Why?

[Raider Pride]

Why did the Packers not give young Aaron some snaps?

Does anyone have the answer to that?

RP

 

[Obi1]

Why did the Packers not give young Aaron some snaps?

Does anyone have the answer to that?

RP

He played all of 4th quarter... I don't get your statement here RP.

 

[tromadz]

he was 1 for 1 ! ! trade favre, start rodgers!

thats what bill simmons the moron thinks we should do.

 

[Raider Pride]

Sorry.

Perhaps I should have phrased this differently.

Why did the Packers give him some (SERIOUS) snaps?

He only threw one pass. Hard to develop handing the ball off.

The lead was huge and it is not like the Pack needed to run out the clock.

 

[NDPackerFan]

Raider Pride,

You have a good point. Rodgers could have easily been in the game a little earlier given the circumstance. Seems to be the trend in today's NFL because the Eagles left McNabb in today with a sports hernia down by about 30 in the 4th. Seems crazy to me.

 

[Greg C.]

When Rodgers came into the game, the Packers were stuck on their own three-yard line. That was hardly the time for him to let it fly. I think one of the other drives also started deep in their own territory. Plus it was such a killing that the Saints were getting testy out there. One of them had already got in a late hit on Favre. It probably would not have been wise to have our rookie QB trying to run up the score on them.

I share your impatience, though. I would've liked to see him make a few more throws.

 

[sixone220]

a couple good pts there. woulda been nice to see his arm in a real game but they were up huge and the saints D wasn't in the mood to see another td pass.

 

[CaliforniaCheez]

Until he earns them he should not be given "snaps".


P.S. he is a rookie.

 

[IPBprez]

When Rodgers came into the game, the Packers were stuck on their own three-yard line. That was hardly the time for him to let it fly. I think one of the other drives also started deep in their own territory. Plus it was such a killing that the Saints were getting testy out there. One of them had already got in a late hit on Favre. It probably would not have been wise to have our rookie QB trying to run up the score on them.

I share your impatience, though. I would've liked to see him make a few more throws.

I disagree here - IMHO - Rodgers should have been allowed to get himself out of the end zone. Rossley and Shermie goin' Schottenheimer conservative again was the last thing that I, or any of our Club Members, wanted to see.

IT WAS BAD FOOTBALL, PERIOD!!!!!!!!

I don't give a dang what anyone else wants to say............

PREVENT FOOTBALL MENTALITY IS A GAME KILLER

Sure, we were up a whole bunch on the score - my point is that when you process that mentality, the Players fall off their killer instinct while on the field. It's THEE last thing you want to have young rookie players learn to do - and that's worry about "preventing" something from happening.

YOU ALWAYS GO FOR THE JUGULAR - GET MORE BLOOD - THROW RAY NITSCHKE AT "EM!

Sherman & Rossley have no business pullin' such a stunt. Rookie, or no rookie.
We had the Saints on their heels - it's time for Rodgers to have some fun with that. Throwin' some screen passes to allow himself to get "out of the end zone" is NOT bad football. It's a necessary learning trait. You set the accomplishment bar "high" and then damn well expect him to at least make the effort - you DON't take that process away from the Player's opportunity. Holmgren NEVER did that with Favre....ever!

They "should" have let Aaron go for the gusto.... It "would" have been a great learning experience. Now, tho'... he's gonna feel like he's hamstrung every time he gets another chance.... Then, what do we do if we lose #4, like we lost Najeh yesterday - who's out for the season now. You gonna have young Aaron run three running plays and give the ball back every damn time you turn around? Well.....?

It was plain wrong, period! It's a dis-service to a very talented Rookie!
Eye of the tiger... all the way, on every play! It's what makes Winners!

 

[net]

Bad football....hmmmm...the Packers were way ahead, so you throw a rookie in at the three and have him start firing away, maybe throw an interception and give the Saints some life.

Conservative....they win by nearly 50 points and someone calls them conservative....unbelievable.

I know it's hard for some of you to conceive...but there is a thing called SPORTSMANSHIP. You call off the dogs when the game is out of hand.
I saw absolutely nothing wrong with what happened.

1)It got the rookie his "snaps".
2)It kept the GAME CLOCK MOVING which is what you want to do in that situation.

Unbelievable.

 

[IPBprez]

Each argument always has "some" validity NET - and you are usually pretty good at the points made....

With a 45 point lead - and only 12 minutes left - it wasn't gonna hurt Rossley to let the dogs loose.... not one bit. Throwin' a couple of screen passes and helpin' him enjoy being in the middle of the field is NOT a bad thing.

You re-iterate the very approach which has cost the Packers game after game. A "prevent" mentality. John Fox did the same thing agains the Packers on MNF and we almost pulled that game out - the Panthers were sweatin' big time.

I can say with a great deal of safety that "OUR DEFENSE" wasn't gonna let the Saints start rackin' up one TD after another. You know that. I know that! Our Defense had three takeaways from what I saw, as it was. The Saints Offense had no life all game. There were (what) eleven penalties, at least, on their side... maybe more!

Lettin' Aaron Rodgers go "hog wild" out there would have made for a much better experience, not only for him, but for the O-Line seeing him back there, as well...

We've lost at least two games this season already with this prevent mentality approach... You may think it's good football - I don't!

 

[musccy]

IPB...no doubt letting Rodgers go would have been better for him, and did Sherman/Rossely go conservative...YES!

BUT, like Net said, this isn't college...when you've obviously kicked the snot out of your opponent, you play with respect and don't rub it in...you'll make a lot of enemies in a close-knit business in a hurry.

I can't think of any coach in the NFL that, when up 45-3 w/ 15 to go, would do anything BUT run out the clock. At that point, you just try to avoid injuries, kill the clock and avoid further embarassment to the opponent.

 

[wpr]

I can't think of any coach in the NFL that, when up 45-3 w/ 15 to go, would do anything BUT run out the clock. At that point, you just try to avoid injuries, kill the clock and avoid further embarassment to the opponent.

DA Coach Ditka did it to the Packers (61-7) Dec. 7, 1980, at Chicago and I am still mad about it. :x

 

[musccy]

I can't think of any coach in the NFL that, when up 45-3 w/ 15 to go, would do anything BUT run out the clock. At that point, you just try to avoid injuries, kill the clock and avoid further embarassment to the opponent.

DA Coach Ditka did it to the Packers (61-7) Dec. 7, 1980, at Chicago and I am still mad about it. :x

OK, I stand corrected, but I can't think of any current coaches that would do that...nor should they, it's unnecessary.

 

[wpr]

I was looking at the margin of victories/losses at the Packer site.
It takes more than just a point spread to determine if a team is running up the score.
A team can be up by 10 points and thought to be trying to run up the score if they go for a FG with 10 seconds left. While another team can win by 35 points and not be thought of running up the score if their DB gets an Int and runs it back.
Likewise a college team that has their 2/3 string in the game and scores usually isn't considered to be running up the score.


Largest Margins of Victory/Defeat
(since 1921 - league games only)

Largest Margins of Victory

53 points (56-3) Oct. 23, 1966, vs. Atlanta at Milwaukee
49 points (49-0) Sept. 30, 1962, vs. Chicago Bears
49 points (49-0) Nov. 11, 1962, at Philadelphia
48 points (55-7) Nov. 12, 1967, vs. Cleveland at Milwaukee
47 points (47-0) Oct. 15, 1933, vs. Pittsburgh
47 points (54-7) Nov. 23, 1941, at Pittsburgh
43 points (50-7) Nov. 24, 1940, at Detroit
42 points (45-3) Oct. 9, 1988, vs. New England at Milwaukee
41 points (41-0) Oct. 14, 1934, vs. Cincinnati
41 points (55-14) Oct. 2, 1983, vs. Tampa Bay
38 points (45-7) Oct. 8, 1961, vs. Baltimore
37 points (43-6) Nov. 6, 1921, vs. Evansville
*37 points (37-0) Dec. 31, 1961, vs. New York Giants
37 points (40-3) Dec. 11, 1994, vs. Chicago
37 points (37-0) Sept. 9, 2001, vs. Washington
36 points (57-21) Oct. 7, 1945, vs. Detroit at Milwaukee
35 points (35-0) Oct. 24, 1926, vs. Racine
35 points (42-7) Nov. 12, 1944, at Cleveland
35 points (41-6) Dec. 8, 1996, vs. Denver
34 points (47-13) Nov. 2, 1930, vs. Portsmouth
34 points (41-7) Nov. 13, 1960, vs. Dallas
34 points (34-0) Nov. 24, 1974, vs. San Diego
34 points (37-3) Nov. 15, 1998, at New York Giants
34 points (41-7) Dec. 22, 2003, at Oakland

Largest Margins of Defeat

56 points (56-0) Nov. 2, 1958, at Baltimore
54 points (61-7) Dec. 7, 1980, at Chicago
46 points (49-3) Nov. 21, 1948, vs. New York Giants at Milwaukee
41 points (48-7) Oct. 2, 1949, vs. L.A. Rams
40 points (40-0) Sept. 20, 1970, vs. Detroit
39 points (45-6) Oct. 18, 1959, vs. L.A. Rams at Milwaukee
38 points (45-7) Sept. 26, 1948, vs. Cicago Bears
38 points (45-7) Sept. 17, 1950, vs. Chicago
37 points (51-14) Dec. 3, 1950, at L.A. Rams
35 points (42-7) Dec. 5, 1948, at Chicago Cardinals
35 points (52-17) Oct. 26, 1952, vs. Detroit
35 points (35-0) Dec. 5, 1954, at San Francisco
35 points (42-7) Nov. 28, 1986, at Minnesota
34 points (48-14) Dec. 6, 1953, at San Francisco
34 points (34-0) Oct. 28, 1973, at Detroit
34 points (37-3) Nov. 22, 1981, at Tampa Bay

* Playoffs

 

[IPBprez]

Good point - what's with this new political correctness about NOT running up the score....? Our Players should have been demanded that play their hearts out for the entire game, end of statement. Wear em out and then on Tuesday, have em out there doin' laps around Lambeau, work up their wind and stamina to do it again, against Minnesota. Up until this point, the Packers didn't seem to be playing up to their true potential.... more to the point, as Chris Havel has stated today - Sherman seems to feel the need to micro-manage a game so much that it's to the point of almost being (ahem) **** about it.... - only after he backed off and started viewing the entire picture of the game, did the players start to respond. - it certainly explains why we ALWAYS start out a season with "several" losses. I hope he gets over it - or this may be one of the few WINS we get this season.

I love being a Monday Morning Armchair Critique.... LOL

 

[net]

Last time I checked Mike Ditka isn't a coach in the NFL anymore, either. It was doing things like that that gets you a job with ESPN instead of the NFL.

 

[wpr]

Last time I checked Mike Ditka isn't a coach in the NFL anymore, either. It was doing things like that that gets you a job with ESPN instead of the NFL.

Oh I know he isn't the HC anywhere Net. My point was he ran up the score 25 YEARS AGO and I am STILL P!ssed at him. Every single played on both squads has long since retired and I STILL am P!ssed.