BrewerFan

It may make him more inclined to sign an extension...guaranteeing him a big chunk of cash. But that's pretty premature.

Or they spent that money on Hoskins and they're just going with a smaller payroll this year. Either one feels possible at this point.

Ok...well, as always, it's hard to really know how a trade is going to turn out when talking about young players. I DID want to see the Brewers trade Burnes. I never liked the O's match because...I wanted young pitching, didn't think all that highly of Hall and thought we didn't need to just target 3B/1B because of past failures when it appears we've addressed that issue moving forward. But given their moves, Hoskins(trying to sign Chapman as noted in the article)...it just seems strange to me that NOW they'd trade Burnes. And adding the 34th pick is not a big deal to me. We were getting a pick in that range either way, just a year later(which I get has some value, but you're looking long term either way). So...if they think Hall can be a really good starting pitcher, it's a win. And they've earned the benefit of the doubt. I've also earned the right to be upset that they significantly hampered their chances to win this year after appearing to be all in.

Don't think I ever saw ONE person say if they don't trade Burnes it's an "embarrassment." In fact, I think most people said hold until a team meets your asking price. And THEN they went out and got one of the top hitters on the market. A player the Giants, among other teams, were trying to sign. They shored up their lineup! And then it looked as though they would comp...-and they traded Burnes for a very underwhelming *return. Also...can we please not act like there was just ONE opinion on trading Burnes like the fanbase is monolithic? Not everyone blindly defends them and not everyone begs for a player to be signed and then complains they didn't pay more and sign him for more years. There's a happy medium. And not liking a trade doesn't mean you had "unrealistic" expectations.

I've seen him pushing into quite a few first-round mocks already. He and TJ Tampa have the most to gain from a really good combine, but he looks the part.

I think Nixon was really good in a few areas. Played well vs the run, he's got very good ball skills. He's not a great man cover however. Particularly vs the quicker WRers you see in the slot...though less now as teams are moving WRers all over the place and the Shanahan system is taking over and you're moving bigger WRers in the slot. Something we did with Jordy and Davante. But I agree, you just draft guys who can run, cover. If you have Valentine, Jaire and Stokes...you'll figure out the slot. You would ideally have some bigger, physical safeties in that scenario(and I'm not suggesting you count on Stokes, just as a hypothetical). I really would like to see Nixon back, just not at CB. A return man is an ancillary benefit. He made an impact in...what, one game last year. That should not factor into bringing him back IMO. Not when you can raise your hand anywhere and get the ball at the 25...which I'd be totally find doing...unless you draft a dynamic WRer(or RB/CB) like Watson and you let him bring it out a few times early in his career. And that's just an example, I wouldn't have Watson returning kicks at this point because he's too important AND he's been too injured. What do you think about him playing a safety? If we're going to play a single high safety, Bullock from USC would be a great fit(he's not tackler, but he's outstanding playing CF and taking away the middle of the field) which is apparently the game plan with the new DC. EVERY player is. The old cliche throwback...these dudes are all warriors. They all play through injuries. He's a nice player, but EVERY player is injured. You're putting your body through hell. He's a tough guy, he's got a lot of heart...that's true. But that should be the standard, not the outlier. You think those slot receivers are more difficult to cover than the outside WRers? Justin Jefferson, Chase, Adams, take your pick. They can all play slot. They play outside because they don't HAVE to play slot. Put Carrington Valentine in the slot and I have no doubt he'd be outstanding there. One of the big things the Packers need to do is cover the middle of the field more so that slot guy has some help. We saw it(FINALLY) vs Dallas and SF where they started playing more robber with Savage coming down over the middle and he had one pick 6 and if he had better hands, it would have been two. But this kid that you just posted about, Mitchell. Do you think he'd struggle to play slot? I don't. I think he can play anywhere in the secondary. He'll likely end up outside because that's where the best WRers generally are, but I don't think you need to go small to get a good slot or nickel CB.

LOL...yup! That's how old my house is. It was originally built...without indoor plumbing! Back when you could just hire someone to build whatever you wanted without having to jump through hoops for permits and...all that fun stuff! I don't think I'd have taken it on, but it buts up against a Nature Preserve and is around farm land...so I like the location. But I had to find someone who specialized in renovating old houses. Still have the Limestone foundation in the basement(covered up now, but it's there). Anyway...didn't mean to steer this completely off the rails!

I have never heard of a Monsterbox, and nearly everyone I know who's younger than me, has Amazon Prime. It's just how so many people shop and purchase things. But I'm interested in this Monsterbox as I'm really sick of paying for 7 streaming services, Prime and Direct TV. '94? Still got that new house smell practically! Mine was built in ~1900. There are pictures of the house throughout the years and it looks like a kid with a lego set! Just a little square first with old wooden steps(I think 900SQ Ft if that). Then a great-great cousin put in plumbing at some point in the 1920s. Then my Uncle bought it, he put in an addition, sold to my parents who...again renovated...and now I was the idiot who bought this thing where NONE of the floors are level. "But it's got good bones." Whatever the hell that means. It's like a pet graveyard. It's just bones on top of bones! Anyway, side rant over. They just run new cables, don't they? I'll end up ponying up whatever...but whenever this topic comes up, it reminds me why I don't like looking at my monthly bills. It's depressing.

Hey, I know the season is going great and all, but what's the deal with Essegian? I don't watch the Badgers as closely. Usually just have them on in the background, check out the scores late. Looks like his effort is there on defense. I know it was his D that was the issue...and then his shooting was way off from last year. I know there is far less reliance on him with Storr, but any chance he could be a guy who could come off the bench, give them 15 minutes and get back to his shooting from last year when he was an elite catch-and-shoot guy? He's a guy I've thought may look to transfer after this year(hope not)...just curious what the thoughts on him are at this point.

Not just press man, but just press in general. If they switch to a 43..and I don't know that this means they will(and I still don't think it'll be a big adjustment personnel-wise) that could make Edgerrin Cooper particularly interesting. He's very similar to Quay, but I think he's got a little more pass-rushing ability...but man, what an athletic duo that could be? I'd be 100% on board with bringing Okudah in as a reclamation project. His length and natural ability...while still being on the right side of 25 I believe. And Jordan Fuller...he's not going to be a Budda Baker, but he's exactly the type of guy we need. You bring him in, you have a lot less urgency at the safety position and you can bring along guys at their own pace. Particularly if they were to bring bac Savage or draft a guy like Hicks(WSU) in the 3rd-4th rd. Just the type of leader you need. Reminds me of Budda insofar as they're just leaders and the types of players you want on winning teams. So sign Okudah because of what he still CAN be and Fuller for what he already is...with the hope their old OSU coach can get more out of them. These are just sorta place holder signings also. Not like you sign either and you say, 'we're good at safety or CB,' after. But remember where Rasul was before we picked him up. I see zero reason why Okudah can't do that...and more given his skill-set. https://theathletic.com/5060348/2023/12/05/rams-jordan-fuller-safety-leader/

I don't know if this is a good hire or a bad hire. I look at these like I look at draft picks. There are the guys I liked...and then when it's almost never that guy, you just have to wait, be optimistic and hope. He likes playing a lot of press. He's been part of successful staffs and he played an aggressive scheme at Boston College. That's all you can go off of. I'd have been happy with a guy like Martindale. He reminds me a bit of a Dom Capers hire(or would have). I didn't realize how long Fritz Shurmur had spent as a DC(I always thought he'd spent a long time before getting an opportunity). I'd have been good with a guy like Zimmer, but with a lot of guys, it's hard to tell if they really elevated the players or if the players elevated the coaching. Hopefully, both will apply here.

Who are these players that have been surefire 1st rd picks that it seemed like the Packers should have taken only to pass on because they're the types they avoid? There are very rarely huge physical OL who are top-ranked players who are available when the Packers are picking(because you generally take those players). And of the Packers O-linemen they've drafted in the top 3 rounds, Jenkins, Myers and Ryan, they were all viewed as big, physical road-grading O-Lineman with questions about their pass blocking. Fauga is not the type of OL ANY smart team would or should "avoid" based on...his what? Size? That was the lone reason they gave. He IS versatile, he CAN play Guard...though you'd be foolish to target a 1st rd pick, particularly in this draft(with it's OL depth) and not take a guy who looks like a surefire NFL starter at OT because he can't also play Guard. If the Packers take Fuaga or if they do not(obviously it's more likely they don't take him than do), it'll be FAR more dependent upon his testing than his size. That's the point. Again, they used HEIGHT as an argument to not take him and to maybe break this nonexistent tendency and take Alt in the hypothetical that he'd be available. There are also so many differences between how Wolf approached things vs Thompson vs Gutekunst, so these tendencies are silly. I think they do, it's just so hard to find 3 starting CBs. They drafted Stokes after having Ja and King. Doubled up a couple of years at CB. With Valentine opposite Jaire right now, I don't think CB is a pressing need, but given Gutey's actual tendencies, I could see him still taking a corner early(if it's the BPA). I also think this is the time you see Gutey moving up in the draft at times, not down. 11 more picks, 5 in the top 91. If you see someone you like, go get him. Especially with a new DC who...apparently, likes playing a lot of press and knocking guys off their routes/timing. I do hope Nixon is back. I don't think he's a great nickel or slot, but I think he could be an outstanding 3rd safety in a big nickel...or just a serviceable FS. He was among the league leaders in stops for a DB this year with 31(which is a pretty wild number). He's got really good ball skills, great speed. Just not elite quickness.

LOL...right! I get they have to generate content, but sometimes it's just silly. Players are getting bigger. If they don't take Fuaga, it will NOT be because he's too big. I don't think I am. He qualified that they MIIIGHT take Alt and break their "rule," for him. THERE IS NO RULE! It's just something they created out of nowhere. 6'6 334 vs 6'5 321? Players are getting bigger. And what are the criteria/tendancies under Gute? He hasn't targeted OL early on save for Jenkins and Meyers(who broke every "rule" they would have assumed they had for Center at 6'5). There's are two he has. 1-Elite athlete, 2-Premium position...and probably in that order given the selection of Walker. But no, he said flat out how he has to laugh and tell people the Packers "just aren't taking Fuaga." And his entire rationale was...height and weight. It's silly.

I thought it was silly when Ross just flatly dismissed the idea that the Packers would draft a guy like Fuaga in the first round because...he's 334 pounds. It was right after they mention how the Packers "aren't going to draft a CB under 5'11, they're just not going to do it." Jaire Alexander...5'10. And he even used Sherrod as an example. Sherrod was 6'5 321. So...not seeing a huge difference. You look for guys with the feet and athletic ability to play OT. You don't eliminate guys because...they're too big. I love the Graham Barton suggestion, I like the Troy Fautanu idea, Morgan is an incredible athlete. Not sure either will be there, but I think the entire logic is flawed. Ron Wolf taught Ted Thompson who taught Brian Gutekunst. And they all do things VERY differently. Gutekunst drafts size, speed, basically RAS and puts a FAR higher emphasis on it than Thompson did. Gutekunst and Wolf approach Free Agency FAR differently than Thompson did. You can't just say they all do things one way. It's just a flawed starting place IMO. Does anyone truly think the Packers look at a OT who's 6'7 and say, "no, that's too tall...we're going to ignore the fact that many of the all-time great tackles were 6'7 and we need to make sure a player is 6'5." I like that Gutekunst has shown he's willing to do things differently.

Hell, lets say 7. Black could finish top 3 as well!

In an interview in 2019. They do not view Fangio nor his defense as "kryptonite" in 2024. They're the worst defenses in the game. Look up the coaches who come from Fangio's schemes and then tell me that they're still the kryptonite of the best teams in the NFL? Also, I feel like this article just hammers homes most of the points I was making...it's just not a finished product; Starts out with Fangio playing the Rams; That's exactly what I was talking about and what you don't see Barry or anyone else do. But again, it's also from before 2019. Explain the MAIN concepts in the Pakers passing offense? They absolutely destroy Fangio schemes. Those Mesh routes, the WRer screens, the pre-snap movement, the combo routes that ate up that Cover 2 side of the Cover 6 where you run a deep route and then a corner or simple out route. If you're listening to Matt LaFleur, the "definition of insanity," the "we need to play stickier out there," over and over(probably said that...15 times under Barry...I'm not sure how you'd come away in 2024 thinking he wants to sit back in Cover 6 and Watch teams march up and down the field in 2024. I don't think he wanted to in 2021...which AGAIN is why he offered the job to Jim Leonhard. A couple coaches praising him going into the 2019 season tells me nothing about where he is right now. Also, this is was a interesting video. Sounds pretty accurate to me. (Edit, just gotta click on it and go watch it).

They also do it with #52...oh, wait, they gave that out immediately! Seriously, 4 players, 3 great ones, 2 who made an incredible mark on their sport, a former MVP. The only reason I can see for Gantner is that he's part of the best trio in terms of most hits for the same team. That's...pretty much it. His Molitor and Yount association.

What do each of them do? I'm sure I could google it in a few seconds, but it feels like it'd be asking what type of defense does Joe Barry run. It'd be a generic answer and I don't follow the NBA other than the Bucks close enough to know about assistant coaches.

We don't, but there was a lot of talk that Leonhard was going to be the next HC at Wisconsin and that it was going to be sooner than later. And for the record, I don't know McIntosh, but I do know people in that Athletic Department...people who work closely with him. I never heard he had a bad interview or that his interview was in any way responsible for him not getting the job. They took a big swing, kept it a state secret, had NDAs signed so it wouldn't leak as they wanted Leonhard in the event that they couldn't get Fickell. Not that it really matters. I don't know how Leonhard would do as a HC. I thought Fickell was a good decision. JUST as a DC though...you really can't do much better. Definitely so. I don't know that MLF likes the Fangio system. I know that he publicly called out Barry each year and repeatedly said he wanted the DBs to be "stickier." I don't think he does want the Fangio system. At least not the version that NEARLY all of the DCs who coached under him run. First of all, Fangio wasn't nearly as rigid in his scheme as the people running his system are. I know when he played the Rams and they were dominating with their outside zone or wide zone. He ran a 6 man front with 1 LBer to try and shut off every cut back lane and rely on the LB and Safeties. He would give you different looks. His main idea was good. Facing QBs like Mahomes and Herbert and these young, dynamic athletes who extend players(Rodgers) he wanted to take away the big play, try and disguise the coverages with his safeties and then ultimately make them march down the field. The problems; 1-He had a TON of talent when he was successful. In SF they had Willis, Bowman, Justin Smith, Aldon, he had stars on the front and at LBer. Same in Chicago. Mack was elite, Hicks was a stud, Roquan Smith is a beast, they had other stars. 2-The people who implemented his defenses aren't as original. Just as Buddy Ryan and Red Ryan's coaching tree didn't produce all stars(or Belichick). 3-Part of #2, but NFL offenses are smart. If you're going to play split safeties and Quarters or Cover 6 with 4 DBs taking away your best player(think Hill in KC or Adams in GB) those offenses are going to just keep running mech concepts and combo routes and pick you apart...especially if you don't have an elite front with pass rushers and the original Vic Fangio to run that defense. Fangio should do fine in Philly. They have outstanding pass rushers and they get after the QB to go with very good safety play(though even that wasn't good enough with THEIR Fangio style defense last year). As for Staley, I don't think you should use Staley's results as an HC as an end-all for his ability to run a defense. I know people in the NFL still think he's a "brilliant defensive mind," according to some former executives who've talked about him. Staley made....comically bad decisions with time management, going for it on 4th down, things like that. But he was also focused on the entire team. It's a very different job just worrying about the defense. I'm also not sure the talent was as good as the big names would suggest. Mack is older and his 7 sack game may skew the perception of how great he was. Bosa played just a handful of games the last couple years. And their LBers were not great. Staley wouldn't excite me, but even looking at what he did with the Rams. They were #1 and dominant. You're not dominant because of two players. And then the following years, they fell to 15th despite adding talent when they went all in. Von with Donald and Floyd, pretty good pass-rushing DTs like Brockers, and then Ramsey, and Williams, that was a more talented team than Staley had. Of course when you have a great offense you are also giving the other teams more chances for possessions. I'd like to watch some breakdowns of his scheme and his play calling before deciding one way or the other what he is as a DC. I know the Chargers were in the top ~10 in blitz rate when he was there...that's not very Fangio-esque.

Go look at the rankings this year for Fangio style defenses? What's to like about his system? It wasn't just Joe Barry who struggled, it was across the league. 8 of the 10 worst or 8 of the 12(I don't remember at this point) were all Fangio style defenses and were among the worst in the league. The system is flawed. It's rush 4, soft coverage, keep the ball in front of you, hope the 4 get home and force a bad throw.

No, I didn't take it as bashing him. Again, it's probably the overwhelming, "if Leonhard wasn't a Badger...." comments in total, not just here.

Yeah, there are Badgers we should have taken. Vincent turned out to be one(though T-Buck was a really good CB, we just gave up on him early IMO). I remember doing a poll at the time of the TJ Watt draft. About 70%(IIRC, but it was well over 50) was happy with the trading down and getting King+Biegel rather than TJ. Obviously another huge blunder. But what annoys me...is this "if he weren't a Badger," crap. We're probably being a bit harsh toward @patrickgpe. But I've been hearing it constantly. "We wouldn't even think of him if he wasn't the Badgers coach." Nonsense. He's a great young defensive mind. There have been 2 Badgers I've wanted badly that have been realistic. Chenal and Leonhard. I think if anything, we're a little harder on Badgers on here. Or maybe it's just me, but I didn't think Herbig was a quality NFL edge, I didn't think Frederick would be a borderline HOF caliber Center(I didn't even think he'd be a good one). I wasn't a fan of Biadaz, I don't want to see Braelon Allen taken in the first 3 rounds by the Packers. This isn't a homer thing, seeing it through rose-colored glasses, the guy just comes up with blitz packages that not many other coaches run. And sure, it got him burned at times vs OSU and their 4 1st rd WRers or whoever. But it also helped the Badgers compete and beat some Michigan teams or compete with PSU, ND a couple years ago until Mertz melted down and threw them 21 points late in the game. If we end up with Wink, I'll be happy as he's a very accomplished coach. If it's Jesse Minter...I'll be a little more skeptical, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. If it's Leonhard, I KNOW we'll have a good DC who's going to have his corners up protecting the sticks on 3rd down, who'll have 6 guys in the box on the LOS(and if not, there's a good chance a corner or someone else is coming) and we'll make them earn the 1st down, it won't just be TJ Hockenson running a 7-yard curl on 3rd and 5.

Yup. That was brought up already. It's pretty speculative and I think if Hoskins hits, it's not gonna matter much if he does so as the 1B for 70 games and DH for 80 or 1B for most of the games. Also, this is Scott Boras we're talking about. I doubt the Brewers guaranteed much of anything other than his salary.

This is pre-ACL though. I'd still like to see Santana brought back...and he should be cheap enough.