PeaveyFury

Menninga is as unsurprising as it gets. We were only Mason Crosby away from being terrible in literally all aspects of special teams.

Really great, interesting study & thanks for linking. A few really interesting observations here: "Student masking compliance was reported to exceed 92% throughout the course of the study. Older children were reported to be equally compliant with masking as younger children. High levels of compliance, small cohort sizes (maximum of 20 students), and limited contact between cohorts likely helped mitigate in-school SARS-CoV-2 transmission and could be responsible for the low levels of transmission detected in schools." I am legitimately astounded by that percentage, and would have thought it to be much lower. Especially considering my own observations of rural Wisconsin as a 'lawless wasteland of social distancing compliance', kudos to these districts for having sound policies and adhering to them. I'm further surprised by the "older children equally as compliant as younger" data point, as again I'd assume that there would be challenges with keeping teenagers compliant. Interesting finding! "The actual mask-wearing rate might have been different because only approximately one half of teachers participated in the study. Teachers with lower masking compliance in their cohort might have been less likely to complete the survey, which limits the reliability of this measure." I think this is indicative of a larger societal problem in that some of the data skews because of 'response bias'. Early in the pandemic, I know there were questions about the high percentages of people who reported mask compliance in NYC while still getting infected, and one theory was that some portion of the respondents flat out lied when put on the spot. There's obviously no way to know what the resulting skew is, but I appreciate that the study acknowledged this potential issue. I think the conclusion is that logical compliance measures for mask wearing, social distancing, and smaller cohorts seem safe at this point. I know that teachers I've talked to personally have suggested that the former become difficult as the cohorts become full classes, as many indicated that there simply isn't enough room in most classrooms to properly distance students and staff. Do the teachers here have a similar opinion on that?

What Peavey just alluded to is why it doesn't typically come down to this. The recent trend is to get bang for your buck off the one position you have to pay a ton to eventually. So you utilize the cheap years and surround them with talent everywhere. The curveball I can think of is that Love hits FA, Rodgers retires or leaves that same year. He's a FA and the job is his, but what kind of deal does he get if he's never played a game? I'd guess in such a scenario the Packers would extend him during the previous season and then leave Rodgers no choice. But it's interesting to me to wonder what kind of money a 1st round pick would get going onto his 2nd deal without ever really playing. I don't know that that has ever happened before. Agreed. And I think this scenario is exactly why, if they do think Love is the guy, they won't do a 'rebuild' when Rodgers leaves. They'll want to take advantage of the cap for 2-3 years since they can spend like crazy in free agency, and if you trade Rodgers, you'd presumably be getting serious draft capital back as well. But, I certainly agree with the 'eggs in one basket' point. I'm certain they'll continue to draft QBs at spots of value along the way, similar to how Thompson and Wolf did despite the HOF QBs on their roster already.

Yeah, I think that's an 'individual circumstances' situation and not gospel. There are lots of people that would come out ahead with taking the deduction now vs. later if in a lower tax bracket in retirement as many are. As Cheezwiz noted, that's a tax advisor question depending on your situation.

The problem with letting Love sit through his contract is that you lose the main luxury of having his contract count so little against the cap, while most other starting QBs make up gobs of teams' cap. That's been a main formula for success for teams like Seattle- Wilson was paid next to nothing when he went to his 2 SBs, and they used the remaining cap room to build a massively talented team/defense around him. As soon as they had to pay him, their success decreased a bit as they bled talent off the roster because of money. So, there's no harm, but it does decrease the benefit.

Again, I think we're still at a disconnect here, and I think we should move on at this point. My point was that it's unfair to chide another poster for stating that the Packers are over the salary cap for 2021 (especially when, as of today they'd be over EITHER of the cap levels being proposed) on a semantics-based argument and then implying that what happens after that can be said with any sort of certainty. So, I'd ask you to perhaps evaluate the height of the ground you're making your stand on as well... I doubt that very much, as I have a personal policy to never speak in absolutes when it comes to sports. Anyway.... A $196m cap would give the Packers a LOT more flexibility.

As a SS, yes.

No way we get both of these guys, right?? Just can't imagine that would happen, but I guess we can dream. If we did get both, then I'm guessing we'd try to trade Arcia. We'd still need to find a 1B on top of those moves. Only Mark A. can answer for sure, obviously, but it's probably 'either or', and I'm ok with either. Both would make us legit contenders again.

All the more reason they might be willing to move Watt- gain draft capital they've lost.

You must know that this is a technicality, but brought this up multiple times. If Rodgers got hurt this year, Love was starting the next game, not Boyle. This is probably 90% true for 2021, but I'm not sure how you say it for 2020. If that was true, Boyle never would've been on the roster and active for every game this year. Sorry, I don't agree. I think Boyle was active because he was a better option to muddle them through a game due to immediate knowledge of the offense. But anything longer-term, completely IMO of course, would have fallen to Love.

Turner and Semien would be fantastic additions for 2021.

There seems to be a disconnect between your analysis and the metrics. https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/semiema01.shtml Offensive ONLY wins above replacement level, by season: 2015: 2.5 2016: 3.4 2017: 2.1 2018: 3.1 2019: 7.5 Add in defensive war, and he's an all-star caliber player throughout his career. EDIT: Wait, are you just using Offensive Runs Above Average? You realize that needs to be adjusted positionally for WAR, right?

Hmmm, his 2015-2019 WAR say otherwise. Yep. I posted that yesterday as well. His offensive war was significantly positive in every single full season he's had in MLB. Stating otherwise is factually inaccurate.

He doesn't even need to be the crazy good player he was in 2019 for a deal to be of immense proportions to the Brewers. If he can just put up 3-4 WAR like he did in his other seasons, that's a HUGE addition. Obviously, if he recreates 2019, he'll likely be in the running for NL MVP. 9 WAR? Insanity....

It really is too bad that they canned everyone before we could take advantage, right?

That would easily be the biggest acquisition in the NL Central this whole off season so far if it comes to pass....

There are three guys covering the middle of the field on that play if you look at the overhead views. Pettine called that play like he thought they had a timeout left, which is a fireable offense.

What a strange, winding article with logic that twists back on itself (Bold added by me): "Green Bay’s offense led the league in offensive DVOA by a healthy margin and Aaron Rodgers will probably be named MVP next week after throwing a career-high 48 touchdowns, so it’s hard to look back on this season and claim that the receiver position was a real issue; but, in the 31-26 loss to the Buccaneers, it certainly was. Rodgers had a good day and all, and Green Bay got big plays out of receivers not named Davante Adams, but" Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln..... "The Packers were probably a receiver away from being the NFL’s best team" Did the author watch any of the times our defense was on the field? Where is this narrative that the offense needed additional is coming from, other than people who insisted they had to draft a WR still insisting that they needed to do so? The offense WASN'T ANYWHERE CLOSE TO THE PROBLEM with the 2020 Packers. "The team so clearly needed an upgrade at cornerback behind Jaire Alexander but decided to run it back with Kevin King second on the depth chart." Was there a single time that 'replacing Kevin King' was discussed last off season? A single time? "But instead of bringing in another receiver or cornerback, the Packers used their draft picks on backup players at other positions and signed only tackle Rick Wagner and linebacker Christian Kirksey in free agency. Green Bay did sign WR Devin Funchess" So, other than the time they signed a WR, they didn't sign a WR?

You must know that this is a technicality, but brought this up multiple times. If Rodgers got hurt this year, Love was starting the next game, not Boyle.

Sorry, though I quoted your post regarding PFT, the Love comment was in response to the trade suggestion above yours. Regarding Allen Robinson, I wanted him the last time he was a FA, so I'd be all about that. You'd probably need the cap to come in at the $196m level for that to be plausible, and even then, you'd have to make the choice to move on from Jones/Linsley, probably.

Yep. Like I said earlier, if him or his reps were going to float this, they'd float it through Demovsky, Silverstein, or most likely Wilde. Doesn't mean it's not true, it's just more likely that it's PFT reporting on something that is more of an educated guess vs. directly from Rodgers' reps. And, there's basically zero chance they trade Love this off season. Next? Maybe, if Rodgers is still playing at a high level. But not this year.

I think that there's a lot of possibility with Watt- hometown team, publicly frustrated with Houston's management, and willingness/desire to play for a team with a legit chance to win the title. I'd think that if the Packers were interested and could find a palatable draft pick cost, they could agree to a deal with Watt that got him here and addressed the cap concern.

Yes. He's got one year left on his deal, with zero bonuses still due. You can easily restructure to reduce his $17m base salary and extend him by a couple of years. The Packers certainly have the picks to make that type of deal if they want. Not sure what an estimated cost would be....

Is that the player, or the stupidity of the scheme? They stopped doing that about halfway through the year, and unsurprisingly, Preston's production increased significantly. He's a pass rusher, not a coverage guy. But, probably to your point, his cap number is problematic. He needs to restructure or he will indeed be gone.

Just to follow up on the point above, if this is really about a 'restructure', he'd free up $14.4 million on the cap next year, which would give the Packers a literal TON of flexibility. Coupled with an Adams extension/restructure, it would dramatically improve the possibility of retentions/additions....