Shut Rodgers down?

[Sunshinepacker]

"philbin wants" is irrelevant. it's a medical/fo decision. "protect the investment/player health" etc. he's got a groin. what if he goes out there and tears the s**t out of it? coaching possibilities may think twice.

If he can't play medically then this entire discussion is pointless, of course he sits. However, I thought the spirit of this topic was about sitting him even if he could play. If he could normally play, them it very much matters what Philbin and Rodgers want.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

If i'm a prospective coach and AR plays, I have concerns that a QB is holding the franchise hostage and will kowtow to said QB at the expense of logic and drafting better players. Also would be concerned if issues were to arise between me and the QB the FO wouldn't have my back.

As these are, in most cases, experienced coaches in professional football, they understand that great players are treated differently. There are ZERO coaches that don't realize, and accept, that players of Rodgers caliber get treated differently.

And Rodgers is supposed to sit so the Packers can draft better players?! That's probably the last thing any player actually considers. Players aren't fans. And how would the GM overriding the coach show that the GM has their back?

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Disagree.

The Brewers GM David Stearns is in complete control of which players are available. In meaningless end-of-season games he brings in guys and they play ahead of veterans in many cases. Doing that two years ago did not stop the Brewers from improving...this year they were within one game of the World Series.

Philbin has no interest in the 2019 season, knowing he is likely coaching somewhere else. His only motivation is to win these two games to improve his resume. Why should Philbin care if Rodgers gets an ACL vs. the Jets? What does Philbin care about the 2019 Packers' roster?

Gute should have the same power as Brewers GM Stearns. Gute does have the Packers' best interests at heart for 2019 and beyond, Philbin does not. As such, Gute should have authority over Philbin to say Rodgers goes to IR, or, only plays two quarters each game, whatever he wants. It is Gute who will have to deal with any repercussions from these last two games, not Philbin.

Gute has a rare opportunity to see Kizer and/or Boyle in live action (also Spriggs, Tonyan, etc.), much more real than preseason, and that can provide him valuable information affecting the draft, future trades, etc. Why waste that opportunity padding Philbin's resume?

Philbin wants a new job after this season. That opportunity will not be as good of Rodgers sits, so it's in Philbin's best interest for Rodgers to play. I'm not real sure you can compare a baseball GM to an NFL GM; in one sport guys commonly miss three weeks for a sprained ankle, in another they occasionally play with broken bones.

As a fan I fully support tanking at this point for a better draft spot; but the coaches and players aren't fans. They're playing for numerous rainsre, but next year's draft isn't one of them.

And Gute's chance to see Kizer or Boyle "live" probably won't sit well with players, other than Rodgers, who are being asked to risk their bodies just so Gute can get 60 more snaps of game film in addition to practice.

 

[OldSchool101]

So on one hand we have the argument

1. that it’s just a preseason game (or not even worthy of that).

The other argument is that

2. “winners don’t quit”


I would propose this question as food for thought. If you are Coach Philbin today. If the GB Packers are 0-15 (100% out of the post season). You’re the coach.. do you play to lose for a better draft pick the next year? Or try to win a game? Why or why not and why is this game different than if you are a 1-14 record?

Does your winning attitude (or lack thereof) as HC change based on the number of victories vs defeats going into postseason? Maybe to get a better post season matchup?

Now take the above question once you’re officially out of the playoffs?

Now take that question but this time assume you have a veteran player If multiple players who are on pace to break several NFL records? Do you sit them? Or play those starters with bench warmers?

What about if you’re playing for a private owner of a team (who has a billion dollars invested) rather than a publicly owned franchise? Do you ask your boss if it’s ok to lose? How does that conversation start exactly?

I’m not saying there is a perfect answer both sides have good arguments. Just trying to dangle some thoughts as another argument pro going for the win. And if I can whip up these arguments off the cuff in a matter of minutes... imagine the arguments I’m not even privy to or aware of. It’s not as easy as fans make is all I’m saying.
Oh. Good Luck Coach! Our employees and their extended families are depending on you (that’s only about 2,500 people or so)
nite nite Sleep tight!

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

So on one hand we have the argument

1. that it’s just a preseason game (or not even worthy of that).

The other argument is that

2. “winners don’t quit”


I would propose this question as food for thought. If you are Coach Philbin today. If the GB Packers are 0-15 (100% out of the post season). You’re the coach.. do you play to lose for a better draft pick the next year? Or try to win a game? Why or why not and why is this game different than if you are a 1-14 record?

Does your winning attitude (or lack thereof) as HC change based on the number of victories vs defeats going into postseason? Maybe to get a better post season matchup?

Now take the above question once you’re officially out of the playoffs?

Now take that question but this time assume you have a veteran player If multiple players who are on pace to break several NFL records? Do you sit them? Or play those starters with bench warmers?

What about if you’re playing for a private owner of a team (who has a billion dollars invested) rather than a publicly owned franchise? Do you ask your boss if it’s ok to lose? How does that conversation start exactly?

I’m not saying there is a perfect answer both sides have good arguments. Just trying to dangle some thoughts as another argument.

Pretty much most of your questions as well as some that others have raised have 2 answers. The first answer is the "public response". The one that an owner, GM or coach thinks the public wants to hear. The second type of answer is the "private response". Or what the decision maker(s) would do in a bubble, without having to answer to anyone.

Of course few if any owners, GM's or coaches aren't going to say out loud "Wins in these games don't mean much, so we are going to play them like preseason games". Aaron Rodgers isn't going to say "you know what, my body hurts, the OL is full of subs and this season is done, bench me so I don't risk further injury."

So no, most of the answers to these questions aren't cut and dry, but will have to be thought through and a lot of the answers we here, will be the ones they want us to hear. However, most of them you will be able to read between the lines, when the questions become reality and are played out.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

guys are held out of games every week for fear of further injury. this is no different...except there are known draft position possibilities at stake in addition to the injury question.

There aren't a lot of players being held out of games in the league if they're able to play.

I like to think at this point in AR's and the other veterans' careers, they don't need 2 meaningless games to improve their focus and make their character grow.

While it's true the veterans don't need to build chemistry playing Rodgers might help the rookie receivers to improve going forward.

 

[gopkrs]

I totally agree that teams should not play to lose for draft position and that was not my original intent. I want to see if Kizer is a capable backup QB! And I don't trust these coaches enough to decide that from practice. And with the line the way it is (i.e., porous), and Rodgers not being completely healthy; I think it makes sense to sit him. He can complain all the way to the bank.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I want to see if Kizer is a capable backup QB!

That might be the only reason I would be in favor of not playing Rodgers over the next two games.

 

[pacmaniac]

Rodgers maybe wants to play to set the record for highest TD-to-INT ratio in a season. I think Nick Foles has that record.

 

[longtimefan]

Not sure if this has been addressed. .


But not only a better draft pick... But also easier schedule next year

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Not sure if this has been addressed. .


But not only a better draft pick... But also easier schedule next year

Yup and I addressed that in my thread about playing for draft position. We would like to think an "easier" schedule, but that obviously is if all things remain equal from 2018 to 2019, which isn't always the case. It also only impacts 2 games. This year we played the Redskins and Falcons, while our 3 North Division Rivals playing the other 3 teams in the NFC East and NFC South, with the same 2017 finish.

2019 the 2 "flex" games are against NFC West and NFC South opponents. Which means if the season ended today, we would be playing the 49'ers and the Falcons. As opposed to the Bears who would get the Rams and Saints. Which today, seems much easier

 

[Heyjoe4]

So on one hand we have the argument

1. that it’s just a preseason game (or not even worthy of that).

The other argument is that

2. “winners don’t quit”


I would propose this question as food for thought. If you are Coach Philbin today. If the GB Packers are 0-15 (100% out of the post season). You’re the coach.. do you play to lose for a better draft pick the next year? Or try to win a game? Why or why not and why is this game different than if you are a 1-14 record?

Does your winning attitude (or lack thereof) as HC change based on the number of victories vs defeats going into postseason? Maybe to get a better post season matchup?

Now take the above question once you’re officially out of the playoffs?

Now take that question but this time assume you have a veteran player If multiple players who are on pace to break several NFL records? Do you sit them? Or play those starters with bench warmers?

What about if you’re playing for a private owner of a team (who has a billion dollars invested) rather than a publicly owned franchise? Do you ask your boss if it’s ok to lose? How does that conversation start exactly?

I’m not saying there is a perfect answer both sides have good arguments. Just trying to dangle some thoughts as another argument pro going for the win. And if I can whip up these arguments off the cuff in a matter of minutes... imagine the arguments I’m not even privy to or aware of. It’s not as easy as fans make is all I’m saying.
Oh. Good Luck Coach! Our employees and their extended families are depending on you (that’s only about 2,500 people or so)
nite nite Sleep tight!

At this level, I would hope that playing to win is baked into each player, regardless of the record. Now, I’ve never been a HC, but can’t imagine building a game plan to lose, or just flat give up. That said, I think Rodgers is banged up enough that it’s not worth starting him for the next two games. That’s not giving up, just giving in to reality. Bakh said it best “I’m paid to play 16 games.” And I think that’s the right answer for any player still healthy at this point, and able to start.

 

[Scotland Yard]

Not sure if this has been addressed. .


But not only a better draft pick... But also easier schedule next year

Yes, which equates to playing AZ & TB if the Packers finish 4th in the division. 3rd place likely has them playing ATL & SF instead. Big difference IMO.

 

[Half Empty]

At this level, I would hope that playing to win is baked into each player, regardless of the record. Now, I’ve never been a HC, but can’t imagine building a game plan to lose, or just flat give up. That said, I think Rodgers is banged up enough that it’s not worth starting him for the next two games. That’s not giving up, just giving in to reality. Bakh said it best “I’m paid to play 16 games.” And I think that’s the right answer for any player still healthy at this point, and able to start.

In addition to the obvious jokes about JUST playing 16 games, I'd not put that at the top of the list. Playing up to ability for however many you are asked to play by your employer would be more important to me.

 

[sschind]

Yup and I addressed that in my thread about playing for draft position. We would like to think an "easier" schedule, but that obviously is if all things remain equal from 2018 to 2019, which isn't always the case. It also only impacts 2 games. This year we played the Redskins and Falcons, while our 3 North Division Rivals playing the other 3 teams in the NFC East and NFC South, with the same 2017 finish.

2019 the 2 "flex" games are against NFC West and NFC South opponents. Which means if the season ended today, we would be playing the 49'ers and the Falcons. As opposed to the Bears who would get the Rams and Saints. Which today, seems much easier

Right, but if you are considering losing out to beneficial to us in terms of and easier schedule next season we are not looking at the difference between Rams and Saints vs Falcons and 49ers we are looking at the difference between Falcons and 49ers vs Buccaneers and Cardinals. That's the difference between the 3rd and 4th pace schedules and its not nearly as big of an advantage. And as the Bears have proved this year that 4th place team could become one of the better teams in the league next year.

Yes losing will get us a higher draft pick (not necessarily a better one) but it will not guarantee an easier schedule.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Yes, which equates to playing AZ & TB if the Packers finish 4th in the division. 3rd place likely has them playing ATL & SF instead. Big difference IMO.

Technically, of the NFC West and NFC South teams that we could play next year, it will also depend on how those divisions finish up. AZ and 49ers are locked into 3rd or 4th, as are the Packers in the North. But in the South, The Panthers, Falcons and Buccaneers could finish 2 thru 4 in any order.

 

[rmontro]

If Rodgers is at risk because of his groin or whatever, you could sit him.
But if there isn't a substantial risk, I'd say he needs the practice.
He hasn't really gotten back into the swing since sitting out most of last year.

 

[G0P4ckG0]

I think that the coaches want Rodgers to play because he gives the team the best chance of winning. No kidding, right? But my main point is the coaches want 2 wins because they are coaching for their jobs for next season once the new HC is hired. If they start Kizer and lose both games, odds are the new HC cleans house.

There is also a high probability that the new HC will not want Kizer to be the future, so there is no point in starting him for the final games.

From a fan's perspective, starting Kizer is the common sense choice but we are failing to take into account a lot of the behind-the-scenes details & politics of the game.

 

[Mondio]

I don't think the coaches are playing people so they can look better. It has everything to do with keeping players sharp and fresh and focused during a time when everyone thinks it's time to turn it off. The coaches are doing their jobs. This game is as much mental as it is physical. getting a team to come together under these circumstances will tell a lot more about the coaches than some of you seem to want to give them credit for.

I don't care if the Packers beat the Jets or not in the end. I don't care if Rodgers has 100 yards or 500 yards. Or if Lancaster gets 3 sacks from an interior Dline position by the seasons end or has zero. All that matters is after having your playoff hopes officially crushed, your head coach fired, all the noise and certain change that is heading your way, I want this team to focus and show that they can mentally overcome that and play some sharp football. And you do that by getting the team ready to play. Not sending a message that it's over, just show up for 2 more weeks.

I expect a lot of guys to get playing time. Rodgers, if he does play, probably doesn't play the entire game. and it's ok. most of you seem to think i'm saying it's important to beat the jets for some momentum or something, which couldn't be further from what i'm getting at but believe what you must. It's not the game result that is important. It's the time between it and what happens on an individual level during it. Keeping these guys in it mentally will pay dividends going forward. Pushing thru when all seems lost is a heck of a lot harder than keeping focus when you're winning. If you can do it now, you're better prepared to handle winning later. and pushing thru means you prepare for these games like they matter. Because they do in a sense even though the result still means the season is one week closer to over no matter what.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Rodgers maybe wants to play to set the record for highest TD-to-INT ratio in a season. I think Nick Foles has that record.

I highly doubt that's on Rodgers' radar at all. FYI Tom Brady currently holds that record having thrown for 28 touchdowns and only two interceptions in 2016.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I don't think the coaches are playing people so they can look better. It has everything to do with keeping players sharp and fresh and focused during a time when everyone thinks it's time to turn it off. The coaches are doing their jobs. This game is as much mental as it is physical. getting a team to come together under these circumstances will tell a lot more about the coaches than some of you seem to want to give them credit for.

I don't care if the Packers beat the Jets or not in the end. I don't care if Rodgers has 100 yards or 500 yards. Or if Lancaster gets 3 sacks from an interior Dline position by the seasons end or has zero. All that matters is after having your playoff hopes officially crushed, your head coach fired, all the noise and certain change that is heading your way, I want this team to focus and show that they can mentally overcome that and play some sharp football. And you do that by getting the team ready to play. Not sending a message that it's over, just show up for 2 more weeks.

I expect a lot of guys to get playing time. Rodgers, if he does play, probably doesn't play the entire game. and it's ok. most of you seem to think i'm saying it's important to beat the jets for some momentum or something, which couldn't be further from what i'm getting at but believe what you must. It's not the game result that is important. It's the time between it and what happens on an individual level during it. Keeping these guys in it mentally will pay dividends going forward. Pushing thru when all seems lost is a heck of a lot harder than keeping focus when you're winning. If you can do it now, you're better prepared to handle winning later. and pushing thru means you prepare for these games like they matter. Because they do in a sense even though the result still means the season is one week closer to over no matter what.

I totally get what you are saying and BTW, I think you explained your thoughts a bit better this time My only question is this: "Is giving it your all only reserved for the Starters?" I say that kind of tongue in cheek but also with all seriousness. If W and L's don't matter at this point, I agree with you, effort does. Why wouldn't you wan't to combine both of our "theories" and tell whoever we send out there to "play your *** off for the team", but also keep an eye on what improves the team for 2019, playing guys who need the playing time, protecting seasoned starters from major injuries AND play guys who will actually be in Green Bay in 2019. These last 2 games could be a determining factor of my last reason, these 2 games are the start of auditions for the young/new guys.

I see your point about giving AR more reps with the Rookie WR's, but I don't think that trumps all the things gained by using these 2 games to give a majority of the playing time to guys who need it and will be fighting for their jobs in 2019. As far as staying "fresh and focused", not sure how that carries over from these 2 games into 2019.

 

[Mondio]

I would give others a bit more opportunity to get playing time. More rotation of players etc. But you still have to keep focus and prepare like the real thing. and I think Reps with Rodgers are more important than reps with Kizer, but it doesn't mean Kizer gets none. Of course something else I think is important, players still need to earn their snaps. I wouldn't play someone just because they're on the team and young. Of course my leniency for being correct grows this time of year. I don't care as much if someone is making a mistake, a mistake in a game made with a lot of effort is ok. It can be a more meaningful teaching moment when you point to the tape and say, "see, everyone else doing their job, you screwed up and it resulted in..." More meaningful than saying, "do this" in practice. At the same time, someone that hasn't put in the time to learn what they should, or isn't putting in the effort? Sit down son.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Yup and I think like it or not, the so called veterans may play with a little less enthusiasm and focus in these final games than you will get from guys fighting for jobs in the NFL in 2019. Let's put it this way, even if all the available starters play every down in both of these games and they continue to play like the other 14 games this year, which I expect will be the case, I'm not going to view that as good progress for 2019. Even if they play lights out and crush both the Jets and the Lions, I don't see that carrying over too much into 2019, besides pushing us back further in the draft, while risking major injuries to guys like Rodgers, Adams, Bahk, Martinez, etc.

Sounds like Spriggs is in concussion protocol, Bulaga is trying to play on Sunday, but after that, with Light suspended, the Packers are down to one "true" OT, Pankey. Philbin may not be all that concerned, but if I am Gute I am keeping a close eye on that offensive line and if defensive players are getting free runs at Rodgers, time to get him out.

 

[MassPackersFan]

I would sit Rodgers, and Davante too. This late in the season, an injury like an ACL will screw next year too. There is close to zero reason to risk that right now.

 

[Heyjoe4]

I'd never let a competitor adopt the mindset that every practice, game, situation wasn't important. There are 2 games left. Once you start letting them think some snaps are more important than others, they start deciding when it's important to play and when it's not. Losers mentality. If Rodgers gets hurt, he gets hurt. If he's too hurt to play then he is. If he's not, he should be out there. I think anytime you start approaching football as anything other than playing football, and start to adopt a, let's prevent injury mentality, you open yourself up for physical and mental downfall.

Rodgers skips all preseason and gets hurt in the 1st quarter of the 1st game. it happens. A bear defender gives himself up after a game sealing INT and I wonder what his damage was. Probably more than had he just kept running.

I think it’s hard to take a team that is wired to play their best and win and then sit them down after 14 games. I understand the concerns about injuries and all that. At the same time, people pay to see these teams win. I’m just not crazy about 1) sitting healthy players, and 2) playing “not to win” for a higher draft pick. Just my opinion, it just seems wrong.