks it's a good move by the Steelers, you seem to be kinda in the middle and I think as soon as Big Ben went down, they should have totally taken that pick off the table.

Like I've said, just go check out Steelers fan boards. They're all pretty much saying the same thing. It's possible that you find a QB that's not a 1st rounder, but it's rare and everyone points to it when it happens. Russell Wilson would be a 1st round pick today, he had to pave the way for the "short guy." Brady just wasn't athletic, he wasn't a star in College. But Rodgers, Mahomes, Manning(s), Rivers, Watson, Brees(1st pick of the 2nd round), Big Ben, Geoff, Wentz, Newton. I'm sure I'm missing some. But outside of Brady and Wilson, are there any really good QB's who were taken later in the draft? I guess you could say if you've got a great OL(Which the Steelers have) a great defense(which they just drastically improved) and a great running game(which they do not have) you can get by and your QB can look good like Dak does in Dallas, but it takes everything. There's just nothing that can convince me this made sense. I'll guess they end up with 6 wins. Ed Werder All that said, I think he's gonna be a superstar with the Steelers and Nick Saban did call him the best leader he's ever had. So this has nothing to do with him, more just how stupid I think this was from a franchises perspective.

Favre-Rodgers is about 1 in 1,000. Tommy Maddux/Elway is the other 999. How many 1st round picks did the Bronco's use on QB's since Elway? I know they took Maddux, Tebow, Cutler, I think they took Jake Palmer, Paxton Lynch...and plenty of 3rd rounders. And while obviously people didn't see Mahomes coming, the Chiefs traded TWO 1st round picks and a 3rd to move up and get him. And people knew he had talent. We saw all types of highlights. The knock on him was that he was a project because he played in that Run N' Gun/Spread type offense. But sure, he vastly exceeded expectations. That's a world away from the Steelers who do NOT have a great history of developing QB's drafting Mason Rudolph in the 3rd round a few years ago. FINALLY, and I'm steeling this point from Ryan Clark, just to throw that out there. But the BEST rated safety prospect to come out of College in the last 20 years, Grant Delpit is in this draft class. A 6'3 freakishly talented safety who can cover. This is a guy who's been compared to Fitzpatrick's skill set in terms of ability to cover, to tackle, to play FS....in addition to having Sean Taylor's athletic ability. So a bigger, faster, better version of Fitzpatrick would have been within reach. That's assuming that they go through this season, a season that's already seen multiple starters go down with injuries, including one starting safety, and they decide they do in fact have their QB of the future in Mason Rudolph. To give up a 1st, 4th and a 7th...well, the Dolphins are just fleecing teams. Good for Trevor Lawrence though. They've got time to build an elite offensive line and start to put in place the start of an elite defense by the time he comes out and is ready to play.

I'm not sure I'm understanding your point here. Yes, Big Ben's future is in doubt. He'd already briefly thought about retirement last year or the year before. He's nearing 40 and just suffered a serious injury. And yes, Rudolph may absolutely tank. There's a FAR greater chance he tank than he hits. But they like him(or they've said, what are they supposed to say? Remember how much McCarthy and Clements liked Hundley and Kizer? And that's Clement and McCarthy, say what you will about them, but they're definitely better at developing QB's than the current Steelers staff). So you're argument that they're going to stick with Rudolph..nobody is arguing that. That's not the issue at all. The question everyone is asking, especially Steelers fans who appears livid about this and reporters are asking is why would you possibly make this trade now? Now when a best case scenario for the Steelers most likely is probably an 8 win team and the worst case is a 4 win team...why would you make the trade now? And why do you think the Dolphins who had 6 or 7 teams bidding on Fitzpatrick completed this trade the day that Big Ben went down with a career ending injury? Right. Their QB gets hurt and they don't start looking at the standings and ask where are we gonna be picking. Again, nobody's saying they do. However when you've got that 1st round pick and you're trying to trade it and a franchise altering move happens, one that is likely to have a significant impact on the value of that draft pick, OF COURSE they start thinking about their "potential," draft position. Again, you're conflating two things. Nobody said that they'd intentionally start to tank. However NOW without Big Ben(as well as all the other injuries they already have) they're projected to win 4.6 GAMES. That'd put them in contention for one of the top 3-4 picks.

Sure. Offer the Jags a 3rd round pick for him. Otherwise, he's probably not worth the headache. Coming to camp in a Brinks truck...he's almost certain to demand a record-setting deal after this year. Someone who might be interesting would be Patrick Peterson. He's still a good corner, he's on a 6 game suspension for PED's...which isn't that big of a deal in the NFL, and he's an older player who doesn't really fit with what the Cards are building. And he probably could be had for a 4th rounder. Just hypothetically though, Ramsey would be pretty awesome. And two games doesn't change Kevin King's injury history, so you still need to be on the lookout for corners. But man that Raven Greene injury is a huge blow. He was one of the most imporved players for the Packers and played an enormous role for the Packers vs the Beers. I know he's having surgery on his ankle, I haven't heard how bad it is. I wonder if he could be back for the last quarter of the season or if it's a 6-8 month type injury.

Yes agree 100%. But Cole is unique in the following way: Superb mechanics, easy heat, I believe, helps keep him healthy over most other pitchers. That's what they said about Mark Prior too. Haven't people kinda given up on trying to predict what type of deliveries are going to lead to injury? I thought Chris Sales was a recipe for disaster? And I may be wrong, but I thought Scherzer had some concerns about his max-effort delivery? Meanwhile, Tim Lincecum's delivery was a modern marvel. They'd go on and on about how his Dad would tell him to step all the way to whatever object he'd laid on the ground so that he'd get the most out of his legs. It seems like once you start screwing with the delivery, ala Mark Rogers, that's when you start having trouble with injuries as often as not. I mean,you'll have them either way. But you very seldom read on scouting reports now how this pitchers delivery could cause injuries. It's more, "his crossfire delivery could cause him to struggle to maintain his command." Or it's just something about how he's got an "easy," 95 MPH fastball. But you're not meant to throw a ball like that and put that type of stress on those ligaments. They could go at any time. What IS your definition of an ace? I'm genuinely curious. Not making the we have 4 aces joke, I think you just may have a very different definition than most people. Do you think there are 30 aces out there and if you have two of the top 30 pitchers, that's an ace? Because it is a subjective label....though there are some pitchers that people just universally agree with, but I don't see a second ace on the Brewers if they did in fact somehow manage to sign Cole(or Strausburg or Ryu).

7+ years? I'm not seeing many pitchers signing 8 year deals these days. I'm seeing very few signing for 7 years. We'll see what Cole gets. I think he's getting about 6/180 and at most 7/210 by the Yankees, but I've been surprised by the suppressed market in the last couple years. Yu Darvish signed in FA for 6 years and his contract started at age 31. Cole is hitting FA with his age 29 season to start the contract. Darvish was also a sliver of what Cole has been in recent seasons. Pitchers like Cole simply have not hit FA in recent memory. Max Scherzer got 7/$210mil back in 2015 a year older than what Cole will be. Cole has arguably been better than Scherzer was before FA too. Greinke got 6/$207mil in 2015 at the age of 32. Scherzer deal is his floor. But at younger than 30 teams could go nuts for him. He is arguably the best pitcher in baseball this year. Ok, so not a single 8 year deal in there. Not even a 7 year deal since 2015. Not for Darvish, not for Chris Sale, not for Patrick Corbin, the last two who signed for 5 and 6 years respectively. So where are the 8 year deals? Even back when Greinke signed a deal the Dodgers and their 350 million dollar payroll wouldn't touch, David Price signed for 7 years after finishing in the top 2 in Cy Young votings 3 times, and Scherzer signed a deal with an enormous pct of it deferred. And still, no 7+ year deals. Even the richest teams in baseball have talked about NOT signing these types of contracts. The Red Sox I believe said they won't go past 5 years for pitchers? Not an absolute hard line, but a pretty big leap to suddenly going 8 years. And yet you can still make the statement with ABSOLUTE certainty that Cole will definitely get more than Scherzer did? Or in this worse possible case scenario, get exactly what he got? Are you including how much of his deal got deferred then, or?? I just find it comical that people don't even leave the potential for them to be wrong. Isn't there just a touch of hubris in that? Not to mention not paying attention to Free Agent trends? I mean, the dude's still pitching right now for another team and you're telling me the absolutely worst case minimum he gets is what Scherzer got? I wonder how many people were absolutely certain of what Craig Kimbrel would get at this time last year and holding Aroldish Chapmans' contract up as a comparison and then saying, "well, even Wade Davis got X number of dollars, so Kimbrel is guaranteed to get this much more?" Like I said, I don't pretend to know what teams will do. Teams/players surprise me, and almost every major free agent signed for the last 3 years or so has gotten less than what was expected. But I'm not going to guarantee we'll see Gerritt Cole getting 8 years at 35 million per heading into the off-season when the big market teams have been talking about not going into the luxury tax. I won't be shocked if it happens...

Well, they are already 0-2, and are looking at starting a green as grass QB the rest of the year. Perhaps they believe that Minkah is worth the possible (likely) top 5 pick they are giving up? Maybe. That seems like a stretch, considering they might need a new QB. Well....they obviously think he's worth it. They just traded for him. These teams aren't stupid. They know as bad as they looked week 1 and after losing Big Ben for the season and possibly his career(he was talking retirement last year and will be 38 when he does come back). And yet they still traded for Fitzpatrick. That'd seem to suggest that they think very highly of him. The idea that the Dolphins had dropped their asking price down to a 2nd round pick for him seemed just way too out there. Not with the list of teams bidding on him.

And Savage limping after the game... Time to trade for Fitzpatrick. Yes, I know he isn't a safety, but that will allow more flexibility with Williams. He is depending on who you ask. The Dolphins are playing him at safety this year. But yeah, the Steelers after they find out they lose Big Ben for the year trade Fitzpatrick for a 1st round pick. Of all the times in the last 10-15 years, this might have been the absolute worst time for the Steelers to make this trade. The day they lose their franchise QB for the year(maybe career). Also, Savage is fine, isn't he? I thought he just got kicked in the shin. He has been everything we could have hoped for so far.

I don't think it's good, but I do think the Bronco's also have a very good defense. They've got as good of a edge rushing duo as anyone with Chubb and Von to start with, two guys who can dominate one on one matchup's and a lock down corner in Harris Jr. Next week against the Broncos will basically be the 3rd week in a row where we'll play a Plus defensive team with a suspect QB. Absolutely. 3 teams, good enough defenses to win...to varying degreess and they just can't find them. The Bears gave up a ton to move up ONE spot to get Trubisky with Mahomes and Watson on the board. Though I really didn't think either were gonna be good NFL QB's. Especially Mahomes. I thought he was just a chuck and duck guy. The only way I could have been more wrong about a young player is if I'd have said, "yeah, Giannis at best will be a decent defender at the end of the bench." Flacco won a SB, became the highest-paid QB in the league...then did nothing. He's still eating out off that one post-season run when he looked good. He got shipped out for another guy I didn't think could make it as a QB who's making me look like an idiot in Jackson. And then the Vikings give Cousins the biggest contract ever by far. Guarantee 90+ for 3 years. That has to be just KILLING Vikings fans. That team is loaded with talent. They've got the D, they've got the skill players. They just need a QB...and preferably one who can move a little bit. How badly do you think the Vikings just wish they'd have signed Keenum to a 4 year 60 million dollar deal right about now? He leads them to a 13-3 season, to the NFCCG, he's mobile enough to keep plays alive with that OL...has greate chemistry. But nope. Gotta go get the shinny QB on the Free Agent Market! They could have Keenum and then have spent 15 million a year on the OL and probably be the SB favorites right now...but they didn't! I just find it funny. All three teams have defenses, they've just totally whiffed at QB, especially our two rivals which is why I find it so awesome to watch. Can you imagine the pure hell we Packer fans would have to deal with if they'd have picked Mahomes? Mack and Mahomes? That's it, Rodgers, just quit now, not a chance you're touching that team. But no, they go for the guy from North Carolina. Who's not even bad, it's just they passed up on a Rodgers like talent. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/K/KeenCa00/gamelog/2019/ I want to know what this guy has to do before teams are going to actually want him to play for them. I almost feel bad for him. He's gotta be looking around at these marginal QB's getting 30 million a year and think, "what the hell am I doing wrong." Dak's gonna get 35 or so and I'd take Keenum over him...put him in Dallas, I think the Cowboys are even better.

Maybe it means you're not a realist. The Packers have beat the Bears who are a freakishly good defensive team and the Vikings who were the #4 D last year. They're not doing it with smoke and mirrors, Alexander, King, Clark..the young guys are playing great, Z Smith, P Smith, Amos have been everything we could have hoped for. And we haven't needed Gary to do much yet while Savage has been pretty impressive. And we caught a glimpse of how good this offense can be. It's going to be a lotta fun when Rodgers has this offense down. So we're a young team with a new offense, a really effective defense, a really good looking running game. Week 2? They've looked awesome to me. And I'm still holding out hope that the Packers ARE in fact one of the 5 teams to have called about Minkah! Thanks for keeping things positive. I’m not the type of fan to pound the table for trades, but if the Packers can pick up any deals in the Dolphins fire sale, I’m all for it. Yeah, maybe it's that I was pretty pessimistic about the first half of the season. I really thought 3-6 could be possible when looking at the schedule. The offense has looked miserable at times, but almost every time they looked really bad, it was in large part because they just didn't seem to be on the same page. So I'm hoping we can keep everything else going and then they start clicking and who knows, #14? I remember the year they won it I was thinking that they should be good, but the next year they'd really be good. And yeah, I'm not usually a fan of trading away top picks, but I want this one almost as bad as I wanted Mack...which is obviously ridiculous, but he just seems like a perfect fit for the Packers. You watch his rookie highlights and he just seems like really smart player. The way he finishes all the way through, trying to knock the ball out, reading those WR'er screens and stuffing them, flying in on run blitzes. And then even playing outside. Vegas has us at +400 to get him with the Steelers and I think the Eagles as the two favorites. Maybe the Seahawks. Those are the four teams I've seen and then there are some Pats rumors. I just feel like if the Dolphins really aren't asking for a 1st, Gute has to make this happen. I'm for it if they are, but if they want a second and say Josh Jackson...kinda the forgotten guy around here, but a second-year Corner with a lot of talent, that trade should be done. I have almost no confidence they actually do it, but man...it'd have me that much more excited about the Packers young team. They have to be aggressive. Times running out. We're not getting a 3rd straight historically great QB. You gotta win a couple titles in the next 4-5 years, so go get the defensive stud.

I wouldn't bet that until it came down to 7 in a best case. I generally don't bet Packers because I'm a fan, but Denver's D is pretty good and I'm still looking at sometime around the Chargers game for my target for the Packers offense to really gel.

I don't think it's good, but I do think the Bronco's also have a very good defense. They've got as good of a edge rushing duo as anyone with Chubb and Von to start with, two guys who can dominate one on one matchup's and a lock down corner in Harris Jr.

You realize it's a subjective thing, right? When to go for a TD instead of kick a FG? There's NOTHING wrong with going for it there. Absolutely nothing. The play call is the issue. Again, this is one of those where when Belichek or Peterson does it, it's them being bold, aggressive and not scared and "that really translates to the team." When another coach tries and doesn't get it, it's stupid.

It's a stupid rule put in place to really protect QB's. 2 of 3 years ago they changed the rules so that it no longer matters if the QB(or any player, but it's mainly for the QB) slides feet first or head first, as long as they're "giving themselves up," they cannot be hit and they're down as soon as they touch the ground. So basically, if it happens in the final couple seconds of a game and the team has a timeout, they're going to assume the guy is giving himself up and make sure they give the other team another play. I didn't see when Trubisky started signalling TO, but in order for the Refs to put a second back on the clock, they basically said that the absolute moment he was down Trubisky got the Refs attention and signaled for a TO. Robinson made it closer than he should have taking those extra two steps. The most obvious action would be for him to catch the ball and just drop. No need for a knee, just go down and make it clear you're giving yourself up. Eagles just lost a 2 point conversion due to this rule as Wentz dove for the end zone and had his knee touch the ground without being touched. It looked like he made it to the end zone before actually getting touched. So Wentz was diving into the endzone and wasn't contacted by a defender and his knee was down before he crossed the goal line? I'm watching now, but I missed that play the first half. If that's actually what happened, that should underline just why that's such a stupid rule. Obviously you're not giving yourself up when you're diving into the endzone head first. And here's the thing, that rule is supposed to be applied equally to all players. They'd NEVER consider a RB down without being touched in that scenario. So how does the ref figure out when a player is "giving himself up?"

Maybe it means you're not a realist. The Packers have beat the Bears who are a freakishly good defensive team and the Vikings who were the #4 D last year. They're not doing it with smoke and mirrors, Alexander, King, Clark..the young guys are playing great, Z Smith, P Smith, Amos have been everything we could have hoped for. And we haven't needed Gary to do much yet while Savage has been pretty impressive. And we caught a glimpse of how good this offense can be. It's going to be a lotta fun when Rodgers has this offense down. So we're a young team with a new offense, a really effective defense, a really good looking running game. Week 2? They've looked awesome to me. And I'm still holding out hope that the Packers ARE in fact one of the 5 teams to have called about Minkah!

It's a stupid rule put in place to really protect QB's. 2 of 3 years ago they changed the rules so that it no longer matters if the QB(or any player, but it's mainly for the QB) slides feet first or head first, as long as they're "giving themselves up," they cannot be hit and they're down as soon as they touch the ground. So basically, if it happens in the final couple seconds of a game and the team has a timeout, they're going to assume the guy is giving himself up and make sure they give the other team another play. I didn't see when Trubisky started signalling TO, but in order for the Refs to put a second back on the clock, they basically said that the absolute moment he was down Trubisky got the Refs attention and signaled for a TO. Robinson made it closer than he should have taking those extra two steps. The most obvious action would be for him to catch the ball and just drop. No need for a knee, just go down and make it clear you're giving yourself up.

Rumor has it, the Packers thought they had the first down and it was 1st and 10, not 4th and 1. I'd be curious to know if the down marker on the sideline had changed by mistake. I just went back and watched it and that actually makes sense. I don't know if that's any better, but I was conflating the sequence where there was a 3rd and short where they lined up with Vitale in the I and pitched it to Jones and got stopped(when he probably gets it if he stretches it out) and the sequence where they went for it with 3 WR'es and a Graham at TE vs Minnesota's base D and Jones got stuffed, the later being the 4th down.

7+ years? I'm not seeing many pitchers signing 8 year deals these days. I'm seeing very few signing for 7 years. But pitching is obvioulsy more risky than a position player. But I still think it makes more sense to go after Cole in this scenario as you have a window open right now. The FA market has changed. The Yanks, Sox, Dodgers, they're not just handing out blank checks like they used to. Almost everyone was talking about how Machado and Harper would get those 10 year 400 million dollar deals 2 years before they hit free agency(and Trout might get 500...though as always, he's an outlier). Giving Cole the same money people are talking about giving Yelich for an extension, at least in my opinion, maximizes the opportunity to win big right now. I've written War and Piece about this, but this takes off pressure from Woody and especially from Burnes. I mean, look at this team? This team has seen almost literally everything go wrong and there was almost zero reason to think they had any shot at the playoffs, but yet again despite the injuries and all the players having down years, they're once again making a push, not only for the Wild Card, but the division. Add an ace to that equation, some health and maybe Burnes spends half a year in the minors getting himself back together and that could be a team that could potentially be a true contender. We'll see what Cole gets. I think he's getting about 6/180 and at most 7/210 by the Yankees, but I've been surprised by the suppressed market in the last couple years.

I can't tell and you don't use the blue, but this is sarcasm because of the Yelich thing, right? The difference is the gap is so big between Trout while there was a argument that Yelich wasn't the MVP before going down with an injury.