OnTheBlack

Pretty surprising given the injury to Burks. Thought he would play quite a bit of dime LB, even if it wasn’t his preference. Also surprising they couldn’t get anything for him. Even a 6th or 7th. No so surprising to me at least. I like Gute, but he's quickly proving deficient at finding value for assets that should and do have value. Daniels is another example. Josh Jones has been pretty bad when he's been on the field. He still has potential, but teams place too much value on draft picks, even late round picks to use one on Jones. In both cases they shopped the players before getting rid of them. Hard to find any fault that teams didn't want to give up anything for two guys they'd be able to sign shortly.

It's been decades now that Pro sports has been a 12 month job. You've got players playing into their 40's now like Brady, Favre, Brees, Vinateri is 47. And you've got just a few Badgers now like Boreland, Moffit who've retired for health concerns and because they just weren't loving the sport. One tried to come back, one has stayed retired. And this has been going on for a long time. Three of the greatest ever have retired in their primes, Jim Brown, Barry Sanders and Calvin Johnson. All for varying reasons. I think in order to be that good, to play a sport like football at the highest level, of course you want to get paid, but you also have to love it. The guys that don't love playing get weeded out. The Albert Haynesworth types. He was easily a HOF talent, but he got paid and he stopped performing. I personally think Luck will be back, but even if he's not, I don't think there's going to be a fundamental shift in players careers. I think there's already been a shift in how parents allowing their children to play, but not so much in athletes just saying, "I've made enough and I'm done." It'd be better for most if they did. I'm not even convinced Luck is actually done. I think he's gonna sit a year, maybe two, but he's too young and talented to not come back. He sits out a season, he's feeling good, the Colts are talented, just missing a QB and I don't think he'll be able to stay away. But I thought the same about Barry. So...who knows.

You're not shocked by this? Well, you're THE ONE person who's not! If he was still dealing with the shoulder injury and they still had him throwing rubber footballs I'd be with you, but he came back, he played at an All Pro level last year. This year he's ready to go, excited, best talent around him he's ever had, the Colts are legitimately one of the favorites...he suffers a calf injury that keeps him out 3-4 months and he goes from talking about being confident he'll be ready to go week 1 to "I'm done" in his prime! I'm worried that they found something more serious going on. The reason they were unable to diagnose such a relatively basic injury and that's why he's retiring. I also have to believe he'll play again in the NFL.

This is amazing. I have a feeling he's gonna be coming back after another year off, but just an amazing talent you thought would lead the Colts to another 15 year run like Peyton and suddenly in his prime, he's done. And now the Colts will draft Trevor Lawrence next year so they can go from picking Elway-Peyton-Luck-Lawrence. Every "next greatest prospect" that comes around!

C'mon....seriously?

I'm with you across the board here...except for the Clemson QB thing. The guy lost his job because he was stuck between a stud QB and then probably the best Freshmen QB in NCAA history and maybe the best talent since Elway...Ever? Hell, I'd trade Rodgers now if we'd be guaranteed to get Lawrence in 2 years. I agree otherwise though. The Badgers are just way too talented to just suddenly drop below .500. I wouldn't be surprised if they won between 8-10 games. 7 would be about the worst I could see them doing.

I'm with you across the board here...except for the Clemson QB thing. The guy lost his job because he was stuck between a stud QB and then probably the best Freshmen QB in NCAA history and maybe the best talent since Elway...Ever? Hell, I'd trade Rodgers now if we'd be guaranteed to get Lawrence in 2 years. I agree otherwise though. The Badgers are just way too talented to just suddenly drop below .500. I wouldn't be surprised if they won between 8-10 games. 7 would be about the worst I could see them doing.

I'm with you across the board here...except for the Clemson QB thing. The guy lost his job because he was stuck between a stud QB and then probably the best Freshmen QB in NCAA history and maybe the best talent since Elway...Ever? Hell, I'd trade Rodgers now if we'd be guaranteed to get Lawrence in 2 years. I agree otherwise though. The Badgers are just way too talented to just suddenly drop below .500. I wouldn't be surprised if they won between 8-10 games. 7 would be about the worst I could see them doing.

I don't have a horse in the 'team quit or not' debate, but hasn't like half of that Dunne article been challenged/debunked at this point? Yes. He sensationalized things and exaggerated things where he didn't need to for the purpose(presumably) of getting a bigger audience. Him just talking about the discord between Rodgers and McCarthy, how often Rodgers changed plays...etc...etc..would have been good enough. But everyone in the story disputed some of the more absurd aspect. Like McCarthy basically skipping meetings and "sneaking" the massage therapist up the back door so she'd be unseen. Like getting a massage is somehow a bad thing. Everyone denied it. As in they denied he "snuck" away to get one or that it was a dirty little secret. He just got massages. I remember other coaches talking about how ridiculous that part in particular was...and it made sense. They work ridiculous hours, apparently they have bad problems-or at least sore backs. And he got massages. It was the Soap Opera like nonsense that was disputed by everyone. He basically ran with everything and then just said an "unnamed source said." At a certain point it got ridiculous. Where there's smoke, there's fire. But that doesn't mean it's a forest fire.

I don't have a horse in the 'team quit or not' debate, but hasn't like half of that Dunne article been challenged/debunked at this point? Yes. He sensationalized things and exaggerated things where he didn't need to for the purpose(presumably) of getting a bigger audience. Him just talking about the discord between Rodgers and McCarthy, how often Rodgers changed plays...etc...etc..would have been good enough. But everyone in the story disputed some of the more absurd aspect. Like McCarthy basically skipping meetings and "sneaking" the massage therapist up the back door so she'd be unseen. Like getting a massage is somehow a bad thing. Everyone denied it. As in they denied he "snuck" away to get one or that it was a dirty little secret. He just got massages. I remember other coaches talking about how ridiculous that part in particular was...and it made sense. They work ridiculous hours, apparently they have bad problems-or at least sore backs. And he got massages. It was the Soap Opera like nonsense that was disputed by everyone. He basically ran with everything and then just said an "unnamed source said." At a certain point it got ridiculous. Where there's smoke, there's fire. But that doesn't mean it's a forest fire.

I don't have a horse in the 'team quit or not' debate, but hasn't like half of that Dunne article been challenged/debunked at this point? Yes. He sensationalized things and exaggerated things where he didn't need to for the purpose(presumably) of getting a bigger audience. Him just talking about the discord between Rodgers and McCarthy, how often Rodgers changed plays...etc...etc..would have been good enough. But everyone in the story disputed some of the more absurd aspect. Like McCarthy basically skipping meetings and "sneaking" the massage therapist up the back door so she'd be unseen. Like getting a massage is somehow a bad thing. Everyone denied it. As in they denied he "snuck" away to get one or that it was a dirty little secret. He just got massages. I remember other coaches talking about how ridiculous that part in particular was...and it made sense. They work ridiculous hours, apparently they have bad problems-or at least sore backs. And he got massages. It was the Soap Opera like nonsense that was disputed by everyone. He basically ran with everything and then just said an "unnamed source said." At a certain point it got ridiculous. Where there's smoke, there's fire. But that doesn't mean it's a forest fire.

No they didn't. This is 100 pct revisionist history. They sucked most of the time because the best player at the most important position in team sports went down. The team didn't quit trying. Otherwise I'm pretty sure we'd have gone into NE with Matt Flynn and gotten blown out instead of losing a close game that took a 55 yard kick return by one of their offensive linemen to help them win. I hadn't heard they tried moving up for Lock, but that would have been pretty interesting. They should have fewer needs next year, so I like the idea of grabbing one of those UGA QB's, or former QB's. Fromm could be there in the 2nd round next year and would seem to have enough of an arm to play in this system. They need to eventually find a young talented QB. As for why they didn't go and get a better QB, again, I'd ask who? Matt Cassell? He's a 38 year old statue. Osweiler, maybe he's better. He's still unsigned I believe, so they could bring him in. But the previous off-season they'd traded for a QB in Kizer who McCarthy raved about and. Say whatever you want about McCarthy...and like Reid after he left Philly, people have forgotten virtually everything he did well and accomplished in GB because it was so stale at the end, but McCarthy had a pretty good history of developing/coaching QB's. And the guy you traded for was a 2nd round pick who went and had to start for the worst team in the league right out of the gate. Giver Kizer the starting unit....he's still not good. But he more likely to extend drives with his legs and do some of the little things that can keep you together during the 2 game stretch people mentioned. I'm not seeing that with Boyle. In fact, it feels like people pick the best parts of Boyle and take the worst parts of Kizer to evaluate because for whatever reason, we always love that no-name small school UDFA. Boyle wasn't just bad to start the game, he was absolutely terrible. Kizer goes 8-11 or whatever for a TD and it's described as "solid," and people argue vehemently with that depiction. It'll be interesting what they do though. That Boyle played with the "starters," and Kizer with the backup's means it's obviously still very close.

don't they have to keep 3? With how many QB's that get injured, I think every team has to keep 3 and not just put one a practice squad like they used to. look how many times recently, the packers got bit by cutting their 3rd only to be picked up on waivers before they could put them on the practice squad (anybody not prefer Hill over Boyle / Kizer to backup?) (unless there is a better option on the WW AND i would add Wilkins to the practice squad as well. That's pretty much what they a couple times after Rodgers got injured, but they'd probably be able to get Boyle through waivers and onto the PS. There's always a lot of love for the UDFA who completes a few passes in pre-season, no matter how bad they look before. The only difference I see between the two is that Kizer's actually played, even if it was on a horrible team, and he can move a little bit.

Yes.

It'd be so great if he went back to the delivery he used pre-injury and could get the same type of movement he had then. I'm guessing he changed his delivery to prevent future shoulder issues. I don't know, I really couldn't see the difference in the delivery before and after, but the difference in the FB movement was very clear. Recent signs are encouraging. That lineup he went through included Albert Almora and David Bote. He fanned them both. Well, aside from just being a Brewers fan, I hope for Nelson's sake he can get everything figured out so he can go on to have a successful career. I think it's maybe 50/50 he's back with the Brewers next year as I don't know if we'd give him another 3.5 million after the last couple years, but someone certainly will and even if it's with someone else, I like Jimmy. Seems like a good dude, a hard worker.

I don't think the idea was to actually get value for Cain, more dump his salary, of which we'd pay some of it-in order to clear salary cap room, open up playing time for Grisham and potentially better use that money elsewhere. I'm sure we could move him, pay...I don't, 10 of the 50 remaining and get back a lottery ticket, but I think Cain's likely to bounce back and I don't think his contract will look nearly as bad when his luck averages out.

Yeah, prospect status isn't about what you want as evidenced by MLB pipeline's Brewers ranking. Ray-4th, Taylor-27th. Everything you said; Is applicable to Ray.

It'd be so great if he went back to the delivery he used pre-injury and could get the same type of movement he had then. I'm guessing he changed his delivery to prevent future shoulder issues. I don't know, I really couldn't see the difference in the delivery before and after, but the difference in the FB movement was very clear.

Well...you're just bounding with optimism tonight, aren't you? How do you look at the talent the Badgers have and conclude that they don't get to 6 wins going into the season? The 17th ranked team in the country. How many times will it take this program to out perform expectations before people not only expect them to stop doing so, but to fail to even come close to meeting them? Yeah, they've got a tough schedule. Not sure how you go into the season thinking 5-7 though. When was the last time the Badgers were under .500?

I think and fear it'll be Turang. The Brewers window is open now and I'm afraid they're going to give away a future superstar(since he's really the only elite prospect still in the minors) and the Brewers have enough talent at the big league level, but they also have a great number of holes. But I really hope that doesn't happen.

I would argue both pitchers futures, particularly Burnes, but also Brown's are far more important to the future of this franchise than they are occupying space right now in Biloxi or SA. You keep thinking Burnes is going to get it going because he's just simply too talented to not turn it around....but he hasn't. And he's also too talented to be floundering in AAA or AA giving up 15 ERA's over two short outings. So...I don't know what the Blue Jays did with Halladay, I don't know if they brought him back to instructional leagues and helped him revamp his delivery...but I know after they helped him fix his mechanical problems, they started him the following year at HiA, let him have success, AA...then AAA and then he was again successful in the Big Leagues again at age 24. Burnes has to be mentally burnt out right not and just at a loss. So send him to AZ...or hell, send him home for a while, bring him back, try to identify what the problem is exactly and then let him work his way back up next year. If Corbin Burnes doesn't end up being a viable #2 starter or a high end #3...that's going to be a massive failure on the part of the Brewers...and I'll bet he ends up figuring it out at some point in his future. So the Brewers need to hit the reset button and try to get Burnes right and then bring him along slowly. With Peralta, they can try and help him develop a 3rd pitch(or for that matter a more reliable 2nd pitch) and they can try him in the rotation again, but Burnes is a far more talented pitcher. Burnes talent should put him ahead of Woodruff and yet one is thriving and the other is flailing away in now AA(at least on paper).

I don’t believe he’s a non- prospect, the guy has been injured virtually all year, mulligan time, imo. He came into this year back on the radar after his best year in 18, sure looked good in ST, then got injured. How is that different than Corey Ray? Other than Ray was more highly regarded, drafted higher and had a better year last year?

Right, I've heard enough here. You have a total, complete misunderstanding of basic physical fitness and this is you lashing out. You've said you were 135 pounds in college and skinny. So not sure what high-end athletics you participated in or how you came to find that you were 5 pct body fat. I've asked before, I'm assuming it's just one of those useless, wholly inaccurate skin fold tests that anyone and everyone can do and that vary wildly if you don't know what you're doing. Actually, they can vary wildly even if you do know what you're doing. What further proves you lack virtually ANY understanding about actual health and fitness is that you think you can ascertain someone's physical endurance by simply looking at them. The proof of this other than you literally saying it- is that you posted pictures of bodybuilders. Now I'm not vain enough to talk about myself and my own athletic career because I find it to be a bit vain and childish. So I'll use another athlete. Ben Askren, a well-known athlete from Wisconsin. An Olympic athlete, one of the best Wrestlers in college history. Not physically impressive. Not NEARLY as defined as nearly any other wrestler at his weight class in High School...in College, the Olympics, not in the UFC. He won at every level by being in better shape than everyone else.....and a unique approach to things, but fundamentally, by having better endurance. You could have used your elite eyesight and I guarantee you wouldn't have believed he was in better shape than Johnny Hendricks or Jake Herbert any other athlete he competed against. But how could this be? Ben's arms between his shoulder and bicep weren't defined. Yet I could say with a pretty high degree of certainty Ben could run any NBA player off the court. For that matter, he could probably talk them off the court as well. You don't seem to understand the disconnect between actual physical fitness...and a beach body. It's actually irresponsible how you're presenting yourself as an authority on this and you use pictures of bodybuilders from.. men's health I presume and you're operating under this pretense that definition equals actual physical endurance. Yeah, it just doesn't buddy. There's no clearer way to say it. There's absolutely nothing that backs that up. We used to laugh at guys who'd come in, spend no time on their legs, core, back and just do curls. You can sit there, smoke 2 packs a day and look like you're in great shape. That you've repeatedly said you can actually look at someone and SEE if they're physically in shape shows that you fundamentally do not understand how the body works but there's no way your ego would allow you to stop this argument now. But while you'd like to impune the credibility of everyone who doesn't just blindly listen to what you have to say and agree with you, please...tell us who you are. Tell us of your great athletic achievements. I'm trying to glean what sport it's even possible for you to have competed at the level you're suggesting. You've said you were at if you were 135 pounds and I believe you said you were shorter(not short, but I thought it was 5-something). I'm trying to connect the dots here and figure out what sport that could have been that would have given you this absolute level of authority. And normally, I'd never ask something like this, but you've held yourself up multiple times now as this paradigm of elite physical fitness...as well as I guess just elite eyesight and whatever else. So 135, college athlete, high level. You were either a runner(track and field, Cross Country) or you were a Wrestler(a sport you can be a little guy and compete). I literally can't come up with one other one where YOU would have the expertise or be in a position to feel sorry for all those beneath you. So you feel sorry for everyone who is below you, then you shouldn't have any problem telling us what you did from atop your perch. I didn't really think I'd hear Ben Askren's name on a Bucks forum. Though I never thought this would become about players body fat beyond the obvious Big Baby Davis discussions.

Ok, and when the career minor league catcher DOESN'T hit ~.300 and every other thing doesn't fall into place, then you'd be on here screaming about how they gave an MVP in his prime and cheap and one of the elite relievers in baseball for all these prospects(of which, several will crap out...I'm still all for trading for prospects, but you seem to be counting on them all developing). Aside from everything else we may not agree on, you go so over the top on some of these players. The aces for example. Yeah, you're sick of hearing it, but there's a point to it. You're doing the same thing right now with a 30 year old minor league catcher that you just assume will jump into the starting lineup and become an elite starter for us. I'd like to see if Freitas can actually finally do something at the big league level, but I'm not just penciling him in as a one of the best big league catchers offensively.

66 million gross profit. Then add playoff revenue ON TOP OF THAT > another 10-20 million > now it’s not quite as impressive is it? Who DIDN'T they sign that they should have? Now according to you they had this super team. We all thought they had several really good young pitchers and then they DID go out and sign the top catcher on the market and they brought back Mouse. So...who should they have gotten? You keep harping on the money and how Mark A won't spend it(Which is laughable, it's a valid point if you're a Braves fan, not a Brewers fan). But where should they have spent the extra 40 million...for "just a year or two?"