OnTheBlack

Ok, now do you start to think about seeing what the Giants may want for that 6th pick? IF you believe that Allen is an ELITE pass rusher, you have to. I don't know that they believe that, but this guy can run down the field with TE's and he put up huge numbers in the SEC against elite teams without other defensiv eplayers to take the focus off him. I know it won't happen, but I'm drooling over the chance we get our Mack, Von type player in Allen.

Lindstrom would make for a dominant player, but with Madison and more importantly the signing of Turner, it'd be hard to justify a guard that high when their line looks pretty set. Maybe a Tackle who can play guard. Don't get me wrong, when you pick like the Cowboys did for a few years there with Frederick(Who I thought was a terrible pick in the 1st after watching him) and Zach Martin, it sure as hell helps out your running and as a result the passing game. I'd still rather see skill players for Rodgers. But already, the guy I was hoping we'd see move up to grab and grab, Josh Allen...he MAY start looking more realistic.

This is an awesome pick for the Packers. Keep pushing some of those studs down the board...maybe 4 QB's go off the board(about a 5 pct chance that happens) and a top 5-6 talent falls to us. Can't believe they passed on Allen for this guy. I mean, he's a stud, but I think the Raiders could have gotten him with their 2nd 1st round pick.

Didn't he just say it's fun to speculate?

Wait to see who is available before you make a decision please.

The thing is though, why do you expect it will take a miracle? The talent gap isn't big enough for there to need to be a miracle and you COULD argue the Celts have the better coach. I don't believe that's the case, but... The Bucks have the best player in the draft and a great supporting cast. The Celts though have a elite player who's been there and performed in the biggest spots and a lot of different guys who can contribute. I'd be shocked if this series went to anyone in 5 games. I'd be shocked if this series doesn't go at LEAST 6 and I wouldn't be surprised who wins it.

I dig AP Bio too, but I think it will always be a perpetual bubble show even if it survives this season. I loved the first episode last Thursday. Tonight’s episode was so-so. AP Bio brings me back to one of my all time favorite shows, It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia. I even liked the Mick. I haven't seen Mack in anything, but Charle, Dee and Dennis have basically moved on to different shows with the same characters and I've found them all hilarious...even though the last few years of the show really tapered off(a point I think the actors were actually making several times when one of them would ask, "haven't we done this before). But watching Glenn Howerton in AP Bio is awesome. As for It's always Sunny, I know Charlie Day said he plans on doing 15 seasons to break a record...but I haven't really paid attention. I kinda thought the series finale of season 12 was a good ending. Dennis trying to have one of those Sitcom ending moments and "the gang" badgering him....yelling at him, arguing until he just huffs and finally walks out.

We had a three strikes rule with regard to MASH. Strike 1 - Hunnicutt (Mike Farrell) instead of Trapper John (Wayne Rogers). Hunnicutt was just a lot more boring than Trapper. Strike 2 - Col. Potter (Harry Morgan) instead of Col. Blake (McLean Stevenson). Stevenson was a very funny comedian, and he played off the other actors really, really well. Morgan was fine as Potter, and sort of acted as a moral compass at times. But Stevenson contributed to the anarchy of the early shows. Strike 3 - Winchester (David Ogden Stiers) instead of Frank Burns (Larry Linville). Frank was just a brilliant character - it was hard to top that. Each of these three replacements were fine. The actors were good and so forth. But each made things a little more staid and a little more conventional. Also, when Wayne Rogers left, it made Alan Alda the sole star. And Alda definitely pushed the show into his own direction over time. In all of these cases, I think part of things simply reflected on the tone and writing of the show. As the show aged, the show lost its edge. There were often moments of brilliance, but they were fewer and further in between. How about the series finale? I'd never seen it as it was before my time by a little bit. So I only recently(a year or two) actually saw that scene when the guy is yelling at the women to shut the chicken, which...spoiler alert, is actually a baby and a result of Alan Alda's PTSD. Jesus...what a grisly way to end a historically great sitcom!

It's also like a lot of TV shows, exponentially better to binge watch than to watch an episode at a time. I remember trying to get into it when it was on AMC and I couldn't. Then it went to Netflix and got into it.

I just don’t see how you could do this for more than 2 spots in the rotation. You still need 3 of the spots to be guys that can be more traditional and go 5-6 innings more often than not. Outside of September you can’t do this I don’t think. Once a guy goes 2-4 innings he’s down for 2 days at least and you’re talking using more than 1 guy a game doing this and multiple spots in the rotation doing it? I just don’t think it adds up. I love the creativity but again outside of doing it for 1 or 2 spots in the rotation I don’t see it. I just am not a fan of seeing all three young arms back in the pen this year, especially if you're saying sooner rather than later. We're never going to develop these elite pitchers if we don't give them a chance. I see no reason why Corbin Burnes can't be an effective sub 4.00 starting pitcher? Or Woodruff....or even Peralta if he can fine tune his breaking ball and develop that change. He is just 22 years old.

Of course but they're extremely rare and cost a ton. It doesn't stop you find trying to develop one but at the same time you don't throw your arms up in the air and say we just can't compete because we don't have a horse who can go 7+ every time out. I'd look at what the Yankees have been doing lately. They seem like they've gone with talented starters who don't go deep into games, but they've built an dominant pen. I don't want to see the Brewers spend Chapman type money and I think it's ridiculous, but they look for 5 innings from their starters and then turn it over to a pen that's just ridiculously deep. Before Knebel, JJ and Wahl went down, I really wanted to see the Brewers go after Ottavino or Miller. Miller I thought would bounce back..and we'll see if that's true and Ottavino, I've just been a fan of his since I watched him pitch vs team USA in the WBC for Italy. He was a starter, but he had nasty stuff and then last year he put it together. I'd hoped they'd try to add another arm to that pen and then go with the young guys in the rotation. My idea went out the window a bit with the injuries, but I think the three young guys may have benefited from only having to try to get through 5 and then have Wahl, Claudio, Ottavino, Knebel, Jeffress, Hader and then Barnes, Guerra, or whomever. But....we're .500. When we were 6 games over 8 games ago, I was saying I'd have been happy going .500 through April given the schedule we've faced. I still think things will come together. Nobody was expecting Burnes, Woodruff, Soria to be part of a dominant pen in Sept this time last year. Maybe Brown, Rasmussen, and Sanchez will step up and with the addition of a trade or signing, Stearns will be able to sort things out.

Washington is the type of team I'd love to trade with. Try and steal a 1st from them next year. Hell, maybe you even try and get their 2021 1st when Trevor Lawrence is going to be on of the most coveted draft prospects of all time. One of those trades with a team that could easily fall apart and leave the Packers with a top pick in a draft class with a clear cut, elite #1 QB prospect. Tula or Lawrence. Again, I'm making this way more convoluted than it needs to be and it's totally unrealistic.

QB runs have benefited many teams sitting where the Packers are right now. You have to assume that Haskins is a top 10 pick, the Giants are said to be big fans of Lock, so the trade proposal listed above makes sense. I guess if the pass rushers are mostly gone, at least the ones who you think are difference makers, I'd rather see them move down than take Hockenson at 12 or even Jonah Williams. All this would be that much better if we could take a couple of those picks, move back up into the 1st and nab Jeremy Simmons. Get that 5th year from him and get a steal who fell because of an ACL. Using that scenario, 17th-Hockenson, 30th-Best Pass Rusher available, and then add Jeremy Simmons into the mix wherever they end up in the 1st. This is starting to get a little too confusing though. I'd just like to see them come away with a guy who can be a big time difference maker as a pass rusher with their top pick and I hope one of Oliver falls to us, a couple immediate impact threats for Arod...and I go back and forth on Hockenson, how good he is. Some are saying he's the safest pick in the draft and could end up being an elite TE who can block and be a Kelce like threat in the passing game, and then hopefully a play maker in the secondary.

You realize that Gary is 5'4, 280 and ran a 4.58 40, right? And that he's listed as an edge. And Oliver is a Donald-esque talent who ran a 4.7 40. And nowhere in this discussion has anyone suggested that we move up to 3-5 to pick up Oliver. I also haven't seen him mocked that high since last off-season. And Gary certainly hasn't. I think you're confusing Oliver for Williams. He's universally regarded as a top 2-5 pick. But the most ridiculous part of this is that you just assume that these linemen will "get you 26 tackles and 1.5 sacks." Kenny Clark got you 6 sacks and 55 tackles last year playing the nose(though I can't think of a worse way to judge a player than by tackles. Even sacks are overrated as pressures and QB hits are far more telling). If you get a guy like Oliver or Gary, you're looking at a double digit sack guy who gets you 50-60 QB pressures a year and can play the run. The only question with Gary is how consistent he can be, otherwise he'd be right up there with Allen and Bosa(the later of which would play the same position as Gary or Oliver most likely in GB). There's a reason Howard Green was on the street when the Packers signed him. As I said, the single most effective way to disrupt an offense is to get a pass rush up the middle. It's just REALLY rare you find players who can do that. If a guy like Oliver falls to us at 12, I doubt we pass on him. But if you go with a fat, slow, immobile 5 or 9 technique, we'd be in trouble. We also had guys like Clay Matthews, BJ Raji at his best(not a 26 tackle, 1.5 sack season from him), Collins and Woodson. You can cover up a guy like Howard. You can't win with 3 of them along your line. I get it's cliche, but it's cliche for a reason. Games are won and lost on on the OL and DL. Throw out Kenny Clark, a hopefully rejuvenated Mike Daniels and a guy like Ed Oliver and that's gonna make a far biggest impact on your defense than an off-ball LB'er.

The ONLY thing I'd disagree with here is that there's no QB worthy of going in the top 16, but there isn't one that is good enough for US to draft in the top 16. Rodgers is all in and wants to play into his 40's. He's not jerking us around like Favre was. I wouldn't hate to see them take Lock or Jones at 30. You get him for 5 years pretty cheap then and hopefully he develops into a good backup. But since Rodgers, QB's don't fall down draft boards the same, so I think it's more likely that 4 will be gone in the top half than one of those two drops to us. DJ Metcalf-He's a 3rd round pick who has tweeted his way into the 1st round discussion. He wasn't the best WR'er on his own team. He's not like Calvin or other WR'ers who were physically dominant AND performed in college. The biggest knock him is his agility in and out of cuts. How does that mesh with Rodgers and what he wants in a WR'er? We have talented big WR'ers with elite speed and good YAC ability. We need a crisp, quick, agile route runner. A Greg Jennings type talent is what we've been missing for a while. So agree 100 pct there. I love your top 3. The ONLY thing I'd do is make that 3rd pick one of the big CB's. Williams has been falling down boards. If he fell to 44, you'd have to take him. Maybe if King wasn't such a willing tackler in the run game, he'd get through a few games without a shoulder injury. But a pass rusher, an big time threat in the passing game and then another long, physical-press corner would be the dream draft for me. As an FSU fan, I don't like Burns. He's like a Anthony Barr type talent, but he seems immature and I'm not sure he's tough enough to be an impact player in the NFL. With regard to the OL in the 1st, Jonah Williams is a guy who's getting knocked now because of short arms. Not sure how much I care about that. Plenty of guys have succeeded with shorter than ideal arms at tackle. He held up for 4 years in the SEC playing elite competition game in and game out. But if the Packers view him as a future guard and not a future RT, I really hope they pass on him. If they think he can take over for Bulaga, and Oliver and the other elite defensive talents are gone, go for it. You look at what Frank Clark got after one year of big production(106, ~65 guaranteed) or even what the Packers did with Za'Darius Smith, 4/64 or Preston 4/52 and it's obvious how important it is to get these types of impact pass rushers, and in this draft, in the first round, they are abundant.

This! Which is why I'll be livid if it's interior defensive lineman like Oliver, Q. Williams, If they have a chance to take one of those two and pass, I'll be equally livid. They're impact players on the line. They almost certainly won't have the chance, though. I didn't even notice that he had Q. Williams listed there. I have him in that Bosa/Allen group, so I think barring them selling out to trade up, he's going well before we pick. But I agree 100 pct, if there's a Laramey Tunsil type situation with him...which would still almost certainly not drop him out of the top 10, but if there were, I'd be thrilled. I pressure coming up the middle is more difficult for an offense to deal with than outside pass rush pressure. It's just exceedingly rare to find a guy who can get pressure up the middle. What about taking Simmons at 30? A guy who would have been a top 10 pick who fell because of an injury that just about everyone comes back from, and a guy who could come in at the end of this year and make an impact. Obviously it's not ideal to take a guy you know is going to miss a big chunk of the season, but that type of talent dropping to 30? That's the type of risk/reward that can pay massive dividends.

This! Which is why I'll be livid if it's interior defensive lineman like Oliver, Q. Williams, Rashan Gary, Christian Wilkins, etc. Prob going to cost a ton, but I'd prefer they get a dynamic defender like Devin White. Absent that, just take the best OL available at #12 and hopefully Fant is there at 30. You'd be "livid" if they picked arguably the two most physically talented players in this draft(Oliver, Gary)? The best way to screw up a draft is to go into a draft that's loaded with talent at a particular area and pass on the BPA to go for the best player at a perceived area of need. Gary is a guy who reminds me of a Edge version of Albert Haynesworth. Someone who could dominate, but doesn't because of effort. But I haven't spent the time the Packers have on scouting him. If they believe guys like Kenny Clark, Daniels, Lowry and company can get him to work, he could be a stud. Oliver could be a Randle/Donald type talent. He's not a DT, he's a ideal 5 technique who I could see racking up double digit sacks and doing so early on. I personally would be so much more against them taking an off-ball LB'er at 12. I just don't think they're worth it.

Barry isn't that interested in the non-revenue sports. It takes a lot for him to get more aggressive with regard to those sports. I believe Barry once stated a list of sports which would be a focus of emphasis. I believe men's football, basketball, hockey and CC. Women's volleyball, basketball, hockey and CC. Spent money to increase the seating capacity for volleyball. OTOH, yes not very aggressive in dealing with the ongoing women's basketball coaching situation over the years. He did go out and spend money and aggressively pursue an elite coach for the Wrestling program. It's a niche sport without a doubt, but it should be a profitable one in the Big 10. Penn State went out and paid a head coach a million per and they've become a program that sells out every meet and has become a revenue producing program.

This one scares me. I guess at this point, you're not going to have any easy series, but Boston is so deep and so talented that I don't love this matchup. They've got a bunch of guys to throw at Giannis that can make life difficult enough that I think this is going to be a touch matchup. I do think having Smart likely out is going to be big in this series. He doesn't put up great numbers, but he's one of the few non-bigs who can really change a game and energize his team with his defense. It'd be nice to get Brogdon back this series. And if we win this one, we've got the 2nd best player in the East(IMO) waiting for us with a team that's filled with All-NBA defensive players or players on the verge of becoming just that(Siakam is on the verge of becoming a star). There feels like a LOT of pressure on the Bucks because of Giannis in his breakout MVP year(though every year he seems to breakout).

What information do we have that suggests Kimbrel is going to be had for 9-12 million? Or that he'd even be cheaper than Kuechel? That's at best speculation that runs contrary to everything I've heard about the two thus far.

Nelson was so close to becoming one before that ill fated slide back to 1st. Then it was maybe putting a little too much hope in a couple of young guys who had out performed expectations. Right now, the guy in the title looks like the next best hope to become a legitimate ace and I'd place the odds at about 10 pct there.

I'm all for throwing him out there in a relief role this year. I don't agree just because he had a 1st TJ that didn't work and subsequently needed another that he has this limited # of bullets. But I don't see anyone discounting him from helping our pen out this year.

Why would we pigeon hole a pitcher like Rasmussen into the role of a reliever right now? You talk about aces, he's actually got the stuff to be an ace. And if they're ramping his pitch count up(I'm pretty encouraged by 50 pitches right now) hesitant the guy who ACTUALLY could be an ace. I think you're being really overly optimistic if you believe we'll have 3 TOR arms in this staff this year. It's been a loooong time since the Brewers have had that. I'm still pretty bullish on Burnes, Peralta was never likely going to be an ace(though I think he's better than he's shown thus far) and Woodruff could be a really solid #3 IMO. Burnes is the guy with the highest ceiling and that's probably not that of an ace. Though I'd be glad to be wrong. Nelson this year, Burnes and woodruff year or two, not sure on peralta. Rasmussen’s had 2 tjs and think they going to keep his pitches at or close to 50 pitches the whole year like they did with Taylor Williams a couple years ago. My knebel comparison was for this year. He’s not young, and will probably be in AA soon, if he’s continues to dominate at AA, why not call him up IF he’s needed. I think it's unrealistic to expect us to have 3 or 4 pitchers currently on the 40 man roster becoming aces in the near future. I'll just leave it at that.

Thank you. I'm not going to bother him by reaching out. I'd just figured with all the people on here who listen to all the games, maybe someone knew what he was dealing with exactly, if it was a serious elbow injury or a minor issue. Hard thrower who has had some success in AA. Not a jump he could help this year.

I just REALLY hope it's not Metcalf. I may be wrong on him, but he doesn't seem like he's on the same level as past physical freaks like D Thomas and Magatron from Ga Tech. He's got the size/speed combo, but was the 2nd best on his own team. I'm starting to come around to Hockenson a bit though. I feel like 12 is a bit high to draft an off ball LB'er or a TE, but if he's a threat for Arod and a asset in the running game....hard to not like it....assuming Oliver and the other elite pass rushers are gone.