PeaveyFury

I think you seriously underestimate the ability for this fanbase to feel betrayed annoyed by diva-like behavior. I fully expect him to receive a mixed reception at best.

I think it is very plausible to think he gets booed. For that reason, I expect them to introduce the defense.

Right? I do think we can make an executive clarification/decision that this thread is primarily for the countdown to the division title. If others want to note other milestones, such as the elimination of opponents along the way, etc., those can continue as one-off items. But the thread is counting ultimately toward a division title.

King was likely expected to be the guy to hold the #2 position in name only until he either got hurt again or Stokes was ready. They didn't draft him with their first for nothing. The eventual intention is that he's on the field and King is not.

Yeah, I don't know if it's worth the time to sort through ten years' worth of box scores to determine how this performance ranked amongst a decade of mostly bad performances. But, just from last years' various game threads shows that when teams were willing to commit to the run, the defense was completely unable to stop them and led to shoot-outs, many of which our offense was able to overcome. Historically, that's been the M.O. of the team basically since the Super Bowl win- poor defense that can't stop the run at all, but an elite offense that wins in spite of said defense. So, I don't think anyone is disagreeing that the performance of the front seven was a major failure and a key contributor to why they lost. But arbitrarily drawing a line in the sand and saying it's the "only" reason is a little unreasonable. Historically, they've overcome poor defensive performances, even when they've gotten down significantly. Sunday, the offense wasn't up to the task and bumbled their way through the bulk of the game. Understandably, there's a lot of concern that if the defense continues to be poor and that offense is going to be relied upon to carry the team as it has so many times before, it needs to function significantly better than it did this weekend.

But that has basically been the story with this defense for the last 9 seasons, and Rodgers has been able to quarterback his way out of it a lot. The offense has been able to overcome generally average to poor defensive performances for most of Rodgers' career. The concern is that the offense looked absolutely horrendous as well, which is leading people to question what the issue was there.

Gary has been quite good since about week 5 of last season. I know a lot of people struggle with taking a bit of a project at 12th overall, but he's certainly ramping up his production as they intended.

As I noted earlier from a personal standpoint, it would really be enjoyable to watch SD throw prospects & cash all over and fall short. Thanks for sharing the data. I do think it's worth noting the continued difference in preseason expectations and actual performance for the Brewers, who have consistently outperformed (especially Fangraph's) pre-season win expectations. I don't know what analysis & formula Stearns & Co are using that bucks these expectations so consistently, but they have seemingly found models that lead to outperformance vs. expected results.

I think it's also fair to take it a step further and note that in addition to stating his desire, he also clearly indicated at numerous points that he wasn't/didn't devote any of the offseason to football activities to 'clear his mind', etc. I'll be the first to admit that I don't know what his typical/previous offseasons have looked like from a 'football activities' standpoint, but yesterday it certainly looked like he hadn't devoted much time to football vs. other things this offseason....

Yeah, I understood at the time that it was probably his thought process regarding 'as good as a punt'. As you noted, he 'outkicked his coverage' and the return negated the low-risk thought process there.

There's a ton of talent on the defensive side of the ball, but I do think it's fair to note that they really did very little to address the front 7, so it shouldn't be a huge shock that defending the run didn't get better. Still, blown coverages and seemingly no plan to provide any sort of additional attempts to slow the running game or contain a mobile quarterback makes it equally fair to note that the scheme doesn't look a whole lot different than the one that wasn't very good the last two years. For example, MLF stated clearly that one of his goals was to have his CBs play physical with receivers by lining up opposite to them off the line. Yesterday, the opposite of that took place, with the corners playing 7-yards off the ball just like they did last year.

Probably worth emphasizing this point. It really felt like they were going to make it 10-17 and very much a ballgame again. The swing of going from that to 3-24 was absolutely massive.

That's either overt and blatant clickbait/fanning flames or incompetent 'journalism' by someone who wrote a story based off a boxscore/recap rather than actually watching the game. Anyone watching 100% understands why Love came into the game, and it isn't anything close to the narrative that guy is trying to push....

Quick thoughts: - If you had been told that one QB would throw for 5TDs/0 Ints and the other would be 0TD/2INT, there's not a single person in the world outside of Winston's mom (and maybe not even her) that wouldn't have assumed that Rodgers had the first line. Yech. - Pretty dismal failure throughout the coaching staff and players. I can only assume that Crosby and the new punters got 'game balls' today, as they actually did their job. Everyone else? Meh. - Fumble aside, I thought Love looked good on his drives. NO let up some, but not a ton, and I thought he made a few nice throws - We'll never know if the difference between no starters in preseason was the difference between what we saw and a close game, or whether it would have made it 38-7 instead. Much debate coming on that point this week, I'd expect. - I personally am not panicking, though 'concerned' probably describes my feelings (and I can only assume 'dumpster fire' describes the feeling on twitter/sports radio locally right now). That was either our one-a-season clunker that just happened to be in the opener against a decent team, or a giant indicator of problems to come. Not sure which yet, but fortunately the Lions at home should be either a good thing to get us back on track or to give us an indication that the problems are real. - Is it possible that a DC can go on the hot seat after one game? I'm big on the 'preseason tells you nothing about scheme/team results' train, but that game certainly did absolutely zip to squash concern about his shaky resume to begin with. The defense appeared to have the same flaws it always does- can't stop the run, can't defend running QBs, and Kevin King being asked to do more than he should and unsurprisingly messing it up. Not great. All in all, a mess of a game. The team can win fine if the offense clicks like last year even if the defense is merely the same. If that was indicative of possible offensive decline, then wow are we in for a rough couple of years.

The influence of Mike Pettine in making them terrible cannot be underestimated!

The influence of Mike Pettine in making them terrible cannot be underestimated!

7.1 fWAR is insane.

But that didn't really happen for the Bucks this year until the Nets series in the playoffs. I highly doubt that for the fan that hasn't gotten engaged in the Brewers as of this point, the difference between a no-hitter and a combined no-hitter would be the thing that prevents them from or causes them to get engaged with the team, IMO.

Wow, they brought Mertz back in?

It is fair to note that they could drop his next start. Your biggest risk is an injury tonight from over exertion, though.

I really do think having the 'big' opening game does a disservice to a team like Wisconsin that wasn't really able to 'gel' last year and had no opportunity to play or even have much in-practice contact prior to a big matchup with another Top-20 team. I know there's a lot of dislike of the non-conference cupcakes as fans (though I believe there's a big difference between 1-AA schools and the Cincinnatis, etc. of the world), but it really did serve as a legit tune-up for conference play. As such, I expect the opportunity to work out a lot of kinks tonight, which hopefully sets them up well for another big game next week.

OSU had a dogfight with Minnesota last week, and is on the ropes vs. Oregon today. Oregon is a solid team, to be fair, but OSU looks as beatable this year as they have in a while.

Who are we rooting for as Brewer fans in the final NL wildcard race? On the one hand, I do think the Padres are the better overall team and stand a better chance of winning vs. SF or the Dodgers than the Reds do. On the other hand, if the Reds DO win, they're my preferred opponent in any round we can get them. But, there's also the thought of the Padres spending like drunken sailors last offseason and falling on their faces, so that's kind of fun to root for as well....

Thanks for making this point clearer than I was. To extrapolate: In late August, a projections system ran X number of possible scenarios and kicked out a rate of 97% that the Yankees would make the playoffs. For this example, let's say X=1000. So, 970 trials led to the playoffs, and in 30 they missed. Undoubtedly, some of those 970 trials contained scenarios where the Yankees' lead shrunk, very likely some to even .5-1 games, as we have now. Still, despite that lead shrinking in such a trial, it was a successful trial because the benchmark of success is making the playoffs, not making the playoffs 'comfortably' or with the same margin as when the projections were run. Is it possible that what has unfolded is one of the 30? Yep. Absolutely possible. Is it far more likely statistically that it's one of the 970 that still led to the playoffs? Also yep. Again, clarification simply for the good of the board.

Perhaps others don't. Hence, 'helpful clarification'. No, if that's your takeaway, we absolutely do not agree. The race for the NL central was statistically over nearly a month ago. Citing a race in-progress as an example of a contradiction to the projections does, in fact, suggest continued confusion about what the projections are actually saying. I think this the heart what I and some others were saying 3-4 weeks ago. It's perfectly reasonable to be worried on a personal level and not be accepting of the division race being over until it 'officially is'. But, when that bleeds into questioning the math behind others' opinions, based on that math and historical facts, that something else is actually the true possible outcome, it takes on a different spin entirely. One side of that opinion was supported by probabilities and precedent, the other by personal opinion and a choice to not be 'comfortable'. Doesn't mean you can't have the opposing opinion, just that it's a personal belief. No more, no less. Again, you're free to feel the way you want, and for 9 more 'magic number' events whoever wishes to do so would be completely able to do so if you wish, but in reality, the division race was over weeks ago.