Shut Rodgers down?

[Heyjoe4]

While I understand the posters who think that the Packers should go all in and play to win their last 2 games, is that the same feeling you have for preseason games? Every snap is important and should be taken only by the starters? Because really, I would call these 2 final games nothing but meaningless, out of the playoffs games. 25% or more of the coaches and players won't even be Packers next year, I would prefer more playing time in preseason for Rodgers and potential starters than these 2 games. Why are these 2 games so important to win? Because they are labeled "regular season games"? Isn't the goal of the regular season is to get to the post season?

I guess the "Happy Median" would be to treat this somewhat like preseason. Let Rodgers and the starters play for the first half of the Jets game, then bring in the backups. The Lions game, I am going to be a bit pissed off of we see starters for that entire game, despite the fact its a home game.

These 2 games are a perfect opportunity to get Kizer and a lot of other guys some real game reps.

I’ve been back and forth on this. One camp says play em all, the other says don’t risk players in a meaningless game. My first thought was play em, that’s what fans pay for and winning is how the players are wired. Reading your comments, and thinking that these games are less meaningful than pre-season games, I’m now of the opinion to sit em. Fans won’t care much - both opponents are out of the playoffs as well. Even in die-hard lambeau, I expect no more than 40 to 50 thousand people to show up, if that, and depending on the weather.

So you convinced me Poker. Sit em.

 

[OldSchool101]

Play em. Play ‘em ALL!

Sorry for the sudden outburst.. I’ll behave now

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Even in die-hard lambeau, I expect no more than 40 to 50 thousand people to show up, if that, and depending on the weather.

I fully expect Lambeau Field to be backed for the regular season finale.

 

[Half Empty]

Pretty sad state of affairs when the discussion for the final game of the year is attendance.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I fully expect Lambeau Field to be backed for the regular season finale.

If nothing else, the paid for tickets will be packed into the Packer coffers.

 

[Do7]

Hell no. He didn't get paid all that money just for his butt to ride the bench. If you're not hurt, you're playing. Simple as that.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Just out of personal curiosity, how many people would want Aaron Rodgers playing in a game if the Packers were firmly locked into having home field advantage throughout the playoffs? Also, curious to know how your answer would differ from that scenario to the scenario we have now.

Thank you.

 

[sschind]

Just out of personal curiosity, how many people would want Aaron Rodgers playing in a game if the Packers were firmly locked into having home field advantage throughout the playoffs? Also, curious to know how your answer would differ from that scenario to the scenario we have now.

Thank you.

I never liked the idea of not starting healthy players for regular season games. You prepare for the game all week long as if it were any other week and you start the game like every other one. If you have the #1 seed locked up maybe you don't play him the entire game but he starts and plays at least the first half. I wouldn't have a problem of starting Rodgers and letting Kizer finish up in these last two weeks or any other player for that matter.

You are most welcome.

 

[gopkrs]

Just out of personal curiosity, how many people would want Aaron Rodgers playing in a game if the Packers were firmly locked into having home field advantage throughout the playoffs? Also, curious to know how your answer would differ from that scenario to the scenario we have now.

Thank you.

I think it would be important to keep the momentum going and staying sharp. The year we almost went undefeated, MM basically shut the team down the last couple games and I think it hurt us.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I think it would be important to keep the momentum going and staying sharp. The year we almost went undefeated, MM basically shut the team down the last couple games and I think it hurt us.

I remember it well and if Rodgers had gotten blindsided and out for the first playoff game or more, how would you have felt about the decision?

Also, how does "keeping the momentum going and staying sharp" apply to the last 2 games that face the Packers this season?

 

[gbgary]

Just out of personal curiosity, how many people would want Aaron Rodgers playing in a game if the Packers were firmly locked into having home field advantage throughout the playoffs? Also, curious to know how your answer would differ from that scenario to the scenario we have now.

Thank you.

i think i'd treat it the same way. the prize is more important than the moment. so he, and anyone else that needed it, would sit. the Packers are sacrificing important draft position (not to mention further injury), that directly affects the rodgers window, by allowing him to play. veeerrry short-sighted.

 

[gopkrs]

I remember it well and if Rodgers had gotten blindsided and out for the first playoff game or more, how would you have felt about the decision?

Also, how does "keeping the momentum going and staying sharp" apply to the last 2 games that face the Packers this season?

If it hurt us then it was the wrong choice. You can't play not to be hurt when you are in it. imho Obviously it does not apply to this year. What momentum?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

If it hurt us then it was the wrong choice. You can't play not to be hurt when you are in it. imho Obviously it does not apply to this year. What momentum?

I think we are in agreement on this season in regards to "momentum and staying sharp".

While I would never say "intentionally lose", in this situation, winning seems to do less for the future of the Packers in 3 ways. Also, by "winning" I am referring to what it probably will take to win both games, playing your starters like it was a normal game.

1. Exposing starters to injuries that could come into play for 2019 when the Packers start 0-0.
2. Dropping our draft position from a possible #3 to a possible #18 in all 7 rounds.
3. Takes away potential playing time from your non-starters, who could use the valuable experience of playing in a regular season game.

I know some could care less about #2, but I do.

 

[Poppa San]

i think i'd treat it the same way. the prize is more important than the moment. so he, and anyone else that needed it, would sit. the Packers are sacrificing important draft position (not to mention further injury), that directly affects the rodgers window, by allowing him to play. veeerrry short-sighted.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

the draft pick

I'm more concerned with a lingering year long or more injury that wipes out next season or at least most of training camp so AR doesn't get on the same page as the new coach.

 

[sschind]

I remember it well and if Rodgers had gotten blindsided and out for the first playoff game or more, how would you have felt about the decision?

Also, how does "keeping the momentum going and staying sharp" apply to the last 2 games that face the Packers this season?

On your first point I would have felt the same way. Your healthy guys prepare and start and play for at least a half unless they are running for their lives or something.

On your second point its a bit more complicated and I understand all the reasons for sitting him but I still think its more important to start him and play him for at least part of the game.

I think we are in agreement on this season in regards to "momentum and staying sharp".

While I would never say "intentionally lose", in this situation, winning seems to do less for the future of the Packers in 3 ways. Also, by "winning" I am referring to what it probably will take to win both games, playing your starters like it was a normal game.

1. Exposing starters to injuries that could come into play for 2019 when the Packers start 0-0.
2. Dropping our draft position from a possible #3 to a possible #18 in all 7 rounds.
3. Takes away potential playing time from your non-starters, who could use the valuable experience of playing in a regular season game.

I know some could care less about #2, but I do.

You are right, I couldn't care less about draft position. If every player drafted had a better NFL career than those drafted after him I probably would care but since that is not the case I don't.

I sure wish we would have beaten the Lions on December 4th 1988 or even the Falcons on November 6th of that same year. Either one of them would have moved us out of the #2 spot. They also could have lost the last two games that year got the #1 pick and still taken the guy they did. That would have made it 4 HOFs picked immediately after they did instead of just 3. Winning a few more games that year would have given a few other teams a chance to make that mistake. To be fair I had no problem taking Mandarich at #2 and I don't think anyone else did either. It just didn't work out which is the main reason I'm not so hung up on draft position.

I know I am picking 1 situation to make a point but my point is the guy you pick matters more than the number of the pick. You can get the #1 pick and still screw it up. On the other hand, to anticipate you next objection, having more guys to choose from is generally better and I can't deny that.

 

[Half Empty]

Hell no. He didn't get paid all that money just for his butt to ride the bench. If you're not hurt, you're playing. Simple as that.

They're all hurt. How much and is more worth it? Also, love the black-and-white concept - eliminates the need for thinking.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

On your first point I would have felt the same way. Your healthy guys prepare and start and play for at least a half unless they are running for their lives or something.

On your second point its a bit more complicated and I understand all the reasons for sitting him but I still think its more important to start him and play him for at least part of the game.



You are right, I couldn't care less about draft position. If every player drafted had a better NFL career than those drafted after him I probably would care but since that is not the case I don't.

I sure wish we would have beaten the Lions on December 4th 1988 or even the Falcons on November 6th of that same year. Either one of them would have moved us out of the #2 spot. They also could have lost the last two games that year got the #1 pick and still taken the guy they did. That would have made it 4 HOFs picked immediately after they did instead of just 3. Winning a few more games that year would have given a few other teams a chance to make that mistake. To be fair I had no problem taking Mandarich at #2 and I don't think anyone else did either. It just didn't work out which is the main reason I'm not so hung up on draft position.

I know I am picking 1 situation to make a point but my point is the guy you pick matters more than the number of the pick. You can get the #1 pick and still screw it up. On the other hand, to anticipate you next objection, having more guys to choose from is generally better and I can't deny that.

Seems like a few people who are saying starters should play these last 2 game and the Packers should try to win this game are also beginning to throw in the caveat "as long as its safe" and "maybe for awhile". But I guess I don't see the difference between "playing starters for a bit of the game and then pulling the plug" with just going in with the notion of "this is a game we don't care if we win or lose, but we want to give as much playing time to the backups to better our 2019 team." Both ways, you aren't going all in to win. But in the first one, it seems like you are almost just trying to present your fans with an image that you are? Honestly, with Philbin running the show, unless Gute gave me specific instructions, I don't see him pulling any healthy starters from the Jets game.

As far as draft position, you are right, there are never any guarantees. However, the odds of hitting on a #5 pick are probably better than hitting on a #18 pick. I am guessing, that you wouldn't have that #5 pick and call up the team with the #18 and say "hey, doesn't matter to me, you want to swap picks for free? If nothing else and you are a GM that doesn't value the position that much, as we found out last year, you can make pretty good hay with moving up and down in round one with teams that do value were they pick in each round.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

They're all hurt. How much and is more worth it? Also, love the black-and-white concept - eliminates the need for thinking.

Agree and last year, Rodgers was "healthy enough" to come back and play against the Panthers when the Packer playoff hopes were still alive. They lose the game and Rodgers is back on IR.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

the draft pick

LOL....people say that now and I am taking all your names down and I don't want to hear any belly aching from any of you before, during or after the draft of "oh **** we could have picked that guy, had we lost our last 2 games!

 

[Do7]

They're all hurt. How much and is more worth it? Also, love the black-and-white concept - eliminates the need for thinking.

The dude said he wants to play. If he's healthy enough to play I'm letting him play. This season has been an utter failure, at least let's end it on a good note.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

Just out of personal curiosity, how many people would want Aaron Rodgers playing in a game if the Packers were firmly locked into having home field advantage throughout the playoffs? Also, curious to know how your answer would differ from that scenario to the scenario we have now.

Thank you.

In the case of getting a number one seed or first round bye at all, usually coaches will wait until week 17 it seems like before they start playing backups and resting starters. Sometimes it'll be backups a full game, other times it might be for a half. Thing is in playoff preparation you need all hands on deck for when the playoffs start, so playing them in a limited role in the season finale or so usually is the right move.

In our current situation, every player outside of Rodgers, Alexander and Aaron Jones has no guarantee they're going to stay in Green Bay. That means they really have to come out playing to win to try and preserve their roster spot if they don't want to get released at the end of this season. Course several of them may be already gone no matter what they do these last two games, but still, that's where we're at.

The coaches too are still looking to show they can prepare a team to win. Most of them know they likely won't be here next season, but they want to show their potential new bosses they'd be valuable additions to their coaching staff.

As Rodgers gives the team the best shot to win, I fully expect he's going to start these last couple games, and because there is definitely much more at play with the future of this team than just draft picks. Not to mention while there may be some benefit to seeing what Kizer can do, our next HC will likely have his own feelings on the guy and whether or not he wants him regardless of how he would perform in these last two games.

 

[Packer Fan in SD]

In our current situation, every player outside of Rodgers, Alexander and Aaron Jones has no guarantee they're going to stay in Green Bay.

This is not a serious statement, is it? Adams, Lindsey, Bahk... many more question what you are saying here.

 

[Half Empty]

Clark

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

This is not a serious statement, is it? Adams, Lindsey, Bahk... many more question what you are saying here.

Well yes, I mean I should have probably worded that in a less player specific way, because obviously we do have a number of players who we could pen in as franchise players who go nowhere. But there are going to be a lot of them who will be following HHCD and Ty if they don't show they're going to be valuable contributors to the next HC regime. Hence, my general point is I don't think you can treat these last two games as throwaways if you're here.

 

[sschind]

Seems like a few people who are saying starters should play these last 2 game and the Packers should try to win this game are also beginning to throw in the caveat "as long as its safe" and "maybe for awhile". But I guess I don't see the difference between "playing starters for a bit of the game and then pulling the plug" with just going in with the notion of "this is a game we don't care if we win or lose, but we want to give as much playing time to the backups to better our 2019 team." Both ways, you aren't going all in to win. But in the first one, it seems like you are almost just trying to present your fans with an image that you are? Honestly, with Philbin running the show, unless Gute gave me specific instructions, I don't see him pulling any healthy starters from the Jets game.

As far as draft position, you are right, there are never any guarantees. However, the odds of hitting on a #5 pick are probably better than hitting on a #18 pick. I am guessing, that you wouldn't have that #5 pick and call up the team with the #18 and say "hey, doesn't matter to me, you want to swap picks for free? If nothing else and you are a GM that doesn't value the position that much, as we found out last year, you can make pretty good hay with moving up and down in round one with teams that do value were they pick in each round.

Call it the illusion of giving a **** if you will. You start the game as if you are trying to win and see how it goes form there. If you are up big at halftime you say see we can get this done. Now its time to see what our future can do. If you are getting beat or if your stars are being mauled you say you know what its not worth it. At least you haven't thrown in the towel before the match even starts. You made an effort.

You keep saying "I'm not saying you try to lose" but when you pull Rodgers and start Kizer that's what you are doing. You are saying I am not concerned about putting the players who give me the best chance to win on the field. I don't care if I lose.

If draft position was determined by random drawing I'd say yeah I'd rather have the #5 pick than the #18 pick but when the higher picks come at the cost of losing games its not such a big deal to me.