tmwiese55

Right, I mentioned that in there, what you're describing was one of the best results, simple run up the gut became very easy since they had to prep for Gordon coming. If they can still get that result using two RBs I'm all for it. I'm just guessing they don't think they can anymore (since Ds are better prepped now) and that's why they're using WRs. If you put in a RB the D knows that action is coming as soon as the personnel gets on the field and can plan their D as such. Do it with a WR and they don't know until he goes in motion. As Briggs says though, maybe recruiting guys specifically for this as slot type WR/RB combos could be an idea so the WR doesn't get beat up. No one has to convince me on this weapon, I've been on this train for 10+ years now, back to the Abby/Gilreath days. Chryst also ran this to death at Pitt with WR Boyd (I think that was the WRs name, played for bengals in NFL) with great results so maybe he is a bit stuck on the WR and could try this. Just in general though, one of my complaints the last few years is too predictable based on the personnel on the field. Putting in a RB for this would add to that concern. Most teams and UW have used WRs (Uw started with Gilreath/Abby) for it the whole time, Gordon was just such a freak.

Interesting and creative idea, kudos for thinking outside the box a bit.

But again that's still way less risk than being on the hook for over 200 mil if that happens. So you want to give big markets even more of an advantage? Give them free insurance on their mega contracts? No thanks.

Gordon was a freak so yes it did work best then. However, that was really early in the jet sweep 'sweeping' college football so teams were less up to speed on defending it. The issue with using a RB now for it is it becomes a dead giveaway it was coming, not necessarily the handoff itself, but the action. Back then UW did use some double fake Stave deep balls off it to help with it though. We haven't really had QB with that arm strength to do it since then until this year though, but can bring that back now. But basically as soon as you knew they had both RBs in the other team knew it was a run. Even being an idiot in the stands my friends and I picked up on and perked up in our seats whenever we saw Gordon come on the field and the other RB stay. Then you'd see the D start pointing and yelling about and shift down to be heavy on the side he'd be going. Still worked well as he was a freak, that OL then was nuts and the other RB was good too. Eventually it kind of got to be the best play from it was to fake to Mel and give to the RB up the middle for 5-10 yds since the D was so shifted to defend Gordon. Don't get me wrong, if you can get those results I'd still be for it but I think it's much tougher these days as teams are prepped for it so that's why they use WRs on. But specifically recruiting a WR/RB combo guy who can do both isn't a bad idea at all. AJ Taylor was like that. Guerrero kind of is too I think if I remember correctly. Pryor has been a very good runner too but yes not the body type to take the hits as well. A combo WR type like this would be a good slot WR too, think of a Randall Cobb type guy.

I'd disagree. If he has the same major injury (TJ or rotator cuff) you discuss happen in year 1 with this deal vs if in a 6/200 type deal. I'd almost guarantee the team would willingly opt out of the last 3-4 years of the deal if they could. Especially with no sentimental connection to the player like here. Say it was Kershaw who'd already pitched for you from say age 21-30, yea maybe a bit different internal discussion but I still think they'd make the business decision to not be on the hook for a guy coming off major injury at 35 mil per year in his mid 30s.

Anyone know what percent of owners would have to vote to approve a drastic change similar to the NFL in terms of cap and revenue sharing? Leaving out the players union negotiation aspect, just the owners. If it's only 50% I don't see how the small markets wouldn't go for it. Even if it's 2/3 vote (which for some reason that's what I have in my head) I can't believe 20 teams wouldn't be in favor of it. I've always had that in my mind so I figured the players must not want it since they want those big market team to be there to kind of cash in their lottery tickets.

I disagree completely. They've limited their damage to three years at most (assuming things don't go well). If Bauer has a terrible year or is injured then they are stuck with >$100M. If Bauer has an excellent year then he is gone and will be looking for a bigger contract, given his age. All of the risk is on Los Angeles. For a mid-rotation SP. compared to the normal 7/220 mil contract he'd get and if he had a terrible year or hurt his arm? And they have no commitment to a big contract to him at age 35-37. Pitchers are a big risk on those long huge contracts. Sure, they sacrifice not having him locked in for long term if he's good/healthy, but it eliminates the risk of a pumpkin on their books. Long story, if teams had the choice to do 1-2 year deals with pitchers instead of 7ish year deals they would.

Yea I feel like that's kind of a safe deal for LA. Much less risky than giving a 6-8 year deal for a SP. Seems Bauer found a middle ground from his "I wanna do one year deals" thing. He got his flexibility he wanted but was able to lock in 3 years of money in case something happens to his arm. Or in the current financial climate being bad maybe next year he opts out and then locks in a long deal if he does well. I feel like some of us threw out this similar idea in a thread about him months ago.

Not much of an opinion either way. Overall glad they did something and I assume Keston is 1B. One thing I'd note is I was surprised by Wong's offensive stats when I saw. Based on what he does vs MKE I expected a year or two in there with around 20 HRs, but just overall more pop. Seems like 1/3 of his HRs must have come vs MKE (note that's hyperbole I did no fact checking on it, just gut haha)

Good discussion by all here. I guess i'd struggle to pinpoint a strategy so to speak you can apply. Seems for the most part it just shows it is a huge advantage if you can get a top QB on his rookie deal. But football is such a team game that it's just not that simple as you needs tons of things to fall in place around it, besides also getting lucky the guy you drafted is legit good. Lot's of variable that all need to line up. when it comes down to it, you just have to have a top level QB. If you happen to get one young while somehow having a good team surrounding (which is rare because otherwise you wouldn't be drafting high, so then need some luck to have drafted one anyway for some reason) then you have a big time opportunity for a few years. Once he's good though you can't just let him go and draft a new one because it's such a risk on the next guy. You have to pay him and then try to find steals elsewhere as best you can. Another discussion point. In the last few years we often hear about these ready made good teams that just need a QB (Jax a few years ago, Denver a few back, Colts now, Saints now, etc). The talk goes to getting that proven vet to step in but never about drafting a guy and throwing him to the fire. Maybe that's a route these teams are missing? With some of the immediate results QBs are having in the NFL due to passing be so huge from HS on now maybe that's a better route than a retread mid level QB? Obviously teams like that won't have top 5 picks, but say someone like the FL or BYU QB gets to a team like Colts around pick 20. Maybe that's a better route than a Rivers,Marriotta, Foles, Dalton, Jameis, Newton, Flacco, Fitzpatrick type path of recent years (probably several names I'm forgetting). This obviously proved true in Wilson vs the ex Packers qb Flynn. Matt Stafford would probably be that tipping point this year. I don't know, something to think about.

Yea it's not say Favre wasn't still a good QB. But this was his weakness and he didn't really improve it. Doesn't mean he still wasn't very good. And obviously that 5ish year stretch he was better than anyone win the league. It's like when someone gets defensive if you point Giannis can't shoot. Doesn't mean he's still not the reason they're good and that he isn't awesome, but no one is perfect. But this is the main thing that makes it clear to me, and should be to tall, as to why Rodgers is much better and on a different level. To your points on tips and it being the receivers fault. That's what I'm getting at. First, tip balls often come from forces, which is what Favre did because he had such a ridiculous arm. Can't just say welp it was tipped so not his fault. he was putting it in danger and that's what Rodgers has led the whole league to avoid doing as much as possible. Hit a WR in the hands/chest though and he tips it up, yea of course different story. For the routes, yes I'm sure people screwed up routes, and sometime he did as well. Problem was, it was spun as 100% the receivers fault and never his when the reality was it was a mix. And have to remember many routes are reads, not just preset to do a square in no matter what. There was a bad one like this in the 6 pick playoff game where the receiver was uncovered for a TD, but of course the receiver got the blame.

I remember watching this game as well. Didn't Rodgers have a long scramble for a TD? One thing about that time is IIRC Rodgers was thought to be injury prone and was questioned as to if he was durable enough to play in the league. Not sure on scramble. But Favre through at least one, I think two, bad picks that put GB in a big hole. Rodgers came in and played great and got them back in it but ultimately lost. Yes I remember the injury issues at the beginning too. Don't want to go and double check, but I actually think Rodgers got hurt in that game too and was out for a bit afterwards. Feel like a joke being how Favre has played 850 straight games, new dude plays one and gets hurt.

Good hypothetical question. I think you probably do it to have the most important spot shored up for 10 years. On the other hand, seeing what Brady is still doing in his early 40s and how good Rodgers was this year it's not crazy to think you can get 4-5 elite years out of him yet with how protective the league is on QBs. How about this one (again, ignore cap stuff in the way), Rodgers for Trevor Lawrence. It would kind of be the Colts/Luck decision, other than Rodgers not coming off a bad injury like Manning. TL is still just a prospect, but he's the best prospect at least since Luck, if not Manning. Keep in mind you'd have Lawrence on rookie contract for 5 years.

The biggest aspect of Favre/Rodgers discussion should simply come down to turnovers. I'd guess Rodgers sitting those few years and watching Favre play so recklessly and have that 28 int season was a big lesson to him, and something the coaches were hammering into him behind the scenes. Rodgers understood with how good he was taking a sack is fine relative to an int, he can make it up the next play or later in the game. And with his scramble ability it was better to try and get away than to chuck it up. Favre was mobile too, so he shouldn't have been the same way. Rodgers emphasis on this aspect kind of ushered in a new era of QB as now all the top guys are like this in INT avoidance, trying to keep at 10 or below. As opposed to say late 90s-2010ish mid teens was common and at times more even for the top guys. And it was with less attempts then, but balanced by easier rules now too. In general I was on the OSS view on Favre as well. One of the few people saying this guy is just reckless at this point and his legend status and ego has him immune from criticism or listening to his coaches. Throw 6 mostly bonehead picks in a playoff game, it's someone else's fault, not his. I remember the early Dal game when Favre got hurt and Arod played for the first time, I was in a bar because it was an NFL network game that most cable didn't have yet at the time, and I thought might get attacked for being excited/happy/cheering for it to happen.

I can't see any reason this would make sense while Burnes is still cheap. Sure, yea any overwhelming offer you have to take but why would Sox do that. there just doesn't seem to be anything here that would make sense. Who knows though, things are weird these days.

Yes that's probably the first step to at least try a little bit. It won't fully fix the problem but hopefully it helps a bit. Sure, the SEC school would now have to honor the 4 years. But the coach can still treat him poorly and/or push him out by telling him how he won't play etc and then the kid will choose to leave. I think B1G and PAC are the only ones honoring the 4 year thing as of now. The 85 scholarship reduction is probably the way to really make a dent. If I recall correctly, and an older person feel free to correct if I'm wrong, but I believe that was what was done say 40ish years ago to spread things out. Either there was no limit or the limit was really high, so teams like Nebraska/Bama back in the day would just take everybody just so other couldn't have them. Then that limit of some kind was put in to stop that. Even with 85 the problem still exists though, OSU will go after UW guys pretty much knowing their best case is backup at OSU just to try and get them from coming here. The RB Williams from a couple years ago is an example, they tried with Wolf too, and there was a DE/TE type who went to OSU as well in that situation. For OSU it's fine, they're good depth guys and could eventually play if they stick all 4-5 years. If they transfer after 2 years, so be it, at least they're not at UW (or whoever they are competing with for the kid) instead. And they can always pressure them like I said above if they need the scholarship.

A big thing missed in all the Mertz hype the last few year is that Coan is pretty good himself. He was also a highly rated recruiter (probably our 2nd or 3rd after Mertz and maybe Houston), and has played well since he started playing. Instead of appreciating him everyone just had their eyes on Mertz. Coan or Tolzien would be our best QBs the last 20 years or so other than Wilson. I know it's a tough situation with all the receivers out but it seems to me Coan was currently better (essentially folks who spend last year saying Chryst was dumb to not play Mertz right away were likely overblowing it) because of the experience/reads/mental aspects. Mertz missed a lot of things in these games. Mertz talent is clearly superior though and another year of practice/coaching and I think Mertz next year will be the best we've had since Wilson. He was also probably harmed by the weird offseason, maybe normal coaching leading up he'd have been way more ready and at that point his clearly better talent would've won out over Coan for 2020 season. Book must be going pro or this wouldn't be happening. I'd have my money on Coan being the starter. He is drastically better than Horni.

Because if it's high it shows there is very high likelihood there is many more in the community who haven't been tested. Essentially it shows there is a lot of positive tests (not good) and/or there is not even testing being done to find them all. It's getting at how widespread it is within a specific region and if testing is keeping up with the levels of transmission. Simplest way is probably, if the % is high it means more testing should be done and within that testing you're going to find a lot more positives. And if all those extra positives are out there and not tested/aware it means they won't be isolated and can contribute to further spread. Of course there is some gaps in and some other variables to consider but it's one indicator to factor in when looking at trends. For a baseball metaphor, batting average or ERA aren't perfect stats but they're ones to factor into the overall picture along with many other things.

Yes the three 3 losses were MSU hail mary, OSU kinda hail mary with 20ish seconds left the next week. Also, both games had block punt TDs by the opponent, which was Bielema's area. Then the Oregon Rose Bowl shootout loss by 7 (or one score if not 7 exact) where UW got to striking distance for last play but refs didn't them spike. It also had the flukiest fumble by Abbrederis where the ball just sat on the sideline without going out of bounds. Somehow BB lost 3 games with that offense. I mentioned this around quarantine when replays were going on but the amount of NFL talent on that team was nuts. Every player on that offense made the NFL, plus several of the backup lineman too. Possible exception being Oglesbee due to injuries, he might not have got out of camp or just didn't bother. Of course the D wasn't great though, if we could pair our current D play with what those offenses did in 2009-11ish UW could win a title. Other things to note on that team. That was the year of the LSU/Bama rematch title game that was like 22-0. So, if UW had just not lost those hail mary games they'd have been playing a very beatable LSU team that had a very weak offense (good for our blah D). Of course LSU D was great but I don't think anyone was holding our offense with Wilson (in a dome) under 25 pts. They would've had a real shot there, heck, I think I'd have picked them to win. Also, that would've been JJ Watt's senior year if he didn't go pro. I'm skeptical if those hail mary's happen with him on the team. He was so good he likely turns a very mediocre D into at least OK/good by himself. Instead they had a bigger slower white D End I think last name Kelly who was fine and could get some pressures but could never quite get to the qb in time. In short, this team was the football equivalent of 2015 UW basketball. Probably as close as we're going to get in our lives. ETA: oh on the losses by one score or less. UW got mentioned last night on this as UCF just had a really long streak of that snapped in their loss yesterday. UW had one of the longest streaks this century too. Teams like USC, Bama were also on it. I used to bring this up quite a bit as a cool tidbit, I didn't really know it was as 'historic' (can't think of a better word) as it was before I saw it last night. It was broke in the South Car bowl game (which was a close game they led) or it would've lasted til the 59-0 OSU bloobath.

Went back and tried to find a tweet I saw on this but I can't find it. Surprisingly, of the 5ish years of 4 team playoffs the turnover of teams is smaller than in the 2 team BCS system for the same timeframe of the 5 years before (something like that). And it was significantly different. I guess it makes sense when you think about the times Bama, OSU, Clemson have gotten in as 3 or 4 seeds. In this search I did find another though, 48 of the top 100 recruits are going to 5 schools.

Yea the focus should kind of be on tweaking something so it's not so easy for top 5 schools to get almost all of the top 100 kids every year in recruiting. The fact the same teams make it over and over isn't fixed by expanding and letting more in just to get crushed 9/10 times anyway. Those same top teams are still going to make it every year in that system. I don't know the solution to finding a way to spread the talent out, but that's what they should be focused on. In a weird way spreading out the talent actually then it would make more sense to widen the playoff since there is more parity. The current system is very accurate for having the best teams play. Maybe things like the 4 year scholarships and not letting them push players out is a way, but that's very tough to enforce. By no means is it an easy problem to fix.

I can get behind getting to 6 in order let every conference in then one WC, such as an undefeated non G5. I like keeping it at 6 too keep an emphasis on the top teams wanting to go undefeated and get the bye. It also greatly reduces the risk of a 2 loss team getting in. My preference is to just leave as is though. One thing to keep in mind for the Super Conference idea is that it's not purely about playoffs. If you get to a set up like that then those conferences can separate from the rest, make their own rules, keep all the money, and only play amongst themselves. Essentially this is a way they could find a way to pay more to the players and treat the players in this division differently than the other athletes. The other teams can make their own tournament if they want and it eliminates them complaining about not getting their shot. Unfortunately, I think this route would lead to a lot of those schools getting rid of football down the line, but that is going to be the cost once the pay the players movement gets going.

Wow just wow. I guess you're ignoring the obvious time lag. There is no restrictions, leads to huge spike in deaths, lockdowns start and it goes down and down. Restrictions lift and it goes up over time. This happened virtually everywhere in the world. But let's keep arguing about it. Movement data site for WI: https://geods.geography.wisc.edu/covid19/physical-distancing/ . Take for what you will. ETA: apologies for any tone. It's just so frustrating this clear stuff somehow continues to be argued.

This is the line that started this chain of events: "This 50% participation thing where millions of people don't care and millions of others are living in constant fear isn't bringing an end to this any faster. All people can do at this point is minimize contact as much as possible and hope they can last until they get drugs. We've been moving from event to event for a year now warning people off it and it doesn't achieve anything. All we seem to have done is killed off a bunch of restaurants and not slowed the virus at all." If you've since reduced to "our current environment, which isn't really a lockdown, doesn't work" and acknowledge that the earlier lockdowns worked. Yes I don't have a disagreement. Like I said, I agree with you on a lot of that now. Your Disney points falls in line, when FL doesn't have a real lockdown of any kind then Disney is a blip on the radar and nothing that'll stand out. But keep in mind there's been plenty of other large events that have been tied. The motorcycle rally got a lot of headlines, but you specifically have pointed out weddings a few times. However, you still just argued somehow that the massive increase in interactions isn't a huge factor in the spike is just shocking at this point.

You argued they did nothing. Those places show that it worked and works. And directly disproves what you said about no/minimal lives being saved (you might not have directly said that so apologies if overstated). Yet people continue to just put their heads in the sand as if nothing can be done when the proof is right there that it can be done. In a way, you're saying I can't use places that did a lockdown as proof lockdown worked. For the places you said like WI/FL, and everywhere really. All their numbers spiked once restrictions were lifted and people started doing more and more things. First, undoubtedly lives were saved in the beginning for how long it lasted and delaying. And for those who are still adhering it is reducing the numbers by at least some percentage. Believe it or not, a good chunk of people are still staying home. If they all started mixing it up too, the number would go up. I simply have no idea how one can argue that. ETA: just saw your post a few before this one and this would go to your 2nd paragraph. I've agreed with you many times lately on the 'horse is out of the barn' type thing on many things. And on things similar to your Lowes comment of micro analysing things. And at this point so many people have a whatever attitude among themselves that micro analyzing certain public things becomes a blip on the radar. I get that. But we have to stop spreading false things about how it's bs and doesn't work to at least try. I just can't get behind the laissez fair attitude to just give up. Sure it's probably too late, these people won't' listen anyway but you have to try. something else popped in my head bars/restaurants. In the sense that if we lifted restrictions in major cities, would enough people even be willing to go? As in does the 25 or 50% rule even matter if not enough people would go to get above those numbers. Which then would get into a talk on things like you did blaming the shutdown rules for the bankrupting as opposed to the virus itself. Pure guess off the top of my head, I still think people in Madison/MKE would be going out. Not like it was, but I'd guess above the 50% threshold.