BillScottCanRake

So you think Love is going to be content with needing an injury to provide an opening for meaningful playing time for the duration of his rookie contract. Real question? Is Love going to be any more or less content than any other play whose playing time is limited because of his place on the depth chart? I'd be upset if he IS content. I understand quarterback is unique because only one guy plays, but I can't imagine someone like Josh Jackson or Equanimeous St. Brown or Dexter Williams are content not playing as much as they do. These guys are all competitors, and they all want to play and show what they have. Egos and money are really big in the NFL, so rosters are full of guys who don't feel like they are getting a shot or enough playing time. And for a lot of guys, that is what gets them to do stuff they don't always want to do. If Love is good enough, he's gonna play, if not in Green Bay than somewhere else. If 2023 rolls around and Rodgers is still MVP and the Packers have won 2 Super Bowls, if has proven he can play, the Packers shouldn't have any trouble moving Love and he shouldn't have any trouble winning a job in some other city. And if 2022 or 2023 Rodgers isn't a Packer, or the Packers think Love is special, he is going to get his shot.

Which 1st round QB was never afforded the opportunity to be the starting QB at any point during the full length of their rookie contract as Love would be facing if the Packers grant Rodgers his wish of a re-worked contract with guaranteed money into his 40's? I'll wait. Rich Campbell was drafted number 6 overall in 1981 and made 0 starts in 7 career games. Campbell was 31-68 for 386 yards, 3 touchdowns and 9 interceptions for a rating of 38.8. Which is slightly less than the rating someone would have going 0-1 so long as that one pass wasn't intercepted. Campbells only significant game action came in 1981 when both Lynn Dickey and David Whitehurst were injured, and again in 1984 when Dickey and Randy Wright were injured. In his four years in Green Bay Campbell was never anything other than the third quarterback. His best game as a Packer was against the Bears in 1984, when he went 9-19 for 125 yards, 2 TD and 2 INT in a 20-14 win, including a 43 yarder to Phil Epps with less than a minute left in the game. EDIT: By the way, the next two guys to go in that draft were Hugh Green and Ronnie Lott. Of the top 8 picks that year, Campbell was the only one who didn't make a Pro-Bowl or become a HOFer. Ouch.

sLove wouldn't be as publicly vocal about it since he doesn't have the stature but the demand no doubt would be made by his agent. He and Rodgers share the same agent so the agent would be working the extension angle and then immediately follow with the trade Jordan angle. And the Packers would accommodate. There would be no point keeping around a QB who if not traded nor allowed an opportunity to play would vow not to sign with them after his contract expires. I don't think a first rounder has ever been blocked from playing throughout the duration of their entire rookie contract. I honestly think over time there would be outcry from the player's union and other advocates pressuring the Packers to find a trade partner who will afford Love the chance to play. You may not give two craps about Jordan Love but it would be not only unfair but an incredible waste of resources for the Packers to use a 1st round pick on a player who never sees the field for them and then departs in free agency. If the reports today about the Packers offering Rodgers a massive extension are true, then they're essentially admitting their mistake in drafting Love. And then the next step is logically to trade Love and salvage something for the wasted investment. Even if the Packers extend/restructure Rodgers with the intent he play the duration of Love's rookie deal, that doesn't mean a decision needs to be made on Love at the same time. Rodgers is at an age where his future is uncertain; if he weren't, this wouldn't even be an issue. Rodgers and the Packers may intend for him to play for 4 more years, but an injury or rapid decline in abilities could change things sooner rather than later, and Love could still be the guy in 2023 or 2024 in spite of the contract Rodgers signed. If Love ends up being the guy, for whatever reason, in 2023, he will have been a backup just as long as Rodgers was to Favre. Like Rodgers rookie contact, Love's salary isn't prohibitive, so they wouldn't have to move on from him for salary cap reasons. After 2023, if Rodgers is still a 40TD/year guy and the Packers are still highly competitive, maybe you look to trade Love and a consider drafting another quarterback. But that decision doesn't need to be made now.

Here is the list of quarterbacks who have started a game for Green Bay since I was born in 1973. Jerry Tagge Scott Hunter Jim Del Gaizo John Hadl Jack Concannon Don Milan Lynn Dickey Carlos Brown Randy Johnson David Whitehurst Randy Wright Jim Zorn Don Majkowski Alan Risher Anthony Dilweg Blair Kiel Mike Tomczak Brett Favre Aaron Rodgers Matt Flynn Scott Tolzien Seneca Wallace Brett Hundley I don't really have any football memories until I was 5, so Lynn Dickey and David Whitehurst are the first two guys I remember from this list. A list doesn't include some guys worthy of mention but never started a game, like Rich Campbell, Chuck Fusina, Vince Ferragamo, Ty Detmer, Mark Brunell, TJ Rubley, Aaron Brooks, etc. There are some guys in this list who were awful, guys in this list who were good other places but not so good in Green Bay, guys who started in Green Bay and flourished elsewhere, and a couple of guys who have been among the best ever at their position. The one thing all of those guys have in common is they all were preceded by someone and have been or will be succeeded by someone. Aaron Rodgers is not the teams first or last quarterback; his days are finite, and when they are done, I will move on the rooting for the next guy. I won't forget about them when they are gone, but time moves on for everyone, and whether it is Jordan Love or someone else, I will be rooting for that guy to play well and help the Packers win games. That is the way I "fan", and for me it is pretty simple.

CheeseheadTV has an interesting article on the Rodgers situation here. I think it is pretty balanced and makes a good case for neither side being in the right and neither side being in the wrong.

I had Pfizer #1 on Tuesday and my second is schedule for May 18. There was much less injection pain with #1 than I had with a tetanus booster a few weeks ago, and I had a bit of fatigue, but today I feel normal. My wife had her two rounds of Pfizer a few weeks ago. Her first day after shot 2 was good, but days 2 and 3 were harder on her. She was able to plow through and not miss work, but her struggles were noticeable.

I'm not even sure what I want to discuss exactly but I thought this might be a good resource for advice on navigating youth sports. I have three sons, the oldest is turning 8 this year. He's been playing multiple sports for 3 years or so. Soccer, baseball, golf, basketball. I've noticed things starting to pickup now with competitiveness. Prior I would say it was more about getting them interested and out playing. I also have my middle son, who just turned 5, starting up with baseball and probably soccer and basketball this year. I'm trying to walk the fine line of resisting the ultra competitiveness at such a young age and giving him the ability to play and get better at the sports he likes. He loves playing everything, and will be out side everyday playing one of the sports he likes (football too). Of the parents who went through this in more recent memory, what would your suggestions be? Any advice at all about youth sports would be great! The best advice I can give is try to make the best decision you can for your family. Listen to your kids while keeping in mind they are kids and you may need to pull rank because you know better. And treat each of your children individually and help them on their own path. If the time comes to take next steps, try to seek out advice from those in your area who have made a similar journey. And don't be afraid to reverse course at anytime if that is the right thing for your child and family. My daughter took up hockey at the age of 9. In her age 10 season, she played on a local association travel team, not because she was super competitive or wanted to make hockey her focus, but because it was the only option for her age group. Travel was usually less than 60 miles with occasional regional tournaments sprinkled in a couple of times a year plus the WAHA State Tournament. Sometime after her age 10 season, she started to get a bit more serious about hockey. Taking things more seriously initially meant going to goalie camps and some what I'd classify as "fun" summer leagues which were not ultra competitive. Attending one or two camps per year and playing an extra 20 games over the summer wasn't strenuous, it didn't prevent her from playing other sports or hanging with her friends or affect her grades. Her freshmen year of high school she tried out for and made the U14 Madison Capitols AAA team and the next year got a scholarship to attend a prep school. It wasn't until the summer prior to her freshmen year summer hockey was ultra competitive, and even then the main reason she played at that level was for the 10 days in Sweden. All throughout her journey we tried to be consistent; hockey is only a part of your life and not your life. Keep your grades up, do what is expected of you at home, keep doing stuff with your friends, etc, and we can take this next step if that is what you want and we can handle it. Up until the time she had to give up hockey as a junior due to concussions, we never had to worry about any of those things. Even when hockey was getting extra attention, our daughter never stopped playing other sports. She loved softball and lacrosse, and I think playing the sports she did made her better at each of them. My daughter's journey led her from learning to skate all they way to playing for and against nationally ranked hockey teams. Event tho I have a million hockey memories, easily the best thing she got from hockey is her husband. But throughout the journey, Jess was always Jess and hockey never defined who she was. While she had plenty of opportunities, they mostly just kinda came along and we took advantage of them. My sons participation was completely different. His interest in playing sports and doing so ebbed and flowed and he spent a few years not playing any sport at all because he wasn't all that interested in it. In middle school he played a lot of baseball, but that was all. In HS he discovered he loved and was good at track, but he also played football for two years, ran cross country two more, and even wrestled one year. He took track seriously, but he didn't show much interest in doing things outside of normal practices and such. And to be honest I think the only reason he even went to some running camps might have been because a girl he knew was going to the same camp. That doesn't change the fact I have just as many memories of his time in sports as my daughter. He pulled off the only unassisted triple play I have seen live. When I went to my first cross country meet I drove 2 hours to watch him run past me for total of about 5 seconds. And his conference meet 4x400 races as a junior was the talk of awards night his junior year. I still remember getting a text from him on his bus ride home after sectionals that his 4x800 team qualified for state as a senior. His journey was different but no less memorable. Which brings me to my last piece of advice, which is to try as best you can to just let things happen. Your kids journey will be totally different from each other and from my daughter and son, but if it happens naturally it will doubtless be one that you'll talk about for years after because it was fun. And enjoy it like crazy, because it will be over sooner than you think.

I am going to preface this by saying I am neither a cap expert nor do I play one on TV, but... Per spotrac, it appears as though trading or waiving Love this year would cause 9+ million of dead money to be counted against this years cap. That alone would seem to make this trade virtually impossible before even considering some of the other comments in this thread.

You should be able to. Their site now requires one HD box when signing up, but I think you can call and go around that. However, their app is somewhat limited to what you can get it on. Right now it is only available on Samsung Smart TVs from the last few years. You would have to go buy Apple TVs or something to get it streamed on something else. Not sure how DVR works in that scenario. I have seen the app before and while a bit wonky compared to other streaming services it isn't overly bad. We had the Spectrum App earlier this year without a box when we were between using Hulu Live and Youtube TV. We had it installed on our Roku. We ended up cancelling because we had some weird issues with Accessibility and Language Services which couldn't be corrected. We had several shows which had voiceovers describing the action, and some shows were only available in Spanish. We made sure accessibility and language options were set appropriately, and Charter support worked hard, but they couldn't solve any of the issues. We didn't really have it long enough to know if the limited channel lineup affected us.

I don't remember my first Bucks game but I remember my last one. It was during the heady May Day Bucks. https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199304080MIL.html Brian Shaw made 10 threes and Brad Lohaus scored 20 for the Bucks.

In the 11 seasons between 2010 and 2020, a conferences number 1 seed made the Super Bowl 12 times out of 22 chances, about 55% of the time. A number 1 seed won the Super Bowl in five of those games, or about 46% of the time. In 6 games that involving disparate seeds, the lower seed is 5-1. In three games where a 1 seed played a 2-6 seed, the lower seeded team is 2-1. About the only thing I can make of this chaos is: In most seasons, being a 1 seed means it is 50/50 you will make the Super Bowl. If you make the Super Bowl as a 1 seed, it is less than 50/50 you will win the Super Bowl. 4-6 seeds have won more Super Bowls (4) than 2 seeds (2) Looking at the 10 best point differential seasons since 1970 ( ), 8 made the Super Bowl, but only 5 won the Super Bowl, with Super Bowl XIX being between 6 and 10 on that list. The only thing I can make of this is getting to the Super Bowl is really hard, and winning it is even harder. Some really good teams- five of the best ever by one metric- fail to win a Super Bowl. Every team has holes and has to deal with things outside of their control which make them vulnerable in a lose and your out playoff system. This huge variability makes it is a fine balance between "make the playoffs and anything can happen" and "go all in, screw the future".

Since age vs first contract was brought up, here is a a list... make of it what you will. Aaron Rodgers will be 38 in December. Here is a list of all the quarterbacks to lead their team to the Super Bowl at age 38 or older. John Elway (XXXIII) Peyton Manning (50) Tom Brady (LI, LII, LIII, and LV) 3 unique players, 6 out of 110 starters. Jordan Love will be 25 in November 2023. Here is a list of quarterbacks who lead their team to the Super Bowl at age 25 or less. Joe Namath (III) Vince Ferragamo (XIV) Joe Montana (XVI) David Woodley (XVII) Dan Marino (XIX) Drew Bledsoe (XXXI) Tom Brady (XXXVI) Ben Roethlisberger (XL) Colin Kaepernick (XLVII) Russell Wilson (XLVIII) Jared Goff (LIII) Patrick Mahomes (LIV, LV) 12 unique players, 13 out of 110 starters. Of those, I believe Tom Brady would be the first to fall under current salary cap and rookie contract rules.

That was fun.

I also heard he likes Keanu Reeves movies about public transportation.

I just want to make sure I have this correct. - Jordan Love threw a lot of college interceptions one year (17) so he will probably not be a successful quarterback. Matt Ryan threw 19 interceptions as a senior at BC, 27 in the two years he was the primary starter, and 37 in his career. Matt Ryan has never thrown 19 interceptions in an NFL season. Russell Wilson threw 25 in 900 attempts in his sophomore and junior seasons at NCS. He has never thrown more than 13 in an NFL season. Matthew Stafford threw 33 career intercepts at Georgia in less than 1000 college attempts. - Because Jordan love didn't start for Green Bay in 2020 or was even second string he will probably not be a successful quarterback. Philip Rivers had 4 starts his first 2 years (behind Drew Brees). Drew Brees played in 1 game his first year (behind Doug Flutie). Patrick Mahomes played in 1 game his first year (behind Alex Smith). Aaron Rodgers didn't start a game until year 4 (behind Brett Favre). For the record, Doug Flutie was pretty mediocre/bad the year he started ahead of Brees; he managed to turn out OK. Rivers wasn't good enough to start his first two years, but did alright when he got the chance. Jordan Love may absolutely fail as a quarterback. There are plenty of things he'll need to do better in the NFL than he did at Utah St, and there are also lots of things he did which translate well to the NFL game. He could be the next Sam Darnold or Mitch Trubisky or Andy Dalton or Matt Ryan for all sorts of reasons without having to selectively latch on to a single stat from a single year (whilst ignoring that same stat from the year before) or lamenting he didn't play over a HOF quarterback who had one of the top-10 quarterback seasons of all time.

Oh, what does that have to do with Urias? Yelich has no bearing on Luis. That was a 40 current grade with 60 FV value. These are all reports on Urias... I just provided the link via my mad Google skills. Sorry I don't know more.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/baseballprospectnation.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/scouting-report-christian-yelich-of/amp/

I saw Steve Yoder's name mentioned, and I think he's a bit under-appreciated for his role in helping Wisconsin to the place they are now. I admit to some bias, because Yoder coached the teams of my youth, so take this with a grain of salt. While he didn't have the success the coaches after him did, he did have more success than most of the guys before him, especially at the end of his time at Wisconsin. The 1989 team broke the 47-year postseason drought, beat a number of top 5 teams, and was probably 1 win away from an NCAA bid. In his last 5 or 6 seasons he had Danny Jones, Trent Jackson, Willie Simms, Tracey Webster, and Michael Finley. The talent he left for Stu Jackson, along with Rashard Griffith, got things rolling, and Dick Bennett and Bo Ryan took the next steps. For those who are a bit older than me, how did Bill Cofield's teams not win more? You would think having future NBA players on your roster would get you more than one .500 season.

If Green Bay has an advantage over the Rams because of the weather, I think that advantage isn't due to the number of games a team has played in winter conditions, but rather the Packers live in winter conditions and the Rams don't. The players that live in Green Bay experience winter every time they walk to and from their car, or practice outdoors, etc. I think that acclimation can mean players are less impacted by the conditions, or perhaps they are able to adapt to them quicker than players who aren't as acclimated. That could give Green Bay a bit of an edge early, but I don't think it will be a huge edge and I don't think it will last. I think if the Rams wear the right shoes and they stay in the game, I don't think the weather will be a huge factor. If the game starts to get away from them, or if they have the wrong shoes, I think that's when guys focus on the weather and the game can get away from them. I expect this to be a close game.

The best Badger team in my lifetime lost a game to a 10-22 team. They managed to overcome this and make it to the last game of the season. The same night Rutgers beat Wisconsin Michigan State needed overtime to beat Northwestern at home. MSU had 4 players who would play in the NBA and made it to the Elite 8, yet they needed OT to beat a 15-19 team at home. The second best Badger team in my lifetime lost at home to a 14-19 team, plus 7 other times. They managed to make it to the second to the last game of the season. If I had to guess, I'd guess this is not a final 4 team. But they could very easily be a sweet 16 team, which I'll take. Either way, this will more than likely not be the last time WI loses to a team thought to be inferior to them. And it won't preclude them from having a good, or even great, season.

In general, I dislike statistics which attribute team wins to single players in team sports. Wins are a reflection of the cumulative effort of the team, not a single players individual performance. It is the same reason I dislike pitcher W-L records when trying to determine how well a pitcher performed. Ben Sheets 2004 W/L record of 12-14 is not indicative of how he pitched; it was the best year of is career, unless you use W/L record; then it was his 5th best. And 2019 was not Aaron Rodgers second best year in Green Bay by performance; it was probably one of this least productive full seasons, but Green Bay only won more than 13 regular season games with Rodgers as a starter once. Here is a list of games in which Aaron Rodgers had a passer rating over 115 and Green Bay lost; https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201610300atl.htm https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201811150sea.htm https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201611200was.htm https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201212300min.htm Here is a list of games in which Aaron Rodgers had a passer rating of under 80 and Green Bay won; https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201610090gnb.htm https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201912290det.htm https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201010310nyj.htm One could easily argue Rodgers played well enough in his good games to win and poorly enough in the others to lose, yet those outcomes didn't happen. Tom Brady is often considered the greatest quarterback of all time because the Patriots have won 6 Super Bowls. They didn't win the 6th because of Tom Brady. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201902030ram.htm Dan Fouts is a no-doubt Hall of Fame whose teams were 86-84-1. Warren Moon's teams were 102-101. Sonny Jurgenson's were under .500. Between the three of them they have 1 championship. Yet, they were among the best QBs of their era and deserve their place in Canton. Me not liking the QB W/L stat doesn't diminish the importance of the position; they get paid the way they do because they are important. Their play often strongly influence the outcome of a game through how well they play. But they don't play defense. They don't play special teams. They can't block for themselves or catch passes. They don't coach. The final outcome will always be a reflection of the team and not any one individual.

To be clear, is this study saying masks never, in any circumstance, ever help the wearer or those around the wearer, prevent them from being exposed to COVID? Never ever? If that is the claim, I don't buy it. Even if masks only reduce the chances of exposure a small percentage under a very small set of circumstances, then masks "work" by my definition. To me this is analogous to a discussion as to whether or not seatbelts work or not. If you feel like they don't work because people die wearing them, I would argue your expectations are wrong. The best way to survive a car crash is to not drive or ride in cars, which avoids almost all crashes entirely. But if you have to be in a car, driving responsibly will help reduce your odds of a crash, as will driving during non-peak hours,, in good weather, etc.. Seatbelts are there as a last line of defense when all else fails. If those are your expectations, one can make a solid case seatbelts work even tho they will never be effective beyond a certain point and aome people will continue to die while wearing them. Masks and COVID are similar. The best way to avoid getting COVID is to avoid people. But that isn't any more realistic than asking people to stop driving. Instead, a person can limit their own exposure thru their behavior, which includes not going out unnecessarily, attempting to limit close contact with peoples when you do go out, washing your hands, etc. A mask is like a seatbelt; the last line of defense which is only helpful in some cases. Based upon this expectation, masks work even tho they will never be effective beyond a certain point and some people who wear them will both get and spread COVID. I will continue to wear a mask for the same reason I wear a seatbelt: there will always be a percentage of our population whose driving is awful, and I want to be prepared when I encounter them. I also want to be prepared when a good driver has a bad day. And I want to be prepared if I have a bad day. A seatbelt won't protect me all the time, but they will more often than not. Masks are exactly the same. My wife and I don't leave our house often, we go thru soap and hand sanitizer like crazy, and we don't spend time around other people often. That is what we can control. We cannot control who I will run into when I do have to go out to get groceries or gas. So I wear a mask. I certainly don't wear a mask so I can behave recklessly and expect to avoid COVId any more than i'd drve like Romain Grosjean or Pastor Maldonado because i have a seatbelt on.

The thing which makes it so tough to deal with COVID is the consequences of our decisions can have on others beyond our inner circle. Take the example of the wedding in Maine with 55 attendees. - 176 people contract COVID as a result of the wedding, even tho only 1/3 of that number attended the event - 7 people died, none of whom attended the wedding - one guest infected 82 others through their work at a jail Those types of events don't inspire a lot of confidence in the ability of people as a group to universally act responsibly. Especially since it wouldn't have taken much to make the wedding considerably safer, and it wouldn’t have taken much to limit the spread after. I get that no one probably wanted to wear a mask at a wedding, but if they had done so things would have probably been better. If the symptomatic musician had isolated earlier, it would probably have been better. If all of them isolated themselves for even a week before resuming normal, day-to-day activities things would probably have been better. I get that weddings are incredibly important events, and I don't think anyone expects those types of events to stop happening. But few if any of the known simple precautions which would likely have made this wedding much safer were followed and 7 non-attendees who had no say in the matter died. I post this not to discourage anyone from making their own choices during the holidays; it was a hard choice for us to decide to have Thanksgiving as a couple instead of spending it with my wife's 95 and 89 year old grandparents, and I don't begrude anyone for making a different choice. But if you do make a different choice, please remember the choices you do make affect more than those you choose to interact with, your need for vigilance doesn’t end after the football games end Thursday night. Being as considerate of people in your community for two weeks after the holiday as you are of those you spent Thanksgiving with seems like a fair trade for getting to have a semi-normal holiday.

Thanks Homer. Hopefully everything works out for Lorne and his family. If he comes back to Wisconsin that would just be a bonus.

Speaking of freshmen, as there been any sort of an update on Lorne Bowman? It sounded like he was going to be a rotation player before he took his leave of absence earlier this fall. Hopefully he and his family are doing well.