madbad2000
-
Posts
1,169 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
News
2026 Milwaukee Brewers Top Prospects Ranking
Milwaukee Brewers Videos
2022 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks
Milwaukee Brewers Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
Guides & Resources
2023 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks
2024 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks
The Milwaukee Brewers Players Project
2025 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Pick Tracker
2026 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Pick Tracker
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by madbad2000
-
Clickbait doesn't have to be sensational and most are benign even if it haves some crazy headline. "You won't believe what Packers GM Brian Gutekunst said in his post draft interview! Everyone does the same, bland article post draft because they know it will get views which generates revenue and potentially improves their personal brand. It is exactly like mock drafts, but should be taken with the same low level of accuracy. I'm fine with generating discussion, but I agree completely with you that it shouldn't be taken as gospel or even any real authority. Anything that starts with so and so had a good/bad draft because their grade on ABCDEFG.com said should elicit some eyerolls. I will acknowledge that some analysts are much better than others at evaluating player talent, but scheme fit and opportunity will play a big role in the future success of the player and teams. How can you rate someone going to a team with a new offensive, defensive or general management system?
-
I made the statement because I'm a Bears fan and follow their draft more closely than others. Ryan Poles and Matt Eberflus have already provided comments on how these players fit their scheme. Which came after many pundits already graded their picks. I also read other NFC North comments more closely because Im interested. Reading mock drafts and draft grades from national level writers does not mesh with what the GM and HC said they are looking for. It is nearly impossible for all of these writers to be in tune with the scheme and fit of every team, so how can you honestly do a ranking? One thing is for certain, every team has their own big board with rankings that are not inline with analysts. That is the most common tool used by these post draft report cards. Multiple picks in the first few rounds, usually good grade. Low number of picks, usually lower, any pick that doesn't match up to your value, lower grade. Boom, article done, publish, never held accountable in later years when actual performance can be reevaluated to how well the team and analysts did.
-
I don't, which is why I haven't put out a deceptive draft grade clickbait article I wrote in 5 minutes with generic buzzwords and maybe a hot take or two. Now I can believe they did because that is what the actual GM, coaches and scouts are saying. At the end of the day, every team added talented players to their mix of personnel that will shake out once the pads come on in camp and games. Why do you care if any team has a good or bad draft grade?
-
It depends on what I need. You can run to the meat section, load up on prime rib and end up with a lot of "value." But if you don't know how to cook or have some type of way to cook it then is it really value? The only ones who can judge need is that organization. And if a national writer has no idea of what I have in my kitchen/pantry and what I can do in the kitchen does it matter what they rate my cart load? It is even more fruitless when you have a new GM, HC and offensive/defensive scheme and you have no idea who is on that roster, what that scheme is going to be (zero tape) and how these players fit with those schemes. The whole point is that the evaluation by writers is irrelevant. It is literally a clickbait/viewership tool to stay relevant during non-activities of the offseason. If you want to put stock in the Beast or what the Sporting News says about the Packers, Cardinals, Jags...have fun with that and live your best life.
-
Not really, because these national writers don't take into account scheme fit in their own evaluations as we talked about before. What drives a good post draft grade? In general having high picks and multiple picks gets you good ratings and less picks get you a lower one. I honestly don't care one bit about what a writer thinks about a teams draft. It is not really indicative of anything of merit. Scheme fit is one of the most important aspects of a players success. Very few players are so talented that they can rise above a bad fit. I like what a lot of these teams did in the draft and you can't argue any team got worse, which should be obvious. The Bears did a lot to improve their team with scheme fits. So did the Lions, Vikings, Rams, Patriots, etc. It's one step in the process and now we get into actual scheme, coaching, training, and playing of games to determine how "well" a team did.
-
I agree with Igor, I don't think age should be an issue. What you have done in the past shows what you are capable of regardless of age. And using a colleague is a great option too if they can speak directly to your performance and abilities. I have often seen this to be a better reference than a supervisor or someone with a bigger title because they tend to be glowing without any meat or examples. Just make sure that you let them know on your application to not contact current employer.
-
both 2nd's
-
They don't need 2 in the second, but it's a possibility. Mooney is great and Byron Pringle (3rd WR in a normal room) just got arrested in Miami last week. They need an X and possibly a slot. They need OL as well, but mostly at RG which can be filled at #71 or later. If they get a chance to do something like Pickens at 39, Moore at 48, and maybe Parham/Petit-Ferere at 71, they have to determine if that looks better than say Pickens at 39, Faalele/Kinnard at 48? and someone like SHakir or Metchie at 71 (if they make it). While all of these teams have other needs, it's going to come down to evaluations, previous selections and value of other picks. I listed all that COULD take a WR, not WILL take one. If we want to get into most likely I would maybe say Chi, Indy, Cleveland, KC with Baltimore always a wild card with a big need now which are all before 53. I would bet highly that the WR talent goes fairly early in round 2 and say Pickens/Watson/Moore/Pierce will all be gone by 50.
-
So taking a quick look at Rd 2 order as it sits, teams that could use a WR before Packers pick at a hypothetical #47: Minnesota Houston (possibly) Bears (need 2 and pick at 39/48) Indianapolis Atlanta (not likely, but a possibility even with London. They basically have Kyle Pitts and Cordarelle Patterson hybrid role) Cleveland Baltimore (after trading Hollywood Brown) If Packers wait until #53 KC Pittsburgh I would say waiting until #53 and hoping Pickens/Watson/Moore/Pierce fall could put the Packers on the outside and wanting in like round 1.
-
Williams is my top WR in this draft without question. If I'm Atlanta or NYJ, I think it's a no brainer to take that shot. Anything is possible in this draft, but Williams at #22 would be a major shock to me. Taking both of these guys would absolutely freak a lot of people out with both down and out with injuries well into the next year.
-
It's probably the smart play if you believe the latest buzz. Wilson and Olave are probably the most ready to help a team this year at the WR spot which GB needs. Someone like Williams doesn't seem like a t If you want one, probably have to go up. Looking at teams that could take a WR before the Pack: Atl at 8, Jets (SF if they trade Deebo) at 10, Was at 11, Minn at 12, Houston at 13, Philly at 15/18, NO at 16/19, LAC at 17. They won't all take a WR, but to say the top 5 WR could be off the board before 22 is not hard to play out. I would argue the consensus top 4 are some permutation of Wilson, Williams, London and Olave and I would have them all off the board by 17. This is why I love following the draft because teams all have differing values on prospects and picks with so many ways to go. Big question to answer is what is that difference between grades of the top 4 and 5-10. GB could still end up with 3 picks in the first 2 rounds if they choose to go up. Can't wait to see how it all unfolds.
-
Pretty bold list. I am looking forward to watching this one play out.
-
I'm not a big London fan. He looks like Mike Evans at times and then others completely pedestrian. I like Olave a lot and he looks like he could probably be the most NFL ready and help a team out of the gates. I also like Burks a lot. Just watching his tape shows a great football player that makes plays against anyone from multiple spots on the field. Im not sure I would bet on Pickens being around in the 2nd for the Packers. Pierce could possibly be there, but it feels like the mid first to the mid second will be WR dominated. Starting with Atlanta at 8, I have 16 teams that could realistically take a WR before the Packers come around at 52. That's just teams, not including number of picks which many of these teams having multiple before 52. It also wouldn't surprise me to see some of these teams double up on WR early to include GB (probably not likely in Rd 1) Chicago could easily take one at 39 and 48 and no one would question it. If Philly trades/cuts Reagor would it shock anyone to see them take 2 between 15, 18 and 51? Just going off my own ideas, I would bet that Pickens, Watson and Pierce all end up being top 50 picks.
-
I'll second this recommendation. The beast is a great asset if you're into NFL Draft coverage.
-
It's interesting, but not too crazy. I was reading some articles about how Philly was looking to move one of their 1st round picks to 2023. And to get a 2024 2nd rounder as well as a 2023 first is pretty good. I have also seen that the NYG could be interested in moving of their firsts forward as well. That could really get interesting by shaking up the top of the draft a bit if a team wants to go up for a QB (5) before Carolina at 6 or 7 to get a WR before Atlanta possibly at 8.
-
I prefer pro football network simulator over pff, but I do mix it up. I fine it gives me more entertainment to mix it up. Otherwise you fall into the trap of thinking the board is set and then disbelief how the rounds unfold in real life.
-
He will be and likely already is on teams draft boards. With the lack of top end talent in this draft at TE and the increasing importance of the position, it wouldn't surprise me to see him end up in the 2nd round to the top of the third.
-
I don't get caught up in Titles. It's all about your experience and what you can do. Titles are not uniform and hiring managers can see through fancy/fluff pretty quickly. I work in the Defense sector and it seems like companies have more Vice Presidents than normal employees at times. I personally watched a company give an employee a VP title with zero change in responsibility or pay solely because they thought they could get this person an audience with a GS-15 to sell a product. Another small business was like 10 people and 8 of them were VPs outside of CEO and CFO.
-
I want resumes that speak to the job and your experience. If you have a one page that speaks to your skills and experience, fantastic. If you need 2 to demonstrate over the multitude of jobs you had, that's fine too. What I don't want to see is a drawn out resume that has experience that isn't applicable to what you're applying for. List your jobs in chronological order so no gaps..or explain a gap is fine too. I have had resumes where they had employment gaps due to school or moving, but it was explained easily. Always put the meat of your write up in those experience blocks that you're trying to highlight for the posting. And I agree that every resume needs to be tailored to that job opening. Use keywords from the posting and make sure to highlight the good stuff right up front in a summary of qualifications of some sort. For example, if you are applying for a job that needed a security clearance, put that right at the top to make it stand out. The last hiring process I was a part of required a Secret with TS preferred. There were probably at least 10 resumes where the candidate most likely had a clearance due to the job they were doing, but didn't get an interview because they did not list a clearance anywhere in the resume.
-
Wydermeyer as a top ten overall prospect?!! Wow, I was not too impressed with his tape and probably have him as Te 3 or 4. I don't see him as the next Martellus Bennett or anything. I was expecting more out of Isaiah Likely too. Perhaps a Kyle Pitts-lite was too high of a bar, but I didn't see anything popping off film with him either. Even his 99 yard TD catch seemed flat. If he comes out and runs really well, his stock will boom though. I really like McBride out of CSU. It's not too often that a TE becomes the focal point of your offense, but they definitely ran things through him and he responded. Makes a lot of nice catches in tight spaces too. I don't see him as that big open field threat, but a great security blanket with strong red zone ability. Ruckert has the pedigree and flashed at times. I think a good system will make him shine. I would bet at this point we see two gone in round 2 (Likely and McBride). One other could sneak in there too Wydermeyer.
-
That's an interesting policy because I've seen the trend going away from references. I have never had a bad reference from either my personal applications or for hiring actions I have been involved with. I have only had a couple in the past year where references were even contacted at all and none had any impact on the selection because it was simply procedure to contact them via email whether they responded or not didn't matter.
-
I think you're on the right path, I would also add increased pizza competition and change in quality. Growing up, I remember Pizza Hut being THE game in town for pizza. Dominos was on the downswing and their only competition was a few local shops that tended to be neighborhood focused. Dominos really changed up their game, Papa Johns exploded, Little Caesars has found their niche and there has been a big upswing in artisinal pizzas, food trucks, etc. that all eat into their share. I am also convinced they changed up their recipe which isn't quite the same as it used to be. I haven't eaten pizza hut in over a year and a half and only a handful of times in the past 10 years because I had a store like a quarter mile away. If my family talks about getting pizza, PH never comes up as a preferred option.
-
I'm guessing it's been a very long time. I have heard it since I started really getting into cooking in the late 90s. I guess the proper question is when did it become a fashionable word. While I have seen/used the term a lot in my baking classes, it really has become more mainstream recently.
-
That's a great point. When you see wood fired in the US, it's normally priced as artisanal. Go to Europe and it's everywhere at a reasonable price. Much closer to quick/affordable overseas and less seen as a "craft" product.
-
I love all style of pizza. I'm a topping guy, so having a bit more base supports a greater quantity/variety. I tend to lean more towards a hand tossed for that reason. Thin crust would be a close second. Detroit style is good and the edges turn out great. My least favorite part of a pie is the plain crust at the edge. I can handle it, but prefer to have something more worthwhile to the taste buds. I do like when places like Pizza Hut put flavoring on the edge.
