HarveysWBs

Dang it, Jones

I love Musgrave up the seam. That is using a player exactly to maximize his abilities. That’s his jam.

There’s a gutsy call on 4th and 6, and good execution. That’s what we need to be doing.

And, lo and behold, the D gets a stop with 90 seconds and two timeouts to play with. What do I know?

Agreed, but load him up with truth serum and he’d tell you he has no confidence in a defensive stop right now. I still think you go for it, because we have nothing else to play for, really, but I get his angle, too. I just want to see the offense just let it rip the rest of the year. Who cares about trying to play field position or complementary football, we’re not going anywhere.

Love looked more on brand that series. Too bad.

Video review in football is going to be as bad as soccer soon. And that’s an accomplishment.

That is bull. Give me a break.

Call it a fumble, cowards

Holy cow, is Love breaking out? Is this happening?

Best Dillon run in years. Rumbling, bumbling, stumbling!

That was a sorry excuse for defensive holding on Nixon, but what do I know? Wouldn’t have made much difference, I imagine.

I don’t like that it has been so necessary, but the secondary is showing admirable willingness in the running game so far. Too bad the front seven is blowing chunks.

Yeah, out of his hand, I thought it was another miss, this time an overthrow, but he put it where only Doubs could get it. Nice touch.

First possession TD? Is Rodgers back?

How dare you, you mean the same Brett Rypien who *checks notes*…was immediately released by the Rams after that game, and now resides on Seattle’s practice squad…

I’m not a guy who has a “second team,” but if I did, it would be Pittsburgh. Love the tradition, the blue collar vibes. The 2010 NFC championship will always be one my biggest sports memories, and not just for all the usual reasons—beating the Bears, punching a Super Bowl ticket. But the relief of it was so huge for me: I wouldn’t have to take crap from Bear fan friends forever, and if we didn’t win the Super Bowl, the absolute best possible alternative to me would be losing to Pittsburgh, who I respect.

Saw a good point brought up at Acme Packing Company earlier today. The Packers have the youngest team in the NFL not just this year, but in the last five years, with an average age of their roster right around 25 years old. The Chiefs, who are also one of the youngest teams in the league, average 25.5 years old. Assuming that for just about every team in the league, most of the back two thirds of the roster (the players that don't start) are probably always young guys there to be warm bodies, that would mean that your primary difference in average age from team to team is seen in the starting units. To put that into perspective, if the Packers were to have the same average age as the Chiefs, they would be swapping out four or five of the starters who are rookies or second year players for experienced, second-contract veteran starters. And in the case of the Packers, with our defense a much more veteran unit than the offense, all of those players would likely be on the offensive side of the ball. My analysis: Yeah, Love needs to fix his accuracy and his footwork. Yeah, MLF could be a little better at calling plays for the guys he has and not the guys he wants to have. But MLF is losing his mind on the sideline every game as our young team leads the league in penalties (60 total, tied with Dallas through 8 games, and Chicago and KC who have both played 9 games) and we have a bunch of receivers who can't remember their assignments. A play caller can't get into his bag during drives littered with 2nd and 15 or 3rd and 22, and Love can never develop a rhythm and sees ghosts from defensive fronts that are constantly in pass rush mode. The fact that MLF and Love aren't physically assaulting these young players several times a game speaks volumes to their self-control. I don't entirely absolve either one of them, but I'm prone to be a bit more forgiving of their in-game performances in light of this. As I see it, this is the result of two factors, both initiated by Gutekunst, and only one of them is really a fault. First and most defensibly, you have to accept a version of this when we play the cap stretch game with guys like Rodgers and Bakhtiari, both of whom no longer contribute to our team's success on the field. The bill comes due, and we're paying it plus interest. But second and most critically, this problem is exacerbated by several recent drafts that have not restocked the pantry, and we desperately needed them to, especially at pass catcher and O-line. Gute thought he could build those rooms on the cheap, and when Bakh's knee disintegrated and Adams told him to pound sand, we've been in a world of hurt. That's on the GM. You put a Deebo Samuel and a Tee Higgins (just to throw out a couple guys we could have drafted) plus one more dependable tackle on this team, and I'm not saying all our scoring problems go away, but we're at least 75% of the way there. And we'd have a much clearer picture of what Jordan Love actually is by this point, to boot. That's an alternate timeline I wish I was living in.

Festivus has begun with the airing of grievances, a truly special time of the year!

1) Fan, as in “fanatic,” would seem to preclude divided loyalty, as fanaticism is a jealous mistress. 2) Loyalty to objectivity will ever be in competition with the jealousy of fanaticism, see point one above.

As others have said, I can’t imagine this means anything other than an internal hire. I can’t imagine they’d do this without knowing the guy they install will accept everyone coming back. In fact, Pat Murphy has to be the absolute odds-on favorite. Even someone from the lower levels would probably want one or two of their own guys with them, I’d think.

That explanation is helpful. I think I would simply use the term market differently. I am quite curious if anyone would have gotten even close to what the Cubs offered. Sounded like the Brewers had a better offer on Counsell’s desk than the Mets, and I’d be surprised if the Guardians or the analytical Astros would have exceeded 5.5 mil/year. At any rate, we’re about to find out if Counsell really is a unicorn—after all, Kerr, Pop, and Spoels have rings as managers. Should be interesting.

These are fair points. I should have clarified that I meant he doesn’t seem to care about his legacy with the Brewers, certainly not over his individual legacy. I grant that he made this move out of pursuit of his personal goals, but as you seem to acknowledge, he can’t entirely escape the fact that his individual legacy is inextricably linked with his time in Milwaukee (and by his own admission in the old hype video), and now his ignominious exit is part of that legacy forever, too.

So you can have a market of one? If no other manager contract gets within, say, 40% of Counsell’s yearly salary, his deal is still within the “market rate” in your estimation. How is that a “market”? When I hear market, that implies multiple deals, otherwise we’re talking about just a transaction.