tmwiese55

But if you lead with your shoulder your head has to go somewhere, if the guy slides it moves where you'll hit and now your head might hit. It's impossible to remove your head from the situation. Its a real tackle attempt if Rodgers doesn't slide as he'd be hitting him in his legs. This is exactly what makes it so impossible to try and enforce or 'make safe'. Guys are running full speed and all of a sudden the offensive player changes course and boom you're the bad guy. To me it actually looked like he was trying to turn his body to have his shoulder be the lead but then Rodgers slide past him and it looks bad, the TV announcer actually said the same. Though I do grant what FV just said, by the letter of today's rules he did hit with his head first. I guess I'm just saying I don't think he intended anything dirty and that it only became that way due to the slide. I'm fine for throwing the book at blatantly intentional stuff but things like this what is the defender supposed to do. I could see an argument that he should know Rodgers will slide, like he almost always does therefore just take it easy and let him do it. But if that's Wilson or Newton he has to tackle him. so no we expect defenders to change what they do based on the other QB. It's just impossible to make it all safe.

I give the late hit/lead with the head play a pass too because he has no idea where Rodgers is gonna slide so how is supposed to move his head without knowing that. The other one, yea I don't know how a ref who's job is to watch the QB misses that. You basically can't even touch a QBs head at all anymore, let alone the grabbing and twisting like that. What's crazy is that if they'd simply beat crappy AZ they wouldn't really be in a bad playoff position at all. That's ignoring all the other stuff this year, just win that one game vs a bottom 3 team at home.

I would agree if it weren’t for the tape. He did that much damage with his friends restraining him. What would he have done without them there? Ray Rice knocked his fiancé in a confined space in the elevator. This woman in the Kareem Hunt video came after Hunt. Hunt pushed the man away which knocked the woman into the wall. The kick at the end was what looked the worst. The woman was kicked out of Hunts hotel room, and she apparently wouldn't go away. The police didn't think there was enough evidence to even charge Hunt. He's too young and too talented for a team not to take a chance on him. I don't condone what he did, but I don't think it was as bad a Ray Rice. Didn't Rice's wife hit him multiple times before he lost it and hit her? Again not condoning it either, but there was context there too. Main point though is there is video and he's a fairly big name so it's going to be tough for him. Joe Mixon got his chance though and so far has never gotten in any more trouble. Another thing to note that is a quirk to it, Tyreek Hill for the Chiefs was kicked out of Ok St. for beating up his pregnant girlfriend. Pled guilty to it. He was a late round pick though so no one talked about like Mixon and of course there is no video. So he became a good story a year or two back when he started making those big plays, while no one knows about this. He of course is still on the Chiefs but Hunt is gone, because there is no video.

I don't dismiss incremental moves but the counterpoint could be the Cubs and Astros which were essentially 10-15 guys hitting the majors in a 2 year window + free agents/name vets traded for. Sure, one always would forget to mention someone like Strop or arguably Arrieta was a "younger" player traded for that didn't exactly fit the window given service time, but those were on a smaller deal. If I'm trading my best player, Davies better be a very, very minor detail in the trade...not just a package of solid MLB players. Agree. you're still going to have to give up some kind of legit prospect too. My only thought on it would be that if they liked a Davies/Santana, etc type it would reduce the level of prospect and/or how many prospects we'd have to give. The Mets rumors seem to indicate that as an option at least. Or maybe the Mets prospects just aren't appealing so that's the only option there, IDK. But at least seems they're open to discussing and we'd have good fits in that case.

Yes, this is ALWAYS a given. What's also a given is that every great player and just about every great team now needs to use it's farm system to sustain success. Even the Sox who can spend 200 million are built on a foundation of studs from the farm. Every team probably has 5 or 6 guys who have the potential if everything breaks right to be an ace. I'm of the exact opposite view point, you hoard them in the hopes that you catch lightning in a bottle and develop an ace as the value that brings to a team like the Brewers is almost impossible to quantify. And just point out a flaw in this logic, you say you like MLB ready pitchers more than younger ones who are futher away and thus more succebtible to the road blocks...well...no offense, but obviously. But how exactly do you develop the next Burnes, Peralta, Woodruff if you're trading all the guys who show promise away when their in the lower minors due to higher risk? By no means would I advocate just trading every SP prospect. I also think you misread my line a bit where I said Starting Pitchers "and" mlb ready players. I didn't say starting pitchers who are mlb ready already. For MKE, hoard SP prospects as much as you reasonably can, in addition place value on guys who are actually at the point ready to go like your Huiras because so few ever even get to that point. That said, if assigning values I'd put more on a Woodruff type who you already know will make some kind of contribution over a lower level guy even if said guy has higher ceiling. Regardless, I didn't mean any of it to be a 'see I was right'. That's irrelevant and not really even true because this is inexact science, this was just a good article going down that path. The point on all of this is finding the market deficiency to take advantage of, years ago it seemed like prospects were being giving away way too easily and now it seems possibly the pendulum has swung a bit that you can get some value because teams are hoarding prospects too much. Even still, MKE is in a tough spot due to their budget issues necessitating putting even more value on prospects than other teams would need.

It makes sense for the Marlins to get back some major league talent in addition to one premium prospect so they have pieces to flip at the deadline. A guy like Anderson or Davies could be really valuable to them in July. Yup, exactly. Myself and one or two others suggested that weeks ago and were yelled at that Miami will only care about prospects, they don't care about winning right now, etc. Of course in reality no one could know either way, I just thought it made sense. This leaked info seems to point that they're at least open to it and our system should be a good match if they are. Davies/Anderson fly ball tendencies should fit really well in that park too. helps inflate their numbers if they just want to flip them and/or helps the team be slightly less awful/embarrassing if they just play them

Not sure of a better spot to put this article. Seems relevant here a bit. I guess it somewhat supports my general more willingness than most to give up prospects. To me, I'm not a hoarder unless their starting pitching and at the MLB ready point like Burnes, Woodruff, Peralta types. Any prospects multiple years/levels away can have so many things go wrong for them before even getting to that point. I think I even had a line in the last few weeks something like "if you go back and look at top prospects lists the last 15 years or so the majority of them will have never done anything at the MLB level" https://www.theringer.com/mlb/2018/12/10/18133919/baseball-trades-prospect-rankings-top-50-busts

Well it seems the Marlins are open and possibly wanting MLB ready players. We discussed this in this thread on whether they'd value guys like Anderson, Davies, Thames, Santana, etc or if they'd prefer to just be massively awful. It seems they would, so it could reduce the actual prospects we give up. To me, Anderson and/or Davies would make a lot sense for them

Yes, if there is any park to be leary of massive split like that it's Coors. And it's several years for him so it's not a small sample now. For the right price sure, but you can't ignore an elephant in the room like that one.

Thanks. yes I can't say for sure among my friends and if for teachers it's district by district. I can't recall that specifically discussed among my teacher friends, my county cop friend though it has been mentioned like I noted earlier. Thought maybe they accumulate for everyone, I feel like it's vaguely been mentioned here or there by my teacher friends how it piles up. But yea, maybe they don't get it paid out on retirement if they don't use, not sure. So, basically the teachers who lie and take advantage of it benefit and the good honest ones get screwed. So why not come up with a better system. Your second paragraph is a key to the problem as well. Good for for trying to come up with a realistic solution to the problem (both in the person days issue and subsequent no subs problem) rather than most people who just dig in one side and do nothing. Like I said, it's happening and everyone accepts it happens and doesn't care. so why not sit down like responsible adults and come up with a real system that works. this logic could apply to so many political issues as well.

IDK, I get the vibe teachers and state employees of WI get to pile up all that sick time and have it paid out later on when they retire. But again, why can't they do the same thing you're talking about with the sick days for all PTO? The only argument I think would be that by making it 'sick time' and enforcing it this way it makes it more difficult for them to use thus forcing them to save it. There is logic there, but I always side on the side of personal freedom and choice to manage your life how you like. If you're too dumb to save up your days for emergency, that's your fault. But really it comes down to they know everyone is calling in to use sick days when they're not sick because they need to for life stuff and everyone looks the other way, so why not adjust it a touch so that you can actually get a sub in place for them. Even if you don't want to convert it completely due to the reasons you state, move over a few more days to the personal side and leave the rest as sick. Similar example in my office sales setting, say it's Christmas Eve this year and it's not technically a company holiday so some people do show up. yet no one is going to work, everyone is gonna sit around and BS then go home and it's accepted because everyone knows you can't really do anything on that day and management accepts it. So why not just give the day as company holiday and move on. your last line is spot on and really the crux of the problem.

you're not wrong on the fact everyone knew what they were getting into. But just because something has been done way in the past doesn't mean it should remain that way if it's dumb. But we're commenting on the Personal days/sick time policy. If you get zero days you get the gripe, well, they get 1 or 2 in most cases, that's it. Yet, they get a bunch of 'sick days', lets say 10ish. So they are allowed to be off but they have to lie about it and not have a sub in place beforehand. That, or if you're the honest teacher that doesn't want to lie you have to sit there and watch while everyone else does it. So all we're saying is to convert a chunk of those sick days into actual PTO days that can be pre planned is only logical. In 9 months of work people are going to need more than 1 or 2 days off for random stuff. Teachers have lives too and they also have kids of their own they have to deal with.

Have to remember if you're being shifted to pull that the vast majority of the pitches are going to be inside as well. They're not only taking your tendency but also pitching to make it even more of a tendency. It's not easy/simple to hit an inside pitch opposite field. Yes, this all should lead to training at younger ages to have approaches like say Yelich that doesn't have a drastic tendency, but these guys weren't brought up like that.

Sick days are a scam and need to be gotten rid of. You get PTO. That's it. One bank of hours. Why should the be separate? Exactly. The sick time thing for teachers is just dumb. For example, say you have a pre planned event like a Friday wedding or needing to travel on Friday to get to a Wedding or whatever on the weekend. you're forced to call in sick in order to be off and then they have to scramble for a sub. Rather than pre planning things like adults or all other businesses so there is a sub ready for that day along with a lesson plan or whatever else is needed for that day.

It's just so early to freak out. There is a large group of IF options still available to address a clear need, there is reportedly several good SPs on the market that I'm sure they're kicking the tires on. We're the smallest market in the league, it is what is, we have to find value and just aren't going to be the ones dumping big money and able to mortgage our prospects for short term rentals because we can't spend money to replace them (or sign the player as the Cards I'm sure plan to do). I'd suggest rooting for the Yankee or Sawx otherwise because that's not going to change.

Beal is the guy to go for from WAS. All things that trickle out of WAS make it seem like Wall is the problem in that locker room, plus he has an extension that kicks in next year that pays him in the 40 millions per year.

Yup I see that point. They do not play, but like you mention at the end if one team has lost 2-3 games and another 0-1 well that's some good evidence there as to who 'earned' it so to speak. Say NW found a way to beat OSU or TX found a way to beat OU. Do they really deserve a shot? I know you can make the tough guy argument that "well Bama should just beat them". Yea, I know, but crap happens. Plus you have to remember these are 18-21 yr old kids playing for very low pay while risking injuries and long term physical and mental problems. For Nates, that wouldn't work because schedules are done way in advance. They should make universal rules though. All conferences should go to 9 games, and all teams should play at least one game vs the other major conferences or ND/BYU. Then get two cupcakes to fill it out. I think I'm at Plush's last point myself as long as the current conference alignments are in place. Go to 6 teams as a compromise, I think I laid that out a page or so back as well.

Cain/Yelich was Jan 25ish last year. Chill.

Yup your last line nails it I think. They're stuck right now trying to appease both sides with the tourney and bowls. Eventually the band aid would need to be ripped off and end the bowl system completely. That's a big tradition though with lots of political and financial factors in it, it's not as easy as to just do it as some would think. Eventually I think it gets there but right now the powers are being pulled both ways and trying to appease both sides. It's not like they're dumb and don't realize everything folks are saying or know the arguments, their hands are tied though and like in everything change moves slowly. Moreover, if you go out to say 16 teams. The final two teams are now playing 17 games, that's an issue to address. And if the solution is to eliminate one or two regular season games, well that's a big issue too. It's not as easy as snapping your fingers like people think.

Yup, as I said most people value being entertained and that's fine. For the best team talk. Think of it this simply, how often do you think the actual best college basketball team wins the tournament and how often has the actual best team won the CFB championship since the BCS started? The percents wouldn't' even be close. Could even extrapolate it out to say one of the 3-4 best teams in each and the percents still wouldn't be close. Clearly you and the majority of folks prefer the entertainment/drama instead, and that's fine, I guess I generally do too. But I realize it's really not fair in CBB that a team that proved it was better all year has to give a shot to a team that was blah all year, like why even play the season. Still, I love watching it.

Count me in the camp that would've preferred to beat this offer. But keep in mind we would've needed a much different structure than the comp ones being proposed here because Jesus almost certainly would've been in it, so that would've changed the whole dynamic.

And keep in mind STL probably has every intention of paying him and keeping him.

Crap, a designated brewer killer going to the St. Louis Brewer Killers.

Right, every sport does and every sport doesn't have to do it the same way and people can view it however they want and neither side is right. You value entertainment whereas someone like CHL here values actually determining the best team. That's what i'm saying, it can be argued all day and neither side is right. Personally, I've always thought its unfair blah teams like the Giants can get hot/lucky for 4 games after being crappy all year and they win the SB. Or in CBB that teams with 5 or less losses have to play a gauntlet of worse teams to re-prove they're better. That said, as a sports nerd I'm greatly entertained by it and the more games the better for me, I've just always felt it wasn't fair. Think about it this way too, how entertaining is CBB regular season that is going on right now and basically no one cares? Duke/Kentucky and similar matchups happen every year early in the year and it's just meh, who cares, the game doesn't matter. Two big time non conf teams play each other in football early in the year, it's a big deal.

Yup, that's the crux of the argument. A larger tournament is more entertaining (March Madness) for the fans but is it actually the best method of determining a champion and is it really fair to the best teams who perform all year at a high level. That's really all it comes down to from a which route one prefers to go. Obviously the $$, logistics, and political bs is a different hurdle to actually make it all feasible.