OnTheBlack

Well the funny thing is that person was still wrong. I get that he's probably of rotational OF quality these days instead of an everday caliber starter/stud...but he ended up being fine last year and given context shouldn't have been DFA'ed. I also get that we're paying for past production with him and many questioned the extension as it was as well as not shipping him off in the Puig/McCarthy deal. OK, all of that said, he's off to a similar start as last year. Let's see if he finishes as a ~1.5 WAR guy again once the hard hit balls find grass. Domingo Santana lit the first few weeks on fire but is playing bad defense and regressing. Of course if I was given the option of having Domingo's first month vs. Braun's, I'd take Domingo...but there's a pretty good chance that they end up finishing with similar seasons outside of Braun maybe having to sit a few more times. Nuance taken into account, yes it hurts Joe Casual fan to see, "arggg this guy is making $18 million and this guy is making $3 million" but we all know that every team is going to have a few good contracts and a few bad ones. Braun is basically the only bad one outside of Albers' little contract and maybe Chase Anderson depending on how one thinks he finishes the year. It is what it is and all things considered, there's a good chance he's about on par with Domingo Santana this year. I'd bet if you took the time to look the top 15 payrolls in baseball, you'll find maybe one or two who have more wasted money in their payroll. I think Anderson's worth his deal...if you take a more negative view, he's got a little negative value. Albers is getting paid 2.5 I think? And your one bad contract is arguably your franchise best hitter who's nearing the end of his deal. It's not like we've got Chris Davis on our payroll.

I don't disagree. But it is what it is. Braun is gonna be looked at as a starter as long as he's on this team. The best we can hope for as fans is that he finds a few hot streaks and helps carry the offense in short bursts. Santana was never going to displace Ryan Braun in the lineup, no matter how much sense it made. If you're talking about coming into this season, I disagree. There was every reason to believe Braun would be a productive hitter in...~135 games. Ben Gamel fills in the rest of the games and you have two good OF'ers in AAA. I haven't noticed a change in approach, but I know last year he was just unlucky and there wasn't any reason that I saw to not expect him to improve. I don't think Santana got enough rope last year and I think his low WAR this year is as mis-leading as...say Brett Lawrie's from early in his career. He was a below average OF'er, but he wasn't a butcher. Short of just not trading Santana though, to what extent do you go to in order to acquire a starting RF'er? You spent money at catcher, you spent money at 2nd base, you tried to spend some on Kimbrel. I don't see any suggesting you go out and spent 18.25 million on a RF'er like Grandal, but how much? 10? I just don't feel like this was predictable. That Braun would look as bad as he has AND Aguilar would. I fully expected Braun to be back around .280/.350/.500 this year given how he looked last year.

I totally agree. People have different favorites, but a lot of us wanted a edge rusher and we got a pretty good one. TT was great for a while, but it did feel like that Packers "mystique," the Packer way was losing most meaning the last few years. Thompson had some bad-bad drafts. Losing guys like Finley and Collins hurt, but a good GM can replace them. I wonder how much of the questioning of the current picks have to do with the Randall, Rollins, King, Jones, picks in the 1st and 2nd rounds in recent years. Passing up Watt to get King-who could still be a good player, but hasn't been one yet. Two others who are gone, and the other one is probably in his last year unless he can carve out a bigger role as a nickel backer or something like that in Jones. That said, if I was a Giants fan right now, I'd be REAL pissed. I think that's the only team that even fans can sit back and just wonder what the hell they're doing. Daniel Jones at 6? I was hopeful that maybe some team would be so desperate they may trade up to take him 4th, but with Dwayne Haskins and Lock...you pick Jones 6th? And his closest comp is Eli. Peyton's little brother who won two Super Bowls primarily because of Justin Tuck, Usi, Strahan, JPP and the like, but is a AWFUL QB now and the exact type of player teams are moving away from. Edit-I meant to say 4th among QB's in the top 12.

I don't know if anything is more frustrating that watching Aguilar right now. He seems to be pressing way too much, trying to hit for power when he doesn't need to try. I completely believe Aguilar was the player he showed last year, but the Brewers can only wait so long. If Aguilar gets it figured out, Thames situation becomes pretty obvious to me. Good year, trade him for whatever, bad year, decline. If Aggie doesn't and Thames has these stretches like he had in 2017, I guess you have to bring him back. You can't go in with only one option...unless you sign a corner OF or you get a lot more out of Ray or Taylor than I believe you'll get. No matter what, I don't see any need to extend Moose. I get he's liked and he is a very competent 3rd basemen when the Brewers went a while without one, but they've got one now who's a very similar player, but with a significantly higher OBP historically.

I am assuming you also watch Better Call Saul? Another great show! I do. But after the season on Netflix. Again, just another show that's better when you can watch 2 or 3 at a time. Now Game of Thrones tonight was awesome. Arya is the scariest little chick I've ever seen on TV.

Yeah, I wouldn't describe the show as being real witty. The Simson's however have been around forever and have pretty much been the Nostradamus of our era! Trump as President and...lots of other things that I can't think of. But there are lists. Family guy is definitely stupid comedy and it was funny because it was not politically correct and went at big stars.

Exactly. Do people realize Thames actually had a higher OPS than Moose last year, even though it seems widely believed that Moose was good and Thames was garbage in 2018? I am not saying Thames is anything special, but I can't for the life of me understand why people want to kick Thames to the curb and in the same argument want to give Moose a multi-year extension. I feel like that's a lot more on Moose being overrated than anything to do with Thames.

Did anyone know that Yelich had a bad back last year? What in the hell does this guy look with a good back? What, a mix of Williams and Ruth?

So...just gotta assume that nobody on here knows what's going on with Kirby?

Pretty sure I said it's LIKELY over if they lose a game 2. LIKELY. In that it's UNLIKELY that if they were to go down 0-2 losing both games at home I think it's UNLIKELY that they would come back and win. I also said that I still think they'll win the series. But when people are saying it wasn't really Boston's D that shut us down or trying to downplay it, I'm not allowed to disagree? Also, you didn't seem to get quite as upset when I said I thought this was going to be a tough series and you threw out ridiculous reasons for why I might think that like suggesting it was because Boston's historical standing as an NBA franchise instead of their current talent. So...it doesn't seem like you get it. If you believe that the series isn't "likely" over if they lose game 2, I think don't get it. Settle down man. I never referred to you directly at any point pregame. You seem like a really angry guy. I never said you did. You did say that I was trying to convince people the series was over if they lost a game that hadn't played yet. I would say most people would think the Bucks are done if they go down 2-0. It's just going to be real hard and they're unlikely to win 4 out of 5 when 3 of those 5 would be in Boston. And you're right, you're not the one calling people out before hand if they don't happen to agree with you 100 pct of the time. I don't think I'm angry, I'd say more irked after an ugly game and what a consider a pretty arrogant poster(not you). But I'd have had to take Pysch at UW and that wasn't what I personally studied, so maybe someone else would be better to ask.

First off, you do need to settle down like OSS said. You're coming off as the guy who said the sky is going to fall and then angrily says "I told you so" after an ordinary thunderstorm. This is the same Bucks team that lost to the Suns twice and they lay a few eggs. On to Tuesday. And yes, the Bucks came out completely flat. Giannis was terrible. Horford is a decent guy to have against him, but Horford was a better player last year, Giannis was not as good as he is now, and Giannis still averaged over 26 ppg on 58% ts in just 28 mpg in last year's playoffs despite having much worse floor spacing from his teammates. They also made a lot of unforced turnovers and missed wide open 3's. They played awful and would have lost to just about any team in the playoffs today except maybe Detroit. And Boston probably played the best they've played all year. Philly and Toronto lost game 1 against much worse teams in the first round. Basketball happened today. The Bucks threw away their margin of error but they did not do anything they're not perfectly capable of correcting. There is not a single human being on this board that it'd take more nerve to call someone else out for saying "I told you so." It's just laughable. Second, never said the sky was falling. In fact, reading comprehension is HUGE here. I said I believe the Bucks would still win the series. I said the Celts were a touch matchup and you went on and posted how many times about how terrible Brown, Tatum and Rozier were, how Horford has lost a step. And even now you're bringing up regular season losses to the Suns. It's as if you're really unable to differentiate regular season basketball and playoff basketball. I'll enlighten you. Benches get shorter, matchup's matter more. So you want to run your mouth when I say I think it's going to be a touch matchup and then they go and get blown out in game 1, yeah lukey, I don't mind saying I told you so one bit.

You have a pretty serious discrepancy between what you know as fact and what you state as such. Here's a fact. Gary wasn't even listed in our poll for #12. Complete afterthought. Not a single soul would say that's because he was going top 3 or 5. Murray, Bosa, Allen, and Williams were clear top 5 predicts. Prior to Gary being picked: 0 times you seen his name in the thread. Peavey you participated in the poll. Never mentioned Gary being a top 12 choice nor question why he wasn't an option to vote for. Just keep sitting there telling yourself Gary was worth the pick at 12. I'll maintain my questioning of his selection as a fact he won't live up to a #12 selection. Oh man...I know people don't like the use of LOL on these boards, but his one literally had me laughing out loud. So because someone omitted him from a poll before the draft that means what? I mean..you're right, that IS a "fact." I just don't think it's a "fact" that has anything to do with anything. I'm just curious, you can shut me up real easily. How many hours did you spend scouting Gary or Savage? I'd assume to have this strong of an opinion, it must be at least double digits. Oh, and what did the Michigan coaches have to say to you? Did you interview him in Indy? Where does your logic lie other than the fact he was omitted from a poll on an off-topic sub-section of a Brewers fan board? Not the part in bold, I understood the first time you used the word fact. You stated a fact. A pointless fact, but a "fact" nonetheless. If I'm to read this literally, it SEEMS like you're already declaring he won't live up to his status as a top 12 pick. So..like I said, just fill in your credentials and let me know how much work you put in before the draft aside from googling "mock drafts."

I’ll say it again. There are some people who are actively hunting reasons to not like Gary. Why? I wish I knew. Sometimes I think even they don’t know. But it will be these same people who take every opportunity to point out every little Gary flaw or missed assignment from here until eternity. It’ll be these folks who rush to label him a bust. It’s inevitable and maddening and quite frankly an intellectually dishonest and incompetent way to live life lol. But of course it’s just a football discussion, so live on detractors! I can acknowledge Gary is no sure thing but I saw a scouting service that compared him to Richard Seymour today. Sign me up for a chance at that! It's all stupid. Every draft day analysis. I have opinions, but I know how ignorant those opinions are. We pick a guy, I go and look at what other sites say about him. Nobody has any real idea what the hell they're talking about, so I don't get the complaining either. Why would you not give these guys the benefit of the doubt, especially when there's plenty of reason to do so? My opinions are more position based. Not a fan of picking a Center at #44. Then you see he has 34 inch arms and plays all over. So if he turns into a Braden Smith type draft pick, great. But I don't get how you can be upset about a pass rusher who has measurables on par with Clowney at 12. After QB, what is more important than having good pass rushers? We got a guy who in most years likely would have been drafted much higher.

I think the major issue here is that a large portion of the fan base seems to assume that they know where Gary was valued by the general consensus, which is likely unfair or inaccurate. Mock drafts are often wrong. Reading 20 mock drafts online doesn't make their collective views a 'consensus'. Well right but there are scouts all over the place making anonymous comments (see McGinn's draft preview for one) also you can pretty much tell who isn't going to draft certain guys based on need. It's all the more reason to just gather a ton of picks and let the chips fall where they may. There is so much luck, randomness, and bias involved that you may as well throw a ton of darts at the board and hope one hits bullseye instead of throwing one dart. And for people that might be poo pooing 4th round picks: "In recent years, the Packers have found standouts such as offensive linemen David Bakhtiari, T.J. Lang, Josh Sitton and defensive lineman Mike Daniels in the fourth round." fin. You're going back a over a decade now. Yeah, they've found some good players. They also got Clay Matthews the last time they traded up, and it's pretty much been confirmed that Savage wasn't going to be there when the Packers picked. Other 4th round picks are J'mon Moore(who I think is a bust already), Vince Biegal(1st pick of the 4th), Carl Bradford, Jerron McMillian(picked in back to back picks with Daniels)...and so on. It is a crap shoot, but how many stories have we heard from GM's when they're done talking about the players they wished they'd have just pulled the trigger on? I believe Wolf didn't pull the trigger on Urlacher OR Ray Lewis. I'm more confident in the Urlacher story as I've heard it more, but the point is if you think a guy's a star, you've got to make sure you get him. Yeah, 4th round fliers can turn into really good players. There are more than just those you mentioned. I think Blake Martinez was a 4th and there are other busts.

I think realistically everyone thinks that. I know the teams are different, but didn't the home team win every game last year in this series? I might be thinking about the Toronto series, but I thought it was last year.

Sure looks like they have. Seriously? Nobody is that good, not even the best defensive teams of all time and certainly not this Boston team. The Bucks had plenty of open looks. They also didn't move the ball crisply and multiple guys forgot how to dribble. Can't even count the number of times they randomly fumbled it for no reason. Then they regressed to some hero-ball drive-into-traffic crap because they couldn't shoot to save their lives. Boston was good but this was all about the Bucks not getting out of their own way. They looked like they hadn't played a serious, meaningful game in about a month. Wow....it was ALL about the Bucks not getting out of their own way? This game would have been over in the first half if they hadn't hit so many difficult 3's(along with some other tough shots like the plays I mentioned). And are you really going with the argument that the Bucks played poorly because they didn't play meaningful games late in the season? Yet you just flat out dismiss all the Celtics young players or the fact that their first round series was as easier as ours with the Pacers best player out for that series. Both teams came in fresh, both teams had reason to be rusty. One team had a MUCH better game plan. I'd heard the reason why this shouldn't be that tough of a series was because the Bucks had great talent AND a great coach and how Boston wasn't on our level. They look pretty securely on our level and people seem to forget they have a pretty good coach as well. The first half wasn't much different from the 2nd half other than one run in which they hit a lot of contested 3's. The Bucks didn't have a game plan for when Lopez was on the field, they didn't have an answer for the Celts D on Giannis, and JUST maybe they didn't forget to dribble so much as they played a very long, athletic team that trapped when they ran out of room in the corner or in the paint and got a lot of deflections when the Bucks players tried to step through said double teams to pass the ball. It looked like what Kidd TRIED and failed to do defensively. Attacking and trapping. Though they were obviously more selective. Whatever. Game 1 is over. The Bucks were never going to run through the playoffs like the Jordan, Rodman, Pippen Bulls. I still think we win the series and there's a better than even chance the East winner beats the Houston/GS winner in the West.

Guessing they had them not blown up and did it with one of those little machines you get at the store when they found out. They were probably continuing their party/celebration afterwards...so it makes sense I guess. He wasn't a lock to be there that late. He very easily could have been gone by the time the Packers picked, so I would guess you're right. The Packers probably called a few picks earlier and then he started blowing them up. If someone else picks him...well, they're not that hard to pop.

You have a pretty serious discrepancy between what you know as fact and what you state as such. The Packers had Gary as their #3 guy on the board. See, I'll just state it as fact, then argue based on that premise. Also, they don't really need a guy like Wilkins. You could always use him, but if he had an equal grade on your board as Gary, Gary was a bigger need. Burns is a soft, off ball LB'er in my opinion, so I'll state as a fact that he wasn't rated near Gary. Then I'll just state as a fact(again, without actually knowing) that the Packers took the guy with the enlarged heart who fell to 26 off their draft board like many other teams as they have a very conservative medical staff. So now the "facts" that I just stated leave you with Gary, their 3rd rated prospect still there at 12 with only one other player(the next guy drafted) with a equal grade, and that guy plays the same position that Kenny Clark does. I don't actually know if any of this is true, but it seems like facts don't seem all that important. Sarcasm aside, why is it that Ferrell could not have been in their top 12? Because Mel Kiper says so? He's probably a top 6-9 pick in most drafts, this just happened to be loaded at edge rusher.

Not me. Well, you're more confident than me. I think this team is going to have a real hard time winning 4 out of the follow 5 games after losing two at home...IF they were to lose game 2.

Pretty sure I said it's LIKELY over if they lose a game 2. LIKELY. In that it's UNLIKELY that if they were to go down 0-2 losing both games at home I think it's UNLIKELY that they would come back and win. I also said that I still think they'll win the series. But when people are saying it wasn't really Boston's D that shut us down or trying to downplay it, I'm not allowed to disagree? Also, you didn't seem to get quite as upset when I said I thought this was going to be a tough series and you threw out ridiculous reasons for why I might think that like suggesting it was because Boston's historical standing as an NBA franchise instead of their current talent. So...it doesn't seem like you get it. If you believe that the series isn't "likely" over if they lose game 2, I think don't get it.

Sure looks like they have. Unless you're of the opinion the young, long athletes who are contesting every shot really aren't good and you need to stick to that narrative. Boston's defense was absolutely suffocating tonight. The Bucks came back in the 2nd by making some REALLY tough shots that they were never going to sustain(Middleton's 3 point play, Hill's 35 footer).... Dude. We get it. Who's we?

So is Kirby gonna be ready for a full season team any time soon? He pitched last year, so what happened?

Sure looks like they have. Unless you're of the opinion the young, long athletes who are contesting every shot really aren't good and you need to stick to that narrative. Boston's defense was absolutely suffocating tonight. The Bucks came back in the 2nd by making some REALLY tough shots that they were never going to sustain(Middleton's 3 point play, Hill's 35 footer)....

Do I really need to precede every statement of mine with "I think", or was the intent and meaning of my post understood? I think pretty much everyone would agree that if the Bucks lose the first two at HOME the series is likely over.

It's not silly, it's a fact. The Celts have taken HCA now. Nobody said the Bucks can't take it back, but they have it now.