areacodes

That’s truly shocking, I would have suspected they would embrace this in excitement. I thought the forcefulness of the statement by the Brewers personnel was interesting as well as Jeff Jones’ response to it.

Robert Murray tweeted that the Brewers adamantly denied the report:

Wait? Are we supposed to live with human error or replace them completely? I don't get what this comment is supposed to achieve other than just being trollish. Because I hate replay and want it gone doesn't mean I think that's ever going to happen. The tech in sports is all underutilized because of officials unions. There is no reason to still be using geezer eyesight to determine balls and strikes if we're going to be so hell bent on getting everything right. Either get it right to the best of your ability or scrap it. We're not doing our best. Most of the issues like knowing when a guy is down, knowing when a play is dead, are not as complicated as they sound to the people that know this stuff inside and out. Those are all superficial issues that could be resolved if that was really the goal here. I feel like if we can build a responsive robot that plays soccer and were doing that a decade ago the ability to solve those things is very likely out there. Nobody is arguing that replay is perfect and most have even indicated changes they would like to see implemented to improve the system. You specifically said you don’t like instant replay and instead would prefer human error, even if it meant losing games because of a blown call that is fixable. I found it amusing that you then go on about using technology to spot the ball which eliminates the same type of human error you are in favor of by getting rid of replay. Nowhere in your argument about replay have you talked about improving it to get it right, you want it gone as you’ve said repeatedly. They are trying to get the calls right - we can all agree it needs work, but getting it right the best of your ability will involve replay.

Wait? Are we supposed to live with human error or replace them completely?

Exactly. I think many would like changes made to replay, but I’m okay with waiting to make sure there is a chance they can correct a fixable mistake. We know the outcome of 99.9% of non-OT games at 0:00... how often does replay come up at the end of games causing a small delay to know the outcome? Does anybody who’s against replay have any data to show how much time replay actually adds to a game? I feel like there aren’t normally all of these replays to “make sure someone didn’t step out of bounds at the 1 on first and goal in the 2nd quarter.” that are taking up so much time but I could be wrong. I also don’t really believe you’d be okay with such a game changing event - like the refs getting what is now a reviewable play wrong - that it actually costs a team a game, but you take issues with people not agreeing with you on a roughing the passer call in the 2nd quarter being game changing to the point you call a longtime poster a troll. I’d be way more miserable, and think most fans would agree, with not having a chance to correct a fixable mistake. The Jerry Rice “fumble” still bothers me and that was like 20 years ago.

Just like Carolina was successful on their 2 point conversion? Or when we stopped them on the 3rd & 1 from near the goal line? And 4th & 1 play before the offsides on Smith? Or how about when we stopped them on 1st down from the 2? Or when we stopped them on the last play? You are right that McCaffery is dangerous, but you omit the times we stopped Carolina in short yardage earlier to point out the one time he did score from close. We were able to stop him and DID stop him when it mattered most on the last play.

Either you have to live with that reality or live with the reality that somewhere along the line, an egregiously bad fumble call (Jerry Rice, 1998) or other egregiously bad reviewable play is going to decide an important game. Those are still happening though. Even if they weren't, I can in fact live with them when the trade off is awful TV. I realize I'm in the minority there but getting sports calls right is not so important to me that I demand it in exchange for destroying the game itself. I mean a lot of studies have been done about the connection people feel to sports and what brings them back, and that endorphin rush a fan experiences in a moment like that. Even though your team usually disappoints you, you always come back for that feeling. I can honestly say that I never got that rush yesterday. As soon as he hit the ground, my conditioning immediately went to "And now we have to look at this." 15 years ago I am storming through the house jumping up and down. I think that sucks. It took about 2:10 for the review to be complete - from when the whistle blew for him being down to the ref announcing the call stood - not 5 minutes. There are definitely times where it takes way too long and I wouldn’t be against some changes to replay (90 seconds max for reviews, can’t tell in that time - call stands; more transparency for the fans - put what the ref is seeing on TV and in stadium) but I’d argue yesterday’s was pretty mundane. I’m sorry you don’t get excited anymore because of replay, but the players and fans seemed pretty excited as the play happened and then get to re-live it again somewhat when the play stood - I’d rather have that slight delay in order to get the chance to correct it if needed. It isn’t foolproof but I have a hard time believing you really would be okay with losing a game on what used to be a reviewable call. And are you really sure it is because of replay you don’t go running crazy around the house after winning a game in early November at the last second? Or is more of it because you are 15 years older with different priorities and understanding of the magnitude of sports? I’ve got little kids now and can’t always watch the games live or as loudly as I used to years ago but you better believe when it is a BIG game I’ll go a little crazy when the play ends and probably do it again when it was official we won the game. To each their own on that though.

But it wasn’t a shove. While it wasn’t as blatant as the one against Denver, it should have been a penalty based on the rules. I wouldn’t have been happy if he had scored there and it was overturned. Also, where is the national outrage about the non calls on the last drive for intentional grounding? First one wasn’t within 10 yards of a WR and second one hit the down marker out of bounds so it wasn’t close to making it past the line of scrimmage.

You’ve been nervous about all of them, right? If so, let’s keep that going. Regarding Smith, he was ticketed over a month ago... I’m sure the team/his teammates have been aware of it for awhile. I doubt it’ll have any major impact until there would be a suspension.

I too did not realize it was an M and B when I was little but I’m not sure that is the reason for adding Milwaukee Brewers around it. The name has always been the Milwaukee Brewers and people didn’t connect the dots so I think people will continue to see the glove first. I really think the logo is going to be more of an arm patch like the Astros, Nationals and many other teams have that has the city and team name around the primary logo.

I don’t get to read IGT during the game since I have to watch delayed on my DVR due to kids - so I didn’t see this last night. The irony in your post is amusing. Now, I’m sure you were frustrated with the craptacular tackling and D at that point of the game but I did chuckle when reading that post. This is pretty typical of the IGTs. What else would you expect after the defense gave up 17 straight points? The frustration was warranted. It has nothing to do with that. Earlier in the thread OSS went off a bit that people need to “stop the straw man garbage” and then proceeded to do so himself... hence the irony.

Careful. I've been told not to question it because all those yards are from garbage time. I don’t get to read IGT during the game since I have to watch delayed on my DVR due to kids - so I didn’t see this last night. The irony in your post is amusing. Now, I’m sure you were frustrated with the craptacular tackling and D at that point of the game but I did chuckle when reading that post.

I disagree with how you remember the end of the Eagles game.. it isn’t a fact as you state if you’d take a look. He went 3-8 for 31 yards on their last 3 drives, with two punts and a TD... mostly because (as you said) they were gashing us running the ball. In fact, he threw two of those incompletions with about 5 minutes left to give Rodgers time to tie it up. I love that your getting snippy about strawmen arguments and then say things such as “ When you are running for 6 yards on every play there is no reason your QB has to throw 50 passes.” when I’m not saying he should - nobody did. I’m just saying you are wrong about what he did when you said he carved up the D.

You apparently did miss the memo where the Eagles backs ran for 160 yards and averaged 6 YPC. Wentz went through them in the 2nd half when he had to move the ball. The only reason he didn't pass for more was because they were gashing the Packers on the ground like several teams have. The Eagles did whatever they wanted. Nothing I'm saying about the defense is remotely controversial. It has been extremely vulnerable against the rush and has gone extended periods of games looking like the same old sieve. It's a better defense because it's been infused with actual talent and we don't have parade Blake Martinez as one of its best players anymore. But there is plenty of room (and time) for improvement. The SOS narrative is weak btw. The Packers SOS currently sits 21st. You needn't look beyond this game to see why that's a lame stat. The Packers are playing a 5-2 team without the league's MVP. A team that probably finishes with 11 wins or so and we played them without the MVP. I've never liked that stat, it removes every variable from every match up. Nope, no memo missed on my end since I wasn’t the one who brought up Wentz carving up the Packers D or said anything about our run D. I asked you why they were the most likely paper tiger, brought up a few 2 loss teams and watched you ignore that and say the D is carved up by the elite QBs such as Wentz... BTW, he went 8-14 with 1 TD in the second half for 97 yards... still hardly going “through them in the 2nd half” but you feel free to use that narrative. I also made no mention that anything you said was controversially about the D, but at the same time they are top 10 in scoring D. If you had wanted to tell me they are a paper tiger because they are in the bottom 3rd in yards allowed, go for it. I personally think they have shown an ability to turn teams over and that’ll make up for allowing more yards. I also think getting Savage back and hopefully Greene should help the D improve as the season goes on. I do find it amusing, though, that we can’t discount garbage time yards allowed in your opinion (Dak) but we need to discount the Vikings W because they weren’t as good when we played them.

How do you come to the conclusion the Packers are most likely to be a paper tiger? What about the Bills? Winning in the final 3 minutes against the 1-5 Jets or 0-7 Bengals? Sure they have a nice D, but their O is nothing special and have played a weak schedule. The Ravens? Who squeaked past the 2-4 Steelers in OT and gave up 40 in a loss to the 2-4 Browns? The Vikings who we already beat? Because the Packers have still shown they struggle a lot with slowing down any good QB. They've been carved up by Wentz, Carr was unstoppable until he threw the ball in the back of the end zone, Dak threw 500 yards on them (sorry, garbage time is not an excuse). I haven't seen anything from the defense that gives me a lot of confidence in them going up against Russell Wilson, Drew Brees, Jimmy G, etc. Minnesota is playing really good football too. I'm not putting a lot of weight in beating them in Week 2. It was a good win, but it's not like I look at them as a team I'd expect to crush. Their offense is playing a lot better than it was to start the year. Beating them there is going to be very difficult so I'm really hoping they're several games back by then. I must have missed the memo where going 16-27 for 160 is carving up a D...because that is what Wentz did to the Packers. And guess what, lots of teams struggle to stop Wilson, Brees, etc. - they are all-pro, HOF caliber players for a reason. You also don’t seem to factor in the loss of Savage and the effect on our pass D.

How do you come to the conclusion the Packers are most likely to be a paper tiger? What about the Bills? Winning in the final 3 minutes against the 1-5 Jets or 0-7 Bengals? Sure they have a nice D, but their O is nothing special and have played a weak schedule. The Ravens? Who squeaked past the 2-4 Steelers in OT and gave up 40 in a loss to the 2-4 Browns? The Vikings who we already beat?

I found the webpage that originally hosted the image above. It was from a post or article on "fantasy" cards and the author wrote that he photoshopped it as close as he could. He also said that the picture from a Brewers Minor league affiliate who (according to what I read but did not see with my own eyes) used the Brewers primary colors in reverse. It is from his 1981 Tacoma Tigers minor league card. They were affiliates of... you guessed it, the A’s.

Why do we have to be willing to accept more human error? I’ve got no problem with changing replay somehow, but getting rid of the auto review for scoring plays or turnovers would be a bad idea in my opinion. I totally get the desire for full consistency (I’m at the office right now on a Saturday just staring at some data), but it’s a game. My time is limited. It needs to finish in under 3 hours. Save the challenges for bad calls late in the game that are difficult to overcome (like Jerry Rice’s fumble in 1998 or the Rodgers face mask no call in 2009). So, what happens if there are two situations where it is obvious the runner was down before fumbling in the 2nd and 3rd quarter and then you have a Jerry Rice fumble situation? The first fumbles aren’t worth challenging because there could be a more important screw up later? I also highly doubt it is the auto reviews that are causing games to last 3+ hours. The league becoming a QB/passing game has a much bigger impact on games taking longer than a couple of reviews. If anything, make it so if a decision can’t be made in 90 seconds the call stands.

Why do we have to be willing to accept more human error? I’ve got no problem with changing replay somehow, but getting rid of the auto review for scoring plays or turnovers would be a bad idea in my opinion. It isn’t like those take a long time unless they actually decide to take a closer look - and with your model, we would still have some stoppages in those situations. I’d rather there be another chance for them to get it correct, with acknowledging that they will likely screw up the reviews as well (hey, look - still some human error ).

And this would have changed zero calls from last night. Neither hands to the face was egregious, in fact the first one was correct. The roughing call with Allison wasn't remotely egregious. What I meant by ‘egregious calls only’ was that if you eliminate the automatic reviews and cap coaches to a max of 2, the coach has to be very careful about how they burn their challenges. You wouldn’t see a challenge used because the opponent picked up a first down even though they may have bobbled the ball. What happens if the refs miss three obvious calls that would normally be auto reviews?

Since 2000, OSU has won about 83% of their games overall but only about 73% against UW. Since 2000, PSU has won about 65% of their games overall but only about 61% against UW. While they, or at least OSU, will definitely be in the way of UW making the playoffs, UW has played better than average against them since 2000.

Do you get upset when the Brewers do “The Gauntlet” after HRs or untucked their jerseys? How about watching a HR? Pretty much all players/teams are doing those group celebrations now... what about Jonathan Taylor and the RBs doing their little thing after his TDs? They are playing a game - let them have some fun. BTW, that Jones waive was hilarious. Do you have examples of Rodgers taking shots at LaFleur?

Really? Not a single thing to do with the outcome? Ok then... You can't say speed had nothing to do with it. If it was Grisham running, there wouldn't have even been a throw to home, he'd have beaten it easily. Grandal is slow, really slow, and Eddie should know that. no ay he should have been sent. If he gets thrown out, which he did, we have a guy at 2B, and 2 outs rather than 2nd and 3rd with one out. Be honest, it has nothing to do with the actual play and 100% to do with your feelings regarding Sedar.

And that is supposed to be a 10 yard penalty... Yeah, that's one of those penalties that I don't think I've ever seen enforced. At least not in a while. The rule's the same in College, the only place I've seen it enforced and even ND fans weren't really complaining after that Leinart QB sneak where Bush came up and pushed him into the Endzone. I agree that it is seldom, if not never, enforced, but that was about as blatant of an example of that as I can recall. The lineman literally pulled him from the DL’s arms and threw him into the endzone.

Exactly what happened. Linsday's great effort got him to the half yard line, but it was Risner that should get credit for getting him across. And that is supposed to be a 10 yard penalty...