BrewerFan

https://www.acmepackingcompany.com/2024/2/2/24059800/green-bay-packers-news-rumors-report-offered-zach-orr-defensive-coordinator-job-baltimore-ravens Not sure if this has been posted here yet, but apparently we went after Zach Orr first. Don't like that. Doesn't really mean much, but it does mean we once again didn't get the young guy we apparently really wanted. Makes sense he'd pass up the job as he was already in Baltimore and it'd be a lateral move. Still excited about the hire, the more aggressive concepts, but...anyway, just thought I'd mention it.

There's no need to and it just causes more issues down the road. Kenny Clark, as it stands, will have a ~14M dead cap in '25. If you do this and split that 27M up with 4 MORE void years, you're making that dead cap over 30 in '25. Gary...you lose leverage in future negotiations(and again, really no need). Jones-He's 30. I think it's more likely he takes a pay cut(not much but 3-4M) than an extension. Jaire-He's 27. I wouldn't move off him(unless you get a big-time offer) but I also wouldn't want to make the potential to move off him on the future that much more expensive. Preston Smith...same thing. He's nearing the end of his career. It's not hard to envision the Packers using their 1st rd pick on ANOTHER edge rusher(hypothetically, don't think they'll do it, but if an edge is their #1 rated player...). I don't want Ted Thompson type conservative spending, but you also don't want to be back where we were last year with the dead cap and void years...if you can avoid it, and you can. Right. Even if you went and signed a FA for 80M, it'd make more sense to backload that deal than to deal with more void years. The void years also mean you get no draft pick compensation(which was why I thought it weird they did it with Nijman, but it likely means they'll be active in free agency).

Smith's not a 4-3 OLB. He's just a DE in a 43. I think it benefits Wyatt the most, but...I also don't think it really matters. I would assume though that Walker would be the MLBer, McDuffie the SLBer and then we'd draft a bigger safety to be the weakside backer. Campbell could also easily play any of those three positions...IF he's playing well. Walker on the weak side would give him an opportunity to make a lot of plays. But I'd guess we're staying in a 3-4.

I don't think that's the case. I doubt they left in an acrimonious place. Leonhard's position was perfectly understandable...and he may just not be interested in coaching in the NFL. He's been mentioned for several high-profile College jobs. Plus, some guys leave and they come back to an organization...so I doubt the choice to not interview him(assuming they didn't, we don't know...we sure as hell didn't know THIS guy was going to be the DC choice as it was kept close to the vest) -had anything to do with turning down the job.

Payroll was over 138 last year and over 135 the previous year. A prorated 115 for 2020. It WAS down to 105 in '21 after they lost money, but a little hard to blame them for that, no?

That's from the Athletic. The standard for a starting pitcher shouldn't be 'is he coming off his BEST season.' He's clearly viewed as an elite pitcher. The "regression" from his CY Young award included top 8 finishes in voting each year, a WHIP under 1 until the league hit better this year and he was just over 1.0...and he led the league. He's durable, he's going to give you 200 innings a year, strike out 200 and he's going to pitch like an ace. I don't get how it's often the same people saying he's going to get 300M, he's priced himself out...who will also say he's no longer an ace or he's regressed? I don't think teams too notice of his "decline," and I think he's viewed as one of the top pitchers in the game. I think what's more likely is that...teams don't really care about the rankings(they'll use it to hype a player, but really, that's not what they look at when they're trading for someone) and they have their own. The Brewers...I HOPE simply viewed Hall as a guy who they could "fix," and get him to throw more than 50-60 innings a season while also getting a pretty high floor SS(or 2B/3B) who also has a relatively high ceiling and then moving their draft capital up a year.

I've been going back and forth with this. I have a small garage. It's supposed to be 2 cars, but...you know how that is. I've been looking around from building a traditional garage to going with a company like Morton to ALL these other brands that are pre-fabricated and my head is spinning. Looking for one that's ~34x26. I'd like to be able to put a boat in there, a truck and then have enough room for a little office/work space. I've seen some like "big buildings direct," who offer what appear to be a good price, but they don't handle anything but just delivery and putting it up. No electric, no plumbing, insulation...you have to pay extra for the better insulation and then for the garage doors. I know I could hire a contractor to build a traditional wood garage. That's quite a bit more expensive. I've also read that the metal structures are better, particularly for Wisconsin. Less issues with rot or termites. The quote I got on that was 20K for the materials alone(actually over). I'd have people i know and help building it for me, but I'm still gonna end up ~20 over what I'd like to be at after everything else I have to add. That's not accounting for all the permitting and dealing with all of that. I'd also need to remove a tree and have it graded before(which is the easiest part of it as my neighbor has a company that does just that. So, just curious if anyone has gone with one of these prefabricated companies in Southeast Wisconsin or even from out of state who contract through people in SE Wisconsin? Who they went with, what their experience was, good or bad. I'm trying to keep my expenses down(obviously). I can't help but think about how every dollar I spend is really 4-8 dollars in when I'm looking to retire(conservatively) but that's also not a healthy way to live. IF you built one at a good, reasonable price, please tell me who you went with, what you'd do differently and what you're happy with that you choose to add on.

Dude...the O's have the #1 system in the minors. We've got the #2. I think it MIGHT be a tad premature to say we're entering a period of futility...where we're a team picking top 7-8 some years and others just making the playoffs. Don't love this AFTER signing Hoskins, but certainly doesn't mean the future is any less bright.

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).