Training Camp Serprizes/"didn't expect that"...

They are also the same decision-makers who picked Rodgers when they didn't need a QB...ha ha !

Bak will most certainly improve and he rarely made the same mistakes twice last season. He meshed well with Sitton, stayed healthy himself, lots of positives.

But even after you swap out the carburetor, put on new tires, add the glasspacks performance exhaust system... its still a Ford Mustang.

Which is why he lasted into the 4th round

Sherrod is/was/might be... a Ferrari

Bak played great for a rookie, and was an absolute godsend in 2013.

But if you looked at his play from the point of view- "Is he a top LT ?", the answer is no, he wasn't. Will he be ? We'll soon find out; should be quite a battle

GB needs better play at LT and it'll either come from a vastly improved Bak, or even better, a fully-recovered Sherrod. I'd put the floor for 2014 LT as "a better Bak" and the ceiling as a "recovered Sherrod"

Competition will settle it, but if you had to bet on a race, most would take the Ferrari

(...so long as its not in the shop for repairs    )

I think it was more they didn't think Rodgers would be lost for that many games.

Guys can look like gods for their position (Marshall Newhouse: 6'4", 319, 34", 10.25 hands), but it's the ones who produce that turn into mainstays. Bak produced as a rookie and that says a lot about him, his work ethic, and his ability. Bak may not be the guy there forever, but Sherrod would have to really show something to unseat him. 

89  &  13

Packers have waived rookie LB Shaun Lewis

If Sherrod can outplay Bak and prove he's the best option at LT, he starts. 

I dont think it's going to happen. I think Bak locks onto that job for quite a while. I get the 4th round try hard label but the best counter argument possible is lined up next to him, Josh Sitton. I think Bak is going to develop into a really good LT. 

Bak would've been a 1/2 rounder if he had stayed in school for his senior year and played well.  He's also way more experienced as a LT in the NFL than Sherrod.  He's also much more durable than either of the other two guys who have missed two full years and 1.5 years in a row respectively.  

Best case IMHO is that both Sherrod and Bulaga actually stay on their damn feet for once and play well.  That would leave Ted with a tough decision to make this offseason assuming he'd only re-sign one of them.  

Bak is locked in at LT.  Period/end of story.  

Not understanding all the love for Hubbard.  A bunch of ego and nothing to back it up.

I agree anything from Sherrod is gravy but even I have that last dash hope he pulls something out of his ass.

Perry, I think that guy is trying to play his way out of Green Bay.  He's a 4-3 DE and was improperly used when he isn't injured.  Just don't think this guy is buying into Badger Toupee's scheme.   

it's not love for Hubbard, it's hope. 

and I know where that got me with Ricky Elmore...

My two surprises are that 1.) Ha Ha Dix will be an immediate starter and that it will look like he has been playing in the NFL for 5 years and 2.) Peppers will look 7 years younger

I believe there was a regime change in Colorado and he didn't want to stick around for the rebuild.

End of story ?  "Nothing is over until we say its over !

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor ?

Or when McCarthy bombed Chicago ?

OK, looks like I got my "Breno's" for 2014.

Nick Perry and Derek Sherrod come on down... you're the next contestants on:

"Wheel of MisFortune"

"Look at this studio, filled with glamorous prizes! Fabulous and exciting merchandise! Glamorous trips to exotic locations ! Over $100,000 just waiting to be won today as we begin Packers Week on Wheel of MisFortune!

And now, here's your new host, Blowhard Satori ! 

  Wooooooooo !!  ( OK... maybe I'm a little excited for camp to start) 

Someone has had too much sugar.

Make Sherrod a TE?  

Now you're talking... U78 BACON!

Love all the dip****s trying to crown Sherrod.    Same group of leg humpers that think Jarrett Bush will get cut every year.  

BuckCherry is the LT.   Sherrod will get reps at both T spots likely and be hopefully a decent backup, however, he has shown zzzzzzero to give me any faith in that.  

Favre already has a street named after him.  It is called Brett Favre Pass near his steakhouse somewhere east of the stadium. 

Hank, not too much sugar for Satori... more likely burned a fatty in the garage before that post.

Packers making room on the roster for Jim Leonhard.   Make it happen TT!!

I think this could be the year tt & MM start the year with three QBs, fewer TEs, and as many as 7 WRs on the roster.  I also think that Nick Perry is history. 

As for Sherrod, he was playing RT against KC in 2011 when someone rolled up on his leg and broke it in two places.  Before that he had filled in against the Falcons for a half and did well.  It has yet to be determined if that effectiveness is still there - it wasn't in a brief appearance last year.  If it is, he will be in the mix somewhere. 

JJSD has illuminated me on the many benefits of sniffing glue.

Not sure I'm doing it right though.

I don't want to be a snob about it, but  this Elmer's really isn't doing the trick.

And ammo, can you do us a favor ?

Put a piece of bread in the toaster and set it for 8 hours

When it comes out you'll have a visual aid to describe how much Leonhard has left.

Go right to the source.  Sniff horses.

I already told you Elmer isn't working

Any other suggestions Dr. Smarty Pants ?

Geez, I just 'liked' two posts in a row in a matter of seconds.  Now I know what it's like to be 

I think Tolzien wil be the number 2 QB due to his age and stronger arm.  

Me thinks it will soon become apparent Khyri Thornton and Carl Bradford are a couple of really bad ass MuthaF's

Daniels will be happy for Ted's infusion of ,talented, young, badasses, into this pussy defense of late.

Based on what he's shown to date, I doubt if the Packers know whether Sherrod was a good TT pick or a mistake. Expecting anything more than being a competent backup at this point is probably unrealistic.

If you follow McCarthy's recent comments I think Nick Perry is on a very short leash.  He's certainly shown flashes of talent, but if you can't stay healthy that's a problem and I get the impression it's also a work ethic issue with Perry also.  It would not surprise me if he's not on the roster come September.

Anything they get out of this point out of Sherrod is gravy.  He's like another draft pick this year.  It would be difficult for me to believe he could beat out Bak or Bulaga but stranger things have happened. 

Maybe not in training camp, but Bradford wins a starting inside linebacker job at some point this year.

does KC run a 4-3 D?  if so, you'd think they could work out a trade there if they are indeed done with Perry.  training camp don't lie so we'll know soon what's up.

Abbrederis has a stellar camp. Catches everything thrown at him, and gets open consistently.

I predict the Packers will keep 3 QBs on the active roster, with Flynn as the primary backup.

I predict Micah Hyde will begin training camp as the starter, but Ha-Ha Clinton-Dix will win the starting job.

Provided he doesn't start the year on PUP, I predict Quarless will default as the starting TE.

I predict Lyerla will not make the active roster, which I know is not a popular opinion.

I predict Brad Jones and A.J. Hawk keep their starting jobs.

So much head trauma.

Bulaga will step up and play like he did before his injuries and the Packers will sign both Nelson and Cobb to new deals before the start of the season.

It does seem Perry's freshness is starting to turn but it's not because he is a 4-3 DE and is playing out of position, but more so because he can't stay on the field and for whatever other reasons MM appears to be ticked at him.   The guy has shown flashes of really good things during the brief periods he's been healthy. As a 3-4 OLB! And don't forget all the recent press about Capers' new commitment to the elephant position now that Peppers is here.  They need elephants to rotate and Neal and Perry fit those shoes.   He needs to stay on the field though.  

Baktiari did play well for a RD4 rook but yes, you have to wonder about his ceiling.  He may very well improve in year 2 but he will have to do that just to counter his opponents now having a year of film on him.  Sherrod has an uphill battle because he needs reps and those are hard to get at starting LT in TC.  To usurp Bak, he not only needs reps to get back to "normal", he needs to show enough ability to convince the staff he can protect the man better than the other guy.  Even if he makes an incredible comeback, I don't see him playing meaningful reps at LT until late in the season. BIG IF. new nickname?

I am definitely buying what you are selling. Bak was good last year, but he was not all-world either. Not his fault. He was a rookie. We shall see staring on Saturday. 2 Days. Two days away.

Agree on Bak.  Sherrod is a complete wildcard but based on ceiling, you'd have to say Sherrod (if healthy) has the potential to be better than Bak.  Of course, potential means little if it doesn't show up on the field and that's what we'll find out over the next month.  

IMO, this is the kind of issue that championship teams have in TC: positions with a solid and improving starter in place, with a challenger that has the potential be better.  Worst case, you're still doing fine.  I'd much prefer debating this LT battle than the battle we saw at safety last year between Jennings and McMillian (ie: who sucks the least).  

Enough of this "ceiling" talk based on draft round.

Did Bart Starr have enough ceiling for a 17th round pick? 

Just sayin, coachable football smarts, and dedication are still under rated.

One way in which the central authority may regulate an industry is by controlling the market price. For example, one type of price control is a price ceiling (where the government sets an upper bound on the market price). Price ceilings set below the equilibrium price cause shortages. With a shortage, it is necessary to determine how the product will be allocated. This handout illustrates that the size of deadweight loss can vary with the allocation rule.

Assume a that there's a perfectly competitive market, where consumers buy (at most) one unit. The demand and supply curves are:

Solving this model for the equilibrium price and quantity we get: P* = $80, Q* = 20.

On a graph, this appears as follows:

The greenish area above the price (P*) is the consumer surplus, whereas the turquoise area below the price is producer surplus.

Assume that a price ceiling (P.C.) is set at $40, which is below the equilibrium price of $80. The direct effect of the ceiling is a 50 unit shortage. We calculate the shortage by determining the difference between Q_d and Q_sat a price of $40.

When a shortage occurs, we have various means of allocating the good. Our question here is to ask about the welfare effects associated with using different allocation rules. That is, we ask whether different allocation rules have a different effect on total surplus. There are three rules we’ll consider below: (1) allocation according to willingness to pay, (2) allocation by lottery, and (3) allocation determined by demanders competing for the product.

Rule 1. Allocation by willingness to pay

Here, we allow consumers to purchase the good on the basis of how much they’re willing to pay for it. Note that if consumers buy only one unit each, the market demand curve represents each of the consumers who are interested in buying this good and orders them on the basis of their willingness to pay.

The consumers might be allowed to bid on the right to purchase this good. In this setting, only those with the greatest willingness to pay will make purchases. These consumers are located on the demand curve along the segment "ab". Those along line segment "bc" do not get to purchase the good because their willingness to pay is less. The imposition of the price ceiling lowers overall surplus (economic welfare). Consumer surplus is greater, but producer surplus is much less. Overall, total surplus decreases by the amount of the deadweight loss (grey-shaded area "bcd").

Rule 2. Allocation by lottery

In this setting, consumers may purchase the good if their name is selected as part of a lottery. Recall that, at P.C. = $40, 60 units are demanded and only 10 supplied. If everyone buys at most one unit, then that’s 60 consumers who will enter the lottery, but only 10 who will actually get to buy the good. That means that each consumer has a 1 out of 6 chance of being selected (i.e. 10/60, or probability of being selected = 1/6). Since only one-sixth of the consumers will purchase the good, our allocation rule implies that the resulting consumer surplus will is one-sixth of the area below the demand curve but above the price ceiling price of $40. On the graph below, the line segment "ad" allows us to see how large this area will be. The new consumer surplus is the greenish area below the "ad" line segment.

Whatever surplus is not recovered by demanders or suppliers here becomes deadweight loss, which is represented the grey-shaded area "acd". We can also compare the losses under these two allocation rules. Note that the greyish area associated with Rule 1 ("bcd") is smaller than the area associated with Rule 2 ("acd"). This difference implies that the first allocation rule is better than the second. When allocation is determined by lottery, a limited number of units are allocated to consumers who place a lower value on the good (i.e. those consumers associated with lower points on the demand curve). Those who want the good the most, in terms of how much they're willing to pay for the good, don't necessarily get the good.

Note that if a black market developed and consumers were allowed to resell the good, however, the deadweight loss from these two rules would converge. It’s in the best interest of the consumers with lower valuations to find the consumers with higher valuations. For example, suppose my name gets drawn in the lottery. I get to buy the good for $40, which is the most I’d be willing to pay anyway. However, if I can find someone out there who didn’t get their name drawn in the lottery but who’s willing to pay me $95 for my one unit, then I’ll gladly sell it and come out ahead. This will continue until only the individuals with the 10 highest willingness to pay valuations have the good.

Rule 3. Demanders compete for the product

If suppliers are allowed to allocate the good in any manner they choose, then consumers will undoubtedly compete against one another to acquire the product.

This competition may occur in a variety of ways, but we expect a very similar result to that of Rule 1. We know that every consumer has a maximum price that they’re willing to pay, and that this consumer will pay up to the difference between that maximum price (i.e. reservation price) and the ceiling price. For example, using the graph below, we see that the person who would normally purchase the tenth unit (i.e. the person with the tenth highest reservation price) is willing to pay up to $90 for a good that will only cost them $40. Therefore, this consumer is willing to give up up to $50 worth of something to get this product.

If allocation is determined by the supplier, then the supplier can dictate what that something will be. Suppose the supplier decides to make time be the resource given up by consumers. That is, suppose waiting in line is the determining factor. As discussed above, consumers will consider the opportunity cost of their time and decide upon how long to wait in line based on that. For example, if the consumer with the tenth highest reservation price (mentioned above) would lose wages of $10 per hour by waiting in line, then that consumer wouldn’t wait more than 5 hours in line to purchase the product. Since time is a real resource, giving up time to wait in line represents an additional welfare loss to society. The time spent waiting in line could have been spent providing labor in the production of additional goods and services.

It is also possible that this consumer might bribe the supplier, in order to acquire the product. Using the same logic, this consumer will not pay a bribe of more than $50. Because monetary bribes involve exchanging a pecuniary resource for this good, there is no additional welfare loss to society other than that associated with area "bcd" (see the Rule 1 graph). The reason why is because monetary bribes involve a financial transfer from consumer to supplier, rather than the transfer of a real resource.

In today's NFL the spot Starr was drafted would fall in the 7th round.